Damien Mackey writes:
Thanks, Johnny, for the update .... .
My Flood model is intermediate between the Global
(e.g. Ken Ham's version, even with dinosaurs aboard the Ark) and Local (in the
minimal sense - e.g. just Mesopotamia).
I believe that the riverine world of Adam and
Eve, and of Noah, stretching from Mesopotamia approximately to Ethiopia (the
four rivers of Genesis 2), was Saint Peter's "the world that then
was" (2 Peter 3:6).
That is what was flooded.
So my Flood model is Local, but vast.
The Global (Creationist) model, a Flood that
erases the entire antediluvian world, cannot account for:
(i) the testimony of Jesus Christ that the
Jerusalem-ites (why them?) were to be held accountable for the sins of
persecuting the righteous even from the time of Abel (well before the Flood);
nor
(ii) the traditions that have Jerusalem, 'the
centre of the world' (Ezekiel 38:12), as the place where man both fell and was
redeemed; with
(iii) Golgotha, 'the place of the Skull', being
the very place where Adam was buried; nor can it account for
(iv) this geological data that Jerusalem was once
under the ocean. "Diggings" (December 1994, Vol. 10, No. 12),
"Why Hezekiah's Tunnel Has the Bends" (p.5): A geologist may have the
answer. Now an Israeli geologist, Dan Gill, has done some research on the
matter and has come up with some very plausible explanations. Dan identifies
two types of rock in the tunnel area -- limestone and dolomite. The former is
fairly soft and porous, the latter comparatiively hard. It is rather
interesting that this limestone consists of about 30% fragments of fossil
shells and some coral, which means that Jerusalem, which is now about 700
metres above sea level, must have been beneath the ocean at some time in the
past . ...
(v) nor the Cain-ite archaeology in Mesopotamia
(e.g. Eridu = Irad; Uruk = Unuki/Enoch), interrupted by the Flood, and then
resuming afterwards; nor
(vi) how Ashurbanipal could claim to have read
writings before the Flood, if all prior civilisation had been totally erased.
….
Johnny replies:
Hello Damien
Please allow me to respond to your points:
Damien(i): the testimony of Jesus Christ that the
Jerusalem-ites (why them?) were to be held accountable for the sins of
persecuting the righteous even from the time of Abel (well before the Flood);
nor ...
Johnny: Yes, the Jews hardly realize the terrible
responsibility involved in rejecting Christ. From the time when the first
innocent blood was shed, when righteous Abel fell by the hand of Cain, the same
history had been repeated, with increasing guilt. - In every age prophets had
lifted up their voices against the sins of kings, rulers, and people, speaking
the words which God gave them, and obeying His will at the peril of their
lives. But they would not listen. - From generation to generation there had
been heaping up a terrible punishment for the rejecters of light and truth.
This guilt, of acting against knowledge they had of what constitutes sin, the
enemies of Christ were now drawing down upon their own heads. The sin of the
priests and rulers was greater than that of any preceding generation. By their
rejection of the Saviour, they were making themselves responsible for the blood
of all the righteous men slain from Abel to Christ. They were about to fill to
overflowing their cup of iniquity. And soon it was to be poured upon their
heads in retributive justice. Of this, Jesus warned them:
"That upon you may come all the righteous
blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of
Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation."
Mt. 23:35; Gen. 4:8.
Not only were the Jews guilty, but in the end
fallen Babylon (having the mind of Cain) is also guilty of "all" that
was done on earth - the slaying of God's people (of whom Abel is a symbol) upon
the earth, Rev. 18:24, for they scorned, and still do, these and many other
truths, the whole Bible actually, as their long history proofs. That is why the
Bible teaches, "Come out of Babylon," for it is fallen, is fallen
that great city, because who made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of
God" Rev. 14:8; (which is going on today)., and so all those stuck in that
system must come out to be saved, for when Christ comes the Second time (as
taught throughout the Bible), He does not come to die for us again, but to save
us. He and God Father and all the holy angels come then in their great glory
and power, and only those whose every sin has been confessed, repented of and
prayed for to have them forgiven and their soul temple cleansed, will not be
consumed by the brightness of His coming. So, we know that there is nothing
good to be found in Babylon anymore.
Yes, it is true because it is the spirit, the way
of (evil) thinking that is meant, for sin started before the Flood of course.
God keeps records of the life or every human being. The Bible teaches there is
a `Book of Life' and of `Remembrance'. - We ought to know that we are accountable
for our sins, as well as for those sins which result of what we caused to
happen. Each of our own sins can have long lasting effects, even over
generations (Adam's sin) for which we are responsible, unless we confessed and
repented and so can be forgiven and be saved, but the effects go on
nevertheless, and those people involved must do the same, confess and repent,
if they want to be saved. In that sense Adam was responsible, and his sons for
their sins.
