Re: 1. River Floods, Mud, and Grounded ships; 2. Why the Flood can not be in Mesopotamia

Stephen Jones (
Mon, 10 Mar 97 22:14:25 +0800


On Mon, 03 Mar 1997 22:38:28 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote
Re: 1. River Floods, Mud, and Grounded ships:

SJ>Glenn continues to confuse a "Mesopotamian flood" with a "river

GM>Believe it or not Stephen, not everything I write is directed at
>you or your theory, in spite of the fact that you seem to think it

I "believe" it. Glenn continues to ignore my "theory", namely that
the Flood was located around the Lake Van area in ancient Urartu
(Gen 8:4). If Glenn was attempting to be scholarly, he should mention
*all* positions, not just the ones he feels he can beat.

And Glenn, if he claims to be scientific, should also review the
weaknesses of his 5.5 mya Mediterranean Flood theory and take account
of criticisms against it.

GM>Believe it or not again, that there are people who DO believe that
>the Flood was a river flood.

Who exactly are these "people who...believe that the Flood was a
river flood"?

GM>Occasionally I prefer to write to them and somehow you always
>think I am attacking your position. I am not.

I would have no problem whatsoever if Glenn was "attacking" my
"position". But he just *ignores* my "position", and the position of
all others that would seriously challenge his thesis.

GM>There was a popular song in the 70's by Carly Simon...

No. I always think that Glenn's song is *not* about me!


On Mon, 03 Mar 1997 22:38:25 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote Re:
Why the Flood can not be in Mesopotamia:

SJ>They are not "contradictory". Glenn should read what I said
above. I do not require that Glenn respond to my *posts*, but I do
require that "when he presents his Mediterranean Flood theory and
considers alternatives, he not simply ignore my "critiques" as
though they never existed."

GM>You require? Are you the owner of this list?

As Glenn well knows, I was responding to his question about how he
should treat *my* posts:

GM>These two statements are contradictory. If I follow your advice
>in the first paragraph and don't respond, then you will charge me
>with "overwhelming silence" If I respond, then you tell me not to
>respond. I presume this is because you want to be able to charge me
>with "overwhelming silence." You can't have it both ways....

>SJ>...All OT scholars AFAIK are agreed that the Flood account
>reflects a mesopotamian background.

>GM>"All" seems a little strong here. The YEC scholars believe
>that the flodd was not in Mesopotamia because they believe it was
>everywhere. Argumentum ad populum here.

>SJ>The point is about "YEC scholars" is that they too would believe
>that "the Flood account reflects a mesopotamian background." They
>would believe that Noah lived in Mesopotamia before and after the
>Flood, and they all recognise the close parallels between
>Mesopotamian and the Biblical Flood stories...

GM>Not necessarily so. Henry Morris states, "In the first place, no
>one can prove that the Ark was built in the same region of the world
>as that in which it landed." Genesis Flood p. 83

Glenn continues to draw red-herrings across the path. My point is
not where the Ark was "built" but that "the Flood account reflects a
mesopotamian background."

But it is interesting to see that Glenn resorts to claiming "Henry
Morris" as a theological authority in support of his argument!

GM>The footnote says:
>"The fact that Genesis 2:14 mentions the Tigris and the Euphrates
>rivers is certainly not conclusive evidence to the contrary, for
>these and other geographical names could have been perpetuated by
>Noah's family into 'the new world' even as happens in modern tims."
>p. 83

See above. This actually confirms my point! Whitcomb & Morris admit
that "the Tigris and the Euphrates" were the original names
"perpetuated by Noah's family into 'the new world'", which means that
they believes that "the Flood account reflects a mesopotamian

GM>Thus at least one OT scholar does not necessarily agree with you.

See above. While I would hardly call "Henry Morris" an "OT scholar",
he actually does "agree with" me" that "the Flood account reflects a
mesopotamian background".

BTW even though W&M, in order to deflect local Flood questions about
how Australian marsupials got to the Ark, unconvincingly claim that
" one can prove that the Ark was built in the same region of the
world as that in which it landed." But neverthless W&M claim that
the Ark "landed" in the mountains of Ararat:

"...In the third place, it is not necessary to suppose that the very
same pair of kangaroos that were in the Ark had to travel all the way
to Australia after the Ark landed in the mountains of Ararat."
(Whitcomb J.C., & Morris H.M., "The Genesis Flood", 1993 reprint,

GM>Argument from authority. Everyone in the Roman Empire agreed that
>the earth was the center of the universe. Did the sun become the
>center when Copernicus wrote his book?

SJ>This is typical of Glenn's evasive style of argument. When he
>gets in a tight corner, instead of admitting he was wrong, and
>embracing the truth, he throws in a red-herring, changes the subject
>and counterattacks!

GM>Question: Is your viewpoint the position of Truth?

Glenn continues with his "evasive style of argument". He
"counterattacks" by trying to shift the focus from his failure to
embrace the truth that: "...All OT scholars AFAIK are agreed that
the Flood account reflects a mesopotamian background." to whether my
"viewpoint" is "the position of Truth".

