Friday, January 19, 2018

Biblical Foundation of Greco-Roman Myth. Part Three: Including more ancient myths

Oannes

“Bryant tells us of Sesostris building a ship 280 cubits long, dedicated to Osiris at Thebes. This is the most remote inland part of Egypt, where it made no sense to build a ship; thus it was not a ship, but a temple, built in the shape or symbol of a ship. Bryant says it was sacred to Osiris at Theba, or actually was itself called Theba, and the city (Theba) also got its name from the ark. Theba is the Hebrew word for ark used in Genesis”.

Joe Spears

  

Joe Spears appears to have identified successfully, in his 2008 article:
 

Noah and Family: Myth, Legends,

Ancient History and the Bible
 

some further intriguing appropriations by the ancient pagan nations of biblical antediluvian and early post-diluvian stories: http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/content/noah-and-family-myth-legends-ancient-history-and-bible

 

…. In mythology, gods ruled over the realm of men. It thus seems likely that rulers would the ones to be portrayed as gods. This is confirmed in the well-known case of the Egyptian Pharaohs, who were considered at least semidivine.

 

One interesting psychological observation: a person who gained a position of power in the ancient world through war(s) of aggression is a person who may have a desire for power. Indeed, some would say this is blatantly obvious. If this is the case, it is within the realm of possibility that this desire for power might manifest itself in the ruler himself claiming his deity. As an example, some Roman emperors (Caligula, etc.) claimed divinity.

 

Ancestors have been worshiped in different cultures, including cultures in India, Africa, China, Egypt, and others.

 

Powerful and mighty men such as Heracles (Hercules) could be thought to be gods, or accounts of their deeds may have become exaggerated with time to the point that those deeds became superhuman in nature, and thus, the performer of the deeds also became superhuman. In fact, Zeus is described by ancient writer Euhemerus as a mighty warrior, but a man.

 

What about long-lived people? What would someone living in the ancient world think if there was a 500 year old king ruling their country? This king would easily seem immortal. The ancients did believe such people existed—at least, they claimed that they did. Josephus mentions this in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 3, section 9. He also says that other ancient writers also claimed great longevity for some of the ancients – Manetho, Berosus, Mochus, Hestieus, Hieronymus, etc. The Bible also gives accounts of people in ancient times who lived hundreds of years. Some ancient accounts even claim that some kings lived thousands of years.

 

Regardless of how long such people actually lived, the written accounts do mention very long lives in ancient times. Some might say we are gullible for believing these accounts, but whether people really lived that long is not so much the point, as it is that others who lived long ago believed the accounts. We should bear in mind that it is their attitude toward real people that would cause them to deify such people, not the actual age.

 

The people who live a long time might be considered immortal—possessing a god-like quality. One question: wouldn’t everyone at that time also live to the about same age? To understand this question, let’s examine the lifespans of people as found in Genesis.

Before the flood, people—at least the people that Genesis tells us about—lived 800 or 900 plus years. After the flood, there is a gradual decrease in the lifespans of individuals. A plot of this shows an exponential decay in the lifespans. Why would ancient writers make up numbers in such a way as to fit a pattern that would not be described until centuries afterward? Many processes and phenomena in nature exhibit exponential patterns in their behavior. This gradual decrease in lifespan is is seen from one generation to the next. But remember, that the original older ancestors would still be around for many generations. 

 

So, we see a gradual decrease in the lifespan of men after the flood. It seems to level off somewhere near 100 years. It seems that some might think of Noah and others who were extremely long-lived as apparently immortal, and therefore gods. Some might question, why would ancient people say some are gods, since all people had approximately the same lifespan? To explain this, we must realize there would be a mix of people of various lifespans all living at the same time. The long-lived would still be around while their multiple-great-grandchildren would be alive. And the long-lived would be few in number, while the short-lived would be much larger in number. It appears that each succeeding generation had shorter average lifespans than the previous (check the ages given in the Old Testament to see this). So, by the time the ancient ones were really old, there could easily exist a large number of relatively short-lived descendants. This is because the number of people in each succeeding generation would typically get larger, while the lifespan would get smaller.

 

So, there can be many generations during the lifetime of one long-lived ancient member of Noah's family, each succeeding generation making up a proportionately larger part of the population than the preceding generation. Thus, the population could be very large and consist mostly of short-lived people, while a long-lived ancestor still existed. The vast majority could easily view such a one as immortal, or as a god. Thus, within a few hundred years after the flood, assuming the ages given in Genesis to be accurate, there could easily have existed a handful (or a few dozen) extremely long-lived individuals, a minority, among a much larger population of much shorter-lived individuals. To the multitudes, these few long-lived leaders would have seemed immortal and as gods, for not only were these ancients long-lived, but they were the fathers and grandfathers of their societies—recall ancestor worship—but they also were the founders, leaders and rulers of their nations according to ancient documents (recalll the divinity of kings).

 

So, we see a situation with a minority of powerful, longlived rulers. They would have all of the above-listed characteristics that would make people see them as gods. Thus, that Noah and his immediate descendants would be transformed into deities seems reasonable and fits the above reasons for doing it. And we also have the evidence of the myths themselves and ancient writers such as Euhemerus, indicating that Noah and family actually were deified and incorporated into ancient mythology.

 

Noah and the Deluge

 

Bryant wrote: “Among the people of the east the true name of the Patriarch was preserved…Noas, Naus, …Nous…Anaxagoras spoke of him by the name of Noas or Nous. …The disciples of Anaxagoras esteem Nous the same as Prometheus … .”

 

Suidas and Stephanus tell us Annacus or Nannacus lived 300 years, and then the Deluge came which destroyed mankind—he prayed for man and was a king. Annacus, Innachus and Nannacus relate to Noachus and Noah.

