John R. Salverda On Textual Links Between Noah and Jonah Stories

 

 

Your recent entries to the site "Jonah the Prophet"
(http://bookofjonah-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/textual-links-between-book-of-jonah-and.html)
have prompted this comment from me.

I too have noticed striking similarities of textual matter and style between the Scriptural stories of Noah and Jonah, and have done a bit of research in this area. You may like to refer to the Concordia Seminary of St. Louis website ( <http://seminary.csl.edu/facultypubs/TheologyandPractice/tabid/87/ctl/Details/mid/494/ItemID/40/Default.aspx> ) where the following is noted;

“Another example demonstrating that the narrator of Jonah employs earlier texts – while also subtly changing them – is his use of the Noah cycle.　　　 In a broader stroke Eric Hesse and Isaac Kikawada believe that there are numerous connections between Jonah and Genesis 1-11,　 but what follows is a representative list of phrases, characters, and images from Genesis 5:28 10:32 that find resonance within the narrative of Jonah.　 First, “one hundred twenty years” (Gen 6:3) – this is the length of time allotted by Yahweh to human life; it is also how many thousands of people are in Nineveh at the narrative’s end (4:11).　 Second, “the evil of humankind” (Gen 6:5) – this is what Yahweh observes on the face of the earth; it is also what has come to his attention with respect to the Ninevites in Jonah 1:2 (“for their evil has come up before me”).　 Third, Yahweh changes his mind (Gen 6:6) concerning his very good creation (Gen. 1:31) and wants to destroy it.　 Yahweh’s change of mind is what the Ninevites bank on in Jonah 3:9 (“who knows, God may turn and change his mind …”).　 This is exactly what God does in 3:10; in 4:2 Jonah states that it is Yahweh’s nature to do this.　 The fourth connection between Noah and Jonah is the phrase “... people together with animals” (Gen 6:7). This phrase – or something very similar to it – occurs throughout the Noah narrative (e.g. Gen. 7:23); the book of Jonah is remarkable for its very deliberate inclusion of animals along with people, both in how the Ninevites and their animals repent (3:7-9) and in how God presents his final question to Jonah (4:10-11).　　 Fifth, violence (Gen 6:11) is the reason given for God's decision to destroy the earth and its inhabitants by means of the Flood; it is also the sin that the Ninevites recognize as their own, and repent of (3:8).　 Sixth, “forty days and forty nights” (Gen 7:4) is the period of time that the rains last, destroying all human and animal life that is not with Noah in the ark.　 Similarly, this is the amount of time from the moment of Jonah's prophecy until Nineveh is to be “turned upside down” (3:4).　 This association of “forty days” as a period of testing with the result of a new beginning is a link to these two stories.　　 The seventh connection is　 the phrase “and God made a wind blow” (Gen 8:1).　 Through the Flood narrative Yahweh actively controls individual winds for specific purposes; for example in Gen. 8:1 he manages the wind to cause the flood waters to subside.　 In Jonah, Yahweh hurls a wind into the sea to create a storm (1:4) and, later, sends a searing wind from the east that adds to Jonah's misery (4:8).　　 Eighth, the statement “… nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done" (Gen 8:21) is the eternal pledge that Yahweh makes to Noah, his family, and to all living creatures after the Flood. This pledge is, to a great extent, the motivation behind Jonah's refusal to be Yahweh’s prophet to Nineveh as he knows that this God has voluntarily given up total destruction (at least by Flood) as a means for dealing with the habitually violent (4:2).　 The final example of intertextual echoes from Noah to Jonah is　 Yahweh’s promise, “I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature ... my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh” (Gen. 9:9a, 10a).　 In this covenant Yahweh specifically includes not only humankind but also animals, domestic and wild.　 This means that the umbrella of this covenant is extended to non Israelite humans (the Ninevites) as well as their animals, whose donning of sackcloth and bleating perhaps serve to remind Yahweh of this promise (3:7-9).”　
There is more, but you get the idea (I would urge anyone interested in this area of research to visit the Concordia website and read the entire article where there are some intriguing connections between Elijah and Jonah as well).
I have been using this line of reasoning to explain certain obvious references to the story of Noah in the Greek myth of Jason (possibly a shibboleth of the Greek version of the name of Jonah, “Jonas”) and the Argonauts (It must furthermore be admitted that there are also several references to the story of Eden, Abraham, and the Exodus in the tale.). Such Noahic references include the release of a dove by the captain of the Argo in order to determine whether it is safe to proceed (the dove also figures in the story of Jonah in that the name “Jonah” means “dove.”). Also the name of the ship itself “the Argo” is plausibly somehow related to the “name” of Noah’s ship the Ark. Jason’s Argonauts are often represented to as “Minyans” and the story “Argonautica” is called by the Greek mythographers “the Minyan tale.” The "Minni," named in connection with Ararat, by Jeremiah (from Jeremiah 51:27), are the same People as those mentioned by Josephus (quoting Nicolaus of Damascus), who uses the Greek form "Minyas," (Antiquities i. I. 6,) to indicate a place in Armenia, the country where Noah’s Ark landed (The idea being that the Minyans, connected with the Argonautica, certainly would have been aware of the story of Noah‘s Ark.). In fact, the general destination of the Agro, Colchis, could easily be considered as a subdivision of the land of Ararat (Urartu) where the Ark landed. Lastly there is the main theme of the Book of Jonah, namely that the God of Jonah is the God, not only of the Israelites but of the whole world. Similarly the occupants of the Ark are the ancestors of all of mankind and the religion and laws that were propagated by Noah are universally applicable. The Jewish Legends by Ginzberg relate the notion that the companion sailors of Jonah were representatives from every nation on Earth and the “cargo” that they carried (and jettisoned to lighten the load) was actually each one’s particular idol. Likewise the companions of Jason were the “heroes” from each of the city-states of Greece and the purpose of the tale was to join them all in the same religious quest.

