Location of Noah's Local Flood

[Gman]

Folks,

In this post I would like to further discuss possible locations for Noah's local flood. At times I will be copying and pasting other author's material so that we can work off of it. Enjoy...

[Gman]

This is a recent article by Greg Neyman from the website "Answers in Creation". Please read this article by him...

Where Was the Flood of Noah?

by Greg Neyman
Answers in Creation
First Published 12 May 2007

Source of this article: http://www.answersincreation.org/articl ... cation.htm

One of the items that old earth creationists disagree about is the location of the Flood of Noah. Many have proposed various locations, and we are far from coming to a consensus on this issue. If we wish to reach people for Christ, and show them that an old earth fits with the Bible, then this issue is of utmost importance.

In this article, I will review the proposed locations of the flood, and discuss their weaknesses. Then, I will present a solution for the location, which appears to fit all the requirements for Noah's Flood.

Requirements for the Location of the Flood

The site of the flood would have to meet three requirements. First, it would have to be capable of containing the waters of the flood. In order to do this, we need a basin, with no outlet to the sea. If there were an outlet, the water would simply run out of the area.

Second, the flood would have to fit the parameters mentioned in the Bible. The source of the waters is not in question. The only point that matters here is that Noah believed that the world was flooded, and that all the mountains were covered with water. Therefore this would require that the basin for the flood be large enough for Noah not to see the mountains from the center of the basin where the ark was floating. Thus, we need to calculate the minimum width of the basin, based on the curvature of the earth. Although this is a simple calculation,1 we do have an unknown factor. What was the height of the nearest land mass that was not underwater? Thus, we will look at several possibilities.

Our starting point is Noah. He was on the ark, which had a height of about 45 feet. Accounting for a 20 foot draft for the ark, Noah was perhaps 25 feet above the water's surface. If he were six feet tall, Noah would be about 6.82 miles from the horizon. By contrast, the horizon for a 100 foot tall hill would be about 12.25 miles. Adding these two horizon distances together, Noah would have to be 19.07 miles from a 100 foot tall hill in order not to see it. Other landmass heights are calculated below.

Reference Point Horizon Horizon + Noah's Horizon

Noah (31 Feet tall) 6.82 miles -

100 foot hill 12.25 19.07

1,000 ft hill 38.74 45.56

3,000 foot hill 67.1 73.92

One Mile Hill 89.03 95.85


Thus, for a one mile high mountain, the ark would have to be at least 95.85 miles away in order for Noah not to see the mountain. This gives you an idea of the size requirements of the basin. Of course, this does not account for atmospheric conditions, which would definitely lower these distances.

The final requirement is this: Does the proposed location agree with the geography mentioned in the Genesis account? It would have to flood the areas populated by mankind. We don't have many clues as to the extent of the geographic area. However, it would appear to include the area around the Garden of Eden, and east of the Garden. When God drove them out of the Garden, he placed a cherubim at the east of the Garden (Genesis 3:24). This would indicate that Adam and Eve went east out of the Garden. We also have another clue in Genesis 4:16. Cain was sent away, and he settled in the land of Nod, which was east of Eden. Therefore, if we know the location of the Garden, we know the location of the Flood, since it had to cover the lands east of the Garden.

There is one other requirement, which we don't need to address in detail. The ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. Note that the Bible says mountains of Ararat, and not "on Mount Ararat." The Ararat range is several hundred miles long, so the ark could be anywhere along this range. Although the taller mountains in the range are to the east, mountains extend westward all the way to the Mediterranean. All of the proposed locations support this requirement.

Where Was Eden?

In order to evaluate the proposed locations, we must approximate the location of the Garden of Eden. There are several proposals that lie within the areas proposed by old earth creationists.2

Mesopotamia

Many have proposed some location within Mesopotamia. These proposals vary from deep within Iraq, all the way to the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers at the Persian Gulf.

Jerusalem

Jewish tradition places the Garden in Jerusalem. This also provides great symbolism for Jews and Christians.

Turkey

The Taurus Mountains of Turkey is proposed by some as the location of Eden. These mountains lie in the southern part of Turkey bordering with Syria. They would be included as part of the "mountains of Ararat."

Iran

The latest proposal comes from archaeologist David Rohl, who proposes that based on archaeological evidence, the Garden is in north-west Iran, near the city of Tabriz. Here is a summary of this location:

According to him, the Garden was located in a vast plain referred to in ancient Sumerian texts as Edin (lit. "Plain", or "Steppe") east of the Sahand Mountain, near Tabriz. He cites several geological similarities with Biblical descriptions, and multiple linguistic parallels as evidence. In the Sumerian texts, an emissary is sent north through "Seven Gates", also known as Mountain passes in ancient texts. Hebrew lore includes references to Seven layers of Heaven, the 7th being the Garden of Eden, or Paradise. Just beyond the seventh gate, or pass, was the kingdom of Aratta. The region today is bound by a large mountain range to the North, East and South, and marshlands to the west. The eastern mountain region has a pass leading in and out of the Edin region. This fits with the Biblical geography of Eden containing marshlands to the west, and the Land of Nod to the east, outside the Garden. Geographically speaking, it would form a "wall" around the Garden, conforming to the definition of the Persian word pairidaeza (paradise) and the Hebrew word gan (garden), both of which mean a "walled garden or park". Additionally, this location would be bound by the four biblical rivers to the West, Southwest, East and Southeast.3

The location in Iran is compelling, but not conclusive. Of the locations mentioned, it is the only one which contains detailed evidence supporting the claim, and I believe this is the best probable location of Eden.

Proposed Flood/Eden Locations

Now we will consider the various old earth proposals for the location of the local Flood of Noah.

Mesopotamia

The most popular, and most common claim, is that the flood was in Mesopotamia, or present day Iraq. This view is proposed by Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. Unfortunately, Dr. Ross gives little scientific evidence to support this location. He glosses over the subject, expecting his readers to accept this as the location. For example, here are his references to the Flood location in his book The Genesis Question:

On page 144, he says "God would need to flood only the Mesopotamian plain and perhaps some adjacent territories. On page 146, he mentions that God used wind to remove the flood waters. He states that "This removal technique perfectly suits the requirements of water removal from a gigantic flat plain such as Mesopotamia. On page 166, he shows a map with the location of the Flood.

The map shows the elevation line of 600 feet above sea level in present day Iraq. It does look like a plausible theory, however, the major problem this theory has is that the entire area drains into the Persian Gulf. There is no possible way to contain the flood waters, and a flood of this magnitude would never have occurred here. The rain waters would simply run away into the ocean. The only way to make this work is to have God perform a miraculous event at the southern end, making an invisible wall, or barrier, to keep the flood waters within the region. There is no indication in the Biblical text that this occurred.

Geologist and old earth creationist Glenn Morton also disputes the Mesopotamia flood scenario. As he points out, the ark would have been carried along by the currents towards the Persian Gulf, and away from the mountains of Ararat. The only way to deposit the ark in the Ararat range would be to have the water run uphill!4

Concerning the other flood requirements, the size of the Mesopotamian region would be sufficient, and some theologians place the Garden of Eden in the Mesopotamia region. The only problem with this theory is with physics, as water runs downhill, not uphill, due to gravity. Since we have no indication of a special condition such as a supernatural retaining wall, this theory fails.

The Jordan Valley, Mediterranean Sea, and Jerusalem

There are two possible scenarios with the flood in the vicinity of Jerusalem. The smallest possible flood would be the flooding of the Jordan Valley, which includes the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee, and the associated drainage basin. You have the same problem with this scenario as we saw in Mesopotamia. The valley drains into the Red Sea, thus it would require a "supernatural wall" on the south end.