(ii) the traditions that have Jerusalem, 'the
centre of the world' (Ezekiel 38:12), as the place where man both fell and was
redeemed; with ...
Johnny: "To take a spoil, and to take a
prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places [that are now] inhabited, and
upon the people [that are] gathered out of the nations, which have gotten
cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land." Ezek. 38:12.
All I want to say about Gog and Magog is this, in
Ezekiel 38 Persia (Iran) is revealed as an ally of Gog and Magog who, - perhaps
their religion has a spirit of persecution which is reviving today -, in the
latter days, attack God's dear people (Rev. 13), and they will perish on
"the mountains of Israel." Eze. 38:18-23.
(iii) Golgotha, 'the place of the Skull', being
the very place where Adam was buried; nor can it account for ...
Johnny: Well, traditions is one thing, the word
of God another. There is no scripture that says that Adam was buried at
Golgatha, in fact, the world wide Flood of Noah destroyed all pre-Flood
landmarks, so that we cannot point to any place, here was Eden or there was the
place where Noah built the ark. The pre-Flood world vanished and the fossil
bearing rocks all over the world, and even in the highest mountains, testify to
that fact. So, no, the Flood in the days of Noah was not a limited, local
event, it engulfed the whole world, for our Lord God in Heaven means what he
says,
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was
great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually. . . . And it repented the Lord that he had made man on
the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy
man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and
the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have
made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." Gen. 6:6,7.
In the beginning our earth was a perfectly
balanced planet, even down to the center of the earth and including its nuclear
materials burning inside. Sin caused this balanced planet to become unbalanced
and "the fountains of the deep" shot jets of water high into the
atmosphere at the start of the Flood. That is telling us that the inside of the
earth caused water to get so hot, because of the nuclear imbalance now, that
such jets of water broke through the surface and destroyed, together with the
Flood (rain) waters all life and all features on earth - for our earth may be
viewed as a nuclear reactor in the center of it, underneath our feet.
(iv) this geological data that Jerusalem was once
under the ocean. "Diggings" (December 1994, Vol. 10, No. 12),
"Why Hezekiah's Tunnel Has the Bends" (p.5): A geologist may have the
answer. Now an Israeli geologist, Dan Gill, has done some research on the matter
and has come up with some very plausible explanations. Dan identifies two types
of rock in the tunnel area -- limestone and dolomite. The former is fairly soft
and porous, the latter comparatively hard. It is rather interesting that this
limestone consists of about 30% fragments of fossil shells and some coral,
which means that Jerusalem, which is now about 700 meters above sea level, must
have been beneath the ocean at some time in the past . ...
Johnny: Right, Palestine like all the world was
completely covered by water during the Flood. That is the reason why sea fossil
shells are all over the world, even on top of the peaks of the Himalayan
mountains. I myself found numerous rocks like that on 2517 foot high Mission
Peak, along highway 680 at the edge of Milpitas, CA. [See one rock I found
laying in the grass and photographed, which someone had put there illegally,
with imbedded sea shells at `this
site . Like all around the world, limestone and dolomite is found in
many, many places. Of more interest is that there are found tropical plants at
Antarctica. Because before the Flood, there were no icy poles and oceans.
(v) nor the Cain-ite archaeology in Mesopotamia (e.g. Eridu = Irad; Uruk = Unuki/Enoch), interrupted by the Flood, and then resuming afterwards; nor
Johnny: These were just local floods interrupting a site, long after Noah's Flood, for in pre-Flood days there were no oceans like today. Uruk is located at the delta of the Euphrates River near where it spills into the Persian Gulf.
(vi) how Ashurbanipal could claim to have read writings before the Flood, if all prior civilization had been totally erased.
Johnny: Does Ashurbanipal, who lived not close to the Flood, say he read something from before the World wide Flood, or before heavy rains, before his time, affected his realm? - That can be interpreted numerous ways. We ought not to construe out of such mentioning of floods, that it means Noah's Flood, which was world wide and no one saw it, except Noah.
….
Damien Mackey replies
Hi, again, Johnny
Your
(i) is a very good sermon and I would agree with a large part of it – e.g. your
basic sentiments about the tension down through the ages between the good, led
by true prophets, and the wicked seed of Cain, for whom the Flood came.
The compiler [320] would have summarized the histories of his forefathers, making textual notes for the sake of his contemporaries. For instance, the names of some of the locations in Canaan had changed since the time of Abraham and so the compiler had to indicate the new name of an ancient site. There are some examples in Genesis 14 of the compiler's identifying for his contemporaries some of the ancient place names of Abraham's time. We have:
"Bela (which is Zoar)", in verses 2 and 8;
"Vale of Siddim (which is the Salt Sea)", verse 3;
"En-mishpat (which is Kadesh)", in verse 7;
"Hobah (which is to the left of Damascus)", in 15;
"Valley of Shaveh (which is the King's Dale)", in verse 17. …
[End of
quote]
Now
as it turns out, the very pattern that has been established above (“The
Compiler”), which we both accept as legitimate, is found again in Genesis 2.
But there you, and Creationists in general, would reject it. This is not
consistent, and is due I believe to a preconception, which is a misconception,
regarding the effects of the Noachic Flood.
Here
is my explanation of how the geographical indicators of Genesis 2 and 14 follow
the exact same pattern (http://genesisflood.blog.com/2009/05/05/noahs-flood-was-not-global/):
Four
Rivers of Genesis Common to Adam’s Day and to Moses’ Day
We
saw that the four rivers referred to in the antediluvian Adamic toledôt
are actually named by the postdiluvian Moses as real rivers, running alongside
(or around) real geographical locations. Moreover, Moses uses the very same 3rd person masculine singular Hebrew pronoun
hu (comprising the Hebrew letters, he waw aleph), meaning
‘he’ or ‘himself’ (itself), in every one of the four cases,thereby
directly connecting Adam’s four rivers with four known rivers of Moses’time.
Now,
thishu is again the exact same Hebrew pronoun that editor Moses would
use in his geographical modification of Abra[ha]m’s history, where, in that
famous case of Genesis 14:3 he advises his people that the site that was in
Abram’s day “the Valley of Siddim” had now become the Dead Sea. Thus
Moses: “Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea)”; the Heb. pronoun hu
here being translated quite appropriately into English as, “that is”.
But even though the Bible seems to be interpreting itself for us here, I have
found that‘Creationists’, whilst willingly accepting the view that Moses was,
in the case of Genesis 14:3, pointing to the very same geographical region
that was intended in the Abra[ha]mic history (though now with considerable
topographical alteration), will strenuously deny any geographical connection
whatsoever in Genesis 2 between the pre-Flood hydrography and that later
connected there by editor Moses with the pronoun hu.
Now
the Answers In Genesis [AIG] (some of whose editorial staff at least I know to
be keen on the Wiseman toledôt theory in regard to Mosaïc editing of the
Genesis texts) co-authors (Ham et. al.) also have argued against any
sort of geographical connection before and after the Genesis Flood, in their
section: “Answers to objections to a global Flood” (op. cit., p.
144, “Objection 2: The post-Flood geography is the same as the pre-Flood”).Here
is how these co-authors tackle the tricky (in their context) matter of the
Tigris and Euphrates:
This,
I find though, to be a typically modern ‘surface’ reading of an ancient text,
without coming to grips in any way with the realities of the ancient document;
with, for instance (a) the fact that commentators consider the elaboration of
the four rivers to be an editorial addition to the original text, (b) coupled
with the use of the Hebrew pronoun hu, specifically linking the pre- and
post-Flood rivers, as it indeed links geographical locations between the
Abra[ha]mic history and the era of Moses.
Nor
can the AIG co-authors so easily dismiss the two other rivers, Pishon and
Gihon, by simply stating (ibid.): “The Pishon is not mentioned
post-Flood and Gihon is used of the locality of a spring near Jerusalem in the
times of Kings David, Solomon and Hezekiah”. For I referred to Sirach’s
testimony, in “The Location of Paradise”, that the Pishon and Gihon were, with
the Tigris and Euphrates, still (in the C2nd BC) abundant, active rivers. So
again I would emphasise the point (and this is pitched mostly at those who tend
to operate according to the principle, sola scriptura), that to hold to
a view of no geographical link whatsoever between the pre- and post- Flood
worlds is to be un-biblical. ….
[End of quote]
Yes,
to shatter the link is un-biblical!
The
Book of Genesis (chapter 2) has described for us a world that was circumscribed
by four rivers, all of these emanating from the central Paradise stream.
Basically this is the region of the Fertile Crescent, from Mesopotamia to
Ethiopia.
Palestine
was approximately central to this.
A
mere four chapters later (6, through to 9), this world (Peter’s “world that
then was”) is destroyed by the Flood. It was apparently “the world” that
humankind then inhabited.
Only
one family survived.