-John R. Salverda



Melchizedech Was Shem Son of Noah, Not An 'Enlightened Pagan'

 

 



Bible Critics Can Overstate Idea Of ‘Enlightened Pagan’

by

Damien F. Mackey

“Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22)

“I will arouse your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece” (Zechariah 9:13)

PART ONE

Here it will be argued that - contrary to what is often believed about the following biblical characters - none of these can really accurately be designated as an‘enlightened pagan’:

1.MELCHIZEDEK

2.RAHAB (in genealogy of David and Jesus)

3.RUTH

4.ACHIOR (in my Catholic Bible, Book of Judith)

5.JOB

6.(Probably also) the Magi.

Let us consider why.

1.MELCHIZEDEK was not an enlightened Canaanite priest-king. Melchizedek was the great Shem, son of Noah. This is apparently a Jewish tradition and I have long accepted it. Now, this is all explained very well in a recent article that I have posted at: http://amaic-abraham.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/melchizedek-was-shem-son-of-noah.html

Regarding 2, 3 and 4, for Rahab (as specified above), Ruth and Achior to have been former Gentile pagans, Canaanite in the first case (2.) and Moabites in the other two instances (3. and 4.), then this would have meant a serious flouting of Mosaic law and prohibitions: Deuteronomy 7 in the case of Rahab (see article posted at: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-genealogical-rachab-was-not.html), and Deuteronomy 23:3 for the presumed Moabites (see article posted at: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/ruth-was-israelite.html).

2.RAHAB. The Canaanite harlot, Rahab, whose ‘faith’both Paul (Hebrews 11:31) and James (2:25) praised incidentally (like Jesus with the Roman centurion, Luke 7:1-10), was not she who became the ancestress of David and Jesus, despite what is universally taught. The true situation, as well explained in the above-mentioned “Rachab” article, is that Rahab the harlot is to be distinguished from the Israelite woman, Rachab (note different spelling), whose name is to be found in the Davidic genealogical list.

3.RUTH. I have long believed, too, that Ruth of the Judges era could not plausibly have been a Moabitess for reasons already explained (Deuteronomy 23:3), but considered especially in my extensive research on the identity of Achior, presumably a Moabite, in the Book of Judith (see 4. next). I discussed Achior at length in Volume Two of my university thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (accessible at: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973). Whilst Ruth, a woman, apparently gets away with it, Achior, a male, does not (see 4. next). Then necessity of Ruth’s being an Israelite is well argued in the above-mentioned “Ruth” article.