The drainage basin does extend mostly east of the valley (click here, and scroll down to the General Basin Layout Map to see the basin). If Noah were well east of Jerusalem, this scenario could work (if you believe in the supernatural wall, of course). Some place the Garden of Eden in Jerusalem, although this is not the most likely location. While the symbolism is great, the archaeological and geographic evidence is non-existent.

The other scenario is the one proposed by Glenn Morton.5 He places Adam and Eve at about 5.5 million years ago, with the Flood occurring in the Mediterranean basin. The Mediterranean was a dry basin prior to this time. In this scenario the filling of the basin at 5.5 million years ago was due to Noah's Flood. Jerusalem is at the far eastern edge of this basin, so the area east of this (east of Eden was the land of Nod where Cain settled) would not have been flooded. This scenario would require the Garden of Eden to be located somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea. The ark could still come to rest on the mountains of Ararat in southern Turkey. This theory is plausible and makes sense, and it remains a possibility. The main complaint about this theory is that it would mean Adam and Eve were not modern hominids, but Australopithecines. The theory appeals to theistic evolutionists, but not to other forms of old earth creationism.

The Black Sea

In the 1990's two geologists proposed a flood in the Black Sea, that occurred about 7,600 years ago. This location has numerous problems. The total rise in water was only 400 feet, which moved the shoreline 24 miles. It would be no problem for people to flee this flood. Also, the Garden of Eden has never been proposed for a location near the Black Sea. In addition, the timing is wrong (see Dating Biblical Events, which puts the flood at least 35,000+ years ago).

A Theory Revisited

This leaves us with the final location that I would like to propose. In the past, some have proposed the Caspian Sea as the location of the Flood. I believe this is the best location based on our current understanding of Genesis.

The map below shows the Caspian sea, and the part in yellow shows the drainage basin.6 Since this is a closed basin, we could fill up the entire area in yellow. What is important to note is that in the lower left portion of the drainage basin we find the city of Tabriz, which is one of our locations for the



Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve left the Garden, they probably went east, out through the mountain pass that archaeologist David Rohl mentions. This would place all of mankind east of Tabriz, probably in the fertile lands on the shores of the Caspian, between present day Lankaran and Rasht.

There are some rather tall mountains on the south and west side of the Caspian, the tallest of which is about 18,600 feet. The width of the Caspian sea, from Lankaran to Turkmenbasy, is about 245 miles. If you add the portions in yellow, there is a potential width along this same line of about 645 miles.

Using our horizon calculations, Noah would have to be 167 miles from a mountain that was 18,600 feet tall. Given a potential width of over 600 miles, it is clear that Noah would see no land, even tall mountains, if he were in the center of the Caspian. Even in today's Caspian Sea, if you were in the middle of the southern portion, you would be over 180 miles from the tallest mountain, thus you would see no mountains.

The requirement for the ark to land on the mountains of Ararat is met, because the mountains on the west side of the southern portion of the Caspian are within what is considered the Ararat range. In fact, Mount Ararat itself is within the drainage basin. However, given the elevation on the west side of the Caspian, it would not be possible to float the ark all the way to Mount Ararat. However, it could easily land on the slopes of the mountains to the east of Mount Ararat.

There is one other important point worth mentioning. Given the elevation of Tabriz, it is unlikely that Eden itself was underwater. The Tabriz airport is listed as 4,459 feet above sea level. Since the Caspian Sea itself is slightly less than 100 feet below mean sea level, the waters would have to rise over 4,500 feet. Thus, Eden may have been destroyed by the torrential rains of the flood.

The Caspian Sea scenario meets all the requirements. However, there is one more issue we must discuss. Glenn Morton, a fellow old earth creationist, has dismissed the Caspian Sea as a location for Noah's Flood. His criticisms are this:

1. The basin has no geological deposits which would qualify as flood deposits.5 Morton himself answers this in another of his articles. In critiquing the Mesopotamian flood scenario, Morton states that "To completely erode flood sediments takes more than 20,000 years. In the progressive creationist time frame for the flood, it could not have occurred prior to 35,000 years ago. Most likely it was about 50,000 years ago. Thus, we have twice the amount of time that Morton allows for completely eroding away any flood sediments. Given this vast amount of time, we cannot expect to find any flood sediments from Noah's Flood.

2. To cover the high mountains in the Caspian basin would require covering the entire earth to a depth of 3,000 feet.5 However, we don't have to cover all the high mountains. So long as Noah floated on a body of water that was several hundred miles wide, he would not be able to see the high mountains on the sides of the flood region. All Noah would see would be water in all directions. Hence, from his perspective all the high mountains were covered.

Some young earth creationists have pointed to the statement in Genesis 7:20, where the flood waters covered the tall mountains to a depth of 15 cubits (about 20 feet). Noah could make this claim because the ark cleared all land forms and did not bottom out, thus the water had to be at least 20 feet deep. This is simply a reference to the draft of the ark.

Conclusion

The Caspian Sea scenario for Noah's Flood fits all the parameters. It is a large enough basin so that Noah would be unable to see any land masses. Based on the latest archaeological research, the Garden of Eden is included inside this basin. And, the ark could come to rest on mountains on the west side of the sea that are part of the Ararat range. It can work both within the framework of progressive creationism and theistic evolution.

Is this evidence conclusive? No. However, it is the best fit that we have based on the evidence available to us. Since the sediments from such a flood would mostly be eroded away, we will never be able to prove it conclusively.

I believe this model gives progressive creationism something that it hasn't had before...a plausible scenario that fits all the necessary parameters for the local flood of Noah. Up until this time, our best guess has been the Mesopotamia region, despite its problems. I believe we now have a scenario with no problems.

References:

1 Using the Theorem of Pythagoras

2 Suspected Locations of the Garden of Eden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_ ... _locations

3 Summary from Garden of Eden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_eden#Iran

4 Why The Flood Can Not Be In Mesopotamia

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mflood.htm

5 A Theory for Creationists, by Glenn Morton

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm

6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caspianseamap.png

[Gman]

I thought I would copy RTB's view on the local flood... This post puts the location of the flood in the Mesopotamian Plain.

Noah's Flood: A Bird's-Eye View

By Steve Sarigianis

Ms. Johnson smiles and settles her class for the week's lesson. She opens the Bible on her lap and begins to read the story of Noah's flood. Her first-graders sit cross-legged on the floor, wiggling a little but listening quietly. When she comes to Gen. 8:9, some children lean forward to hear her softened voice: "The dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to [Noah] . . . for the water was on the surface of all the earth."

"The whole Earth?" big-eyed Bobby squeaks.

"Yes," Miss Johnson replies, "The whole Earth." Thus, a Sunday school teacher often settles the question of whether the Genesis Flood was global or regional.

But the question persists. In fact, it continues to arouse great passions within the Christian community. Both biblical inerrancy and scientific credibility are at stake. A quick reading of the English text of Genesis 6-9 gives readers—at least since the time of world exploration—the impression of a global event. However, scientific evidence to the contrary seems clear and compelling. This evidence includes the lack of sufficient quantities of water and the ark's inadequacy to hold every land-dwelling species on Earth. This dilemma produces a painful tension for those who take both Scripture and science seriously.

Following rigorous rules of biblical exegesis (discovering the original intent of text), a thoughtful reader finds that a global flood interpretation is neither as obvious nor as consistent as a superficial reading may suggest. Given a commitment to the veracity of both the Genesis text and the scientific record, a plausible scenario begins to emerge. The case for a regional flood can be divided into four general categories: theological, textual, anthropological, and geological.

