Posts by aChristian

1

False teachings of the JW's?

by ruchristians in

jw
friends

false teachings of a jw?

dec 20, 2001 17:44 .

i have verses from the nwt that contradict the jw teachings.

I highly doubt that there are any JWs here to defend their teachings. You see, JWs are not allowed to discuss their teachings with those who know from experience that they are false, for fear that they will learn the truth about their own religion. Thus the only ones who are usually here are ex-JWs who are now Christians or ex-JWs who are now nonreligious.

251

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

Rem,

You wrote: If what you say is true about the Epic of Gilgamesh and this meteor, then it seems that the Gilgamesh account is more accurate than the Bible.

I don't think so. If the flood was caused by a series of meteor impacts as the Gilgamesh Epic seems to indicate, those impacts most likely did not occur until Noah and his crew were safely closed up inside the ark. The Genesis flood account probably recounts the eyewitness testimonies of Noah and one or more of his family members, as passed down to the Hebrew people for many generations and finally consolidated into one account by Moses. Thus, their recollections could not have included any mention of the meteors which filled the skies right before the flood began. However, some in adjoining lands which were not totally destroyed by the flood, as Noah's land was, would not only have survived the flood but would have been in a position to witness and recount both its cause and effects. They would, no doubt, have also heard the story of a man in a flood-devestated neighboring land who managed to survive the flood by being forewarned by God to build an ark. However, since the writer of the Epic of Gildamesh was not an eyewitness to the events which transpired in the land of Noah, and since he probably heard Noah's story only after it had been corrupted by several retelling, it certainly makes sense that he ended up getting several of its details wrong.

You wrote: Why were the birds taken along in the supposed ark if it were just a local event? (Good question, Gweedo)

Genesis 7:3 plainly states that the reason Noah took all the various kinds of birds on the ark was to keep their kinds alive throughout the land. The Bible tells us that while Noah's land was being flooded it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, presumably quite hard. It is doubtful that any kind of bird would have tried flying through such a downpour. They would have waited for the storm to let up before taking off in search of a dryer place to live. However, before that storm let up Noah's land was completely flooded. Though Noah's flood was not global, it probably looked that way to those on board the ark. From what I have read most advocates of a local flood believe the waters covered well over 3,000 square miles, an area about 60 miles from west to east and about 100 miles from north to south. If Noah had not taken the birds of his land onto the ark and somehow some of them managed to avoid drowning until the rain let up enough to fly away, how many of them would be able to fly those distances without taking a rest on dry land? With such things in mind, I tend to believe it was necessary for Noah to take birds onto the ark in order to preserve alive all the different kinds of birds in his land.

However, it may be asked, "Why was it necessary for Noah to take any kinds of animals onto the ark to preserve their 'kind' alive in his land?" After all, few, if any, species of animals were then indigenous only to Noah's small part of the world. Certainly once Noah's land dried somewhat, it soon became populated with the same kinds of animals coming from other lands which Noah took onto the ark. So then, why was Noah instructed to take all of the different kinds of animals in his land onto the ark? Again, I can only repeat my belief that Noah did so because God intended him to prefigure Jesus Christ, who the Bible tells us "sustains all things." (Hebrews 1:3)

You wrote: Whether any flood happened or not, the Epic of Gilgamesh is still just an old myth. The same is true of the Bible's story(stories) of the flood. It doesn't matter if a myth is based on real events - it's still a work of fiction. It's not an inspired account from god.

You might try preceding such statements with the words "I believe."

You wrote: It seems to me that since you accept Evolution and that the first chapters of Genesis can be taken figuratively, why not take the flood legend figuratively as some sort of lesson?

So far as evolution goes, I do not take Genesis figuratively. I take it quite literally. For it does not say that God "created" vegetation or animal life. It says that "the land produced" both. (Gen. 1:11,24) Besides, the Bible's story of Noah has all the earmarks of an actual historical account, including providing its readers with chronological information enabling them to firmly date the event to 2350 B.C. I do not believe that the writers of scripture intended us to understand the story of Noah as pure fiction and intended for it to only be taken figuratively, as some sort of a lesson. If they had, I do not believe they would have dated it in the same way that they dated many other events recorded in the Bible, events which they obviously intended to be understood as actual Jewish history.

