The Narrow Path Ministries

I watched a show on the Discovery Channel last night annalizying the great flood and Noahs arc. They said scientifically that even with rain for 40 days and night and underground springs being opened up, it would still take five times about of the worlds Oceans to flood the entire planet above the Himalayas it wouldnt be possible in the 40 days time frame. This leads me to believe that the flood was a regional flood. The purpose of the flood anyways was to destroy man, and it would seem to me that the only people living at that time would be in the regional area of the Middle East prior to the tower of Babel?

They said that with the dimension of the Arc given in the bible, and being made of entirely wood with no steel, it would colapse within itself, so they believed the Arc would have been built smaller, Im not sure about that though.

They also said to take a species of every animal would be about 30 million animals and would take years to load at the rate of so many a miniute for so many years. But they said it would be possible if only loaded animals in that particular region were loaded up, as stated in the bible..so many clean and unclean...ect, which would be possible. It was an interesting show. I like to compare science with what is said in the Bible, and most times, the things listed in the Bible can be very plausible and not far off from the science facts if looked at in the right way.

What helps sort out some of these things is that the bible presupposes supernatural activity. Keeping that in mind helps. I believe God providentially brought animals to and fro. That's just me though.

I like to compare science with what is said in the Bible, and most times, the things listed in the Bible can be very plausible and not far off from the science facts if looked at in the right way.

I am curious. If the bible presents a certain scenario within a historical narrative, (assuming the portion is meant to be taken that way), do you not think that when the bible is "not far off" from the "science facts" that it is, in fact, in error. After all, "kind of wrong" is still "wrong".

I am somewhat agnostic regarding the age of the earth, and that whole debate. But I think that it is important to understand that you are not comparing the biblical account with "scientific facts" but with the opinions of certain scientists (ones no doubt picked to support the hypothesis of the program you were viewing). Not all scientists agree.

This leads me to believe that the flood was a regional flood.

This raises some important questions. Here are some taken from the Answers In Genesis website. I would be curious to read your answers (and anyone elses).

1. If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.

2. If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.

3. If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

4. If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn’t rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.

5. If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.

This article can be found <b>HERE</b>

They said that with the dimension of the Arc given in the bible, and being made of entirely wood with no steel, it would colapse within itself, so they believed the Arc would have been built smaller, Im not sure about that though.

It is good that you are skeptical about this claim. I don't think that the dimensions for the arc could be taken as poetry, or symbolism. If it was not the size that the bible says, then the bible is simply in error.

They also said to take a species of every animal would be about 30 million animals and would take years to load at the rate of so many a miniute for so many years. But they said it would be possible if only loaded animals in that particular region were loaded up, as stated in the bible..so many clean and unclean...ect, which would be possible.

The bible does not say that there were two of "every species" but two of each "kind", which is different. For instance, of all the different dog species (Wolf, German Shepherd, Coyote, etc.) on the earth today could have come from two from that "kind". This drastically reduces the number of animals on the arc (down into the thousands, as opposed to milliions).

<b>HERE</b> is a good website devoted to the ark and it's construction.

While I don't necessarilly endorse everthing in these sites, I think that it is important to consider the many theories concerning the flood and the arc, before doubting the biblical account. Especially because of a program on the Discovery Channel, which in my opinion, is far from open minded on these issues (tune in during Easter sometime to see this evidenced).

I would also encourage you to check out Hugh Ross' website, Reasons To Believe.

I really like him. If I were to recommend the other "Christian" (i.e. not Discovery Channel) views on the flood, I would check that site out. He believes in a local flood.

<b>HERE</b> is his take on the locality of the flood. He says that the flood was "universal", in that it affects "man and his animals and lands". But not "global" as in every living thing. This is an interesting idea.

<b>HERE</b> is his take on the number of animals on the arc. It comes from a similar idea as the above. That only "man's" animals were on the arc.

I really don't think that these theories take care of all the problems, biblically, so I still think it's global. Nor do I think that they answer the questions above. But he admits that they articles are not meant to be exhaustive, and they are still compelling. Well worth checking out.

God bless,

SoaringEagle wrote:What helps sort out some of these things is that the bible presupposes supernatural activity. Keeping that in mind helps. I believe God providentially brought animals to and fro. That's just me though.

I am not sure why God couldn't have provided the rain as well. If there's one thing the Discovery Channel won't do, it's allow God to be part of an explanation.

If the "water above the firmament" were truly water, there would be a sufficient quantity to cover the earth and the mountains.

While this water was still above the firmament, it may have prevented all but filtered light from coming through. Thus no rainbows until after this water fell.

here is Hugh Ross's explanation (he's an old-earther and believes in a localized flood):

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... lood.shtml

he has some other articles discussing this on his website.

TK

I was just looking up the Genesis 7 & 8 use of the word "earth" on e-sword. The KJV translators interpreted that particular word at other times as "country", "land" or "ground". This seems to definitely leave the door open to a local flood theory.

I, like Derek, am still working my way through the different possibilities on this issue. I am much more inclined toward the OEC theory though….which would make a local flood fit my understanding better. If I get to heaven and find out the earth was only 6000 years old, I'll probably think "Ohhhhh, ok.... now I get it!"

I don't think YEC's believe the flood waters covered the tallest mountains today. They believe the tallest mountains today were created by the tectonic activity during and after the flood. This renders the main objection irrelevant.

mattrose stole my thunder- i was going to say that the YE position relies on a global flood to account for grand canyons and the like. If you remove a global flood from the YE arsenal, it weakens their ability to explain observed geology.

not that YE view isnt possible, i have simply come to believe that it is not likely true.

TK

SoaringEagle's thought that supernatarual intervention can not be discounted means a lot, even where science and Biblical history clash. I am still going for a local flood at this point. Accounting for all the dinosaur bones found in most of the other continents. I don't know how many have been found in the Middle East area, but seems most have been found in Europe and North America. I have to question how man and dinosaur could live in the same area without one killing the other, which I think man would win. Man has always been at the top of the food chain, through brains and the tools made.

God could have told Noah to pick up and leave out of the area, to solve the problem, but God has never made it that easy, especially to the Old Testament people. I believe this so because they weren't too far from eye witness of direct communication with God. God does have anger.

From reading the Old Testament, the way I understand it, he gave man 120 more years in the time of Noah before it would all be ended.

Telling Noah to travel out of the flood zone, the zone of all living humans, would pretty much void the point of the 120 years extra time that he gave man to possibly repent, and by reading the Old Testament, doesnt really fit in with judgement against man to me, it makes the entire thing too easy for the ones chosen to be saved.

Is it possible that the Earth was an entire mass pre Tower of Babel, which flooding would have been, "the entire earth"? Then the continents separated at the time of the judgement on the Tower of Babel?

If you look at the land masses on the map, they look like they could have all fit together at some point. Just my thoughts, thanks for the imput.