A Theological Perspective

Given that Genesis 6-9 tells the story of God's act of judgment against wholesale reprobation and spiritual ruin, scriptural integrity hinges primarily on whether the Flood killed all humanity except for the family of the one man who feared God. In other words, the key theological point is whether or not the Flood was universal in its effect, regardless of its physical extent. The original Hebrew text supports a universal flood impact and allows for a regional locus when viewed in context.

Throughout the Old Testament, God's judgment against sin is shown to be limited by the impact and extent of human wickedness. Usually it falls upon the sinners themselves, their children for several generations, birds and mammals used in their agricultural pursuits, their material possessions, and in extreme cases, their agricultural lands. If human life had not yet spread beyond Mesopotamia, God would have no reason to destroy those distant regions and the animal life there.

Textual Considerations

Genesis 8:9 records that the dove sent out by Noah could find no place to set her feet “because there was water over all the surface of the earth.” Yet four verses prior, in Genesis 8:5, the text says that the flood waters had receded enough so that for Noah the “tops of the mountains became visible.” Correct interpretation here depends on establishing the dove's frame of reference. Likewise, the phrase “under the entire heavens” in Genesis 7:19 must be interpreted from Noah's perspective in Mesopotamia, not from a modern global perspective.

Several examples from other passages of Scripture demonstrate this need for careful interpretation. In 1 Kings 10:24, the reader learns that "the whole world [emphasis added] sought audience with Solomon." Did every tribe from the Americas and the Far East send representatives? Few, if any, would make such an assumption. The most distant visitor mentioned in the biblical text is the queen of Sheba, a region near current Ethiopia (1 Kings 10:1-13). Romans 1:8 describes the faith of the Romans being reported "all over the world," but most readers understand Paul to mean Rome's world—“throughout the Roman Empire”—not every region of the planet.

Further help in interpreting the Flood text comes from Psalm 104. Verses 5-9 describe the recently formed Earth, a period before creation of advanced life, when oceans completely covered the globe. As the continents arose, the water collected in the ocean basins. The events described in these verses perfectly align with known geologic facts and the formation of the first land masses on creation day three (Genesis 1:9-10). The Psalm then goes on to clearly state that water would never again completely cover the planet.

An Anthropological Perspective

Treacherous mountains to the north and east, and inhospitable deserts to the south and west made the well-watered Mesopotamian Plain a difficult place for early humans to leave. Virtually all world history texts designate this area as the “cradle of civilization.”

The most repeated command of God to humanity in Genesis 1-9 is to multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:26, 28; 9:1; and 9:7). God's repeated insistence is indicative of man's consistent rebellion. People apparently resisted God's command to fill the earth so strongly that God directly intervened at Babel (Genesis 11:9) to scatter them. As further evidence for man's failure to expand beyond the Mesopotamian region, all people mentioned in Genesis 1-9 lived in that locale.[1] And it is a large area. Today more than 20 million people live in the modern country of Iraq, which encompasses most of the Mesopotamian Plain.[2]

A Geophysical Perspective

A regional flood interpretation fits the scientific facts about the quantity of water available in Earth's crust and atmosphere. Genesis 7:11-12 indicates that the floodwaters came from Earth's aquifers and atmosphere and eventually (according to Gen. 8:1-5), returned to those places. Physical scientists can calculate that Earth contains only 22% of the water required to cover every mountain on the planet.

Some interpreters have postulated radical geologic changes over the entire Earth during the Genesis flood year as a way to reduce the required quantity of water. However, such monumental rates of plate tectonics and erosion defy all geologic evidence collected over the last 200 years. Additionally, the ark could never have withstood the catastrophic forces generated.

The geologic history of Earth is well understood based upon observable tectonic processes, constantly improving radiometric dating techniques, and thousands of deep core samples taken over the entire globe.[3] Geology research findings do not support a global flood interpretation. On the other hand, a regional flood interpretation can be tested and verified.

Even a localized flood of the magnitude demanded by the text and by theological considerations depends on God's direct action. Atmospheric and geologic processes sufficient to bring about the convergence of vast quantities of water at one place, at one time, defy explanation as “coincidental” random occurrences. Although God's intervention is difficult to prove scientifically, certain factors can be tested to show the plausibility of such an interpretation.[4]

One factor is the geography of the Mesopotamian region. More specifically, the region's topography combined with the Flood's extreme meteorological conditions could support the containment of the floodwaters for several months. These floodwaters would have been deep enough to destroy all humanity and associated animals except those on the ark.

Topographers can use digital elevation data to make a shaded relief map . Although subjectively appealing, this type of map offers limited help in analysis and measurement. (see image at the bottom)

Figure Shaded Relief Map of the Middle East.

A more effective way to analyze topography is to create an elevation layer tint to depict bands of elevation. Using a computer and geographic information system (GIS) software, the band/elevation combinations can be adjusted to make the desired information stand out visually. The widths of the bands also provide a general indication of slope. Elevation layer tints of the Middle East region have been made in the past, but typically from data with elevation posts at only one-kilometer intervals. Although general topography can be seen with one-kilometer data, subtle details in the terrain cannot be discerned (figure 2).

Figure 2 Elevation Layer Tint of the Middle East from 1-Kilometer Data [6]

An elevation layer tint of the Mesopotamian region from 100-meter data (figure 3) created from digital elevation data with an elevation post every 3 arc seconds (~100 meters) yields significant detail.[7] The preparation of the layer tint presented here required importing 204 one-degree cells of data into ArcView GIS software. The next step was to merge the cells into one huge gridded data set covering 892,000 square miles. The data in each cell were then normalized into seven colored bands for ease of viewing and interpretation. Modern political boundaries and vectors representing the two major rivers in the area were added for reference. Finally, modern country names and map annotations were added for clarity. Because of the resolution of the elevation data, intricate topographic details can be seen at 200-, 300-, and 400-meter elevations corresponding to the probable extent of the Genesis Flood.

Figure 3 Elevation Layer Tint of the Mesopotamian Region from 100-Meter Data

Several important deductions can be made from the higher-resolution elevation layer tint (figure 3):

1. The topography of the Mesopotamian region forms a huge U-shaped bowl that stretches 600 miles from the Persian Gulf to the northwest. Steep escarpments that rise quickly from less than 200 meters to 1,000 meters set boundaries for the Mesopotamian Plain on the north and the east. Terrain that rises gradually, but consistently, to heights above 400 meters forms the southern and western boundaries. Elevations above 400 meters fully contain the Mesopotamian Plain except where it meets the sea.

2. The biblical flood account refers to extraordinary geophysical events. Huge underground aquifers (“the springs of the great deep” in Genesis 7:11) suddenly "burst forth." In addition, Genesis 7:12 states that “the floodgates of the heavens” opened, and rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights. In other words, hard rain fell in the region continuously for 40 days. Meteorologically, these factors constitute an unprecedented rain event in a region that averages only 10-20 inches of rainfall per year.[8] No natural explanation exists for a storm so large, intense, or persistent in this region.

A super-storm of this unprecedented magnitude would have produced an enormous surge in the Persian Gulf. During a storm surge, the force of the winds circulating around the storm's low-pressure center pushes water ashore. A large hurricane can cause storm surges 50 miles wide and 25 feet deep.[9] Shallow coastal waters like those in the Persian Gulf only amplify a storm surge (see Figure 1). And, greater storm surges are observed with slow-moving storms. The Genesis super-storm remained stationary for at least five weeks; so the height of the storm surge must have been larger (by some incalculable amount) than any Earth has experienced since that time. A storm surge that reached 200 meters deep certainly would have been sufficient to sustain the destructive flood levels for the length of time Genesis records.