 

According to Eusebius, who lived around 300 BC and is known as the father of church history, Inachus would have lived long before the existence of the place he was supposed to have ruled.

 

Greeks combined Dios (god) with Nusus (Noah) as Dio-nusus or Dionysis. The god Dionysis also is connected with Noah. Dionysis is associated with vineyards and taught man to plant the vine; Noah planted a vineyard after the flood (Gen. 9:20).

 

Evidence of Noah in the ancient world is found in place names. Hesychius, who compiled the largest dictionary of ancient Greek words and lived about 500 BC in Alexandria, claimed cities and mountains throughout the world were called Nusean. These places included Arabia, Ethiopia, Egypt, India, Libya, and more.

 

Philo says Deucalion was actually Noah: “The Grecians call the person Deucalion, but the Chaldeans style him Noe; in whose time there happened the great eruption of waters.”

 

Seisithrus was a king, according to Median and Babylonian archives, as described by Adydenus and Eusebius. Quoting from Bryant’s New System,

…the flood began…during the prevalence of the waters Seisithrus sent out birds, that he might judge if the flood had subsided: but that the birds, not finding any resting place, returned to him again. This was repeated three times;…he quitted the ark…1

According to Bryant, Lucian said,

…those of the antediluvian world were all destroyed. The present world is peopled from the sons of Deucalion…from one person…the former brood…were men of violence… lawless…. On this account they were doomed to destruction: and for this purpose there was a mighty eruption of waters from the earth, attended with heavy showers form above…till the whole earth was covered with a flood and all flesh drowned…Deucalion alone was preserved, to re-people the world. This mercy was shown to him on account of his justice and piety. …He put all his family, both his sons and their wives, into a vast ark…animals of every species, boars, horses, lions, serpents, whatever lived upon the face of the earth, followed him by pairs…1

 

Lucian also says Deucalion raised an altar to God after exiting the ark. Note these points in agreement between Lucian’s account and the Genesis account:

 

·         water coming from the earth, not just as rain

·         all today are descendants of the sole survivor

·         the survivor built an altar

·         the survivor was pious and just

·         the world destroyed was evil

·         their evil was the reason for the flood

·         animals were on the ark

·         animals appeared in pairs

 

The Ark

 

Berosus mentions something else in agreement with the Biblical description of the ark. He said the ancient people used scrapings from the ark’s asphalt as charms. The Bible says the ark was sealed or coated inside and out.

 

Theophilus said the ark was visible in his day on the mountains of Armenia. Interestingly, the Bible says the ark landed in the mountains of Ararat. Theophilus’ locations matches the one in Genesis. Chrysostom said the remains of the ark were preserved in the mountains of Armenia in his time.

 

In Egypt the Ship of Isis was called Baris. According to Nicolaus Damascenus, Baris is the name of the mountain on which the ark rested in Armenia. Here we see a connection with Egyptian religion, the mythological personage Isis, and the Ark of Noah.

Bryant tells us of Sesostris building a ship 280 cubits long, dedicated to Osiris at Thebes. This is the most remote inland part of Egypt, where it made no sense to build a ship; thus it was not a ship, but a temple, built in the shape or symbol of a ship. Bryant says it was sacred to Osiris at Theba, or actually was itself called Theba, and the city (Theba) also got its name from the ark. Theba is the Hebrew word for ark used in Genesis. Also, the length, 280 cubits, is almost exactly the length of the ark given in Genesis. In Genesis it is 300 cubits, but different nations had different measures of the cubit, which could account for the discrepancy; and the difference is less than 10 %.

 

Bryant says:

Sesostris was Osiris; the same as Dionusus, Menes, and Noah. He is called Seisithrus by Abydenus, Xixouthrous by Berosus and Apollodorus; and is represented by them as a prince, in whose time the Deluge happened. He was called Zuth, Xuth, and Zeus: and had certainly divine honors paid to him.

The word Zeus, according to Bryant, is associated with making of wine, and Noah is known as the one who taught man to plant vineyards.

 

In several religious mysteries and festivals, an ark or ship is involved. Pausanias tells of an ancient temple in Ionia; the God was on a float, and came that way from Phenicia. Aristides tell us that a ship was carried in a procession at the feast called Dionusia in Smyrna. The name Dionusia is associated with Noah, as we have seen above.

 

Plutarch said, “The vessel in the celestial sphere, which the Greeks call the Argo, is a representation of the Ship of Osiris, which out of reverence has been placed in the heavens.” Therefore, this Greek constellation has its origins in Egypt. There is a star in this constellation, Canopus, which can not be easily seen in Greece (again consistent with the origin of this constellation’s name as somewhere other than Greece). This star is bright, is located on the rudder of the ship in the constellation, and indicates the guiding force. Ptolemy was member of the temple Ca Noubi, and Noubi refers to Noah. Thus it seems that the guiding star of the ship, on the rudder, is named after Noah. In this case, the ship represented by the constellation would obviously be symbolic of the Ark.

 

History Before the Flood

 

The information below is worthwhile and interesting in its own right, but will also be used later in explaining the relationship of the god Dagon to Noah. Berosus wrote of a list of ten kings who lived before the flood. This list is over 2,000 years old, and on that list the tenth king lived both before and after the flood, having survived it. Another list obtained from the Weld Dynastic Prism is about 4,000 years old. These lists, as well as one from Genesis, are summarized in Table 1.

 

Table 1

 Bible
 Berosus
 Weld Dynastic Prism
 Adam
 Alorus
 Alulim
 Seth
 Alaporus
 Alalmar
 Enos
 Amelon
 Enmeniunna
 Cainan
 Ammenon
 Kichunna
 Mahalaleel
 Megalarous
 Emmengalanna
 Jared
 Daonos
 Dumuzi
 Enoch
 Edoranchus
 Sibzianna
 Methuselah
 Amenpsinos
 Emenduranna
 Lamech
 Otiartes
 Uburratum
 Noah
Xisouthros
 Zinsuddu

 

There are some interesting similarities in these lists.

