Re: 12 Questions... please answer.

nrh (
Mon, 07 Aug 95 09:46:40 BST

In article <3vril0$> (David L Burkhead ) writes:
>In article <> (nrh) writes:
>>In article <3vot48$> (David L Burkhead ) writes:
>>>In article <> (Dewi Morgan) writes:
>>> No. Not a shread of such evicence. However, note that the
>>>ancient Mesopotamians, particularly Sumer and Akkad (Akkadian, BTW, is
>>>a Semitic language--linguistically related to Hebrew--thus suggesting
>>>considerable cross contact), had "flood myths." Since that region was
>>>subject to periodic catastrophic floods this is no surprise. In fact,
>>>the story of Utnapishtim is almost identical with the Hebrew story of
>>>Noah (since adopted by Christianity), and predates the existance of
>>>any identifiable Hebrew peoples by two thousand years at least.
>>Have to disagree with this one, I'm afraid. There is a plethora of evidence
>>for the Great Flood (or more specifically, a flood) at around 10kbp. This
>>was the end of the last ice age, and geological evidence (based on isotopes
>>of oxygen in deep-sea cores) shows a massive surge in the *area* of the oceans
>>which would suggest a rise in sea-level of around 500 ft. Couple this with
>>the universality of 'flood myths' from areas as distant as the Middle East,
>>China, North America, Hawaii and Scandinavia, the mass mammal extinctions
>>and various other pieces of evidence, and you have incontravertable proof
>>of a massive flood; sadly, too long ago for creationists!

[deletia - explanation of the Bible account of the Flood]

> While there have been floods, sometimes major ones, there is no
>evidence that _this_ particular flood ever happened. And even the
>"flood" from the end of the glacial period is dubious. It would not
>have happened over a few days, a few months, even a few years, but
>over several centuries (_very_ short by geologic standards, but very
>long by human standards).

We only really place the Bible Flood at 4000 BC due to nineteenth century
religious preconceptions. Are you telling me that as most old civilizations
remember a flood, that they must be wrong if it doesn't fit into a Victorian
timescale? I think not. One has to remember that Genesis is not and cannot
be an accurate history. It is a collection of fact, myth and pseudo-
history, written thousands of years after the events it describes. You can
try it for yourself - try and write a history of (say) Portugal between
500-1000AD, by just talking to people; you'll probably get the outline
right, but miss on much of the details. That's how the Bible should be
considered, especially when our translatations do not pick up much of its
allegory and mythical/mystical significance.

Returning to the point that a rise in sea level would not constitute a flood.
Remember that in the immediate post-glacial period, the majority of
proto-civilization was to be found in North Africa, the Middle East and
India. Basically, we are looking at the floodplains of the Nile, Euphrates,
Tigris, Indus and Ganges. It would not require a 500ft rise in sea-level
for these people to experience a flood - look at north east China at the
moment. What would perhaps seem like a seasonal flood would then persist,
rising sea-level bringing an increase in precipitation and so forth. Yes,
perhaps we are looking at a timescale of a couple of hundred years for
post-glacial melting, but not all of this need constitute a Great Flood.

An interesting side-point which may provide circumstantial evidence for the
post-glacial flood is the 'invention' of agriculture. Perhaps man started
to farm land in a flood/post-flood environment, where much of his
hunting/gathering land had been swallowed by the waters. It is otherwise
strange that these events should co-incide so well at 10,000 years ago.