Even if there were a rather tidy "bowl" of mountains capable of containing a quantity of water, there would be no way to have the water level more tan 20 feet above the highest of those mountains without it going over the tops (this seems rather obvious). It took months for the water to recede to the point where the submerged hull of the ark could even rest on the (yet invisible) mountains. Weeks past after that before a mountaintop could be seen above water. I am open to suggestions, but how could water remain in a valley at a level twenty feet above the rim without spilling over and receding to the point of mountain peaks becoming visible?
As for Everest, I do not see any reason to believe that it was at its present height, nor that the ocean floor was at its present depth prior to the flood. If the story is taken with anything resembling accuracy of description, the topography would be radically changed by spending 1 year supersaturated underwater, combined with volcanic and seismic activity. I cannot claim to know what specific changes these forces might produce in the earth's surface, but I would not rule out the formation of new mountain ranges and deeper ocean valleys. This means that the world's waters would, prior to the flood, have possibly been distributed differently and mountains may have been different in height than presently. The necessary depth of the water covering the land would therefore be incalculable by our present data, since we would have to know that for which we have no information—namely the antediluvian depth of oceans and height of mountains.
As for the 120 years, what do you suggest that they refer to? For God to give mankind 120 more years would seemingly involve a beginning point and an ending point to such a period. The end, in context, would seem to be the flood. The beginning would appear to be when God spoke on the subject (since it is presented as a spoken decree). Noah seems to be the guy God was speaking to, in those days. The best theory is that God warned Noah that there would be a judgment in 120 years. Any other suggestions?
Was the flood universal?
Re: Was the flood universal?
If you already believe that the world is millions of years old, then you'll tend to interpret Noah's flood as local
If you already believe that the world is thousands of years old, then you'll tend to interpret Noah's flood as global
I think an old earth is more likely since IMO scripture can allow either but the physical evidence suggests an old earth, but i'm not aware that this skewed my thoughts about the flood.
The reason for me is that outside of any monumental changes to the earths geography it seems to me a regional flood makes more sense. Yes there could have been these huge changes to the earth's geography but it's never stated in the text.
If you already believe that the world is thousands of years old, then you'll tend to interpret Noah's flood as global
I think an old earth is more likely since IMO scripture can allow either but the physical evidence suggests an old earth, but i'm not aware that this skewed my thoughts about the flood.
The reason for me is that outside of any monumental changes to the earths geography it seems to me a regional flood makes more sense. Yes there could have been these huge changes to the earth's geography but it's never stated in the text.
Re: Was the flood universal?
As for the 120 years, what do you suggest that they refer to? For God to give mankind 120 more years would seeming involve a beginning point and an ending point to such a period. The end, in context, would seem to be the flood. The beginning would appear to be when God spoke on the subject (since it is presented as a spoken decree). Noah seems to be the guy God was speaking to, in those days. The best theory is that God warned Noah that there would be a judgment in 120 years. Any other suggestions?
It does sound like God is making a warning about a judgment , but there is no mention of what it was so Noah wouldn't have any reason to flee. In fact he didn't start building the ark until his sons were born and were grown men which left him only a few years to build the ark. So with only a few years to build, the ark may have been smaller then people think.
It does sound like God is making a warning about a judgment , but there is no mention of what it was so Noah wouldn't have any reason to flee. In fact he didn't start building the ark until his sons were born and were grown men which left him only a few years to build the ark. So with only a few years to build, the ark may have been smaller then people think.
Re: Was the flood universal?
As for Everest, I do not see any reason to believe that it was at its present height, nor that the ocean floor was at its present depth prior to the flood. If the story is taken with anything resembling accuracy of description, the topography would be radically changed by spending 1 year supersaturated underwater, combined with volcanic and seismic activity. I cannot claim to know what specific changes these forces might produce in the earth's surface, but I would not rule out the formation of new mountain ranges and deeper ocean valleys. This means that the world's waters would, prior to the flood, have possibly been distributed differently and mountains may have been different in height than presently. The necessary depth of the water covering the land would therefore be incalculable by our present data, since we would have to know that for which we have no information—namely the antediluvian depth of oceans and height of mountains.
It's possible but we just don't know because nothing like this is stated in the text.
It's possible but we just don't know because nothing like this is stated in the text.
Re: Was the flood universal?
Even if there were a rather tidy "bowl" of mountains capable of containing a quantity of water, there would be no way to have the water level more tan 20 feet above the highest of those mountains without it going over the tops (this seems rather obvious). It took months for the water to recede to the point where the submerged hull of the ark could even rest on the (yet invisible) mountains. Weeks past after that before a mountaintop could be seen above water. I am open to suggestions, but how could water remain in a valley at a level twenty feet above the rim without spilling over and receding to the point of mountain peaks becoming visible?
The ark could have been on a spot much lower the Ararat and the water level could have been sustained by drainage from the mountains. With a worldwide flood it seems to me sustaining it would be much more unlikely since the water level couldn't be sustained by drainage from mountains.
The ark could have been on a spot much lower the Ararat and the water level could have been sustained by drainage from the mountains. With a worldwide flood it seems to me sustaining it would be much more unlikely since the water level couldn't be sustained by drainage from mountains.
Re: Was the flood universal?
So much speculation based upon suppositions!
