Re: The death of the RTB model

From: <>
Date: Wed Feb 22 2006 - 08:48:17 EST

Hi Dick,

you wrote:

>So forget about Adam for a moment.  Letís move down ten generations and start with Noah.  The flood is a dateable event at 2900 BC >within the confines of southern Mesopotamia.  Iíve shown this before, but now I would like people to just think about it before hitting
>the reply button.

No, Dick there is not a shred of geologic evidence for a flood bigger than a normal riverine flood which happens every century or so. There is no datable geologic event from that time period---period! Believing it won't make it so.  And, you never have answered the issue of having enough energy to push the arck from southern Mesopotamia, uphill several thousand feet and landing somewhere along the Turkish border, all against a strong stream which is pushing the boat towards the Persian Gulf.  I posted something on that years ago, and you haven't really ever explained it. You said something about the people polling the ark north, but that is really tough given the uphill climb and the friction of the water.


>I think this anchors the flood episode sufficiently and places Noah in southern Mesopotamia around 5,000 years ago.  Ziusudra and
certainly didnít live millions of years ago.  And I havenít heard anyone argue that we all descend from them.  Since those
>who think we all come from Adam also think we all come from Noah, let them find a way to work out of this one.

Actually without physical evidence of the flood (and wimpy river floods are not notable enough to count), you haven't actually anchored anything.


>>>>Do you believe that Adam was taken from pre-human animal-creature-humans?  I don't recall that.

Adam either was specially created for Godís purpose or had normal human parents and was chosen out.  The Ubaidans occupied Southern Mesopotamia prior to the Accadians and Sumerians.  He may have come from them if he had normal childbirth.

With a genetic disposition toward long-life, however he got it, Eve was taken from him perhaps for the same reason.  Genesis doesnít tell us why Cainís offering was unacceptable and Abelís was acceptable.  It may be because Abelís offering was a blood offering.  But thatís only our guess. 

And do you believe that Adam was the first missionary?  Where is that in the Bible and why all the mumbojumbo about ribs, snakes etc in the Genesis account if what God really meant to say was, Adam you are to tell others about me?

Why does Genesis bother to tell us that Tubalcainís sister was Naamah (Gen. 4:22)?  Who cares?  Who ever cared?  I canít speak to what was included or what was left out.  All I can tell you is that if I had written it you wouldnít have to ask questions like that.

I can give you a rationale for Satanís appearance as a snake, but itís just like Cain and Abelís offerings.  Who really knows?<<<<


Thanks for the clarification.


Received on Wed Feb 22 08:52:36 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 22 2006 - 08:52:36 EST