(c) that the biblical and
traditional view of Jerusalem as the “centre” can be maintained;
(d) with Golgotha, 'the
place of the Skull', being the very place where Adam was buried;
(e) where man fell, so was
mankind redeemed.
(f) It enables for the archaeology
that has (i) Cain-ite cities, then (ii) the Flood, then (iii) re-building of
those same cities. The Uruk I dynasty that followed the Flood appears to belong
to Cush and his son Nimrod (Enmerkar), as David Rohl has well argued.
(g) the science telling us
that Jerusalem (the site) was once under the ocean can be upheld.
Nor
can (g) above, apparently a geological fact, be accounted for in the
Creationist scheme of things, because (and you put into words their view), “…
the world wide Flood of Noah destroyed all pre-Flood landmarks”. Well, if you
say that, shouldn’t that have included your “peaks of the Himalayan mountains …
2517 foot high Mission Peak, along highway 680 at the edge of Milpitas, CA”,
etc.?
On
the other hand, if one accepts what I believe to be the proper biblical
scenario, then the six miles of sediment below the Genesis riverine system, as
discussed at length by Professor Carol A. Hill (http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%202.pdf),
can have nothing to do with the biblical Flood. Contrary to Creationists, this
sediment was already lying there when the Flood arrived.
Regarding
(f) above (http://www.towerofbabel.com/sections/tome/babelinbiblia/):
changed the speech in their mouths
brought contention into it,
into the speech of man that (until then) had been one. …
[End of quote]
Does
not the Bible tell us that the Ark landed on “the mountains” (plural)?
“Ararat”
(the name only relatively lately given to that high mountain in Turkey – which
has nothing to do with the Bible) surely being the ancient land of Urartu
(modern Kurdistan). And that is where the Assyrians come in again. Sennacherib,
depicted in Urartu on (Mount) Judi Dagh, apparently had access to what remained
of the real Ark, for according to Jewish legend, “A beam of the Ark was found by
Sennacherib, and he made an idol of it” (Sanh. 96a).
I
do not want to get into a major discussion of the Apocalypse here, as our real
concern is the Book of Genesis and the Flood. But I would ask: Does the Bible
actually talk about, as you say,“… when
Christ comes the Second time (as taught throughout the Bible)”?
I,
like you, believe that He will come again, but will it actually be His Second
Coming?
Did
He not solemnly declare, with a guarantee (and that is pretty definitive I
should think coming from a Divine Person):
A
perfect fulfilment of the Mount Olivet Prophecy!
Reply
[Johnny's] finished February 25, 2014
Hello Damien;
God gave man free
choice in choosing Him or not. That `free choice' He will never take away from
us, yet it has happened frequently that man tries to force his views on his
fellows. That need not be. When we disagree, we may do so, because of that free
choice. However, if we choose the world only, instead of God, we must bear the
consequences, for God gives only two ultimate choices, for or against Him.
[Damien. I basically agree.]
Before the Flood
those rivers existed, then the earth and all its pre-Flood features was
destroyed, and after the Flood the Semitic people, those who had the Toledoth
tablets, surveyed the area they lived in, and named rivers by those pre-Flood
names, because it made them feel connected with Adam and perhaps Eden. That is
just an easily understood human reaction, and has no bearing on actual
Pre-Flood Geography for some supposedly still visible in the days of Abraham
and Moses.
[Damien.
No, that is not correct Johnny. While we today cannot know a lot of things
about ancient worlds, we can be grateful to Moses for telling us quite clearly,
in his gloss to Genesis 2:14: “The
name of the third river is Tigris; it is
the one that flows toward the east of Ashur”. Just as he had
obligingly told us, in relation to Abraham’s history, that the Valley of Siddim
had become the Dead Sea. You can ignore that fact as blatantly as you like, to
preserve your own Flood model, but that makes nonsense of this Genesis verse. The
Tigris river of Adam’s day, Noah’s day, ran virtually where it still did in
Moses’s day, and even still does today.]
The river which is
called Euphrates today, did not exist before the Flood, neither did any other
river. Any such assignments are just human opinions.
[Damien.
No, not “just human opinions” at all. It is Biblical fact, as according to my
previous comment.]
The difference is
not the geography, but one's worldview.
[Damien.
Exactly! The Biblical geography is clear. But it has to be denied or
contradicted by those who seek to impose their own global Weltanschauung, ‘worldview’, upon it.]
The fossils are
the record of a worldwide Flood.
[Damien.
There was no “worldwide Flood”. The Biblical Flood was associated with the vast
riverine system of early Genesis, and geologists inform us that it is beneath
that same riverine landscape that one finds miles and miles of sediment.]