Assuming the Earth's entire human population lived on the Mesopotamian Plain at that time, a flood that reached 200 to 300 meters deep would have destroyed all humanity on the land. The geographical extent of such a flood would have included areas that today belong to Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Syria (see figure 3).

3. The account of the ark's resting place also seems geographically and historically plausible. Genesis 8:4 describes that place as the “mountains of Ararat,” well below the highest probable flood elevation (~400 meters) in what is now north central Iraq. Figure 4 provides a view of the raw elevation data in the layer-tint project prior to normalization. The rugged and steeply ascending mountains of Ararat are clearly visible. On a side note, one may logically assume that no post-Flood society would have left the ark's precut lumber unexploited; searching for the ark most likely represents a fruitless exercise.[10]

Figure 4 Elevation Data in the Mountains of Ararat Region

Although the exact geographical extent of the Genesis Flood may never be known, geologists can say with some assurance that the event described in Scripture makes sense as a localized, but universal—with respect to humans and their animals—catastrophe. This interpretation of the Genesis Flood text fits the facts in evidence. A worldview that carefully and respectfully integrates biblical data with scientific data provides coherent and testable answers to big questions of life—including questions about origins, meaning, morality, and destiny.[11] A regional flood interpretation of Genesis 6-9 provides one of the cornerstones of the truth about human history that ought to be taught in Sunday school.

Steve Sarigianis is a research engineer and retired U.S. Army officer with a master of science degree in Geography from Penn State. He has extensive experience in the field of military mapping and has taught geography and astronomy at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

Sidebar: Water-level Math (by Hugh Ross)

The Genesis text does not specify the exact depth of the floodwaters. It states only that the ark floated up on the waters and that the nearby hills were so inundated that from Noah's perspective the whole face of Earth was covered with water. That is, from one horizon to the other, all Noah could see was water.

An ark 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high, loaded with animals and supplies, probably needed a draft of at least 20 feet. If Noah stood on top of the ark, his eye level would have been approximately 30 feet above the waters (refraction corrections included). The water level horizon for him would have been about 8 miles away. Any hill more distant than about 15 miles, sticking up even a hundred feet or more above the water, would have been invisible. Hills higher than 500 feet and 1,000 feet above water level would have been beyond the possible view of Noah if they were more than 28 and 38 miles distant, respectively.

Are there any regions in Mesopotamia where, if the Tigris and/or Euphrates Rivers overflowed their banks by a depth of 20 feet or so, water would extend to 28 or 38 miles on either side? Yes. Such regions exist in both southern and middle Mesopotamia. It would be difficult, though not impossible, to imagine how so little water could wipe out all humans and all the birds and mammals associated with them. Fifty feet, a hundred feet, or a few hundred feet depth of water would provide a more realistic scenario.

The rate at which a 50-foot, 100-foot, or higher surge of water above the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers would flow out to the Persian Gulf depends upon the slope of the land. From 400 miles northwest of Ur to Ur (the location of the Persian shore at the time of Noah), the Euphrates and Tigris rivers drop just 300 feet in elevation. This drop provides a grade of only about 0.01 percent. With that gentle a slope, the Flood waters would have moved very slowly out to the Persian Gulf. Moreover, for several months after the rain stopped, any water that exited to the Gulf would have been replaced with runoff from springs and melting snow on the distant mountains that surround the Mesopotamian Plain.

Genesis 8:1 states that God removed the floodwaters by sending a wind. Given the gentle slope of the land, evaporation plays a more significant role than gravity in removing the water. Such a scenario is consistent with the worst floods that have struck the Mississippi Valley, for example. The water rose 50 feet above the banks in those Mississippi floods and then it seemed to stand still.1 Residents of the region noticed little discernable movement. They had to wait for the waters to dry up.

Just how effective is evaporation for removing flood waters? During a typical Southern California summer the swimming pools lose an average of one inch of water per day to evaporation. Lower humidity, higher heat, and a strong wind can triple or quadruple that rate. Over the 335 days during which Noah's Flood receded, that would add up to 84-112 feet of evaporation. If gravity had removed about half that much water, the total water depth removed would have been 126-168 feet. That is easily enough water to account for Noah's seeing nothing but water for as far as his eyes could see. That is easily enough water to destroy all of Noah's contemporaries and their animals outside the ark. And, that is easily enough water to carry the ark to the foothills of Ararat.

Source: http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/20 ... oahs_flood

[Gman]

I wanted to touch base on the work of Dr. Juris Zarins. He, like many, is also putting the local flood in the Mesopotamian flood plains. This article by him has some pretty compelling evidence.

Like William Ryan and Walter Pitman and their interpretation of the breach of ice water into the Black Sea at the Bosphorus, also known as the Istanbul Strait in Turkey, Zarins believes that the strait of Hormuz (at the beginning of the Persian gulf) was breached by the flood waters of the European glacier ice melt.



This large amount of water (the fountains of the deep -Genesis 7:1), along with the rain, would have cascaded into the Mesopotamian flood plains wiping out all the inhabitants. Is the garden of eden and part of the local flood zone currently under the Persian gulf? Perhaps, we just don't have enough information yet.. This is just a little bit of information derived from a History Channel episode I saw the other day on this very subject.



A bit more on the subject here..

Source: http://www.ldolphin.org/eden/

LANDSAT spots a "fossil river"

At this stage in his thesis, Zarins goes back to geography and geology to pinpoint the area of Eden where he believes the collision came to a head. The evidence is beguiling: first, Genesis was written from a Hebrew point of view. It says the Garden was "eastward," i.e., east of Israel. It is quite specific about the rivers. The Tigris and the Euphrates are easy because they still flow. At the time Genesis was written, the Euphrates must have been the major one because it stands identified by name only and without an explanation about what it "compasseth." The Pison can be identified from the Biblical reference to the land of Havilah, which is easily located in the Biblical Table of Nations (Genesis 10:7, 25:18) as relating to localities and people within a Mesopotamian-Arabian framework. Supporting the Biblical evidence of Havilah are geological evidence on the ground and LANDSAT images from space. These images clearly show a "fossil river," that once flowed through northern Arabia and through the now dry beds, which modern Saudis and Kuwaitis know as the Wadi Riniah and the Wadi Batin. Furthermore. as the Bible says, this region was rich in bdellium, an aromatic gum resin that can still be found in north Arabia, and gold, which was still mined in the general area in the 1950s.

[Gman]

I don't neccessarily believe in the city of Atlantis, but I found this article a bit interesting...

Introduction to Great Atlantis Flood Theory

The Great Atlantis Flood Theory presents scientific evidence which supports the truth of the history of Atlantis, as recorded in the Dialogues of Plato. According to the Dialogues, the history of Atlantis, Attica and Hellas was recorded in ancient sacred Egyptian records. The Dialogues reveal that an aged Egyptian priest showed these records to a visiting Greek statesman named Solon, known as the wisest of the Seven Greek Sages and “Lawgiver” of Athens. Solon translated the records and wrote an unfinished epic poem containing all the details of these ancient civilizations. This poem was subsequently recited by Critias and recorded in The Dialogues of Plato. The Dialogues affirm that these historical records are not fiction but are indeed fact, and that the perseverance, tragedies and triumphs of the inhabitants of these ancient nations, as revealed in the records, are absolutely true!

The Egyptian priest described the founding of ancient Atlantis by Poseidon and Clieto and the founding of ancient Athens by Hephaestus and Athene, at some date which was lost in antiquity. Many generations of empire builders created their great kingdoms and established their provinces. These kingdoms grew and prospered, however as their cultures evolved, they formed vastly different governmental control systems.