I tend to agree with those who suggest that the world-wide flood was cataclysmic and resulted in a major change in earth's geography. According to this view the flood waters were rushing in various directions at great speeds, causing striations in rocks (presently explained by the supposition that a Great Ice Age occurred and caused them). Presently, water covers 71% of the earth. A number of ancient writings indicate that water once covered only about 10% of the earth's surface (Unfortunately, I am unable to provide the source). The earth was much flatter in antediluvian days. Water basins were fewer and shallower. Mountains were fewer and in our day would probably regarded as mere hills.
There may also have been a major shift in the polar regions. An area has been discovered in the north polar region where there were once large trees and large animals (Time magazine reported this). This area is surrounded by tundra where such trees could not grow. Wood from the trees has not petrified, but has been frozen. It was found that when the wood was thawed, it will still burn. I have been unable to find an adequate explanation in scientific magazines for this region as having been habitable by animals and suitable for the growth of large trees. I am not certain that events during the world-wide flood explain it either, but as far as I know, no one has come up with a better explanation.
I tend to agree with those who suggest that the world-wide flood was cataclysmic and resulted in a major change in earth's geography. According to this view the flood waters were rushing in various directions at great speeds, causing striations in rocks (presently explained by the supposition that a Great Ice Age occurred and caused them). Presently, water covers 71% of the earth. A number of ancient writings indicate that water once covered only about 10% of the earth's surface (Unfortunately, I am unable to provide the source). The earth was much flatter in antediluvian days. Water basins were fewer and shallower. Mountains were fewer and in our day would probably regarded as mere hills.
There may also have been a major shift in the polar regions. An area has been discovered in the north polar region where there were once large trees and large animals (Time magazine reported this). This area is surrounded by tundra where such trees could not grow. Wood from the trees has not petrified, but has been frozen. It was found that when the wood was thawed, it will still burn. I have been unable to find an adequate explanation in scientific magazines for this region as having been habitable by animals and suitable for the growth of large trees. I am not certain that events during the world-wide flood explain it either, but as far as I know, no one has come up with a better explanation.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
-
Candlepower
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:26 pm
- Location: Missouri
Re: Was the flood universal?
Hello Steve 7150
You said
Blessings
You said
From this information, am I supposed to know that those were the heights of those mountains before, during, and immediately after the flood? How can anyone possibly know that? Retro-jecting (the opposite of projecting) present conditions into the distant past can lead to very dubious conclusions, it seems to me. Using today's heights of various mountains provides me little evidence (and no proof) of their heights thousands of years ago.Ararat is 17K feet high but Everest is 29K feet high...
Blessings
-
christopher
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:50 pm
Re: Was the flood universal?
I've wondered whether readers are meant to take the account from Noahs' perspective, or Gods'.
If the account is based on oral tradition passed down until Moses, I can definitely see that from the perspective of Noah and his family, the whole world was under water. The storm would have no doubt have been accompanied by weather conditions that limited visibility and it doesn't take but a few miles on the water to make land invisible .
However, if the details were given to Moses supernaturally by God (after all, God said he spoke to him "face to face"), then the account Sounds more global than local.
In either case, it apparently accomplished Gods purpose of rebooting mankind so to speak.
The bigger marvel to me is how one man (even with the help of his sons) could pull off the construction of such a seaworthy vessel as the ark with the dimensions that are described. That is a feat of engineering I should very much like to see. I wish we had more details about that.
If the account is based on oral tradition passed down until Moses, I can definitely see that from the perspective of Noah and his family, the whole world was under water. The storm would have no doubt have been accompanied by weather conditions that limited visibility and it doesn't take but a few miles on the water to make land invisible .
However, if the details were given to Moses supernaturally by God (after all, God said he spoke to him "face to face"), then the account Sounds more global than local.
In either case, it apparently accomplished Gods purpose of rebooting mankind so to speak.
The bigger marvel to me is how one man (even with the help of his sons) could pull off the construction of such a seaworthy vessel as the ark with the dimensions that are described. That is a feat of engineering I should very much like to see. I wish we had more details about that.
Re: Was the flood universal?
steve7150 wrote:
Christopher rightly points out the difficulty involved in four men building such a large, floating box. This would definitely require a number of years. There is no reason to assume that it would have to occupy the whole 120 years mentioned, of course. However, whatever number of years it would require would be greater than the time it would take to pack up the farm and move out of the area. Pioneers traveled 3000 miles across the USA in a few months. I think that Noah would not have to move that many miles in order to get out of that valley. Three thousand miles, in any direction, would put him in another continent. So the question is, "If the flood was local, why build an ark?"
Since the dimensions of the ark are on record, it could not have been much smaller than we think it was.It does sound like God is making a warning about a judgment , but there is no mention of what it was so Noah wouldn't have any reason to flee. In fact he didn't start building the ark until his sons were born and were grown men which left him only a few years to build the ark. So with only a few years to build, the ark may have been smaller then people think.
Christopher rightly points out the difficulty involved in four men building such a large, floating box. This would definitely require a number of years. There is no reason to assume that it would have to occupy the whole 120 years mentioned, of course. However, whatever number of years it would require would be greater than the time it would take to pack up the farm and move out of the area. Pioneers traveled 3000 miles across the USA in a few months. I think that Noah would not have to move that many miles in order to get out of that valley. Three thousand miles, in any direction, would put him in another continent. So the question is, "If the flood was local, why build an ark?"
-
backwoodsman
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
- Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.
Re: Was the flood universal?
As a witness to the unbelievers around Noah, and a chance for them to accept God's salvation. Had Noah and his family simply picked up and left, they wouldn't have had that witness. As usual, God bent over backwards to try to get their attention before finally sending judgment.steve wrote:So the question is, "If the flood was local, why build an ark?"