From: Jim Eisele (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 20 2002 - 19:39:54 EDT
>>For starters, the "mountains" of "rrt" are not in Turkey. See
>>Bailey's book. Ararat extends close to southern Mesopotamia.
>>A mountain range connected to this extends all the way down past
>So you say the Zagros mountains are Ararat?
First things first. "Mountains" of "rrt" requires no Turkey
We know where the flood was. We know when the flood was.
We know Noah was a real person. All indications point to a
There is no human being on this earth who knows where the ark
landed. We are all making educated guesses with incomplete
information. I don't see a reason for this to be a major threat
to Biblical inerrancy.
The Biblical account was a sober account until translators wanted
a bigger flood. The waters rose 15 cubits above the earth. That
isn't that hard to fathom (pardon the pun :-)
I simply can't reject the Biblical account because I don't know
what "mountains" of "rrt" refers to in all certainty (or, less
likely, if it is a scribal error). Who would have thought "fountains
of the deep" referred to irrigation until research uncovered that?
If there were no ark, then we could safely claim Biblical error.
I'll comfortably rest with the abundance of evidence on my side.
The ark had to land somewhere. Yes, one possibility is a broad
definition at the time for "mountains" of "rrt." I could think of
more, but this "Genesis slacker" heads back to work tomorrow, at
least for a couple of weeks. Wish me luck!
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 20 2002 - 23:45:23 EDT