In 9,600 BC, the burgeoning military-minded, male-dominated aristocracy of the Empire of Atlantis sought to subjugate the freedom-loving, ecologically-friendly and equality-minded Athenians. This began a great war between the two empires. Battles raged throughout the provinces, and then as the Athenians were marching against the mighty City of Atlantis, Mother-Nature wrought a dramatic end to the hostilities, the combatants and their empires. Suddenly the magnificent City of Atlantis was destroyed by an earthquake and the Island of Atlantis sank into the sea, and the modest homes and fertile farmlands of the Hellenes were washed into the sea by an “extraordinary inundation,” which left only a remnant of Attica.

Overview of the Great Atlantis Flood, and the extraordinary inundation of Atlantis, Attica and Hellas.



1. Caspian Sea
2. Manych-Kerch Gateway
3. Atlantis
4. Diverse islands
5. Black Sea
6. Attica
7. Hellas
8. Mediterranean Sea.

The Great Atlantis Flood Theory presents evidence which supports the truth of the history of Atlantis. We propose that the Dialogues of Plato present an accurate account of geological events, occurring in 9,600 BC, in the Black Sea-Mediterranean Corridor, extending from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. Glacial melt-waters, at the end of the Younger Dryas Ice Age, raised the level of the Caspian Sea (1.). An earthquake caused the Manych-Kerch Gateway (2.) to fracture, allowing the Caspian Sea to break through into the farmlands of Atlantis (3.). Simultaneously the earthquake caused the Atlantean farmlands to sink, thus increasing the intensity of the flood waters from the Caspian Sea. The Island of Atlantis “disappeared” beneath the flood waters which filled the Azov depression. The earthquake and resulting tsunami washed away diverse islands (4.) in the Black Sea (5.). The earthquake and tsunami also caused the Black Sea to flood into Attica (6.), via the Sakarya River Delta and/or to burst up through a proposed subterranean outflow channel causing the farmlands of Attica and Hellas (7.) to be washed away into the Mediterranean Sea (8.).

The Great Atlantis Flood of 9,600 BC

The aged Egyptian priest presents an accurate account of the torrential flooding which occurred 9,000 years before Solon's visit to Egypt. The priest displayed an uncanny knowledge of history by citing the date for the catastrophic destruction of Atlantis at 9,600 BC. This date coincides with scientific evidence of catastrophic global flooding at the end of the Younger Dryas ice age, in exactly 9,600 BC.

An aged Egyptian priest set the date for the destruction of the empire of Atlantis and the empire of the Hellenes at 11,600 years ago (9,600 BC.). “Abrupt cooling about 15,000 years ago gives way to abrupt warming at the end of the Younger Dryas period some 11,600 years ago, with a climatic ripple effect impacting habitats around the world.”

Glacial Ice Melt caused the level of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea to rise dramatically.



1. Bosporus Land Bridge
2.Sakarya River Delta
3. Manych-Kerch Gateway
4. Caspian Sea
5. Atlantis
6. Black Sea
7. Hellas

Glacial ice-melt from a vast drainage area caused the water level of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea to rise dramatically at the end of the Younger Dryas ice age, in 9,600 BC. The water levels of the land-locked Caspian and Black Seas rose at a much faster rate than the level of the world oceans. The Black Sea was only 20 meters below its current level, in 9.600 BC, due to this torrential flooding.

Source: //atlantis-today.com/Atlantis_Great_Atlantis_Flood.htm

[Gman]

Black Sea Flood hypothesis and regional geology



In 1998, William Ryan and Walter Pitman, geologists from Columbia University, published evidence that a massive flood through the Bosporus occurred about 5600 BC. Glacial meltwater had turned the Black and Caspian Seas into vast freshwater lakes, while sea levels remained lower worldwide. The fresh water lakes were emptying their waters into the Aegean Sea. As the glaciers retreated, rivers emptying into the Black Sea reduced their volume and found new outlets in the North Sea, and the water levels lowered through evaporation. Then, about 5600 BC, as sea levels rose, Ryan and Pitman suggest, the rising Mediterranean finally spilled over a rocky sill at the Bosporus. The event flooded 60,000 mile² (155,000 km²) of land and significantly expanded the Black Sea shoreline to the north and west. Ryan and Pitman wrote:

"Ten cubic miles [42 km³] of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls. …The Bosporus flume roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days."

The review of sediments in the Black Sea in 2004 by a pan-European project (Assemblage — Noah Project) was compatible with the conclusion of Pitman and Ryan. Calculations made by Mark Siddall predicted an underwater canyon that was actually found.

Source: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

[Himantolophus]

very interesting stuff.

I saw the History Channel episode on the Garden of Eden and they presented compelling evidence for the existence of the Garden as under the Persian Gulf. The location fits in well with the rest of Biblical history and it also ties in with the rise of advanced civilization. The fossil rivers which may be the two "missing rivers" in the description of Eden is also interesting as it may show that the Persian Gulf Dam break may have occurred.

The Caspian Sea location for the flood is also very interesting as it seems to fit all of the evidence both in the Bible and in science. But what exactly caused the Caspain Sea to flood? Was it the same glacial meltdown and dam breakage was we see in the Med, Black Sea , and Persian Gulf? Is there a potential dam location or did the meltwater all just congregate in that drainage basin and fill up?

Thinking about all the options, the chronology seems to fit in with Biblical events and it also mirrors the origins of civilization. Adam and Eve may represent man's settling into a agrarian lifestyle. They lived in the Persian Gulf region. After they were banished from the Garden, the melting and receding of the glaciers at around 5-10K years may have impacted the neck of land protecting the Persian Gulf Valley. Rising sea levels and potentially a broken dam of some sort would have breached the Valley and buried the Garden (and the fossil rivers). By this time, Adam and Eve would have left the area and their descendents migrated throughout the MidEast. The warming period would have continued and the receding glaciers would have exposed several basins NORTH of the Persian Gulf to flooding. Thus the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea regions would have been impacted by catastrophies at around the same time. Who knows, there may be additional regions around the world impacted by these "meltwater floods". The warming climate would have no doubt increased rainfall amounts as well. It would have also assisted man's more staic lifestyle and the rise of Mesopotamia and the like. The catastrophic floods would have inspired the Stories of Gilgamesh, Noah, and all the other flood stories. They may have been based on one, or many separate, flood events. The catastrophic nature of the floods made them unescapable and also served to demonstrate Noah's faith in God (as God warned of the Flood).

It's very interesting how the climatic, geologic, and anthropologic evidence converges here!

[Gman]

very interesting stuff.

I saw the History Channel episode on the Garden of Eden and they presented compelling evidence for the existence of the Garden as under the Persian Gulf. The location fits in well with the rest of Biblical history and it also ties in with the rise of advanced civilization. The fossil rivers which may be the two "missing rivers" in the description of Eden is also interesting as it may show that the Persian Gulf Dam break may have occurred.

Yes, this picture shows the location of Eden a bit closer and underwater.



Source: //www.biblemysteries.com/library/edens.htm

The Caspian Sea location for the flood is also very interesting as it seems to fit all of the evidence both in the Bible and in science. But what exactly caused the Caspain Sea to flood? Was it the same glacial meltdown and dam breakage was we see in the Med, Black Sea , and Persian Gulf? Is there a potential dam location or did the meltwater all just congregate in that drainage basin and fill up?

Yes, I believe the glacial ice melt caused the level of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea to rise dramatically. One of the problems here is that Noah's flood was a sudden event. According to some ancient records, however, in 9,600 BC, a devastating impulse rupture earthquake suddenly hit Kerch, Crimea, Ukraine.