 

The third king on the Berosus list, Amelon, is the Babylonian Amilu, meaning “man.” This corresponds to the Hebrew, Enos, which also means “man.”

Fourth on the Berosus list, Ammenon, is the Babylonian, Ummanu, meaning “artificer” and is the equivalent of Kenan (Cainan) which means “smith.”

Eighth on the Berosus list is Amenpsinos, which is taken to be a corruption of Amilsinus, i.e., Amil-sin, “the man of Sin” (the Moon God). Methuselah, also number 8 on the Biblical list, may be a variation of Mutu-sha-Irkhu, “man of the Moon God,” or if the more original form of the name is Methuselah, “the man of God.”

Seventh on the Berosus list probably refers to Emmeduranki, a legendary king of Sippar, to whom God gave the “table of the gods” and taught the secrets of heaven and earth. Enoch, also number seven on the Biblical list, was supposed to have been close to God and to have become the recipient of superhuman knowledge and revelations of the nature of heaven and earth.

Of course, number 10 on the Berosus list is the one who survived the flood. Here are points of similarity between Xisouthros and Noah:3 

 

 

·         God told them both to build a boat

·         the reason for the boat was a coming flood

·         when water began to subside, both sent out birds

·         the boat landed on/in (a) mountain(s) 

 

Dagon - Oannes

 

There is a god named Dagon. He is often drawn as a merman, or part fish, part man. According to Berosus, he appeared during the reign of the third of the ten kings listed above. Also, Noah was born during the time of the third from Adam, who was alive and possibly reigning as king at the time.

 

Though a god, Dagon learned from this third king, i.e., from a man. This seems strange, for a god to be taught by a man. Yet, it makes perfect sense that Noah would learn, as a child, from one of his ancestors who was still living. This could explain why this account was included, in spite of the fact that it didn’t make sense, simply because the myth of Dagon was based on events that really happened.

 

Both Noah and Dagon lived before and after the flood. Also, both are associated with water—Noah obviously as having built the ship and been on it during the flood, and Dagon as being part fish, part man.

Lastly, Dagon taught man useful information for building a civilization. Noah is not mentioned specifically as doing this, but it makes a lot of sense to assume that he did. After all, he would have been the leader of the entire population of the world. He brought animals with him – wouldn’t he also have brought anything else that might be useful after the flood, such as knowledge? Wouldn’t his children learn from him? These seem reasonable assumptions. That Dagon is supposed to have done these things lends support to the idea that he is based on real events, involving Noah.

 

Conclusion

 

We have seen indications that ancient myths were based on real people. We also have seen evidence that some of these myths are based on characters named in the Bible, such as Noah and his family, but also referred to in many documents. The similarities between Dagon and Noah, between the ten pre-flood kings and the ten generations from Adam to Noah, are just a few of the clues we have examined. These clues indicate the existence of a man named Noah, of a real flood (the stories of Deucalion and others), and other events described in the Bible, all of which support the truth of the Genesis narrative.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

What exactly is Creation Science?


Image result for creation science

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 





 


Part One: Our Western obsession with ‘Science’

  





 

 


“We live in a world dominated by materialism and scientism. The reduction of every aspect of life to “science” has corrupted the soul of Western Civilization. This is one key to understanding the related popularity of both futurism and Creation Science. They are both perfectly compatible with the scientistic spirit of the modern age”.


 

Tim Martin

 


 



 

“The time has come to move beyond Creation Science”, announces Protestant pastor and author Tim Martin in Beyond Creation Science.How many Christian conservatives would have looked at The Genesis Flood [by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris] a little more carefully”, he writes, “if they were aware up front of its Adventist roots?”

 

And Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno (S.J.), quoted as saying that ‘creationism is a kind of paganism’ - though he denies having said that exactly, but something akin to it - has answered this question:

The National Academy of Sciences states that creationism doesn’t belong in the classroom. Do you agree?

With:

“That’s what the Catholic Church has been saying all along. After the law was passed in Kansas [forbidding teaching of evolution in schools], the only place you could learn about evolution was in a Catholic school. Creationism isn’t science; it’s theology. And in fact most religious people aren’t creationists. That’s an incredibly naïve understanding of religion”.


 

Consolmagno’s comments have prompted Michael Fishwick, a writer for the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation - a Catholic lay apostolate promoting creationism - to entitle a response: “Kolbe Center for the Study of Paganism!?”


 

And, to the question:

What is ‘creationism’ anyway?


 

There are different flavors to it. In the U.S. context, if it’s “Do you believe God created the universe?” – I think most Western believers would say yes. But creationists have a creed that the Bible is literally true; Genesis is a blow-by-blow description of what God did at the beginning. That’s not how Genesis was written; it’s a very flawed understanding of how to read the Bible.

It’s also kind of peculiar, because there are three different creation stories [sic?] in the Bible, so which is true?