4.ACHIOR. I argued at length in the above-mentioned university thesis that Achior was not a Moabite at all but a Naphtalian Israelite. He was Ahikar (var. Achior, Vulgate), the nephew of Tobit (Book of Tobit 1:22). The mistaken notion that Achior was a Moabite leader is perhaps the primary reason why the Jews have not accepted the Book of Judith as part of the scriptural canon. I live in the hope that this can one day be rectified.

5.JOB I have firmly identified as Tobit’s very son, Tobias. See our site, “Holy Job Was An Israelite”, http://bookofjob-amaic.blogspot.com.au/ Thus the righteous Job was, not an enlightened Edomite (and not an Arabian sheikh), but a sage of Israel.

6.THE MAGI. There is some tradition that has them descending from the family of Job. I would suspect that the “east” in which the Magi dwelt was, not Persia by any means, but the same approximate “east”wherein Job dwelt, in the land of Uz, in Transjordanian Bashan. See our Jobian articles at site, “Holy Job Was An Israelite”.

PART TWO

Our {AMAIC} appreciation of the cultural, sapiential and spiritual supremacy of the holy people of Israel (the sincere Yahwists) has led to further important Israelitic identifications of certain famous historical characters (even dynasties), such as:

-the gifted Senenmut (Senmut) of 18^th dynasty Egyptian history, consort of Hatshepsut, with King Solomon. See our site: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/ Hatshepsut herself rightly being identified by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I) with the biblical Queen [of] Sheba. See our site: http://hatshepsut-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

-King Hammurabi the Lawgiver as King Solomon again, this time in his guise as ruler of Babylon. See our site: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/

And, selectively following Dr. E. Metzler, “Conflict of Laws in the Israelite Dynasty of Egypt” (http://moziani.tripod.com/dynasty/ammm_2_1.htm), I have accepted his identification of Egypt’s 18^th dynasty as Israelite, with the mighty Thutmoside pharaohs as Davidide.

The El Amarna dynasty was, I believe, a Baalistic Israelite resurgence under King Ahab (Akhnaton) and his wicked Phoenician wife, Queen Nefertiti (Jezebel). See e.g. our: http://queennefertiti-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

General Jehu is the ambiguous Horemheb, making the 19^th dynasty that he (Horemheb) initiated, as Syro-(Israelite?).

And I further suspect that Egypt’s 20^th dynasty was Judaean again, with pharaoh Ramses III as the mighty King Amaziah of Judah. See our: http://ramsesiii-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

To conclude

Whilst there are indeed to be found in the Scriptures some highly ‘enlightened pagans’or Gentiles of ‘faith’, such as Rahab the harlot and the Roman centurion, the Old Testament ones at least would not have been allowed into the Yahwistic fold according to the very strict Laws of Moses.

Textual Links Between Book of Jonah and Genesis Account of Flood




Reading the Rainbow
 

Rachel Muers
University of Cambridge

The striking textual links between the book of Jonah and the Genesis account of the Flood, noted by the Cambridge Biblical Reasoning group, call for further reflection on the relationship between the stories. Jonah is after Noah; but he, like his reader, is turned back to reread the story of Noah and ask what it means for those who identify themselves as "children of Abraham".

The covenant with Noah is a covenant with "all flesh", and it centres on a change in God's heart (Genesis 8:21). From this point onwards, God has determined Godself for patience with, and faithfulness to, everything living – a covenant whose scope is unimaginable, taking in as it does not only "all generations" of humanity but the vast numbers of living creatures. The rainbow, the very first sign God makes, is established to remind God of this covenant (Genesis 9:15). God declares how it is to be read by other readers – as a sign for God of God's own faithfulness to "every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth". God is, in this story, a reader of signs who draws others into the process of reading.

In the book of Jonah, I suggest, we see God teaching Jonah to read the signs of God's faithfulness and steadfast love, as God reads them. The point is not the continuing need of humanity to be reminded that God is faithful and "abounding in steadfast love" - Jonah knows that already (Jonah 4:2) – but rather the need to learn to read the signs of God's faithfulness. The natural world in the book of Jonah is full of signs of God's faithfulness to "all flesh" - the fish that "the LORD appointed", the bush, the people and animals in Nineveh – which are repeatedly misread by Jonah.

