Evidence for God from Science

Why Noah's flood was global - http://www.gotquestions.org/global-flood.html
Why Noah's flood was local - http://godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html



Lot's of reading...but both have excellent points made.


What do you believe and why?

I'm not married to either. The evidence for local flooding has been established but for a universal flood it seems that some Christian geologists say that best explains the sedimentary layers. Who do we believe? Interpretation is always subject to the human factor e.g. the same evidence producing different interpretations.

The bible certainly gives us the impression of a worldwide deluge e.g. "all flesh under heaven" but doesn't specify the whole world in explicit terms.

Guess I'll just have to sit on the fence 'till someone convinces me to jump off on one or the other side.

I believe it's local although I admit that it's far from an obvious biblical interpretation, and also, a lot of the "flood legends" in various cultures that probably descend from the original source seem to be about global floods. Of course, cultures back then had no sense of the earth as a sphere as we know it now, so a universal flood would have been as good as a global flood as far as they were really concerned.

The thing that bothers me is that there were reported humans in places like Australia earlier than the generally accepted dates for when the local flood would have been. I have to wonder if people thought through their position or not, as it forces me to push the date of the flood back further than I'm comfortable with. I have to know that there is a solution somehow, as there is sufficient evidence on other grounds that Christianity is true. I will admit that this used to bother me significantly back when I was questioning my faith more, and I'm still not entirely comfortable with it, but I don't lose any sleep over it now at least.

Cross.eyed wrote:Guess I'll just have to sit on the fence 'till someone convinces me to jump off on one or the other side.

*Sigh* Me too.

Daniel wrote:The thing that bothers me is that there were reported humans in places like Australia earlier than the generally accepted dates for when the local flood would have been. I have to wonder if people thought through their position or not, as it forces me to push the date of the flood back further than I'm comfortable with. I have to know that there is a solution somehow, as there is sufficient evidence on other grounds that Christianity is true. I will admit that this used to bother me significantly back when I was questioning my faith more, and I'm still not entirely comfortable with it, but I don't lose any sleep over it now at least.

I admire your faith.

More on it here..

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=6&t=2551

Thanks for the link Gman, very interesting.

The article is convincing but there still unanswered questions.

1) What is the best estimate of the world's human population at the time of the flood? (I have no idea)

2) What area of land mass would be required for this population?

3) What is the best estimation for the animal population?... Birds?

4) If the mountains were submerged at a level of only 276 inch's why would humans and animals (especially birds) not use the unsubmerged portion for survival?

5) Given the possibility of human and animal migration in that time, how far could they have gone? (Do we know of any methods of transportation humans may have had then?)

These are honest questions. I'm not debating for either side. Whoever wants to respond, I"d be grateful.

I was trying to keep my nose out of this, but it got the best of me. Ok, local flood or not, Rich's article doesn't make sense.

Pslam 104
It is debatable whether or not this is a "creation psalm." But even if it is, it is not true that "a global interpretation of the Genesis flood requires that certain non-flood-related verses of the Bible contradict each other." Ps. 104:9, along with 33:6-7; Pro. 8:29; and Job 38:4, 8 can all rightly be taken to be general references to God's power in the act of creation. In biblical times, the sea was thought to be uncontrollable, so if anyone could control it, they were truly powerful indeed. To say that PS. 104 means that the sea can "never again" cross its "boundaries" is taking it far beyond its intended meaning. Indeed, if Rich is going to be consistent, he has to recognize that the ocean has changed boundaries many times. Every day, every year, it changes its boundaries through natural processes.

Kol erets translated as "whole land"
On one hand, Rich is absolutely correct here. The Hebrew words kol erets can be translated as "the whole land." But there are a few problems with this statement. First, as Rich himself notes, "of the 205 instance of kol erets in the Old Testament, it might refer to the entire planet just 40 times." So, beyond the simple fact that kol erets can be properly translated "entire earth," there are instances in the Bible where it does just that. So, we have both a semantic possibility as well as a semantic precedent. Secondly, the word kol is used emphatically, and this must be true whether or not the flood is local or global. Ask yourself, what is the difference between saying, "The flood covered the land/earth" and "The flood covered the entire land/earth"? It is one of emphasis. Now, the noun in question is not kol ("all"), but rather erets ("earth/land"). And is there a place in the context where erets refers to the entire planet? Genesis 1:1. If, then, Rich wants to be consistent, he should take erets in 1:1 to be the land as well as in the flood account.

He, and others, will rightly point out that we can determine from the context that erets must be taken in 1:1 to be the entire planet. Thus, he will agree with the standard rule of all hermeneutics that a word's meaning must be determined by its context. In that case, we should ask ourselves if the context indicates the earth or the land. We'll take up his arguments for the latter below and note, in passing, that arguments for the former should be considered on their own merits.