 

Mackey’s comment: For what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the ancient sources used for the compilation of early Genesis, see my:

 

Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP

 


  

Image result

 

Even more strongly critical than Consolmagno is Tim Martin again (who used to espouse creationism), when he calls Creation Science “a right-wing form of modernism”:

 

We live in a world dominated by materialism and scientism. The reduction of every aspect of life to “science” has corrupted the soul of Western Civilization. This is one key to understanding the related popularity of both futurism and Creation Science. They are both perfectly compatible with the scientistic spirit of the modern age. In fact, dispensational futurism, at least, is impossible apart from it. Christians aid this scientistic syncretism through Creation Science methods of reading Scripture. They do it by reducing even the language of the Bible to the “scientific.”[1]

Viewed in this light it is not difficult to see that Creation Science ideology is a right-wing form of modernism. Conrad Hyers puts it this way:

Even if evolution is only a scientific theory of interpretation posing as scientific fact, as the [young-earth] creationists argue, [young-earth] creationism is only a religious theory of biblical interpretation posing as biblical fact. To add to the problem, it is a religious theory of biblical interpretation which is heavily influenced by modern scientific, historical, and technological concerns. It is, therefore, essentially modernistic even though claiming to be truly conservative.[2]

 

Catholics (those tending to be of the conservative variety) who have followed Creationism over the years would be well aware that mainstream Catholic scholars have shown virtually no interest whatsoever in its teachings, and that official Catholic documents never seem to support Creation Science.

Why might this be so?

Surely Creation Science, teaching a belief in God the Creator of all things, and vehemently defending the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures, ought to be warmly welcomed by the Church as an invaluable ally.

On the other hand, the God-fearing are not always right in their estimations, no matter how sincere, and they may need to be corrected.

Consider Our Lord’s constant corrections of good people along the lines of:

 

‘You have heard it said … but I tell you’

(e.g. Matthew 5:21-22).

 

Some traditions, even those of very long standing, may need some correcting. The conservative friends of Job had to be awoken from their dogmatic slumber and traditional views about the Divine and retribution. So was the case with the Apostles in regard to the blind man (John 9:3).

 

So may it be, likewise, that Creation Science, though a generally sincere and well-intentioned effort to uphold orthodoxy, truth and religion, might have quite missed the mark, leading to chaos, and hence needing to be corrected. That is the view that will be taken here, that it is now time to move beyond Creation Science, as author Tim Martin has said. That does not mean, however, that we accept the criticisms of Brother Guy Consolmagno, who may be associated with Teilhardian-inclined evolutionary-minded colleagues. On père de Chardin, see my:

 

The Sheer Silliness of Teilhard de Chardin

 


 

Nor that we must espouse evolution, see e.g. my:

 

Theory of Evolution Cartoonishly Dumb

 


 

Creation Science has turned upside down the conventional evolutionary theory.

 

Dismantling the ‘scientific’ pillars of Creationism

 

Assuredly, Creation Science is built largely upon the assumption of a global Flood and its geology, but also to some extent upon a so-called ‘science’ of a Six Days of Creation.

As we shall see, the methodology is artificial because the approach is entirely ‘Procrustean’, forcing all the data to conform to the a priori concept. It is exactly like the approach to reality of the highly theoretical physical scientists, many of whom are not believers.

The concept of a global Flood has arisen from the universal language of the Flood narratives as read in translation, without a proper appreciation of the original language, of antiquity, of the Middle East, or of ancient scribal methods.

Geologist professor Carol A. Hill tells of into what sort of a scientific bind the global Flood model places its proponents when she writes (“The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?” http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%201.pdf):

 

Biblical Evidence

 

One of the basic tenants of many biblical literalists (creation scientists) is that Noah’s Flood was a universal phenomenon—that is, flood waters covered the entire planet Earth up to at least the height of Mount Ararat, which is ~17,000 feet (5000 m) in elevation. Corollary to this view is the position held by flood geologists—that most of the Earth’s sedimentary rocks and fossils were deposited during the deluge of Noah as described in Genesis 6–8. To explain this universal flood, flood geologists usually invoke the canopy theory, which hypothesizes that water was held in an immense atmospheric canopy and subterranean deep between the time of Creation and Noah’s Flood. Then, at the time of the Flood, both of these water sources were suddenly released in a deluge of gigantic, Earth-covering proportions. Along with this catastrophic hydrologic activity, there was a major geologic change in the crust of the Earth: modern mountain ranges rose, sea bottoms split open, and continents drifted apart and canyons were cut with amazing speed. All animals and plants died and became encased in flood sediments, and then these fossil-bearing sediments became compacted into sedimentary rock. There are modifications of the canopy scheme, such as the “ice-lens,” “greenhouse,” “invisible,” and “visible”canopies … but essentially the canopy theory claims that waters released during Noah’s Flood caused all (or most) of the sedimentary and geomorphic features we see today on planet Earth.

 

Now, just because we are arguing that Creation Science is not genuine science does not mean that we do not appreciate the great work done by its many contributors over the years, nor do we reject all of its conclusions.

 

It has turned evolutionary geology right on its head.

 

Just as we do not accept many of the conclusions of conventional science, even though we sometimes find that scientists have better interpreted biblical hermeneutics, re Genesis, than have some of the Christians. In the past we have written in regard to this anomalous situation:

 

… there sometimes occurs the ironical – even humorous – situation whereby agnostic scientists will occasionally call for a more enlightened exegetical approach to Genesis than do the upholders of the biblical tradition; whereas the latter will at times arrive at a more accurate interpretation of the scientific data than do their scientific opponents.

 

Professor Hill now tells of the scientific bind for those who uphold a global Flood:





Part Two: Genesis Riverine System

 

This interpretation of the Garden of Eden as existing on a modern landscape presents a major conflict between what the Bible says and what flood geologists say. …. The reason is this: there are six miles of sedimentary rock beneath the Garden of Eden/Persian Gulf. How could Eden, which existed in pre-flood times, be located over six miles of sedimentary rock supposedly deposited during Noah's flood?

Carol A. Hill

 

 
Professor Hill now moves on from the biblical evidence (refer back to discussion in Part One) to tell of the geological evidence (“The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?”) http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%201.pdf
 
Geologic Evidence
 
No geologic evidence whatsoever exists for a universal flood, flood geology, or the canopy theory. Modern geologists, hydrologists, paleontologists, and geophysicists know exactly how the different types of sedimentary rock form, how fossils form and what they represent, and how fast the continents are moving apart (their rates can be measured by satellite). They also know how flood deposits form and the geomorphic consequences of flooding.….
 