"The Kopet-Dagh tectonic thrust fault runs along the northern edge of Kerch Peninsula, in Crimea and the Taman Peninsula, in Russia. Rupture zones run along the northern coast of the Kerch peninsula, and also transverse to it in the Kerch Strait and the Kazantip peninsula. Scientific evidence reveals that an earthquake, estimated at magnitude 8.9, hit Crimea during the late Pleistocene or early Holocene, the date of 9,600 BC rests comfortably within the middle of this time frame."



But according to Glenn Morton. He has dismissed the Caspian Sea as a location for Noah's Flood based on these two factors:

1. The basin has no geological deposits which would qualify as flood deposits. Morton himself answers this in another of his articles. In critiquing the Mesopotamian flood scenario, Morton states that "To completely erode flood sediments takes more than 20,000 years. In the progressive creationist time frame for the flood, it could not have occurred prior to 35,000 years ago. Most likely it was about 50,000 years ago. Thus, we have twice the amount of time that Morton allows for completely eroding away any flood sediments. Given this vast amount of time, we cannot expect to find any flood sediments from Noah's Flood.

2. To cover the high mountains in the Caspian basin would require covering the entire earth to a depth of 3,000 feet.5 However, we don't have to cover all the high mountains. So long as Noah floated on a body of water that was several hundred miles wide, he would not be able to see the high mountains on the sides of the flood region. All Noah would see would be water in all directions. Hence, from his perspective all the high mountains were covered.

Thinking about all the options, the chronology seems to fit in with Biblical events and it also mirrors the origins of civilization. Adam and Eve may represent man's settling into a agrarian lifestyle. They lived in the Persian Gulf region. After they were banished from the Garden, the melting and receding of the glaciers at around 5-10K years may have impacted the neck of land protecting the Persian Gulf Valley. Rising sea levels and potentially a broken dam of some sort would have breached the Valley and buried the Garden (and the fossil rivers). By this time, Adam and Eve would have left the area and their descendents migrated throughout the MidEast. The warming period would have continued and the receding glaciers would have exposed several basins NORTH of the Persian Gulf to flooding. Thus the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea regions would have been impacted by catastrophies at around the same time. Who knows, there may be additional regions around the world impacted by these "meltwater floods". The warming climate would have no doubt increased rainfall amounts as well. It would have also assisted man's more staic lifestyle and the rise of Mesopotamia and the like. The catastrophic floods would have inspired the Stories of Gilgamesh, Noah, and all the other flood stories. They may have been based on one, or many separate, flood events. The catastrophic nature of the floods made them unescapable and also served to demonstrate Noah's faith in God (as God warned of the Flood).

It's very interesting how the climatic, geologic, and anthropologic evidence converges here!

Yes it is interesting on how this all adds up. On top of that, if there was a huge European ice sheet to the north of them as shown in the picture below, it would have prevented them from spreading to other areas of the world, thus supporting the local flood theory.

[Gman]

I would like to take a minute to examine Reason's to Believe flood area again in the Mesopotamian region with a better picture of it's basin at the bottom.

Sidebar: Water-level Math (by Hugh Ross)

The Genesis text does not specify the exact depth of the floodwaters. It states only that the ark floated up on the waters and that the nearby hills were so inundated that from Noah's perspective the whole face of Earth was covered with water. That is, from one horizon to the other, all Noah could see was water.

An ark 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high, loaded with animals and supplies, probably needed a draft of at least 20 feet. If Noah stood on top of the ark, his eye level would have been approximately 30 feet above the waters (refraction corrections included). The water level horizon for him would have been about 8 miles away. Any hill more distant than about 15 miles, sticking up even a hundred feet or more above the water, would have been invisible. Hills higher than 500 feet and 1,000 feet above water level would have been beyond the possible view of Noah if they were more than 28 and 38 miles distant, respectively.

Are there any regions in Mesopotamia where, if the Tigris and/or Euphrates Rivers overflowed their banks by a depth of 20 feet or so, water would extend to 28 or 38 miles on either side? Yes. Such regions exist in both southern and middle Mesopotamia. It would be difficult, though not impossible, to imagine how so little water could wipe out all humans and all the birds and mammals associated with them. Fifty feet, a hundred feet, or a few hundred feet depth of water would provide a more realistic scenario.

The rate at which a 50-foot, 100-foot, or higher surge of water above the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers would flow out to the Persian Gulf depends upon the slope of the land. From 400 miles northwest of Ur to Ur (the location of the Persian shore at the time of Noah), the Euphrates and Tigris rivers drop just 300 feet in elevation. This drop provides a grade of only about 0.01 percent. With that gentle a slope, the Flood waters would have moved very slowly out to the Persian Gulf. Moreover, for several months after the rain stopped, any water that exited to the Gulf would have been replaced with runoff from springs and melting snow on the distant mountains that surround the Mesopotamian Plain.

Genesis 8:1 states that God removed the floodwaters by sending a wind. Given the gentle slope of the land, evaporation plays a more significant role than gravity in removing the water. Such a scenario is consistent with the worst floods that have struck the Mississippi Valley, for example. The water rose 50 feet above the banks in those Mississippi floods and then it seemed to stand still.1 Residents of the region noticed little discernable movement. They had to wait for the waters to dry up.

Just how effective is evaporation for removing flood waters? During a typical Southern California summer the swimming pools lose an average of one inch of water per day to evaporation. Lower humidity, higher heat, and a strong wind can triple or quadruple that rate. Over the 335 days during which Noah's Flood receded, that would add up to 84-112 feet of evaporation. If gravity had removed about half that much water, the total water depth removed would have been 126-168 feet. That is easily enough water to account for Noah's seeing nothing but water for as far as his eyes could see. That is easily enough water to destroy all of Noah's contemporaries and their animals outside the ark. And, that is easily enough water to carry the ark to the foothills of Ararat.

Figure 2 Elevation Layer Tint of the Middle East from 1-Kilometer Data [6]

An elevation layer tint of the Mesopotamian region from 100-meter data (figure 3) created from digital elevation data with an elevation post every 3 arc seconds (~100 meters) yields significant detail.[7] The preparation of the layer tint presented here required importing 204 one-degree cells of data into ArcView GIS software. The next step was to merge the cells into one huge gridded data set covering 892,000 square miles. The data in each cell were then normalized into seven colored bands for ease of viewing and interpretation. Modern political boundaries and vectors representing the two major rivers in the area were added for reference. Finally, modern country names and map annotations were added for clarity. Because of the resolution of the elevation data, intricate topographic details can be seen at 200-, 300-, and 400-meter elevations corresponding to the probable extent of the Genesis Flood.

Figure Elevation Layer Tint of the Mesopotamian Region from 100-Meter Data

Several important deductions can be made from the higher-resolution elevation layer tint:

1. The topography of the Mesopotamian region forms a huge U-shaped bowl that stretches 600 miles from the Persian Gulf to the northwest. Steep escarpments that rise quickly from less than 200 meters to 1,000 meters set boundaries for the Mesopotamian Plain on the north and the east. Terrain that rises gradually, but consistently, to heights above 400 meters forms the southern and western boundaries. Elevations above 400 meters fully contain the Mesopotamian Plain except where it meets the sea.

2. The account of the ark's resting place also seems geographically and historically plausible. Genesis 8:4 describes that place as the “mountains of Ararat,” well below the highest probable flood elevation (~400 meters) in what is now north central Iraq. Figure 4 provides a view of the raw elevation data in the layer-tint project prior to normalization. The rugged and steeply ascending mountains of Ararat are clearly visible. On a side note, one may logically assume that no post-Flood society would have left the ark's precut lumber unexploited; searching for the ark most likely represents a fruitless exercise.