What explains the tension between Jonah's acknowledgement that the LORD "made the sea and the dry land" and his seemingly futile attempt to flee from God by going to sea? Perhaps it can be explored in terms of the tension between an assertion of God's "global" concern and the practices of exclusion that such an assertion can often mask. It is one thing to say "God has made a covenant with all flesh" and another to say "God has made a covenant with both me and my enemy". The former requires no new readings, the latter only comes about when one is taught by God to read the signs. Jonah learns to read the fish, the bush, and finally Nineveh itself. We might see this as part of the ongoing encounter between God and all the children of Abraham through which they, as (also) children of Noah, learn to "read the rainbow".

The "reading" of the rainbow (and it must be noted here that the rainbow itself is not a "word" of God, not quite the same as a text; davar does not appear in Genesis until chapter 11) occurs in connection with the reading of texts that convey and interpret the divine sign. Noah is silent until after the flood and the declaration of God's covenant.[i] After Noah, people enter conversation with one another and with God. The very fact that Jonah can call on God (for the first time in this story, although the sailors have addressed God already!) from the belly of the fish serves as a reminder that his life is located in the aftermath of the covenant with Noah, in the time in which the natural and human worlds are full of signs.

Jonah, then, knows that God is "slow to anger and abiding in steadfast love" because he is of the people within which that particular naming of God by Godself is recorded and reflected on – because he is, as he says, a Hebrew (1:9). Being a child of Abraham as well as a child of Noah means, perhaps, not only being taught to read the rainbow, each time in each particular situation, but being taught how to read the rainbow. The readers of these texts are made into "readers of the rainbow" by being given a further set of signs – signs that bring them into practices and ways of relating appropriate to readers of the sign of God's faithfulness.

Also remembered in the book of Jonah, however, is the threat of destruction – without which the contexts in which the divine promise of faithfulness is relearnt make no sense. The waters that Jonah enters do not destroy him; and his liturgy from the depths points back to a puzzle in the story of Noah. God's words in Genesis 8:21 suggest that God has destroyed "all flesh", this once and never again; so what is the status of Noah and those with him, with whom the covenant is made? (There is an interesting comparison with Jonah's declaration that he speaks from "the land whose bars closed upon me for ever", 2:6 – how would it really be possible to speak from this place?). A deep question seems to remain about the nature of the resolve God makes – compounded by the close association between that resolve and God's recognition of the "evil intention" of the human heart. The rainbow is obviously an "open sign", perhaps the open sign that opens all the divine signs; less obviously, it seems at the same time to be a sign of something hidden.

As the Christian scriptures reread the story of Noah, these tensions in interpretation, far from being resolved, become even more apparent – together with words concerning the "one greater than Jonah", who is also greater than Noah. 1 Peter 3:18ff. speaks of God's patience before the flood, "during the building of the ark", hence for the sake of the salvation of the few. On one reading of this passage, what is spoken of here in connection with Christ is a repetition of that patience, which consigns those outside (that is, outside the group reading this letter and owning these words) to the deluge. That is the repetition of divine patience that Jonah seems to seek, or assume God seeks. For Jonah, God will wait until the right time to destroy those excluded from God's future – that must be either Jonah or the Ninevites.

However, Jonah's story takes a different turn, and 1 Peter 3:18ff. takes a very different turn. Christ's preaching is to "the spirits in prison, who were disobedient during the days of Noah". Part of the point about Noah's story, it seems, is that it cannot be repeated; God has sworn never again to destroy all flesh. Its "non-repetition" in the book of Jonah is directed at the relearning, within the order established by the covenant with Noah, of the scope of God's faithfulness. Its non-repetition in 1 Peter seems to be about a further reinterpretation even of the "change in God's heart" – somehow to include the "spirits in prison".

A discussion of this latter point would lie outside the scope of this article; but this whole consideration of Jonah raises an important question for the exercise of scriptural reasoning itself. If Jonah, this figure of the "Abrahamic" scriptures, only makes sense in the context of the covenant with Noah, what is the relationship between Abraham and Noah? What would it mean for the children of Abraham to understand themselves as also children of Noah?

---

[i] See on this Andre Neher, L’exil de la parole. It is noteworthy, however, that the Qu’ranic account of Noah focuses on his preaching before the deluge (Surah 71), and that rabbinic commentaries describe him praying in the ark.