251

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

For those who may be interested, a map at this link shows the location of the alleged crater: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/564185/posts

And the entire London Telegraph article, complete with a picture of the alleged "meteor crater" may be seen here: http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F11%2F04%2Fwmet04.xml

Some interesting excerpts:

The draining of the region, as part of Saddam's campaign against the Marsh Arabs, has since caused the lake to recede, revealing a ring-like ridge inside the larger bowl-like depression - a classic feature of meteor impact craters.

The crater also appears to be, in geological terms, very recent. Dr Master said: "The sediments in this region are very young, so whatever caused the crater-like structure, it must have happened within the past 6,000 years."

Reporting his finding in the latest issue of the journal Meteoritics & Planetary Science, Dr Master suggests that a recent meteor impact is the most plausible explanation for the structure.

A survey of the crater itself could reveal tell-tale melted rock. "If we could find fragments of impact glass, we could date them using radioactive dating techniques," he said.

A date of around 2300 BC for the impact may also cast new light on the legend of Gilgamesh, dating from the same period. The legend talks of "the Seven Judges of Hell", who raised their torches, lighting the land with flame, and a storm that turned day into night, "smashed the land like a cup", and flooded the area.

Alan,

First off, thanks for the links. Next, thanks for all your feedback. I always enjoy reading your comments. I'll try to respond to some of what you had to say, though my time is pretty short today.

You wrote: By setting forth the material that COJ posted last year alongside the material from your linked "meteor theory" website and other stories, you've set forth two mutually exclusive and contradictory hypotheses. COJ's material points out evidence that a massive flood drowned the entire southern end of Mesopotamia around 3500 B.C. (actually the evidence for this is rather poor), whereas your material here claims that different evidence indicates 2350 B.C. and entirely different causes.

I disagree. I have discussed this subject matter with COJ at length and he has said that the 3500 B.C. dating was extremely tenuous. Thus I believe the evidence which points to a massive flood drowning the entire southern end of Mesopotamia at about that time may have been deposited in the year 2350 B.C., the date tree ring studies indicate a major environmental disturbance occurred. Besides, Carl has, as far as I am aware, never addressed the possible cause of Noah's flood, other than to say it included a major inundation from the Persian Gulf. I believe a meteor impact having the force of "hundreds of hydrogen bombs," as has been said of an impact large enough to create a crater the size of the one discovered in southern Iraq, may well have caused such an inundation. How? I believe the Epic of Gilgamesh may provide the answer. It tells us that at the time of the flood, "One whole day the tempest raged, gathering fury as it went, it poured over the people like the tides of battle." This certainly seems to me like a reference to a series of tidal waves which such an impact may well have triggered. However, if Noah lived far enough inland from the Gulf he would not have been hit by the force of those waves but his land may still have been drowned by the water they contained.

I have asked Carl to add to this discussion if he has the time and anything else that he feels may be of interest to say on the subject.

You wrote: Another problem is containing the Flood waters. Suppose that part of your scenario is right, and that the trough between the Arabian peninsula and Zagros mountains in which the Tigris-Euphrates valley sits somehow got filled with enough water to be Noah's Flood. Just how would the water keep from running southeast right down the river valley and into the Persian Gulf?

Could a meteor impact with the force of hundreds of hydrogen bombs have caused the land of Noah, or for that matter all of southern Iraq, to temporarily sink? It would not have had to sink much. For, as you remind us, "Baghdad is [now] only 34 meters above sea level." Then after several months, as the land began to rise, could the rising land have drained its flood waters into the Persian Gulf, from which most of them came?

You wrote: Those great lights John Whitcomb and Henry Morris pointed out in their 1961 book The Genesis Flood that the so-called Bible chronology actually has a lot of slop in it. There is no way to tell, for example, if the various "begats" referred exclusively to a father-son relationship.

