RE: Noahic Covenant

From: Dick Fischer (
Date: Mon Jul 22 2002 - 00:09:10 EDT

  • Next message: Dick Fischer: "Flood Parallels"

    Glenn Morton wrote:

    >If numbers determines truth,
    >then the Hindoos are correct that the earth rides on the back of a turtle
    >which swims in the cosmic sea.

    If the numbers of those who believe in something were any indicator
    of its likelihood of being true, you and I both are doomed to
    failure. We have counter ideas having only faint hopes of catching

    >>Let me put it another way. How many books and articles have you read
    >>on geology? How do you feel when you encounter someone who has read
    >>not one geology book and yet has the gall to hassle you about your
    >Dick, I didn't hassle you on the data I hassled you on the LOGIC (or lack
    >there of). If you think that the numbers of people who believe the same
    >thing determines truth, then I would suggest that you think again. 50 years
    >ago, only a handful of geologists beleived that the continents drifted
    >across the face of the earth. If numbers determine truth, then continental
    >drift didn't begin until 1965 when the majority of geologists finally
    >accepted drift!
    >And Dick, it doesn't take but one big bad fact to sink a theory. You want
    >Noah and his 7 family members to push the ark north, against the current by
    >poles. This is so that the ark can be taken from Shurrupak to Turkey. They
    >are supposed to push it uphill for several hundred miles against the
    >current. 8 people don't have the energetic output to do this.

    A flood of over one year must go through two Spring rainy periods.
    During the intervening dry spell, there may be very little river
    current. Punting upstream might work to some extent. And a number
    of landing sites have been suggested. Best has the ark floating in
    an estuary in the Persian Gulf. Hopefully, we can do better than

    This is a very small point on which to dig in and reject the
    voluminous evidence substantiating a 2900 BC, Mesopotamian voyage.
    Nevertheless, I live close to the Smithsonian and will go and see if
    there is a better answer. You probably have access to contour maps
    of Iraq, being in the oil business. Is there anything online I can

    >I have a 4400 book library of which I have readabou5t 3000 cover to
    >cover. I have read something approaching 7000 articles,
    >big deal. That in and of itself doesn't lead me to the truth either. If the
    >number of articles and books determine truth, I win.

    I got your blue ribbon right here. Don't pretend you don't
    understand. Reading books on one subject doesn't make you an expert
    in something else.

    >>Either shun the research and trust those who do it, or do the
    >>research and weigh in. Best, Young, and I did the research and
    >>agree, you haven't and disagree. Does THAT tell you anything?
    >It tells me that you are being illogical on this. And as to the research, I
    >have done the geologic research on Iraq and the physical research on
    >moving the ark. On both counts your theory fails as I have outlined
    >many times before . Wanna compare geological books we have read?

    Yes. I haven't read more than five in my lifetime.

    There will never be 100% confirmation of every aspect of our faith.
    Minor inconsistencies can be found both in the Old and New Testament.
    Some we try to explain, others are just there. We have discussed on
    this list Cainan listed in the genealogy of Christ in Luke yet
    missing from Genesis 11. There is an addition or deletion someplace
    - that we know. But we only know it because the two narratives do
    not agree.

    There is no account besides Genesis listing "Ararat" as the landing
    site. Did a scribe not understand an ancient word and perhaps
    substituted a word he knew? Was a scroll damaged and altered in the
    repair process? Is "Ararat" expansive enough in ancient terminology
    to include a more southerly area?

    There are possible explanations. I bet there is an answer, but I
    don't know it. But you want to throw out an entirely satisfactory
    explanation, replete with substantiating data and evidence because of
    one hangup. We have generally accepted anthropological theories and
    suggested lines of descent from ancient ancestors with far less
    evidence than this.

    Someone may hit on a satisfactory answer as to where the ark landed.
    It just may not be in our lifetimes.

    Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
    ěThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoî

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 22 2002 - 01:16:55 EDT