Re: Noahic Covenant

From: gordon brown (
Date: Wed Jul 24 2002 - 17:49:56 EDT

  • Next message: Adrian Teo: "RE: Infusion of the soul as a process"

    On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Vernon Jenkins wrote:

    > Gordon,
    > As I have pointed out recently in connection with the giving of the
    >rainbow, I
    > believe the biblical data suggests the Antediluvian world to have been quite
    > different from the one we know. The longevities of those named in
    >the line from Adam
    > to Noah surely suggest that. But, regarding what was going on under
    >the water at the
    > time of the Flood - and beyond - you must know I was not speaking
    >of the dissolution
    > of the entire crust of the earth. One can imagine that some areas
    >would remain
    > relatively unscathed - apart from the head of water above.
    > You may be interested to know the result of my internet search on
    >the topic "trees
    > tolerance to flooding". Here is an extract from Table 1 of
    > It
    >deals with the
    > relative tolerance of trees and shrubs to flooding during the
    >growing season, Lower
    > Mississippi Valley and Missouri River Divisions. (source: Whitlow
    >and Harris 1979):
    > Fraximus pennsylvanica (a variety of ash) - very tolerant: able to
    >survive deep,
    > prolonged flooding for more than 1 year.
    > We further read at http:/ that
    >the olive tree
    > is a member of a plant family that includes the ash...


    My questions to you were based on the assumption that you accepted the ICR
    version of the Flood since that was what your description sounded like. In
    that version mountains were erased, and plant and animal life were deeply
    buried, giving the explanation for virtually all the sedimentary rock and
    fossils on earth today. The geology of the Mesopotamian region shows
    that it would have to be included. Then the question is not whether olive
    trees can survive inundation but rather whether in such a scenario the
    tree could avoid burial.

    > What you have to say concerning the Tigris and Euphrates rivers
    >indicates that your
    > thinking is in "Post-diluvian" mode. I believe the originals were
    >obliterated by the
    > global flood, re-established following the flood, and given the
    >same names by Noah.

    If I correctly remember what I have read, the Mesopotamian region is
    covered by sediments that are miles thick. Thus if the ICR flood geology
    scenario were correct, the rivers before and after the Flood could not be
    considered the same rivers even if they had the same names, but Genesis
    seems to say that they are the same. The Euphrates is an extremely
    important river in the Bible, and it would seem very strange if its first
    mention actually meant something else.

    Gordon Brown
    Department of Mathematics
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0395

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 24 2002 - 22:36:31 EDT