Flood Geology. In addition to a lack of any real geological evidence for flood geology, there are also no biblical verses that support this hypothesis. The whole construct of flood geology is based on the original assumption that the Noachian Flood was universal and covered the whole Earth. Since the Flood was supposedly worldwide, then there must be evidence in the geologic record left by it. Since the only massive sediments on Earth are those tied up in sedimentary rocks, and because these rocks often contain fossils, this must be the “all flesh” (Gen. 7:21) record left by Noah’s Flood. And since sedimentary rock can be found on some of the highest peaks in the world (including Everest, the highest), then these mountains must have formed during and after the Flood. The “leaps of logic” build one on top of another until finally, as the result of this cataclysmic event, almost all of the geomorphic and tectonic features present on the planet Earth (e.g., canyons, caves, mountains, continents) are attributed by flood geologists to the Noachian Flood.
 
Does the Bible actually say anything about mountains rising during the Flood? No, but it does say that mountains and hills were in place before the Flood (Gen. 7:19, 8:4). Does the Bible say anything about sedimentary rock, fossils, or drifting continents? Not one word. All of these things are read into the Bible from a centuries-past interpretation of it. Most important from a literalist perspective, it can be shown from the Bible (Gen. 2:10–14; Gen. 6:14) that the four rivers of Eden flowed over, and cut into, sedimentary rock strata; that the pre-Flood landscape was a modern one (similar to the present-day landscape; that is, overlying sedimentary rock); and that the bitumen (pitch) used by Noah to caulk the ark was derived from hydrocarbon-rich sedimentary rock. …. Therefore, sedimentary rock must have existed before the Flood.
 
The Bible itself never claims that all of the sedimentary rock on Earth formed at the time of the Noachian Flood— only flood geologists make this claim.
 
Well and sensibly said.
 
I, like Tim Martin, had once favoured the notion of a global Flood but then had to drop the idea. My own point of departure from this model occurred when I had thought to search for the location of Paradise and had realised that the ancient world of Adam and Eve, the world of Genesis 2, was structured around the four rivers Pishon, Gihon, Tigris and Euphrates; rivers that editor Moses connected with real locations in his own day (e.g. Kush and Ashur) (and still active more than a millennium later, in Sirach’s day, Ecclesiasticus 24:25-27).
In other words, there was a continuity between the antediluvian and post-diluvian worlds, contrary to global floodists, who posit a Flood so massive that no trace whatsoever of the former world could have remained.
 
The biblical evidence for the basic ‘shell’, at least, of the Adamic world still being with us even today has devastating effects for global floodism. This, so well explained by Carol Hill (though I would reject her location for Eden), effectively sounds the death knell to creationist geology, Professor Hill continues:
 
The Garden of Eden: A Modern Landscape
 
In this paper, I try to apply the findings of modern geology to Gen. 2:10-14. I deduce from the evidence that the four rivers of Eden--the Pishon, the Gihon, the Hiddekel [Tigris], and the Euphrates--were real rivers which existed on a modern landscape before Noah's flood. …. Oil-drilling in southern Iraq confirms that six miles of sedimentary rock exist below the biblical site for the Garden of Eden. This same sedimentary rock is the source of bitumen at Hit, a site which may have supplied Noah with pitch for constructing the ark. The question is asked: How could pre-flood Eden have been located over six miles of sedimentary rock supposedly formed during Noah's flood?
….
 
Implications for Flood Geology
 
So far in this paper, I have argued that the Bible locates the Garden of Eden at the confluence of the four rivers of ancient Mesopotamia. The Bible correctly identifies the Pishon River as draining the land of Havilah (Arabia), from whence came gold, bdellium, and onyx stone. The Bible also correctly identifies the Euphrates and Tigris, both of which are modern rivers which drain approximately the same area of Mesopotamia as they did in ancient times. The Gihon …. not positively identified [Mackey’s comment: I do not accept Hill’s location of this river in Iran, it was clearly in Ethiopia, Kush] is probably the Karun (and/or Karkheh), which "encompasses" (winds around) the whole land of Cush (western Iran). Thus, the Bible locates the Garden of Eden …. on a modern landscape similar to that which exists … today.
 
Six Miles of Sedimentary Rock Below Eden
 
This interpretation of the Garden of Eden as existing on a modern landscape presents a major conflict between what the Bible says and what flood geologists say.67 The reason is this: there are six miles of sedimentary rock beneath the Garden of Eden/Persian Gulf. How could Eden, which existed in pre-flood times, be located oversix miles of sedimentary rock supposedly deposited during Noah's flood? What flood geologists are implying is that the Garden of Eden existed on a Precambrian crystalline basement and then Noah's flood came and covered up the Garden of Eden with six miles of sedimentary rock. But this is not what the Bible says. It says that Eden was located where the four rivers confluenced on a modern landscape. It says that the Garden of Eden was located on top ofsix miles of sedimentary rock, and thus this sedimentary rock must have existed in pre-flood times.


[The Bible] says that the Garden of Eden was located on top of six miles
of sedimentary rock, and thus this sedimentary rock must have existed
in pre-flood times.


The fact that six miles of sedimentary rock exist beneath the Persian Gulf area is well known by geologists, since this area has been extensively drilled for oil, down to the Precambrian basement. The fact that the Persian Gulf is located in an area of oil recovery is equally as evident to the layperson who, in 1991, witnessed on television the numerous oil fires set off in Kuwait during the Gulf War. The six miles of sedimentary rock below the Garden of Eden area include Tertiary, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Paleozoic rock up to a depth of about 32,000 feet before the Precambrian basement is encountered.68
….
 