SJ>Because Glenn fails to rebut my argument that "...All OT
>scholars...are agreed that the Flood account reflects a mesopotamian
>background", I will take it that it is true and that counts against
>Glenn's claim that the Ark came aground in Africa.

GM>I think the fact that Henry Morris does not agree with you should
>count as a rebuttal.

Since "Henry Morris" *does* "agree with" me I indeed "count" it "as a
rebuttal" of Glenn's argument that the Flood does not "reflect a
mesopotamian background."


>SJ>Glenn just shrugs off this persuasive evidence of Mesopotamian
>provenance with a casual "Argumentum ad populum" throwaway line.
>But the "populum" here are *All OT scholars*! There are *no* OT
>scholars who believe that the Flood was in the Mediterranean.

>GM>Quite true. But then that does not make them correct.

SJ>Glenn no longer contests that "...All OT scholars...are agreed
>that the Flood account reflects a mesopotamian background", and he
>aknowledges it is "Quite true" that "*no* OT scholars who believe
>that the Flood was in the Mediterranean. *no* OT
>scholars...believe that the Flood was in the Mediterranean." I
>will expect him to now include this fact in his consideration of
>alternatives to this 5.5 mya Mediterranean Flood theory.

GM>I have changed my mind since I found Henry disagreeing with your

See above. "Henry" is not "disagreeing with my "position". He merely
says that "no one can prove that the Ark was built in the same
region of the world as that in which it landed", which is no doubt
true of any historical fact. But even "Henry" admits that the
only evidence before and after the Flood is of a *Mesopotamian*
location (eg. "Tigris and Euphrates" (p83) and "Ararat" (p84).

SJ>I will write the section for him:
>"Although *all* OT scholars agree that the Flood reflects a
>Mesopotamian background, and in fact *no* OT scholars believe the
>Flood was in the Mediterranean, nevertheless they are all wrong and
>I alone am right."

GM>I appreciate that Stephen but usually I find it best to speak for

That would be OK if Glenn did "speak for himself" by not suppressing
major criticisms of his theory.

>GM>A Mesopotamian flood would leave evidence of itself.

SJ>Here Glenn contradicts himself. He already has admitted that "it
>is at least possible that God has ensured there is no sediment from
>Noah's Flood" (see his post of Sun, 12 Nov 1995...To:
> Subject: Re: The "two-Adam model"

GM>A minute ago you were saying I didn't consider any alternatives.
>Shucks. Can't win for losing.

The point is that although Glenn "admitted" in his response to one of
*my* posts that "it is at least possible that God has ensured there
is no sediment from Noah's Flood", he doesn't seriously "consider"
this "alternative" in his *own* posts of his Flood theory.

GM>Please cease attributing motives to what I say.

SJ>OK. I will try not to "attribute motives to what" Glenn "says",
>even though Glenn has no hesitation in attributing "motives" to me:
>On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:06:59, Glenn Morton wrote: For you to
>criticise me for what you yourself is hypocritical. glenn

GM>I didn't realize that hypocritical was a motive.

Is Glenn really *serious* here? How can one be "hypocritical" without
"a motive"?

GM>I thought it was doing something like publically criticising me
>for saying that Homo erectus could build a boat, then privately
>sending me mail that said you believed that Homo erectus could build
>a boat.

This is simply not true. The message was not "private" but sent to
Glenn with a note that it was public and could be replied cc. the
Reflector. In fact the message did not say that "Homo erectus could
build a boat" but that he could build a raft or dugout log. I have
invited Glenn to make it public:

From: "Stephen Jones" <>
To: "" <>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 97 05:58:34 +0800
Subject: Re: 1. Who is ignoring things? 2. apology (was Who is ignoring things?)


GM>This apology should not be construed as a capitulation on forms of
>argument in which one thing is said publically and something else is
>said privately.

This is no doubt referring to me. For the record, I have not said
"one thing...publically and something else...privately. I have
not sent anything personally private to him for a long time, apart
fro recently wishing him a happy 25th wedding anniversary.

The only other posts that I have sent to him "privately" are those
messages I send to him and others directly to save traffic on the
Reflector. These posts all start with a statement that it is a
public message that could be replied to cc. the Refector.

The post concerned was probably the "Stephens Inconsistent boat"
one. If that is the case, see my recent response where I have
included both messages and it can be seen that I have been consistent
in agreeing that H. erectus used "water transport", eg. a "raft" or
"dugout log", but not a "boat" (as that word is usually understood).

But in case Glenn means something else, I hereby give Glenn my
permission to post my `private' message to him alongside the public
message he is referring to. Then Reflectorites can judge for

but he refuses. I will leave the matter with the Lord. He will
convince Glenn of the truth of this matter in good time (Rom 12:19).

But if Glenn persists with this "hypocritical" charge, and if I feel that
anyone else is taking Glenn seriously in it, then I will re-post the
message myself. Then Reflectorites would see for themselves who
is being "hypocritical"!

God bless.


| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |