Geological Confirmations Of The Noachian Deluge -- By: G. Frederick Wright
BSac 59:234 (April 1902) p. 282
Geological Confirmations Of The Noachian Deluge
Internal Evidences Of The Historical Character Of The Biblical Account
The account of the Flood in Genesis does not stand alone. Similar traditions are found among nearly all the nations and tribes of the world. So wide-spread and persistent are these traditions, that those who have given attention to the subject have found it difficult to resist the conviction that they relate to a common event with which the ancestors of all the present population of the world were acquainted in its painful reality.
But, as might be expected, the traditions in general have taken on such local coloring and extravagant proportions that the kernel of truth underlying them has been hopelessly obscured. Among them all, the account in Genesis stands out conspicuous for the grandeur and beauty of the divine attributes revealed in connection with the catastrophe, for the simplicity of the style in which the story is related, and for its undesigned conformity with the natural facts incidentally involved in it.
In the biblical account, nothing is introduced conflicting with the sublime conception of holiness and the peculiar combination of justice and mercy ascribed to God throughout the Bible, and illustrated in the general scheme of providential government manifest in the order of nature and in history; while in the cuneiform tablets, the Deluge
BSac 59:234 (April 1902) p. 283
is occasioned by a quarrel among the gods, and the few survivors escape, not by reason of a merciful plan, but by a mistake which aroused the anger of Bel.
“As soon as Bel arrived
And saw the ship, Bel was angry;
He was filled with wrath at the gods, the Igigi:
‘Hath there any soul escaped?
Not a man should have survived destruction.’”
The story is conclusively shown not to be a legend connected with an ordinary river flood, by the fact that the ark is represented as floating up stream. Upon this point, the Scripture account, the cuneiform tablets, and Berosus are in substantial agreement. According to Genesis, it was not, as it is usually translated, on “Mount Ararat,” but in the “mountains of Ararat,” designating an indefinite region in Armenia; according to the inscriptions, it was in Nizir, a region, in close proximity to Ararat, which is watered by the Zab and the Tornadus; while, according to Berosus, it was on the Gordyaean Mountains, included in the same indefinite area. In all three cases, its resting-place is in the direction of the headwaters of the Euphrates Valley, while the scene of the building is clearly laid in the lower part of the valley.
Again, in the biblical account, the spread...
Click here to subscribe