Dr. Carter’s statement is too vague to be called “in error”, exactly. He doesn’t quantify “little variation” or attempt to show that the amount of variation is consistent with a coalescence 5000 years ago. Nor does he show that it’s consistent with an origin in the Middle East. Why the omission? Perhaps it’s because the actual data don’t fit his scenario, which they don’t. And that was my point.
Still no actual response.
The hermeneutics involves text, genre, and theology, based on my overall reading of Gen 1-11. (E.g., textually, a literalistic reading would result in inconsistencies and contradictions). But I don’t have the time or energy to spell it out right now (finals, Thanksgiving). Walton and Longman’s Lost World of the Flood and Collins’ Reading Genesis 1-11 Well give good arguments for a reading that allows for some hyperbole.
I could ask the same on why take it literalistically? (BTW, I do read it as history, but “history” can mean lots of things…so I reject the dichotomy you presume. I don’t even mind the term “literal” as long as it’s defined properly [e.g., literarily according to authorial intent vs. literalistically].)
Some of the North American late-ice-age flooded basins might - they flooded deeply with glacial meltwater which accumulated for years until erosion of dams downstream led to it draining extremely rapidly.
Indeed. And nothing in the Genesis text says that all the flooded land dried out. For example, Noah could have drifted to a shore and eventually disembarked on dry land—seeing only or mostly dry land around him in all directions–even while large bodies of runoff waters persisted after the great flood, perhaps beyond his immediate view. (After all, the water had to go somewhere.)
[Once again, I’m not advocating any particular view of a persistent body of water, such as Glenn Morton’s Mediterranean Sea hypothesis. I’m simply continuing to point out that nothing in the Hebrew text demands a global flood and nothing in that text defies a regional flood. The Hebrew text simply states that the ERETZ (“land”) was flooded, that everything under heaven/SHAMAYIM (all that one sees when looking to the horizon in all directions) was destroyed, and that all of the elevations were covered. It is interesting to me that a colleague who lived through a devastating flood in Bangladesh expressed very similar descriptions.
Whatever a person’s view on the Noah pericope, I share your surprise, Dan. This dominion-over-animals issue seems a very odd hill to die on. Due to my background in the YEC community and many years of dialogue, I thought I had “heard 'em all” when it comes to global flood argument-tropes. Yet, this is a new one on me. Isn’t it obvious that by bringing the animals to Noah (Genesis 6:20), God demonstrated his dominion over them?
Of course, describing the ark as “unnecessary” if the flood was not global is bizarre—especially when the ark is pointedly explained as a type of Christ in 1 Peter 3:20ff.
Yes, that would come closest, but it doesn’t really fit, for several reasons, and anyway nothing of the sort happened in the Middle East.
Not all, maybe, but most. This is pointless quibbling.
Sure, anything could have happened, but that isn’t what the story says. It says he grounded on a mountain, and no land was visible anywhere around him. That means he was on the top of the tallest mountain within sight. Not a seashore.
You are trying to point that out, but the text is against you. It’s not the meaning of eretz that’s important; it’s the descriptions of what happened. You have to re-interpret so much that you’re left with very little text that can mean what it says.
Very neat disposal of “mountains”. I don’t think it works. Bangladesh has no mountains; hardly anything that could even be called a hill. That just isn’t compatible with the Genesis story.
Is it necessary for the ark to be real in order to perform that function?
You are confusing the average person’s perceptions of a popular retelling of the story with what the Biblical text actually says. (And while we are dealing with popular traditions, the Bible also says nothing about “Mt. Ararat” nor anything to identify where was the region of Ararat.)
Until you get more familiar with the topics, I don’t think there is a lot to be gained from going through yet another round of PRATTs. (We’ve been through this same round many times on many threads.) Just as evolutionary biologists get weary from the objections of those who don’t understand the fundamentals of evolution, nearly as many linguists, lexicographers, and exegetes face their fair share of frustrations when fielding the complaints of armchair commentators.
Well stated, @deuteroKJ.
Moreover, the word literal is so often abused and variously defined that I wish it could be discarded in favor of something less ambiguous. (The people who most often champion the ideal of “literalism” tend to be those who are the inconsistent in applying it—even according to their own questionable definition. This topic always brings to mind an advertising slogan and campaign of a particular Bible translation publisher back in the 1980’s, which treated the word literal as a synonym for “true” and “best” and “genuine.”)
I’ve gotten to the point—especially with lay audiences—of avoiding the word literal whenever possible, even if I have to make my descriptions a little more wordy. (I remember asking a Sunday evening church class, “Is Jesus literally a door? Is that literally the case?” and the immediate answer from one of the elders was, “Yes, Jesus is truly the only way to God.” Who can blame him? The primary definition of literal in minds of many is true and real.
I just had a great idea for a get-rich scheme … I’m going to publish a low-calorie Bible! 