Whilst I would definitely agree with professor Hill and Tim Martin that the biblical Flood was local rather than global, my own view, unlike theirs, is that it was not confined just to the region of Mesopotamia, where Hill has the confluence of the four Genesis rivers (in the Persian Gulf), but that it extended right through at least the Fertile Crescent, from Mesopotamia, through Palestine, to Egypt/Ethiopia– where we believe the Gihon river ran.
According to Hill, this could not have been the case, because the Flood did not reach even unto Jericho (let alone Egypt and Ethiopia). Thus she writes (The Noachian Flood):
 
Archaeological Evidence
 
There is also no archaeological evidence for a universal flood. No flood deposits correlative with those in Mesopotamia have been found in Egypt, Syria, or Palestine, let alone in other parts of the world more distant from the Middle East. Archaeological mounds in Syria and Palestine (such as Jericho), which exhibit fairly continuous occupation since at least 4500 BC, show no signs of a great flood. ….
 
That the Flood did not extend even to the land of Israel is alluded to in Ezek. 22:24: “a land [Israel] … nor rained upon in the day of indignation [day of God’s judgment by the Flood].” ….
 
How Local Was the Local Flood?
 
Is she right here? And, if the biblical Flood was not global, then how far did it extend?
Professor Hill has optimistically made Ezekiel 22:24 above indicate that the Noachic Flood did not extend even to the land of Israel. Whether it did or not, the prophet Ezekiel in this passage is saying nothing of the sort. Far from the prophet’s words being meant to be a blessing, insofar as Israel was saved from a catastrophe, Ezekiel is foretelling (like Amos and others) that the blessing of rain will be withheld from Israel “in the day of indignation”, because of its sin; this being a terrible blow to an agricultural people.
 
Image result
 
Now it is my conviction that the Flood extended right across the entire Fertile Crescent, the world of the four rivers of Genesis 2. This is the only world that the Bible has given us up to Genesis 6-8, and so it must be “the world that then was” of St. Peter (2 Peter 3:6), that was destroyed by the Flood. So my own local model is far vaster than are the typical local models. How else to explain 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 … 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 metres above sea level, must have been beneath the ocean at some time in the past.
 
And so apparently was the entire Giza plateau in Egypt once under Flood according to the following: http://www.gizaforhumanity.org/report-from-mr-sherif-el-morsi/
 
Report from Mr Sherif El Morsi
 

Preface

 
…. for the last 20 years now I have also been collecting evidence of sea erosion due to deep water saturation on the Giza plateau. My own theory (already published in France in 2007) is that the last Great Flood … came up the Giza plateau, and that the Ancient Egyptians with their incomparable skills adapted the plateau from the beginning in order to protect their population and their science beneath it....
 
This is not surprising when one considers the enormity in size of the ancient Nile (‘Ur Nil’), as told by C. Pellegrino (Return to Sodom and Gomorrah, Bard, 1998, p. 47):
 
Under the Nile itself are remnants of a deep valley to rival the Grand Canyon. River silts began covering it up as soon as the Gibraltar dam broke open and the Atlantic spilled in, but oil geologists drilling through thousands of feet of mud have located the solid bedrock of the Nile Canyon’s floor. It lies nearly two miles beneath the city of Cairo.
For a brief time, for perhaps two or three thousand years [sic] …the [ancient] Nile poured over a cliff forty times higher than Niagara, but within a half million years [sic], at a rate of inches per day, it had chewed back the bare limestone, slashing the Earth from Cairo to Aswan. The river ran east of Karnak in those days; the slash bypassed Karnak’s limestone fields, left them intact for stonecutting beings, who were then only a distant potential in dryopithecine descent.
 
Pellegrino’s reference to “the Gibraltar dam [breaking] open and the Atlantic spill[ing] in” refers to the very same incident that caused the Black Sea Flood that William Ryan and Walter Pitman have equated with the biblical Flood, though dating it to c. 5600 BC (Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998).
 
Now it is most interesting (particularly for Catholic readers) that German mystic Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich has focussed upon the Black Sea region as being one of the hotspots of evil at the time of the Flood. As I wrote on this previously:
 
Interestingly, with regard to [the] correlation of the Black Sea Flood with the Genesis one (despite the supposed significant time difference) … Catherine Emmerich had claimed that very wicked people had lived in the Black Sea region prior to the Flood and were there destroyed by it. Here is part of her fascinating account of it:
 
One of Cain's descendants was Thubalcain [Tubal-cain], the origina­tor of numerous arts, and the father of the giants. I have frequently seen that, when the angels fell, a certain num­ber had a moment of repentance and did not in conse­quence fall as low as the others. Later on, these fallen spirits took up their abode on a high, desolate, and wholly inaccessible mountain whose site at the time of the Deluge became a sea, the Black Sea, I think. They were permitted to exercise their evil influence upon men in proportion as the latter strayed further from God. ….
I saw Cain's descendants becoming more and more god­less and sensual. They settled further and further up that mountain ridge where were the fallen spirits. Those spirits took possession of many of the women, ruled them completely, and taught them all sorts of seductive arts. Their children were very large. They possessed a quickness, an aptitude for everything, and they gave themselves up en­tirely to the wicked spirits as their instruments. And so arose on this mountain and spread far around, a wicked race which by violence and seduction sought to entangle Seth's posterity likewise in their own corrupt ways. Then God declared to Noe [Noah] His intention to send the Deluge. During the building of the ark, Noe had to suffer terribly from those people. ….
 
So the Black Sea region will definitely need to be included in our antediluvian geography.
 
What about the Universal Language of the Flood Narratives?
 