Tebel as "Entire Earth"
Rich's argument that the word tebel "always refers to the entire earth or the entire inhabited earth" and thus would have been a better word to use falls on two grounds. First, it is an argument from silence. All agree that erets both can and often does refer to the earth. In fact, had Moses used tebel here, any right thinking scholar would question whether or not one of the meanings within tebel's semantic range wasn't "land"! The second point is more simple: the word only occurs in the poetic texts, and thus is not expected in Genesis 1-11. Moreso, Moses never uses it. In fact, he never even uses the root that the word comes from! So to ask him to use it here is simply inappropriate.

Beyond that, Rich comes dangerously close to either being factually wrong or misleading. While he does note that it can refer to the "entire inhabited earth," he is wrong that it must refer to the entire inhabited earth. It can, in fact, simply refer to countries. So the TWOT states:

• Tebel is sometimes limited to "countries" or "the inhabitable world." This meaning is more closely related to the root meaning. It refers to the world where crops are raised. This is observed in the judgment message against the king of Babylon (not Satan) for violently shaking the "world" or "inhabitable world" (Isa 13:11); 14:17). Lightning is said to enlighten the "world"--undoubtedly referring to a limited land area (Ps 77:18; 97:4)

Not, then, to belabor the point, but tebel would have been an inappropriate choice for several reasons. Its lack-of-usage cannot be construed to be evidence for a local flood nor can it be argued that it would have been a better word choice to convey the meaning of "entire planet."

Erets as "Land"--contextual considerations
Rich cites three passages in which erets must be translated "land" as a contextual basis to understand the flood as local: 6:11, 12; 9:13. Concerning 6:11:

• Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.

It is interesting he would take the first as "land" and not the second, even though they are both the same word. I, for one, have absolutely no problem taking the first erets to be "earth," especially given the meaning of "corrupt" (to be spoiled). Given the fact that mankind was to rule over the earth (erets), and given the fact that the erets was filled with man's violence--especially that this second instance certainly does refer to, if nothing else, the entire inhabited earth (tebel, anyone!?), there is no reason not to take the first instance in the same way.

Verse 12 just restates the previous verse, so it does no good to appeal to it.

9:13 is interesting--or, at least Rich's take on it is. Without going into too much detail, Rich agrees that the flood was universal in the sense that it killed all of humanity. It seems rather hollow, then, for God to make this grand promise not to kill everyone with a flood again if He is not capable of doing so because He had already declared that to be impossible at the Creation event (Ps 104, according to Rich). If, though, you take the "earth" to refer to the entire earth, as it traditionally is, then the passage makes perfect sense.

ALL <> ALL
"It is clear from the text that "all flesh" did not actually refer to all flesh, since there was at least one exception." Now he's just grasping at straws. Just earlier, Rich himself argued that the flood was universal in that it killed all people. "God's judgment of humans was universal (with the exception of Noah and his family)." Further, according to Rich's standard, the local flood contradicts itself just as well as the global flood does:

• And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. (Gen. 6:17)

Noah was certainly flesh, so why wasn't he killed? Because he was an exception? Then there is no reason to deny that possibility to the global interpretation, either.

Fifteen cubits of water
This is my favorite part. Rich says:

• In reality, the Hebrew word ma‛al, translated "higher" really means "upward." So, in essence, the text is saying that the flood was 15 cubits (20 feet) deep, in total, not 15 cubits above the mountains.

Does Rich REALLY want us to believe that a 20 FOOT FLOOD KILLED EVERYONE? Would that level of flood have even been enough to get a 4.5 story high ark off of the ground? Besides that, 20 feet up from what? From sea level? That would't work. Here's a topographic map of Iraq, the area that the people likely lived:



Notice that the land goes all the way from sea level to over 500 meters in Saudi Arabia and over 2,000 in Iran. That's WAY more than 20 feet. And even if it wasn't upward from sea-level, but say from Saudi Arabia, you have the fact that the Bible says that the ark landed somewhere on Ararat, in Turkey. Notice where that is:



Guys, that's over 500 miles. Do you really think a 20 foot flood could carry an ark of that size that far? But, even then, we encouter yet another problem. Here's a link to a topographic map of Ararat. Even the foothills are in the thousands of meters. It is absurd to think that a 20 foot flood could evaporate away and set Noah down on the foothills there.

Mountains or Hills or both
The statement that MOST amazed me, though, that Rich made was this:

• In addition, the Hebrew word har really refers most often to hills rather than mountains

So, he wants us to translated "mountains" as "hills." Consider, then, the very verse he highlights:

• And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

And we should take this to be that the tops of the hills became visible? What about that massive hunk of land behind him? If we tranlsate it the way Rich suggests, Noah would have looked behind him and seen this:



That's Ararat. If they were only twenty feet up, a bird would have had no problem getting to that mountain, on the assumption, of course, that we are talking about the hills being submerged (in twenty foot water) rather than the mountains.

Besides that, I'm curious--this thought just popped into my mind: if we are talking about 20 foot of water at any level above sea level, and if Iraq drains directy into the Persian Gulf at sea level, then how could it take over a year for that little bit of water to drain off? That should have happened in . . . what . . .a day? Two? A week, max?