I have studied this subject matter at length and have read Morris and Whitcomb's comments. I disagree with them for several reasons which I do not now have time to discuss. (I have also thoroughly studied all other areas of Bible chronology, including the period of time from the division of the kingdom following the death of Solomon until the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C., and am convinced that Bible chronology points to 2350 B.C. as the date of Noah's flood.) Morris and Whitcomb were trying their best to poke holes in a Bible chronology which dates Noah's flood quite recently. They were obviously doing so to prevent their ridiculous contentions from seeming even more ridiculous. By Morris and Whitcomb postulating gaps in the Genesis genealogies they allowed for the possibility that the Genesis flood took place several thousand years earlier than the here discussed 2350 B.C date. However, Morris and Whicomb failed to realize that adding of a few thousand years to the traditional B.C. date for Noah's flood does nothing to make their contentions that that flood was a global one any more credible.

Alan, I agree with you that this is all, at this point, pretty much speculation fueled by a desire to lend some support to the Genesis flood account. But it certainly seems to me that the belief of many Christians, that the flood described in Genesis was an actual historical event, is now not nearly as unfounded by extrabiblical evidence as it once was. For Bible believers now have tree ring dating of a catastrophic climate change exactly coinciding with what has long been held to be the Bible's own date for the flood. We now can connect the flood account contained in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which seems to point to a meteor impact or a series of such impacts as the cause of the flood, with the discovery of what appears to be a fairly recent meteor impact crater in southern Iraq. And we also have the evidence of extensive flooding in the same area, which may possibly have been deposited at the same time, which COJ has discussed at length in the past.

I wouldn't dismiss all of this too quickly if I were you. If you do, you might just have to post a retraction in the not too distant future. : )

23

A WOMAN'S PLACE IS AT HOME!!!!!!

by crownboy in

jw
friends

all of us know how patricharcial the watchtower society (and most fundamentalist religions) is.

men pretty much "run the show", there probably are things a two year old "brother" would probably get to do before a poineer sister can.

because the sister is a female(maybe .

aChristian

For any here who may be interested, this subject matter was discussed in another recent thread. In that thread I posted an article which shows, (quite clearly I think, and several there seemed to agree) that Paul was actually a strong advocate for the full equality of women within the Christian Church. The New Testament passages which seem to indicate otherwise were not Paul's words but were the words of others he was citing for the purpose of refuting, which he did in the context of every such passage. That article can be read here, in the fourth post from the top:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17102&site=3

75

Marry Christmas Jan-evolution goes down in flames

by clash_city_rockers in

jw
friends

darwin on trial is the title of a book on evolution that has ruffled the feathers of the secular scientific community.

though a christian, author philip johnson critiques evolutionary theory from a secular standpoint as he examines the philosophical games many scientists play to protect their evolutionary ideology.

johnson, a law professor at the university of california at berkeley, attacks head-on the often-heard statement that evolution is both a fact and a theory, an evolutionary dogma that has been a major source of confusion for a long time.

aChristian

Clash,

I probably should not ask you this but ........ What do you think will happen to Christians who believe in evolution? In your opinion,
will millions of Christians like myself, who believe that Genesis actually supports the teaching that God used evolution as His means of creating all life on earth, all be damned to Hell?

(See, for instance, Gen. 1:11 and 24 where we are NOT told that God "created" "vegetation" and "living creatures," but that "the land produced" them.)

251

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

Clash,

I appreciated the fact that you preceded your comments with "IMHO" (in my humble opinion). In this matter your humble opinion and my humble opinion are at odds. Not that it really matters. I'm sure you will agree that all who truly put their faith in Christ will be saved, both those of us who believe the creative "days" of Genesis were each only 24 hours long and those of us who believe they were probably much longer.

251

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

Clash,

You asked: Do you start with scriptures alone (sola scriptora) as the authority?

As I mentioned earlier, I believe Christians should read the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit, and then decide for themselves what they believe the Bible is saying. (I John 2:27) This approach is more than the scriptures alone.

So far as your saying that a "scriptures alone" approach would require us to understand that when Genesis says that God created the world in six days that it must mean "six literal (24 hour) days," I believe you are in error. For if such were the case we would also have to believe that God created the heavens and the earth in only one day. For Genesis 2:4 speaks of "the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Now, which is it? Did God do it all in six days or in one day? There is no contradiction here for the reasonable person. The writer of Genesis obviously used the word "day" as we often do, to refer to a larger period of time. As in, "In my father's day things were done differently." The six days (or periods of time) in which God created our world, when spoken of together, can be referred to as one day (or period of time).