Title Page | Archive

....

Taken from: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/ssr/issues/volume3/number1/ssr03-01-e04.html

Jonah and the Story of Noah

 



Sign of Jonah: Aide Memoire of Cambridge Society for Biblical Reasoning (CSBR)

Rachel Muers,
from a meeting held on 11^th February 2002.
Present were Jon Cooley, David Ford, Dan Hardy, Jason Lam, Rachel Muers, Chad Pecknold.
At this first meeting of the CSBR, it was suggested and agreed that one participant should prepare an "aide memoire" summarising the discussion. The "aide memoire" is then circulated for comment and for participants' records. The two articles that follow it are, respectively, a further commentary on one issue raised in the aide memoire; and a response to the discussion, the aide memoire and the further commentary.

Since this was the first meeting of the CSBR focused on a particular text, we began by spending some time recalling the wider context of scriptural reasoning (SR) within which we work, and some of the reflections on SR processes that have already been put forward (in the Rules of Scriptural Reasoning and commentaries on them).

Our consideration of Jonah started from the enquiry that first suggested the choice of this text – what is the "sign of Jonah"?[i] Considering the context of the reference to the "sign of Jonah," we are confronted with the further question: what is the relationship between wisdom and the sign of Jonah? [ii]

Further reading of this context[iii] produces an initial suggestion about Jonah's sign. Jonah's sign is an eschatological sign of judgement – but a judgement that is not simply deferred to an unspecified future. The people of Nineveh "rise up" in judgement on a present generation, in the present, when the story of their repentance is recounted.

We turn to the text of Jonah asking, in the first instance, about the nature of the judgement that the text contains. Jonah himself is judged in puzzling ways. He does not fulfil what the LORD requires of him - looking ahead in the scriptural canon to Micah, he does not "do justly", "love mercy" or "walk humbly with [his] God" (Micah 6:8). He begins by fleeing from the presence of the LORD, and continues by attempting at every point to establish his own agency over against that of the LORD.

At the same time, it seems on one level that Jonah's theology is accurate, and that he acts logically in accordance with it, in refusing to prophesy Nineveh's destruction. The sailors, in throwing him overboard, and the Ninevites, in repenting to avoid destruction, also act logically. It is, it would appear, only the LORD who is not logical.

We see, however, that the logics employed by all the human protagonists keep failing, or in some way reach the limits of their usefulness, in the particular situations confronting those who employ them. In each case, "it all made sense at the time". If the LORD is only a local or tribal god, it makes sense to flee from the LORD's presence; if the storm is the meaningless act of some capricious deity, it makes sense to throw the goods overboard; if deities do not exceed the parameters of human conflicts, it makes sense to expect that either the Ninevites or Jonah, but not both, can enjoy the LORD's favour and mercy.

It is only the LORD who is not logical. Another way of saying this is that the LORD consistently and faithfully acts to transform ways of understanding when the previous modes of logic have proved inadequate, and this transformation occurs through contingent historical circumstances. We suggest, or hypothesise, that this points towards a transcending or universal divine "logic"; or, to put it another way, to a living logos of God. To speak of a "living logos" leads us further to hypothesise that the "sign of Jonah" (pertaining to "one greater than Jonah") given to "this generation" is the resurrection.

It seems, having proceeded thus far with the reading, that the logic of the text is the steadfast love of the LORD – who intervenes whenever anyone is about to suffer. But this is not quite true; consider chapter 4 and the sultry wind[iv] that blows upon Jonah and the bush. The immediate reason for Jonah's suffering here seems to be his misreading of God's desire – in adhering to his single prophecy, as if it were still what God demanded, even when its failure has become clear.

We consider the excessive character of the repentance of Nineveh. The king of Nineveh puts on sackcloth (is he perhaps at this point himself made into a prophet, given his repetition of the call to repentance and the proclamation of God's anger (3:8f.)?), and the whole city does the same. It might be said, following a distinction developed by Rosenzweig and others, that the event of God's command in the "now", conveyed by Jonah's preaching, has been converted into law.[v] Something in its character as law, as the king of Nineveh speaks it, gives rise to this excess of "repentant action" – so that even the animals put on sackcloth.

