RE: Why no 2350 BC Mesopotamian flood evidence?

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 15:11:12 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Ruest: "Re: Scripture: Intrusion Ethics"

    Mike wrote Friday, July 05, 2002

    >Dr. David Campbell of this list recently got me thinking of a possible
    >solution to some of the problems associated with Noah's flood. He told me
    >that the "solution" I will here discuss was proposed on this list quite a
    >while back. I'd like to see some new discussion of it.
    >Some on this list have said that Noah's flood could not have taken place in
    >Mesopotamia because they say no evidence there exists that a flood of
    >biblical proportions ever there took place. Some on this list have disputed
    >this assertion, saying that evidence of extensive flooding has
    >been found in
    >Mesopotamia that has been dated to about 3500 BC, which they say
    >is about the
    >time the Bible indicates Noah's flood took place, and thus they say these
    >"flood deposits" may have been laid down by Noah's flood.

    For the record, those who claim widespread flooding, can not point to a
    single holocene geologic formation and say 'This is the flood sediment'.
    Reputed flood sediemnts never date the same from city to city and appear to
    be local point bars or ox-bow lake deposits. There are also no Holocene
    sediments outside of the river valleys, so any flood in Iraq in the past
    10000 years isn't very big by Biblical standards.

    >However, I have had trouble accepting the idea that the Bible is
    >describing a
    >large flood that took place in Mesopotamia in about 3500 BC. For I
    >Bible chronology to say that Noah's flood took place in about 2350 BC.
    >(Recent tree ring studies date a major change in the earth's
    >climate to that
    >same time, seeming to confirm my understanding of Bible

    And you seem to conveniently ignore problems with Baillie's
    tree-ring/historical studies:

    This is why I have saddly too often observed that observational data makes
    no difference to apologists. No matter what problems a particular viewpoint
    has, the author of it continues to believe it and ignore all the problems.

    Some who
    >believe that Noah's flood took place in Mesopotamia in about 3500
    >BC take the
    >reasonable sounding position that Bible chronology is open to
    >(with possible gaps in the Genesis genealogies and conflicting
    >data in different Hebrew texts) and that, because it is, a 3500 BC date for
    >Noah's flood is just as "biblical" as a 2350 BC date. However, I
    >have studied
    >all of these issues quite thoroughly and am convinced that Bible chronology
    >really does date Noah's flood to about 2350 BC. That does not mean that I
    >believe the 3500 BC date for a Mesopotamian flood or floods is in error. I
    >believe Mesopotamia probably experienced major flooding in about 3500 BC,
    >that evidence of that flooding has been found and that it has been properly
    >dated. I also believe that the land of Noah was flooded in about 2350 BC.
    >However, I believe evidence of that flooding has not yet been
    >found. How can
    >this be? How could evidence of Mesopotamian flooding have found and
    >accurately dated to about 3500 BC, while evidence has never been found of a
    >Mesopotamian flood of biblical proportions which took place in
    >about 2350 BC?

    Hmmm... one possibility that seems obvious is that there wasn't a flood in
    2350 BC.

    >Here is how I believe this may be. Please feel free to poke holes in this

    The real question, Mike, is if someone does poke holes in your position,
    will it make any difference to your position? I have seen you once change
    your mind, but mostly you just continue believeing what you do inspite of
    either the lack of evidence or contrary evidence.

    >The majority of the land area that was flooded at the time of Noah is still
    >flooded. The land that Noah once lived in now lies beneath the
    >waters of the
    >Persian Gulf. Noah's land was largely a coastal community. Most of its
    >residents lived near the shores of the Persian Gulf which were then further
    >south than they are today. Noah built his ark in the northern part of his
    >land, far from the sea. Thus when "the springs of the great deep burst
    >forth," (which I believe refers to tidal waves which were caused by meteor
    >impacts in the Gulf, despite Paul S's arguments to the contrary) Noah's ark
    >managed to escape the flood's most destructive forces.

    What about the arguments I have made that there is NO evidence for a meteor
    impact in the Persian Gulf region during that time? See;

    And your source for your meteorite info is from a Velikovskian source. This
    is like getting information on the age of the earth from ICR. Velikovskians
    believe the laws of physics don't apply to them or their crazy theories. see

      However, the ark was
    >pushed by the resulting flood waters somewhat north of its
    >original location.
    >Besides causing tidal waves, the meteor impacts also triggered earthquakes
    >which caused the elevations of Noah's land and some areas just to the north
    >of it to drop below sea level. All of the flooded areas remained in that
    >lowered position, and thus were able to remain flooded, for five
    >months. Then
    >a small portion of the flooded land, that which was furthest to the north,
    >rose above sea level, or possibly sea levels then fell. (What geological
    >forces caused these land areas to rise or sea levels to fall I do
    >not know.)
    >When this happened "the ark came to rest in the hills of Ararat." (At the
    >time of Noah "Ararat" referred to all land areas to the north of Noah's
    >land.) The waters which had flooded the land areas furthest to the
    >north then
    >drained southward into a newly enlarged Persian Gulf.

    So exactly why are there no Holocene age deposits found anywhere on the
    surficial deposits of Iraq apart from river valleys? That makes no geologic

    The land in
    >which Noah
    >once lived never regained its previous elevation. It now remains buried
    >beneath the waters of the Persian Gulf. "The hills of Ararat" in
    >which Noah's
    >ark came to rest are now located not too far north of the present shoreline
    >of the Persian Gulf, or may even have since been claimed by the Gulf. The
    >reason little evidence of a flood of biblical proportions can be
    >found today
    >in Mesopotamia, and no evidence has been found of any Mesopotamian flood
    >dating to about 2350 BC as Bible chronology seems to date Noah's flood, is
    >because nearly all of the areas that were flooded at the time of Noah are
    >still flooded.
    >Of course, I realize this idea suffers from a lack of any solid

    Then why should anyone believe it?--[sarcastic mode on]oh yeah that is what
    many Christians do. Historically false things like this teach us great
    truths about God's dealings with humanity. Now I see. As Shuan suggested,
    just have faith that it is so. Sorry to have objected to your theological
    truth.[sarcastic mode off]

    >this flood scenario is a correct one evidence of it should be able to be
    >found on the floor of the Persian Gulf.

    How can it be correct without any 'solid evidence'? Frankly you are using
    entirely the wrong methodology -- one suggested often--just have faith that
    it is true and it will be. Kinda like clap your hands and Tinkerbell will
    get well (this for an older generation).

      Of course, finding small
    >artifacts of
    >a 4,350 year old civilization deep beneath tens of thousands of
    >square miles
    >of water and sea floor muck would require an awful lot of work, work no one
    >is likely to ever do since this theory is founded on nothing more than
    >speculation. I would, however, be interested in hearing why you feel this
    >speculation may or may not have a possibility of being correct.

    It would be nice if you really had evidence of a meteor crater in the area,
    evidence of climate change (which is non-existent and only reported by a guy
    who mistakenly thinks the Irish were able to write prior to 650 AD, evidence
    of massive flooding in Iraq, or evidence of geologic faults which would
    allow the proper tilting of the land you claim was tilted. But then, why
    should evidence (or lake thereof) get in the way of a good theologically
    true viewpoint?


    Your welcome.


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 06 2002 - 13:02:19 EDT