So far as "man's assertions" go, I pay them little attention. I do, however, listen to God's Holy Spirit and use the common sense God gave me. And I believe the Holy Spirit has often reminded me that the Bible contains much non-literal language. The Book of Revelation comes to mind. So do Jesus' words that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to gain life. God expects the reader of scripture to use their discernment in determining when we should understand the scriptures in the simplest, most literal way and when we should understand the scriptures in a deeper, less literal, way.

God gave us good minds and the ability to reason. I'm sure He expects us to use them both when we are studying His word.

251

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

Clash,

You asked: By what authority do you base your apologetic claims?

I claim no authority and I make no apologetic claims. Christians are free people. We are permitted to read the Bible and, with the help of the Holy Spirit, decide for ourselves what we believe the Bible is saying. We are also permitted to share our understandings with others. And they are permitted to accept our understandings as being probably correct or reject them as being probably incorrect. That is the way it should be. I do not want any "authority" telling me what the Bible means. And I certainly would never treat others in that way. The men who run the Watchtower Society claim to have "authority" to interpret the Bible for others. They are a shining example of what you can expect from those who make such claims.

251

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

Gweedo,

I believe Christ will return to judge this world right before a nuclear war begins, thus becoming the Savior of not just the human race but of all species on earth. Possibly this is what was pictured by Noah saving all the animal species in his land. Possibly.

When I speak of Christ returning to judge the world I do not mean that I believe Christ is returning to destroy this world and all life on it. The Watchtower Society's teaches that God will soon kill everyone on earth except true Christians. Fortunately, the Bible does not teach that. I believe that when Christ returns He will judge only the Christian world. Two-thirds of the earth's population has never even heard the good news of Jesus Christ, including billions of people in lands like China and India. The Watchtower Society teaches that God will soon kill all of these people. I think they are wrong. This does not sound like the God of love, justice and mercy I worship.

One thing that leads me to believe this is an incorrect understanding of scripture is that that the Bible tells us that "Judgment begins with the house of God." (1 Peter 4:17) Jesus also said those who will rule as kings with Him will "judge the 12 tribes of Israel." (Luke 22:30) To me this indicates that when Christ returns and draws all true Christians to Himself (Matt. 24:31), they will then determine who among those who have heard the good news of Jesus Christ and not taken it to heart are deserving of death. (I believe these Christian judges will then be very merciful in their judgments.) "The 12 tribes of Israel," spoken of in Luke 22:30, I believe refers to all those who have heard the good news preached by those whom Galatians 6:16 calls "the Israel of God." Remember, the literal "12 tribes of Israel" had all heard the Law of Moses, but few had taken it to heart.

Remember too that it was only the city of Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 AD, not the entire Roman empire, after those in Jerusalem who heeded Christ's words of warning had escaped. And First Century Jerusalem has long been understood to picture the Christian world, or as Jehovah's Witnesses call it, "Christendom."

Also to be considered is a fact known by most serious students of the Bible, history and science. A fact we have been discussing here at length, the flood of Noah's day was a local event, not a global one. God brought that judgment only upon a land that had heard the message of "Noah, a preacher of righteousness," and failed to respond to it. (2 Pet. 2:5) God did not take the lives of those in other parts of then widely populated earth who had not heard Noah's preaching.

Interestingly, Revelation chapters 8 and 9 talk quite a bit about "a third of the world" being judged. And by population, the part of the world claiming Christianity as its religion is almost exactly one-third. (See The World Almanac 1998, page 654)

If this understanding is correct, that Christ is returning to judge only the Christian world, then Christians, who all have the same "one hope," will then have plenty of people to rule over as they serve as kings with Christ for 1,000 years. And they will also then have plenty of people to help come to know the true God as they serve as His "priests." For that is, after all, what priests do.

You asked: Also, dont you find Gods morality a little disturbing? ... How many babies and children died in the flood?