Also according to Greg Neyman the ark would have to be at least 95.85 miles away in order for Noah not to see the mountains. As the google terrain picture clearly shows, there really is a gradual slope at the bottom of the Mesopotamian plain before it hits the Persian Gulf. Would this be enough to hold back enough water in the basin to produce Noah's flood?

[Himantolophus]

GMan: off topic a little. Do you believe the ark was still the ship we see in the drawings of the subject? Was it the big barge with the barn on top? Or was it more like secular documentaries say it was: a raft-like barge or catamaran structure holding only domesticated livestock and some local wild animals? While I don't object to the ark being "Biblical sized", I find it hard to believe one man and his family could construct such a craft in the middle of nowhere.

[Gman]

GMan: off topic a little. Do you believe the ark was still the ship we see in the drawings of the subject? Was it the big barge with the barn on top? Or was it more like secular documentaries say it was: a raft-like barge or catamaran structure holding only domesticated livestock and some local wild animals? While I don't object to the ark being "Biblical sized", I find it hard to believe one man and his family could construct such a craft in the middle of nowhere.

Himantolophus,

Yes, definitely more like barge. Not a huge boat as depicted by most creationists... In fact when you look at a ship such as the Titanic (882 feet long by 92 feet wide), it was nearly twice the size of Noah's ark (450 feet long by 75 feet wide) but only had the capacity of about 3,547 persons. Yet we are told that Noah could fit all the animals into his ark thought out the whole world (around some 3,858,920 animals) including about a years supply of food to feed them. I wonder how on earth this could ever be accomplished...

This picture below (by another member here) is possibly the closest we can come to how Noah's ark looked. The Bronze Age civilizations were capable of building vessels of such size as the one depicted below. They were mainly used for transporting obelisks during the reign of Queen Hatshepsut (about 1,480 BC, Late Bronze Age), using Early Bronze Age technology (the overhead cables are hogging trusses): It carried two obelisks (each 29.6 metres long, weighing around 323 tons), and the ship itself is estimated at 95-140 metres long and 32 metres wide.

[Gman]

I found this article from wikipedia to be very interesting...

The lower Tigris-Euphrates Valley, reflooding the Persian Gulf (12,000 years ago)

This is type 1. When sea levels were low, the combined Tigris-Euphrates river flowed through a wide flat marshy landscape. The Persian Gulf today has an average depth of only 35 m. During the most recent glaciation, which ended 12,000 years ago, worldwide sea levels dropped 120 to 130 m, leaving the bed of the Persian Gulf well above sea level during the glacial maximum. It had to have been a swampy freshwater floodplain, where water was retained in all the hollows. High in the Taurus Mountains glaciation will have been extensive.

The drainage of the combined glacial era Tigris-Euphrates made its way down the marshes of this proto-Shatt-al-Arab to the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Sea. Reports of the exploration ship "Meteor" have confirmed that the Gulf was an entirely dry basin about 15,000 BC. Close to the steeper Iranian side a deep channel apparently marks the course of the ancient extended Shatt al-Arab, being called the "Ur-Schatt". A continuous shallow shelf across the top (north) of the Gulf and down the west side (at 20 m) suggests that this section was the last to be inundated. At the Straits of Hormuz the bathymetric profile indicates a division into two main channels which continue across the Bieban Shelf before dropping to a depth of c 400 m in the Gulf of Oman; the deeper parts of these channels may be due to delta deposits at the edge of the deep ocean collapsing in a succession of big underwater landslides, causing underwater erosion by the resulting turbidity currents.

There is a theory that there was also a Black-Sea-type sill collapse at the Strait of Hormuz at the outlet of the Persian Gulf, so converting this case into type 3.



In a 1981 Journal of Cuneiform Studies article, "The Tangible Evidence for the Earliest Dilmun", Theresa Howard-Carter espoused her theory identifying Dilmun with Qurna, an island at the Strait of Hormuz. Her scenario put the original mouths of the Tigris-Euphrates rivers, which she thought should be the site of the primeval Dilmun, at or even beyond the Straits of Hormuz. Mainstream archaeologists have avoided mentioning her article for fear of its apparent catastrophism, an awkward subject in geology.[5] Theresa Howard-Carter also wrote: "It is more likely that the original Gulf inhabitants lived along the banks of the lower or extended Shatt al-Arab, ranging some 800 km across the dry Gulf bed. We can thus postulate that the pre-Sumerian cultures had more than ample time to be born and flourish in a riverine setting, encouraged by the agricultural potential and the blessings of a temperate climate. The fact that the body of proof for the existence of these societies must now lie at the bottom of the Gulf furnishes at least a temporary excuse for the archaeologist's failure to produce evidence for their material culture."

In our time, mangrove edge habitat and coral reefs encrustation of fossil dunes[6] characterize the Persian Gulf. Mangroves recolonize easily from established mangrove fringe colonies elsewhere in the Arabian Sea. Artificial reefs are being established today along the coast of Iran. But if the Persian Gulf filled so recently, then how have the reefs re-established? The present-day natural reef developments in the Persian Gulf, corals grow on hardground substrates but have not yet formed the massive calcium carbonate structures familiar from, say, Australia's Great Barrier Reef.[7]

The article Dive conditions described by Eric Bjornstrom found in 1999 in Dubai coral-encrusted sand barrier islands situated 32 km off the coast of the Saudi city of Jubail.[8] There lies a chain of five coral cays, barely above the tide. They appear to be formations called diapirs in which a mobile core containing minerals of low density such as salt, deforms under pressure. The core pushes upwards, deforming overlying rock to form a dome. An ancient diapir at Enorama formed an island in shallow seas, buoyed up by salt. There are similar examples today in the Persian Gulf.

None of these theories, however, are to be confused with more mainstream, confirmed evidence of relatively recent extended local flooding in this part of the world. Excavations in Iraq, for example, have shown evidence of a flood at Shuruppak around 2900-2750 BCE which extended nearly as far as the city of Kish (whose king, Etana, supposedly founded the first Sumerian dynasty after the Deluge). Sir C. Leonard Woolley's excavations at Ur south of Uruk in the 1920s found a more than 2.5 m thick homogeneous silty loam stratum that was void of artifacts, which Woolley in 1931[9] ascribed to to Noah's Flood.

Source: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28prehistoric%29#The_lower_Tigris-Euphrates_Valley.2C_reflooding_the_Persian_Gulf_.2812.2C000_years_ago.29

[Gman]

I thought I would throw Glenn R. Morton's flood theory into this as well.. In a nutshell Glenn believes that the Mediterranean Sea was once a dry basin where humans once lived. Water then came from the Atlantic Ocean (Noah's flood) into the basin and wiped out all of humanity.

The Mediterranean Basin Model

In this model of the Flood, Noah and the preflood world would have been living on the floor of the Mediterranean. Noah would have built the ark there with the local animals being loaded onto it. Since they might never have seen rainfall, the idea that it could rain would be quite a difficult concept for the antediluvians to swallow, thus explaining their rejection of Noah's warnings.