If the millions of
years were true, there would be bones sticking out of the ground everywhere.
[Damien.
I personally do not accept “millions of years”.]
The features on
earth definitely show marked evidence of a world-wide Flood independent of
pronouns and the word of God confirms it.
[Damien.
These features definitely show evidence of catastrophisms, but a lot of it was
glacial gouging, according to geologists, not water. The global Flood model is
not only un-Biblical, it is un-scientific, and goes completely against common
sense.]
It seems to me
that the Bible can also be only surface read. When its says,
"the flood
came, and destroyed them all" Luke 17:27, "all", that means all
people, all around on the pre-Flood land mass in our world at that time. It is
not good to minimize the word of God to please a view which makes God look as
if He is not all powerful and today's interpreters are. Not so.
[Damien.
Yes, but that “all” may then have inhabited only that riverine region. I
believe that only one family survived the Noachic Flood – Noah’s.]
Here is a parallel
what happens when God carries out judgments,
"And there
was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the
dragon fought and his angels,
And prevailed not;
neither was their place found any more in heaven." Rev. 12:7,8.
Just like the
places once inhabited by Satan (the dragon) and his fallen angels were not
found anymore in heaven, and just like on earth, the places of the many dead by
wars, are not found anymore, so also the pre-Flood world.
[Damien.
That’s your opinion, but not Moses’s opinion which I would follow, indicating
connectivity between the pre- and post-Flood worlds.]
When we read Jer.
17:12, the glorious sanctuary of God which was once in Jerusalem, is a symbol
for God's sanctuary in heaven. It is always there where God is, as Moses'
experience at the burning bush illustrates.
The word of God
always sees things in a spiritual way, not geographical where Adam was buried,
there must be where Christ was crucified. That is besides the point. The Bible
was given by God, to understand spiritual lessons more so than physical, for by
faith we are saved. When occasional a physical location can be ascertained,
that just may help us to build up our faith, but we ought not to use it to war
against other assertions.
[Damien.
Don’t forget the Incarnation, the Word becoming flesh and dwelling in a humble
stable in lowly Bethlehem. God made man as both a spiritual and a physical
being. I know that you yourself are a keen about the recovery of biblical sites
and about an archaeology that harmonises with the Bible, hence your site The California Institute for Ancient Studies.
But with comments like the above, you remind me instead of a certain type of
pious Jews who would not dream of even considering to look for a physical Mount
Sinai, so exalted and semi-mythical do they regard it. Yahweh obviously had no
such qualms, descending upon a real earthly mountain, Sinai, which I believe to
be Har Karkom in the Paran desert.]
Well, I think the
ark in Turkey is the best that was ever find - sizewise - Josephus says it was
visited as such by people around his time.
[Damien.
It’s not an Ark, Johnny, it’s a rock!]
The beams of the
arch are all decayed, not doubt accelerated because of the post-Flood
temperatures in the ground. Noah was 380 years old when he began to build the
ark. I believe these people were stronger and more skilled than most are today.
We have become devolved since that time, not evolved. We are lesser than they
were.
[Damien.
Not what Jesus says about John the Baptist and those who can be even greater
than the Baptist was.]
Your example of
Matth 16:28, was probably best fulfilled at the transfiguration of Christ in
Matth. 17, when his kingdom of glory was shown to Peter, John and James, as
they saw the early fruits of the resurrection, Moses and Elijah, with Jesus.
[Damien.
No, that would not make sense as the Transfiguration occurred too soon after
Jesus’s comment – that comment being only about “some”, not (virtually) “all” of
those standing there at the time.]
It is not wise to
fight against the true meaning of the word of God who does carry out His
threatenings to completeness. Gen. 7:11, 12.
[Damien.
No, it is not wise at all. So, let the Scriptures interpret themselves for us.
We just make a mess of it when we try to force our own foolish views upon God’s
Book.]
The rain at that
time was not a shower; It means to say that torrents and jet streams of water
came down and blew through the surface for 40 days.
When Jesus comes
again the second time in His Power, that of the Father and all the holy Angels,
we must be ready, for if we are not, we will be destroyed for sin cannot exist
in the presence of God, for His brightness is a consuming fire. On that day
there will no blue sky be visible but only God's angels everywhere.
It may help to
study our once perfectly balanced planet, and what sin did when it affected
God's universe, and especially our earth. That was an earth shaking event to
the very core underneath our feet, more involved than we might think.
Praise the Lord, ought to be our reaction, for He
has thoughts of love and salvation for us, if we only accept His sacrifice for
our sins and no other.
[Damien.
A good thought on which to conclude, Johnny.]
No comments:
Post a Comment