Many, I am sure. But I think we do well to remember that God gave us all our lives and has the right to end them at any time he chooses. Every day we live is a gift from God. God is not required to give all of his children the same number of gifts, just as we are not obligated to do so with our children. Also, keep in mind that God has never yet ended a single human life, either that of an adult or of a child. He has only interrupted some lives. For Jesus said, "A time is coming when ALL who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out." (John 5:28) Jesus plainly said that everyone who has ever lived and died will receive a resurrection. Everyone means everyone. Including those who have died in God's judgments such as the flood. We know this because Jesus said that the people who died when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorra will be resurrected. And he said that they will be judged with mercy at that time. Why? Because he said that if the people of Sodom and Gomorra had seen the miracles which Jesus performed they would have repented and their cities would never have been destroyed at all. (Matt. 10:15; 11:23,24) The same might also be true for many of the people who died in the flood.

251

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian in

jw
friends

the watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.

they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.

however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.

aChristian

A new person wrote: The hypothesis remains that multiple comet impacts were sustained including one in the Middle/Near East.

Yes, it does. The article I referenced to start this thread pointed out that the Deluge story found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, circa 2200 B.C., contains wording that appears to identify the cause of the
deluge as a meteoroid impact. Those words are these: "...and the seven judges of hell ... raised their torches, lighting the land with their livid flame. A stupor of despair went up to heaven when the god of the storm turned daylight into darkness, when he smashed the land like a cup." Since the two stories are so similar in content and are both thought to have originated in the same part of the world at about the same time, it is very likely that the Bible's story of Noah's flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh both describe the same events. Though the Bible's flood account contains no mention of "torches" in the sky or of the land being smashed, that is quite understandable if the Bible's flood story contains the recollections of Noah and his family. For the Bible indicates that Noah and his family were shut inside the ark, without much of a view of the sky if any, before
the flood began.

When all is said that has to be said in this thread, a few very interesting facts will remain. Modern science now tells us that the climate of the Near and Middle East was greatly altered in 2350 B.C.
Major changes in climate often cause floods. The Bible indicates Noah's flood occurred in 2350 B.C.

Jan wrote: I made a little write up some time back debunking the "local flood" scenario. ... Comments welcome.

Jan,

I read your "write up" over quite thoroughly and, as you might expect, disagree with most of what you wrote. Though I don't now have time to comment on all of it, I will here try to respond to its major points.

In it you wrote: The Black Sea scenario clearly contradicts any reading of the Genesis text.

Agreed. The story of Noah's flood, as recorded in Genesis, did not spring from the flooding of the Black Sea.

You wrote: If the flood was only local, why should Noah and family have to build an ark to survive? It would have been much easier to just relocate.

As I pointed out in a post above, I believe the answer to this question can be found in 1 Peter 3:20,21. There we are told that Noah and his family, "were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism." By choosing to save the lives of Noah and his family as they passed through the waters of the flood, I believe God was symbolically pointing to a time when his people (Christians) would find salvation as they passed through the waters of baptism. There may
well also be other reasons. The Bible tells us that "Noah was a preacher of righteousness." He may very well have continued urging the residents of his land to repent and accept God's provision for their salvation right up to the day it began to rain. (Gen.7:11-13) If Noah had relocated away from the area that was to be flooded he would have been unable to offer his neighbors a way to escape God's coming judgment nearly as long as he did.

You wrote: Also, why all the work to save the animals? Animal species would easily survive elsewhere. Also, why birds? If the water started to rise, the birds would be better off flying away than staying inside a ship.

Good questions. The answers I can give to these questions can be nothing more than speculation. It is my belief that God intended for the story of the flood to serve as a picture of the events which will take place when Christ returns to judge the world. (Matt. 24:37-39) I believe Noah then pictured Jesus Christ. Possibly by having Noah act as the preserver of all life forms in his land, God was pointing to a time when Jesus Christ will prevent the annihilation of all species on
earth. I believe he will do so when he returns to judge this world, just before mankind totally destroys all human and animal life in a major nuclear war.

You wrote: The description of the Ark shows that the author hadn’t the faintest clue about how to make a seaworthy vessel.