The reference to the animals (3:7f., 4:11) draws attention to a wider biblical context and to the account of the covenant/logic of God's faithfulness to the earth and all its inhabitants –in the story of Noah. The book of Jonah retells and reverses this story – such that the logic of the covenant with Noah is rediscovered through the text and used to re-read its events. The book begins, as does Noah's story, with God's resolve to destroy the wicked, and the word of the LORD to the righteous man (see Gen 6:11ff.). It seems that the story of Noah may be repeated; but the LORD has promised never to repeat that story (Gen 8:21: "…nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done") and has made a covenant with "all flesh that is on the earth" (9:16). So, instead of being repeated, the story is inverted: the call of the LORD is refused, the wicked are saved, and the one called by God – who is also the dove, the meaning of his name – is submerged in the waters.[vi]

As if this were in danger of becoming too tidy – even, too logical – this reference to being "submerged in the waters" calls us back to the centre of the book, chapter 2. In Jonah's psalm from the belly of the whale we hear a liturgy arising from trauma, a "liturgy of the depths", coming from the depths within the depths. The sea monster marks the place of absolute horror, the pit of Sheol - in the LXX the belly of Hades and the last abyss; a void at the centre of the text. Is this a fate worse than death? (See 4:8, in which Jonah declares that it is "better for [him] to die than to live"). Readings like this force us to ask – where does a psalm come from that comes from the pit of Sheol, whence none of those in the book of Psalms come? How can anyone engage in liturgy (note the references to the temple, to the sacrifice, and to the thanksgiving song!) in this place? How, in particular, is it possible to say here to God that "you cast me into the deep"?

Recalling our earlier reflections on the resurrection as the sign of Jonah – and recalling particularly Mt 12:40[vii] – a further suggestion arises: could this song of thanksgiving be the sound of the preaching to the "spirits in prison"? In the LXX the psalm speaks the language of resurrection - "you have raised up my life from decay"; and the question in 2:5 - "shall I indeed look again towards your holy temple?" appears to expect the answer "yes".

---

[i] Mt 12:39ff., see 16:4; Lk 11:29ff.

[ii] Mt 12:42f., Lk 11:31

[iii] See Mt 12:41, Lk 11:32: “the people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!”

[iv] In the LXX a pneuma kauson, a “fiery spirit”

[v] Franz Rosenzweig, The Star of Redemption, trans. Hallo (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971), pp. 176-77.

[vi] The LXX for verse 2:14 has the sailors refer to Jonah�s killing as the shedding of “righteous blood”.

[vii] “Just as Jonah was for three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth”.

Title Page | Archive
© 2003, Society for Scriptural Reasoning

 

 

....

 

Taken from: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/ssr/issues/volume3/number1/ssr03-01-e03.html

Were Dinosaurs Included in Noah's Ark?



Taken from (but slightly adapted): http://www.oldearth.org/flood.htm


Dinosaurs

... creation science proponents are quick to use dinosaur graveyards as evidence of Noah’s Flood. They claim the dinosaurs herded together, and then were quickly buried. However, this explanation is not feasible.

The dinosaur graveyards referred to are mostly in North America, in sediments in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and Canada. However, looking at the positioning of the rock layers, there are thousands of feet of sediment below these layers that the young earth theorists claim were deposited by the Flood.

To make this more understandable, let’s look at the Grand Canyon. Steven Austin, in his book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, claims the Canyon rocks represent those which were deposited during the rising waters phase of the Flood (Figure 4.1). The “Late Flood”, or receding water rock deposits, are the Mesozoic sediments.

It is interesting to note that all the dinosaur fossils, including the mass graves, are Mesozoic in age. This means that all the dinosaurs died in the receding water phase of the flood. However, it is clear from Genesis 7:21-23, that all life was killed during the first 40 days of the Flood. Some young-earth theorists will argue that the bodies floated around, and eventually sank, based on various factors as body size, density, and so forth. However, this cannot be true, because the dinosaur footprints all exist in the same Mesozoic rock layers, as do all the dinosaur coprolites (fossilized dinosaur poop), and fossilized dinosaur eggs. Clearly, the dinosaurs were alive and well, after the declaration in Genesis 7:21-23 that all living things were killed during the first forty days of the flood.

....