You would need to examine the data to make such a claim. If you were more accurate, you might write that Carter (a marine biologist) claims this to be the case, but you really need the actual evidence to support such a strong accusation.
BTW, your use of “Dr.” only for those with whom you agree is ludicrous, particularly so here because Carter’s doctorate has nothing to do with the expertise you imply with it.
Just make sure it is gluten-free.
That’s patently false. Dr. Carter specialized in genetics and genetic engineering during his Ph.D. He certainly deserves recognition as a specialist in the area of genetics.
“While working on my PhD, I designed and performed many experiments in marine ecology and genetic engineering and helped to develop new protocols for the rapid cloning of fluorescent protein genes. The green and red fluorescent proteins my coworker and I cloned from hard and soft corals were used to create transgenic zebrafish. We patented one of these protein genes and licensed it to Promega, Inc. under the trade name ‘Monster Green’.”
I don’t believe that’s true. I’m referring to the text itself, in translation. You may contend the the Hebrew means something quite different, and all translations are very bad, but I don’t see the evidence.
I know, but that’s not a relevant observation. Doesn’t matter where the region was, as long as the ark landed on top of a mountain, any mountain. All you’re doing here is clutching at strawmen.
The argument from authority isn’t a useful fallback when the actual arguments don’t work.
Population genetics? No way.
Making FP constructs is routine. Genetic engineering is very far from population genetics, which is the field in which you are trying to claim he has relevant expertise. Note that someone else made the transgenic zebrafish, not Carter. The only thing that’s remotely close to expertise is shown in his 2007 NAR paper, which is purely descriptive. It’s only been cited 4 times in 13 years, not including his self-citation.
So no, his cv supports my claim.
You didn’t address your selective application of honorifics only to those with whom you agree, BTW.
1.It happened in the Near East.
2.It only killed the guilty humans, which in this case was most evryone in the area.
3.I don’t have an exact date for the flood, but my best guess would be anywhere between 6500 and 3500 BC.
5.The purpose of the ark was to protect Noah when the flood came and also to contain the animals. Noah couldn’t just move, because the earthh was incredibly violent and that would be very risky. He also functioned as a prophet; Jermemiah didn’t pack up and move and neither did Noah.
6.God asked men like Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekial to do very bizarre things to get people’s attention, I feel it is the same with Noah. Putting animals on the ark might have also signaled that humanity had become so wicked that God found the animals to be more worth saving.
Babies?
Sadly, there is no geological record of any such event.
Mohammad El Bastawesy has given evidence for an early Holocene deluge around the Persian Gulf, however I am not willing to claim this is the deluge the Sumerians and the Bible are describing. The abscence of evidence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence. I am starting with the premise that the Sumerians and the Bible, among others, were correct in saying that there was a large deluge that destroyed the known world, you are not, so it is pointless to argue it with me.
The geomorphological and hydrogeological evidences for a Holocene deluge in Arabia
In geology, yes it is. We would expect a flood covering a large portion of the Middle East to leave some evidence behind it. Absent that evidence, we should conclude that there was no flood.
Now, if you’re starting from the premise that there was a flood and are unwilling to test that premise with evidence, then you might as well forget about discussing evidence. Why bother posting?
The Bible explicitly says it killed not only all humans, but also all flesh in general from all the land animals and birds that were outside the Ark. This is stated multiple times in the text for emphasis. And then Peter reiterates it again in 2 Peter 3. This is a non-starter.
Many problems here. This doesn’t explain why the animals were on the ark, since God had to supernaturally bring the animals TO the ark to begin with. Meaning God could just as easily have supernaturally caused them to walk AWAY from the danger.
Same with Noah. You say it was “too risky”. Was it too risky for the Israelites to escape from Egypt? Or to wander in the wilderness? Or to conquer Canaan? Yes, yes and yes. God was able to protect them, and God would have been able to protect Noah as well.
ANE literature is rife with hyberpolea and repition. In a year name coming from the reign of Ibbi-sin a local flood “oblitereated the bounds of heaven and earth”. A prayer of Gudea of Lagash reads: “Roaring like the waters pouring out (through abreach in the dyke) Destroying cities like the flood wave”.1 Both of these cases are clearly hyberbolic, but not deceitful, as everyone knew that was how people wrote. Considering context is everything.
Many problems here. This doesn’t explain why the animals were on the ark, since God had to supernaturally bring the animals TO the ark to begin with. Meaning God could just as easily have supernaturally caused them to walk AWAY from the danger.
I think they were needed for theological messaging, so God couldn’t just mind control them out of Mesopotamia.
Same with Noah. You say it was “too risky”. Was it too risky for the Israelites to escape from Egypt? Or to wander in the wilderness? Or to conquer Canaan? Yes, yes and yes. God was able to protect them, and God would have been able to protect Noah as well.
Well, even if all of this was true Noah still couldn’t move, because he was a prophet. God needed to give the wicked people NO excuse when the flood came.
Sources