I disagree. As has often been stated, the arks 6 to 1 length to width ratio is the ideal ratio for the stability of large sea going vessels and for that reason is still used by ship builders today.

You wrote: the sad truth about wooden vessels: they leak. ... A wooden sea vessel 140 meters (450 ft) long is simply impossible.
First, it would leak so much and so heavily that even a battery
of modern engine pumps would be hard pressed to save it from a watery grave. Second, the structure would not be strong enough to carry its own weight in calm water, and much less during a violent flood. Large wooden vessels have hardly been possible even in the industrial age, and then they needed to be reinforced with iron and of course they required constant pumping. ...To the landlubber who wrote Genesis, pitch may sound like it’s sufficient to make a boat watertight.
It is not.

I think you overstate the case against wooden ships. In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue and traversed much rough water in three wooden ships. I also believe you underestimate the intelligence and ingenuity of the ancients. If the pyramids were not still standing in Egypt today, with their thousands upon thousands of muti-ton blocks of stone perched one upon another, I'm sure you would say that the
ancients were incapable of building such fantastic structures. But somehow they did. Besides, the Bible says that God gave Noah the plans for the ark, possibly in much greater detail than is recorded in Genesis. Certainly, the God who created our universe was capable of designing a large wooden chest, one that was waterproofed inside and out, which would be able to float in what were, I believe, fairly calm waters for a few months.

You asked: Where was the local flood?

Most local flood advocates believe the flood of Noah's day covered the southern plains of Mesopotamia, which lie south of Baghdad and north of the Persian Gulf. Exactly how far north of the Gulf the flood waters extended is not clear.

You wrote: A local flood requires a totally enclosed area.

Local flood advocates believe that the Lower Mesopotamian Plain was capable of containing the waters of Noah's flood until they drained after several months into the Persian gulf. For, as COJ wrote in his post on this topic which I quoted earlier, "Iraq is often described as a "trough". The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 12 (1969), for example, explains: "Iraq consists of a lowland trough lying between asymmetrical and very different upland massifs to the east, north and west, and continuing southeastward as the Persian gulf." (Page 527) Similarly, Dr. Susan Pollock says in her recent work, Ancient Mesopotamia (Cambridge, 1999): "Mesopotamia is, geologically
speaking, a trough created as the Arabian shield has pushed up against the Asiatic landmass, raising the Zagros Mountains and depressing the land to the southwest of them. Within this trench, the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers and their tributaries have laid down enormous quantities of alluvial sediments, forming the Lower Mesopotamian Plain (also known as the alluvial Mesopotamian plain)."

You wrote: The Bible does not actually say that the Ark landed on Mt Ararat. It says: ...“The ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.” Ararat, in this text, does not describe a mountain, but a
region.

That is correct. And as COJ pointed out, "The "Ararat" of the Bible was not a mountain, but originally a geographical area, which later, in the Assyrian period, was consolidated into a kingdom. ... In cuneiform inscriptions the form of the name is "Urartu". ... Archaeological findings show that the southern border of the kingdom of Urartu extended down to the area of Nineveh (close to present-day Mosul) and the Zab rivers. (It is quite possible that the earlier
geographical area called Urartu was larger and extended further south and southeast.)

You wrote: The local flood believers thus have to relocate the flood to some other region.

As Carl showed, this is not the case. Regarding the kingdom of Urartu, he went on to say, "Vast areas of the southern kingdom of Urartu was only between 300 and 200 meters above sea level. But at the time of the Flood these areas may have been much lower, as the mountain building movements of Iraq and southwestern Persia have been going on since that time. Drs. G. M. Lees and N. L. Falcon point out: "This mountain system has developed out of a broader zone of
depression or geosyncline, by a relative approach between central Persia and the stable massif of Arabia which compressed the mobile strip between and formed a series of giant earth waves or fold mountains. The time of the maximum tangential movement was in the late Pliocene but THE ELEVATION OF THE MOUNTAIN BELT AS A WHOLE, AS DISTINCT FROM FOLD MOVEMENTS, CONTINUED INTO RECENT TIME AND IS IN FACT STILL ACTIVE." ("The Geographical History of the Mesopotamian Plains," The Geographical Journal, Vol. CXVIII, 1952, p. 27. My emphasis.)