A prediction of this view is that humanity had lived on the Mediterranean Sea floor. Another prediction is that at some time such evidence will be found. But this view also requires some type of human to exist from 5.5 million years to the present. There are two anthropological discoveries separated by 30 years which indicate that the genus Homo, our genus, may extend back to at least 4.2 million years ago.54

For the antediluvians, life would have come to an end when the dam at Gibraltar catastrophically failed. Hsu hints at the size of the failure needed to cause the Flood described by Noah when he states:



One can picture the desiccated Mediterranean as a giant bathtub, with the Strait of Gibraltar as the faucet. Seawater roared in from the Atlantic through the strait in a gigantic waterfall. If the falls had delivered 1,000 cubic miles of sea water per year (equivalent to 30 million gallons per second, 10 times the discharge of Victoria Falls), the volume would not have been sufficient to replace the evaporative loss. In order to keep the infilling sea from getting too salty for even such a hardy microfauna as the one found in the dark gray marl the influx would have had to exceed evaporation by a factor of 10. Cascading at a rate of 10,000 cubic miles per year, the Gibraltar Falls would have been 100 times bigger than Victoria Falls and 1,000 times more so than Niagara. Even with such an impressive influx, more than 100 years would have been required to fill the empty bathtub.55

All it would take for the Flood to occur would be for these falls to erode their way through to the Atlantic Ocean. There is an indication of how deeply the Gibraltar Dam collapsed. The Trubi marl in Sicily, mentioned above, contained bottom dwelling animals that can only live in water depths in excess of 3,000 feet. The dam at Gibraltar must have broken at least to that depth so that these animals could crawl or be washed into the Mediterranean basin. This means that the collapse would have been catastrophic. Calculations show that with a break 3,000 feet deep, 15 miles wide, and a water speed of 15 miles per hour, the entire Mediterranean would refill in 8.4 months, an extremely short time compared with the massive quantity of water needed to fill this large basin.



As the water rushed in, the first phenomenon which would occur is that the air would begin to rise as it was replaced by the fluid filling the basin. The air would pick up moisture via evaporation from the flood water as it continued to pour into the Mediterranean. As the air rose, adiabatic cooling would take place. Adiabatic cooling is the cooling that occurs in a rising body of air which cools at 10 deg. C per kilometer. As the air cools, the moisture contained in the air condenses to form clouds which eventually will produce rain. Since the air over an area of 964,000 square miles was moving upwards simultaneously, the rains from this mechanism would be torrential! The modern world has never seen such a convection cell. Forty days of rain is easy to account for without having to postulate the impossible (e.g., air moving upwards all over the world for the year prior to the flood as required by Dillow's suggestion).

In this hypothesis of the Flood, Noah would have looked out his window and seen the tallest peaks in his land being covered by the deluge. His entire land and all that was in it would be destroyed. The rain would not be confined entirely to the Mediterranean basin. The air rising out of the basin would push out in a way that would cause torrential rains far from the present shorelines. Thus even the surrounding regions would not have escaped the deluge which is one possible explanation for the need of an ark. If the ark grounded on the Mediterranean shore, which Noah formerly knew as the mountains of Ararat, all he would see would be a flooded landscape. The continuing rains and humidity in the air would prevent him from seeing distant peaks. Ft. Worth is 30 miles west of Dallas. On a clear day one can see the skyline of that great city from Dallas, but if there is much humidity or haze, no amount of squinting will allow those buildings to be seen. Similarly, Noah would not be able to see very far. As the rain tapered off, Noah would have seen the distant peaks.

Since the ark would have landed on the present seashore - known to Noah as the mountains of Ararat- the subsequent generation...would not believe that what they now see as coastline was really the mountains of Ararat.

The astute reader will question the flow direction of the water running off the flooded rim of the Mediterranean basin. Water would be flowing off the land toward the center of the basin. Any object attempting to float toward shallow water would be pushed back by the advancing water. So how was the ark able to land on the shoreline of Turkey?

The addition of the weight of 3.7 million cubic kilometers of water would depress the basin causing earthquakes which would continue over the next few centuries. However, the earthquakes, making that adjustment, would begin immediately. The ark could have been pushed onshore by a minor tsunami. All tsunamis do not have to be huge; they come in all sizes. One only ten inches high struck Seattle, Washington in response to a minor Pacific earthquake.56 Once grounded, the ark would most likely remain stranded.

They would presume that the landing site was further inland or further north, where there were "real" mountains: mountains which they could see. Thus, the misidentification of the present Mt. Ararat.

The ark would either have rotted, been plundered for housing, firewood, etc., or have sunk beneath the Mediterranean due to the tectonic down-warping of the coastline in response to the new weight of water in the basin. If this view is correct, the search for the Ark on the present Ararat is futile.

The incident with the olive tree and the dove is really only understandable with a local flood. It is inconceivable that the olive leaf had survived one year under water and there certainly was not enough time for a new olive plant to sprout, barring the miraculous. In this model, the olive tree could have lived along a stream course somewhere higher than the general inundation that would have taken place along the coastline. When the bank gave way, the tree was washed downstream and grounded in the area of the ark, where the dove took the leaf and returned it to the ark. Noah would then know that the land was nearby.

Whitcomb and Morris attempt to explain the olive by saying that only a few months are necessary between the planting of an olive branch and the sprouting of the leaves.57 Only forty-seven days had elapsed between the appearance of the mountain tops and the plucking of the olive leaf. There would not have been enough time for the olive to sprout.

Conclusion

The model of Noah's Flood presented here is a novel but plausible scenario for the Flood, which fits all the disparate facts outlined in Genesis and in the geological record of the Mediterranean. The model handles the listed problems as follows:

1. The localization of the human race. The view must assume that one of three conditions held: (1) the flood occurred early enough in human history so that there was not widespread migration throughout the world; (2) the lands surrounding the Mediterranean were too hostile to navigate (but this violates God's command to fill the earth); or (3) humankind, in its rebellion, refused to disperse. A refusal to disperse could have some bearing on God's reaction to a similar refusal to disperse at Babel.

2 The location of the local flood is identified. The importance of this is that it allows rational discussion of the implications which the view predicts. Evidence for and against the view can be collected. It also removes the nebulousness of most local flood theories.

3. The Mediterranean basin provides the only location on earth in which a local flood could transport the ark to the top of 10,000-feet-tall mountains. This most serious of objections to a local flood is negated by the chosen location. Furthermore, the Mediterranean basin exactly fits the hydrologic and mineralogic description of the preflood countryside.

4. The ark was needed to save the lives of Noah and his family and the animals. Due to the vast areas over which rain would occur in such a catastrophe, migration of Noah and the animals would be unlikely.

5. The Mediterranean basin provides the only location which can explain why the flood would last a little over one year in duration.

6. The size of the ark is poorly understood due to a loss of the relevant length of the cubit.

One objection which must be countered is the charge that advocating a local flood is equivalent to giving in to the demands of modern geology. Strictly speaking this is not true since as Filby notes, Matthew Poole in 1670 and Edward Stillingfleet in 1662 both argued for a local flood prior to the advent of geological knowledge.58

From the point of view of a geoscientist who believes the biblical account, it is reassuring that there exists a hypothesis which exactly fits the facts outlined in the biblical record. While this hypothesis is not concordant with the most widely held view of the Flood, it should be judged not upon how well it fits our present view but upon how well it fits the available facts of theology, geology, and physics.

Source: //www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/P ... orton.html

[johnt]

I thought that this link might be of particular interest to this discussion.

http://www.baseinstitute.org/features/noahsark.htm

[Gman]

I thought that this link might be of particular interest to this discussion.

http://www.baseinstitute.org/features/noahsark.htm

Thanks for sharing that John... This article too seems to be placing the Ark in Iran.

http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/article49.html

Based on the following information:

1. Ararat refers to a region of mountains, not just a single mountain. Gen. 8:4
2. Ararat is east of Shinar (Babylon). Gen. 11:2
3. Ararat is east of Lake Urmiah (also spelled Urmia) in Iran.
4. Other ancient writers put the Ark in Iran.
5. A British explorer in 1894, and an American soldier in 1943, confirm local Iranians believed the Ark landed on Takht-i-Suleiman (east of Lake Urmiah); the British explorer claimed to see a wooden shrine, and the American soldier claimed to see the Ark.
6. BASE Teams in 2005 and 2006 find possible evidence of the shrine and the Ark on Takht-i-Suleiman.