Both Professor Hill and Timothy Martin have discussed this issue in detail. as have we in our:
According to Hill (The Noachian Flood):
 
Universal Language of Gen. 6–8
 
The best argument, biblically speaking, for a worldwide flood is the “universal” language used in Gen. 6–8, and this is no doubt the main reason why people in centuries past have believed that Genesis was talking about the planet Earth, and why this traditional interpretation has continued to the present day.
In Gen. 6–8, “earth” (eretz or adâmâh) is used forty-two times, “all” (kol or kowl) is used twenty times, “every” (also kowl in Hebrew) is used twenty-three times, and “under heaven” (literally, “under the sky”) …. is used two times.
Earth. The Hebrew for “earth” used in Gen. 6–8 (and in Gen. 2:5–6) is eretz (‘erets) or adâmâh, both of which terms literally mean “earth, ground, land, dirt, soil, or country.” …. In no way can “earth” be taken to mean the planet Earth, as in Noah’s time and place, people (including the Genesis writer …) had no concept of Earth as a planet and thus had no word for it. …. The biblical account must be interpreted within the narrow limit of what was known about the world in that time, … not what is known about the world today. Biblical context also makes it clear that “earth” does not necessarily mean the whole Earth. For example, the face of the ground, as used in Gen. 7:23 and Gen. 8:8 in place of “earth,” does not imply the planet Earth. “Land” is a better translation than “earth” for the Hebrew eretz because it extends to the “face of the ground” we can see around us; that is, what is within our horizon….. It also can refer to a specific stretch of land in a local geographic or political sense. For example, when Zech. 5:6 says “all the earth,” it is literally talking about Palestine—a tract of land or country, not the whole planet Earth. …. The clincher to the word “earth” meaning ground or land (and not the planet Earth) is Gen. 1:10: God called the dry land earth (eretz). If God defined “earth” as “dry land,” then so should we. ….
 
The great Pentecost event as recorded in Acts 2 of the New Testament provides us with a wonderful example of how differently the ancient Middle Eastern scribes thought by comparison with today’s logical Western man. “Every nation under heaven” is said to have been assembled in Jerusalem to hear the Apostles from Galilee proclaiming the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, in this thrilling bouleversement of the Babel incident.
All of these foreigners could understand the Apostles despite their differences in language. Universal language is used here, as in the Flood narratives. Taken on its own, we would expect “every nation under heaven” to include antipodeans as well, and peoples of deepest Africa and the Americas, and South East Asia, and Australia.
But that is not what the text tells us:
 
5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked:“Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”
 
Here are mentioned only such nations as fall largely within my geography of the world of Adam and Noah, and not of the vast global world that we know today. And yet the author of Acts 2 can consider this as representing “every nation under heaven”. We would not say that today. This fact alone should perhaps jolt proponents of Creation Science out of their customary tendency to read the Bible in a surface fashion, in translation, employing a modern mentality that approaches the Bible with an a priori agenda.
 
If the Flood Was Local, Why Did Not Noah Go Elsewhere?
 
In previous articles I have suggested that, with the distinctive topography and formation of the antediluvian world, perhaps also encircled by the Tethys Sea (for which there is apparently scientific evidence) - the “Oceanus” (Okeanos) of the ancients - it was impossible for Noah and his family to have gone elsewhere.
 
The Ark was the only refuge to salvation.
 
But Tim Martin, who, like professor Hill, has embraced a much more limited Flood model - with people who were not even on the Ark, and living elsewhere, also surviving (and both writers rejecting a ‘young earth’ view of things) - offers an argument that has Noah entering the Ark out of theological necessity:
 
Why would God need to tell Noah to build an ark when Noah could have walked out of the region affected by the flood? Rather than presenting a problem for the regional flood view, this question exposes how Creation Science’s plain literal priority in reading the account entirely misses the biblical emphasis of the account. God planned the events to picture salvation by grace through faith. There is a spiritual need for the ark, because the ark is a picture of Christ in the midst of God’s judgment. What Creation Scientists often miss in their zeal to defend a plain literal reading is the story of Noah’s ark is not about the geological history of planet earth. It is about the gospel of Jesus Christ.
 
In God’s plan it was important, as a picture of Christ, that Noah enter the ark as an “incarnation” of the gospel, resting in Jesus Christ for salvation. Noah was figuratively “in Christ” while he was “in the ark.” God has a plan whenever he gives his servant a mission, whether it is Noah, Abraham, Ezekiel, or Hosea. Any speculation that wanders from the redemptive purposes of God has lost touch with the biblical emphasis. Once we understand the redemptive purpose God has revealed, the answer to this question is clear. To tell Noah to hike over there where he would be safe from God’s judgment is to teach that man must get up and save himself by his own two feet. We ought to focus on the example of faithful obedience Noah sets rather than speculate on how God would have acted if the flood had been a localized event.
 
My own view, by contrast, is that, whilst Lot was told by angels to flee Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:15) because he could, Noah was told to build an Ark because there would be no other place of escape for him.
 
But, to conclude positively on Creation Science, I turn once again to Tim Martin (op. cit., pp. 66-67):
 
The Creation Science movement was a result of sincere Christians desiring to defend the credibility of the Bible in the face of modern skepticism and unbelief. That motive is one that should be evident in all Christians who name Jesus Christ as Lord of all and wish to see the Kingdom of God expand in our day. The problem in this case is not the sincerity or spiritual goals of those within the movement. Nor is the problem their dedication to the cause. The problem is that the movement has backfired on its proponents.
Reading the Bible according to the methods of Creation Science ideology will convince those who read the Bible carefully of the fallibility of the Bible. It leads logical people to unbelief and ultimately to atheism.
 
