<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>R’tn CL wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">My comment is thus that if you want to insert
our definition of kol haaretz, then you<BR>should be doing so properly, and
including everything that we now understand<BR>as kol haaretz, including the
moon, otherwise you are arbitrarily stopping<BR>the process - you are not
prepared to define it the way the dor hamabul<BR>would have defined it, but
neither are you (when pushed) prepared to define<BR>it the way we now understand
it to be.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">CM notes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">I hear your argument (as well as your
opposition’s)</FONT> <FONT face="Times New Roman">but I think the point
where you drag the moon into your logic the argument becomes specious. I would
restrict the point to the kadur ha’aretz and not argue that your opponents must
perforce accept a flood on the moon by their interpretation. I do not think this
is an “arbitrary” difference (between the moon and Australia) as you
argued.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">R’tn LL wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">If Pangaea hadn't yet split up, this wouldn't
be an issue.</FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>CM notes:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pangaea is totally irrelevant, since if it existed at all it was in a time
frame far removed by hundreds (~250M) of millions and not relevant to our time
frame circa a mere 4000 years ago.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>RZS wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Malbim understands this to mean that seasons
didn't exist before the<BR>mabul. The earth's axis was perpendicular to the
ecliptic, so each<BR>place's climate was steady. Rain fell every forty years,
and the earth<BR>produced enough food to last until the next rain. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">CM notes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">The 40 year rain cycle prior to Mabul you
mention (quoting the Malbim) would raise difficulties in the science of
dendrochronology where such a 40 year cycle would be quite apparent but is not
noted anywhere in the literature that I have seen. Anchored chronologies go back
to well before the Mabul. See wikipedia <A
title=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology</A>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Also suggesting the Mabul coincided with (or caused) (or was somehow the
mechanism causing the Mabul) a huge shift in the axis of the Earth is something
for which scientific geologic (or any other) evidence is lacking for that
period. Furthermore, such a shift in global climate would also have major
repercussions in the oceans and its flora and fauna causing major die outs as
tropical fauna could not adapt quickly enough to the climate of (nouveau) polar
climates etc, etc. Torah tells us the fish were not affected by the Mabul and
science shows no such major oceanic die outs in that time frame that I am
aware of. I wonder if <FONT face="Times New Roman">Immanuel Velikovsky ever saw
this Malbim?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Kol Tuv</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Chaim Manaster</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>