The Flood

Dave Washburn dwashbur at
Tue Sep 26 09:45:01 EDT 2000

> Michael is quite right about a flood depth of about 2 miles covering the
> earth, if all the land forms were flattened. But my studies indicate that at
> no time in the geologic history of mankind was the whole earth ever been
> completely flooded, nor were 90% of all animal forms wiped out, save those
> on the ark (by the way I am a social studies teacher, and have taught
> Geography as well as History as well as Art).

Okay, now explain why your studies are more accurate than those 
of Whitcomb, Morris, Gish and the others.  Or are we simply 
supposed to take your word for it because your "studies" have 
indicated such a thing?

> The "key problem," is the dating of the Flood. The Hebrew Bible (Massoretic
> Text) is quite clear that this Flood occured within the 3rd millenium BCE,
> or 4th if you want to cite the LXX, and Geologists are unaware of such world
> wide deposits engulfing the whole world and destroying man and animals at
> this time, or at any time in the past. Dave is correct, practically all
> cultures have Flood myths, but, then, flooding is pretty common, and when it
> occurs, primitive man tends to see it engulfing "his world," which then
> becomes through embellishment the "whole world."

Nice gloss.  But those legends include details remarkably like the 
biblical and Mesopotamian ones.  Your brush-off doesn't explain 
that.  I'd also like to see some "hard evidence" (your term) for this 
description of how "primitive man" tends to think.

> Dave has pointed out, from his viewpoint, that the Hebrew Bible is as we
> have an "ERRANT TEXT." IT IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED, and thus the reason for his
> quest to find the original AUTOGRAPH (his "Inerrant Text").  

:-) Walter, if you continue to misrepresent my words like this, I will 
have to go to the moderators and ask them to give you a good 
spanking.  I already told you, in so many words and in this public 
forum, that this is NOT what I said.  If you would like to know my 
view of the "Hebrew we have" then ask me.  But don't 
assume that you already know from what I said about the 
autographs, because you are not representing me accurately.  If 
you are truly interested in having an honest discussion, find out 
what my view is before you make a statement like this.

> Thus he rejects
> the notion that Noah's flood occured in the 3rd millenium BCE. 

Once again I suggest you take a look at what I actually wrote, 
Walter.  And again I suggest that if you want to know what I accept 
or reject, ask me.  But don't make this kind of baseless 
assumption based on one isolated statement, because you're 

I would like
> to take this opportunity to say that I never thought Dave Washburn and
> myself would ever come to an agreement on anything, but this discussion on
> the flood has proved me wrong. I find myself in agreement with Dave, the
> Texts are "ERRANT," my studies in biblical archaeology have led me to this
> conclusion, while Dave's "faith" position about only the autograph being
> inerrant, has led him to the same conclusion (thus his rejection of the 10
> pre and post flood generations and the given ages of the individuals). So,
> as to "the big picture," an untrustworthy text, DAVE AND I ARE IN AGREEMENT,
> but from different perspectives, or lines of inquiry.

*yawn* Walter, please get a clue.  I said nothing - got that?  
NOTHING about the ages of the individuals.  You dragged that in 
out of your own assumptions.  I have also said flatly that your 
suggestion that I consider the texts not to be trusted is false, is a 
misrepresentation. I said no such thing.  You and are in agreement 
about...virtually nothing.  Well, let me refine that.  We agree taht 
this is a topic worth discussion,and that there is still much to learn 
about it.  In that regard, I can agree wholeheartedly.  

But Instead of trying to combine one or two of my statements with 
your own assumptions and come up with a way to make us "in 
agreement," (which is obviously just a subtle way of trying to say 
"See?  I'm right!") why don't you try addressing some of the 
baseless assumptions I have pointed out in your approach?  You 
have made several absolute statements; let's see some of your 
"hard evidence" instead of vague comments like "my research," 
"my studies" and such.  We have no idea what this "research" or 
"studies" happens to be.  Let's see some of it so the group at large 
can evaluate it and see what other kinds of unfounded assumptions 
you're building on.  How about it?

Dave Washburn
"No study of probabilities inside a given frame can ever
tell us how probable it is that the frame itself can be
violated."  C. S. Lewis

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list