And, on the Six Days of Genesis 1, which is not basically a scientific account of Creation, Martin has this to say (pp. 122-):
 
The creation of the universe is obviously a historical event, as is the creation of Adam and Eve. They are real, historical humans who were created innocent, yet they sinned and broke the covenant relationship between God and man. While this is perfectly compatible with apocalyptic, it is equally clear that a plain, historical record is simply not the purpose of the creation account. That it all happened according to the wisdom and benevolence of God is the point. How it all happened in scientific detail and physical phenomena is not in the priority of apocalyptic communication … Put simply, the apocalypse of creation is about worship and covenant relationship, not science. Understood this way, it is just as relevant to God’s people today as it was in Moses’ day as Israel was leaving Egypt with all its pantheistic idolatry of the creation … We are so used to reading Genesis in terms of the intramural origins debate among Christians or the creation-evolution debate that we have totally missed the reality that the apocalypse of creation is a powerful unveiling of the meaning, essence and goal of covenant life between God and man … Christians desperately need to change their focus from the supposed scientific implications of creation and instead feed off the apocalyptic vision of creation which demands covenant faithfulness in all aspects of life and dimension of God’s world.

According to my article:
 
World's First Book? Genesis 1:1-2:4
 
 
the account of the Six Days of Genesis was composed in ancient book (i.e. a series of tablets) format. I fully accept the view of Sts. Augustine, Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas that the Six Days is, not essentially a narrative of God’s work of creation, but rather a revelation of that work already effected.
And, as Martin rightly observes, the document is about worship and covenant relationship, not science.
 
A Concluding Note
 
The problem with the imposition upon the Bible of a sophisticated but unscientific ‘science’, as is done by Creationism, is that genuine scientists will be put off the Bible altogether, not wanting to believe a book that supposedly demands conformity to a pseudo science. Scientists and sceptics laugh loudly at the notion of an ancient Ark filled with all of the world’s animals (perhaps even including dinosaurs), and riding out a global Flood. And so they should. Whilst this can be hurtful to many conservative Bible believers, it is in fact a nonsensical exegesis that needs to be discarded.
Therefore I must agree with Tim Martin that “the time has come to move beyond Creation Science”.
Part Three:
U.S. Creationists not happy with my Genesis model

 
The only way Genesis 7:19-20 could be accomplished is by a worldwide deluge, not to mention that the same fossils that are found in the Mesopotamian region are found in the Americas, Australia and the Far East”.
 
 
A colleague from Missouri wrote:

Hi, Damien -

Not all your readers find very persuasive your case against a global Flood.
Here are a few thoughts from two American Catholic creationists. ….

….
 
Here's my take:

RS: The Greek of Acts 2:5 means, of the nations that had Jews living in them, all of them were gathered in Jerusalem. It is not including any region of Earth that did not contain Jews. So this context is not the same as Genesis 6-9.
Mackey will need to prove that the expression “all the earth” cannot apply to the whole earth. He will not be able to do so since the Bible uses such expressions in both local and global ways.
More significant is 2 Peter 3:5, which compares the earth completely covered by water at the creation in Genesis 1:1-2 with the flood of Noah’s day that will once again cover the Earth completely with water. The Greek di means “between,” and thus tells us that the Earth was surrounded by water (i.e., water covered the entire spherical circumference). Since creation is global, so is the flood.
It then compares the judgment by fire of the whole earth with the judgment of the whole earth in Noah’s day. Since the fire is global, so is the flood
There is no suggestion that an of these three events: (1) creation water over the earth, (2) judgment fire on the earth at the last day, (3) Noah’s flood, are merely local events.
Genesis 7:19-20 says that the water rose 15 cubits higher than the highest mountain, which is about 300 feet. Whatever the height of the highest mountain, the laws of physics say that water seeks the lowest point and assumes the shape of its container. Water could never reach a height of 300 feet over a mountain locally, since the water would always seek a lower point somewhere on the earth, no matter how far it extended. The only way Genesis 7:19-20 could be accomplished is by a worldwide deluge, not to mention that the same fossils that are found in the Mesopotamian region are found in the Americas, Australia and the Far East.
The proposition that the Garden of Eden was sitting on sedimentary rocks has no evidence to support it. Genesis doesn’t hint to such a circumstance. The only mention of rare earths or elements is Gen 2:12 (gold, bdellium, onyx stone), but these are speaking of what is there as of the writing of Genesis by Moses, not necessarily what was there in the time of the Garden of Eden. Even if they were existing during the time of Eden, gold is a naturally occurring element, not a sediment. Bdellium is the product of tree. The only possibility of something built by layers is the onyx, but that is a quick crystallization process, not a sedimentary process.
The other instance is the use of bronze and iron at the time of Gen 4:22, but these are either naturally occurring elements or forged mixtures of elements, not sediments.
As for the four rivers, flood waters would not necessarily erase the elongated earthen cavity that holds river water. In fact, the exceeding pressure from water that is a mile or two high (as in our oceans) preserves rather than destroys. Once the mile or two of water is removed, the cavity that held the river remains. The only way the cavity would not be present after a flood is if the flood waters were in great turbulence and literally broke up the cavity, but that requires proof of some great turbulence, not assumption.
....
And
 
In a message dated 2/23/2013 8:45:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time .... :
....
I don't know how Damien can argue that he is able to interpret Genesis better than ALL of the Fathers of the Church, especially since the geological evidence fits perfectly well with a global Flood and a post-Flood Ice Age. It seems extremely arrogant to think that the Fathers were incapable of interpreting the Scriptures that refer to the Flood correctly and that we needed the speculations of anti-Catholic scientists like Darwin and Lyell to interpret them aright! ....
 
For more recent reading on all of this, see my:
 
The Bible Illuminates History & Philosophy. Part One: From Creation to the Flood