tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post4375274531257112633..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: Some comments on the flood, part 1Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-46689430371498199862016-07-08T06:40:33.110+01:002016-07-08T06:40:33.110+01:00Amateur biblical study is best avoided. If you'...Amateur biblical study is best avoided. If you're interested in this sort of thing, look up the Wikipedia article on Biblical cosmology and get hold of some of the books in the bibliography. (And by the way, the first ten chapters of Genesis are not very old at all - they date from around 450 BC.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-12275558226257267252016-06-08T05:44:17.912+01:002016-06-08T05:44:17.912+01:00Actually, there's no reason to think the Genes...Actually, there's no reason to think the Genesis narrator was indebted to a cosmic sea mythology. To begin with, Tiamat is a personification of the ocean. She's made of water. So how could she be a solid barrier? <br /><br />Moreover, did ancient Near Easterners really believe there was a giant naked woman in the sky? Do you see a naked woman overhead? <br /><br />Furthermore, there are Bible verses which describe rain clouds. <br /><br />In addition, if you're observant and spend much time out of doors, you can actually see clouds precipitating rain. For instance, there are times you can see it raining on the horizon. The sky may be clear and bright above the clouds, so the rain isn't coming through the clouds from the sky above. Rather, the clouds themselves are manifestly the source of rain.<br /><br />Were ancient Near Easterners really oblivious to that fact? Why does it only rain on cloudy days rather than clear days? Why does it sometimes start out clear and dry, then when clouds move overhead, it begins to rain? The notion of a cosmic ocean draining through sluicegates in a solid dome is out of keeping with what any attentive observer can see for himself. I think some scholars find that plausible because they themselves are so out of touch with the natural world. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-23627250085927075732016-05-30T21:25:28.892+01:002016-05-30T21:25:28.892+01:00My reasoning for this is that, first, if the phras...<i>My reasoning for this is that, first, if the phrase "the waters above" does not refer to something common in our experience (like precipitation, water that falls from above), then it is completely obscure.</i><br /><br />It might not be obscure if it alluded to cosmological features already familiar to the original audience. A Sumerian creation myth described by Samuel Noah Kramer involves the gods separating the primordial ocean into upper and lower halves, with a habitable region in between, not unlike the "waters above" and "waters below." In the Enuma Elish, the gods make war on their progenitors, the primordial freshwater (Apsu) and sea (Tiamat). Apsu's remains are confined beneath the earth; Tiamat's upper body is fashioned into a roof for the sky, and her waters are confined above it. There are parallels to Psalm 104, in which Yahweh spreads out the roof of the sky and appoints places for the waters.<br /><br />The author of Genesis used the concept of the primordial ocean that exists above and below the inhabited world. The Deluge was a result of that primordial ocean falling as rain and breaking up into the Earth through springs. After the flood, the waters subsided and returned to the primordial ocean.<br /><br />This does not support the "canopy theory," of course, but it does support the existence of a sort of canopy in the text.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-86870489469067924592016-05-28T19:46:12.225+01:002016-05-28T19:46:12.225+01:00Yes, just as Steve said, most modern creationists ...Yes, just as Steve said, most modern creationists abandoned the canopy theory over 20 years ago. Please try to keep up. Otherwise your critiques will look like the church-bashers who appeal to the Draper/White conflict thesis.<br /><br />Also, the alleged SDA connection comes from the self-described apostate Ron Numbers, who ignores the British Scriptural geologists of the early 19th century who predated Ellen White, as well as the Reformed, Medieval, and Patristic commentators who amply defended six day creation about 6,000 years ago and a global Flood. Geology itself is a relatively new science, thus creationist flood geology is also going to be quite new.Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12530418085229071099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-62939645825041793242016-05-25T06:30:12.982+01:002016-05-25T06:30:12.982+01:00I'd just point out that using Morris/Whitcomb ...I'd just point out that using Morris/Whitcomb as your foil is a seriously dated source. If you're going to critique flood geology, I'd suggest you choose something more current, viz. Jonathan Sarfati, The Gensis Account; Andrew Snelling, Earth's Catastrophic Past; Kurt Wise, Faith, Form, and Time.<br /><br />Otherwise, people will accuse you of burning a straw man. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com