You wrote: We also have to ask how large the flooded area would have to be. ... the Genesis text insists that Noah and the other people on the Ark did not see land during many months when they sailed around on the water. ... A rule of thumb, well known to sea men, is that the distance to the horizon in nautical miles is 1.17 times the square root of your height of eye in feet. So, since the Ark was 45 feet high (and the window was at the top) ....

Excuse me. Try cutting that in half as approximately half the ark's height would have been submerged. That is probably why it's occupants knew that the water had risen "to a height of more than 15 cubits," since 15 cubits was approximately its submerged depth and the ark floated in the water above the land it had previously rested on. (Gen. 7:20) Now redo your math and you will find that the area which was flooded was not necessarily nearly as large as you first imagined.

You asked: Is that possible in a turbulent, violent flood?

Who said the flood was turbulent and violent? The Bible does not say such a thing.

You wrote: Anyone who has forgotten to moor a small boat, or done it badly, will know that even in smooth waters, only a few hours later the boat will be a speck on the horizon.

Who says the ark was not anchored? The fact is some flood traditions specifically say that it was. With these traditions in mind, some claim that various giant stones found in areas said to be the
arks final resting place were the arks "anchors."

You wrote: In the context of the local flood, there are two words usually brought up, those translated ‘earth’ (erets) and ‘mountain’ (har). They point out, quite correctly, that erets can be just as easily translated ‘land’ or ‘ground’ as ‘earth.’ Likewise, the word for mountain, har, can also be translated ‘hill.’

You are correct. This subject has been discussed at length many times. I will not argue the proper translation of these two Hebrew words with you again here. I will, however, agree with you when
you say that "context" must determine their proper translation. If the writer of Genesis was describing a global flood then the context would demand that the proper translation of those words would be along the lines of, "The highest MOUNTAINS on the planet EARTH were
covered." If, on the other hand, the writer of Genesis was describing a local flood then the context would demand that the proper translation of those two words would be along the lines of, "The highest HILLS in the LAND in which Noah lived in were covered."

You spent some time writing about what you believe were the motives of the writer of the Genesis flood account, and how those motives demonstrate that he must have intended for his words to be understood as describing a global flood.

I do not believe we can possibly know with any certainty what the "writer's motivation" was. So, I will not comment further on this matter.

You wrote: As pointed out by most Bible scholars, but beyond this discussion, it is obvious that two different literary traditions are merged into one text.

That may well be the case. It is certainly possible that Moses combined two different flood stories which the Hebrew people had preserved for many centuries, both of which contained important elements of the full story of Noah's flood.

You wrote: The absurd ages of early Bible heroes may not pose a problem to religious conservatives, but to others this indicates a story more legendary than factual in content.

The Bible tells us that at one time some people actually lived to be over nine hundred years old. Certainly such things could not have really happened. Or could they have? Who can possibly believe that any human being ever really lived that long? You know who. The
same kind of people who believe that God will one day give them lives that will last, not just several hundred years, but several trillion years and beyond. The same kind of people who believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. People of faith.

In referring to the dove which Noah sent out after the ark came to rest, and which returned with an olive branch, you wrote: Amazing how fast this olive tree has grown up from an area covered in water (salt water, even).

I see this as evidence of a couple things. One, that the writer of Genesis could not have been describing a global flood. For he would have known that olive trees would not survive some nine months under water. Thus, the doves return with an olive leaf is evidence that the leaf must have been plucked from an area that was spared the flood. And two, that the writer of Genesis did not believe that the ark came to rest on a high mountain. Because olive trees do not grow on high
mountains or anywhere near high mountains.

You wrote: Making us question, of course, where all that water had gone. Over the edge of the Earth, presumably.

No, into the Persian Gulf.

You wrote: The important question is: How did they come down from this tall mountain? Ararat is a quite tough mountain to climb.

It is odd that you ask this question since earlier you acknowledged the fact that the Bible does not say that the ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat, but only in the mountains (or hills) of the region then
known as Ararat.

Hey, is that a tatoo of a cross on your arm? I'm thinking of getting one of those. :)