Planet Earth became a desert after the flood!
Here's another just downright silly argument. Rich says:

• If one were to interpret these verses from a global perspective, one would have to conclude that the entire earth became a desert after the flood. Obviously this interpretation is false, so the translations must be bad. In these verses, the dryness of the earth is obviously referring to the local land area and not the entire planet earth.

If Rich is to be consistent with his own argument, then he would have to conclude that all the land (apparently form Turkey to Iraq) dried up completely and thus "became a desert after the flood." No rivers. No lakes. No moisture. If "dried up" has no mean NO MORE WATER--complete with a pretty picture of a brown earth--then it has to apply to his view, too.

Of course, Rich recognizes that "dried up" does not mean that there is no more water, be that in the form of lakes, rivers, or seas. Again, what is good for his interpretation is good for the traditional one as well.

2 Pet 3:5-6
The Greek word for "at that time" is tote, which is simply an adverb of time. It should NOT be translated "the world, as it was at that time . . ." as Rich implies. Rather, it should be taken as "the world back then . . ." Peter is painting a word picture of the old-world, which was destroyed, and the new world we are in, which will also be destroyed. Both will be destroyed universally. He has nothing in mind regarding the population, much less how far the population was spread out. The NIV actually does a good job of getting this idea across and keeping the parallelism in the next verse:

• By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire

So . . . this doesn't help Rich's case at all. This passage is telling us that the old world was destroyed completely and that the world we are in now will suffer the same fate. It says nothing about how spread out the population was. Finally:

Josephus
Rich wants us to believe that there were "[early Jewish writers] who indicated that the flood was local," and to prove this he gives us one source: Josephus. Here's the passage:

• "Now all the writers of barbarian [Greek] histories make mention of this flood and of this ark: among whom is Berosus the Chaldean... Hieronymous the Egyptian.... Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them, where he speaks thus: 'There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote'."

First, not to be picky, but this says nothing about early JEWISH intepretations. This just says that there were Greek myths about people being saved from a local flood. Anyway, that Josephus didn't feel the need to correct these Greek myths on the accuracy of their story implies absolutely nothing, not that he believed that part was right (what about the other incorrect parts that he didn't correct?), or that other Jews adopted that same particular un-corrected part of the stories.

Conclusion
So, all in all, what does Rich have? He has a 20 foot flood that was supposed to carry a four story tall ark five hundred miles, all while not draining off for over a year; he defends this by translating har as "hills," even though the story indicates that no land was visible--especially no 16,000 foot mountains!--erets as "land," even though the "land" would have to cover well over a 500 mile area, a misunderstanding of 2 Pet 3:5-6, and a theologically questionable reading of a Psalm that is exegetically questionable at best, and double-standards in interpretation (i.e., dried up water).

Now - I've seen MUCH better arguments for a local flood put forward here. But Rich's article just doesn't cut it. It is far too reaching in way too many places. And the only reason I bring this up is the OP contrasted Rich's arguments with another. I'm just saying that, exegetically, he is weak here. A local flood needs to be defended on entirely different grounds.

edit:

I'm going to get in trouble for this.

Well done Jac, you make a good case for a universal flood.

This is what I was looking for, more Biblical evidence for either side. I really don't like being in limbo when it comes to God's word but I have precious little time for indepth analysis because of a too busy life. I try to take time to read in the Bible as much as possible every day and that doesn't always happen. Most of my studies are in the dead of winter when everything slows down for a while. None of this is an excuse because I doubt I have the talent for so much study anyway.

Finding this website has helped a great deal having people like you who have and want to take the time to get to the bottom of controversial issues. Thanks for the post.

And now.....anyone for the local flood?

Don't get me wrong, Cross. I certainly lean towards a global flood given the language of the text, but my response wasn't meant to be in support of that so much as it was an explanation of my problems with Rich's argument for a local flood. I've not taken the time to do more than a cursory overview of the scientific evidence on the issues. I'm open to a local flood, though, so long as I see two things:

1. Biblical support (or at minimum, a natural biblical understanding of) for a local flood. That is, can the Bible fairly be read that way; and
2. Scientific support for a local flood somewhere before 30,000 B.C.

Notice I asked for support. My cursory view of the scientific issues has left me with the impression that local flood advocates attack the scientific problems with a global flood and then say, "So, there. It must have been local." That's not enough for me. Disproving one scenario doesn't automatically prove the other. What positive evidence do we have? I know global flood advocates have at least tried to present a positive case (usually from a YEC perspective).

Rich's article was trying to do the first thing I asked for. I think he fell far short and introduced more serious problems (like a 20 foot deep flood carrying a 45 foot tall ark 500 miles and landing it in the foothills of mountains that are a few thousand feet high). My argument was with Rich's presentation, not the position as a whole.

Jac wrote:He, and others, will rightly point out that we can determine from the context that erets must be taken in 1:1 to be the entire planet. Thus, he will agree with the standard rule of all hermeneutics that a word's meaning must be determined by its context. In that case, we should ask ourselves if the context indicates the earth or the land. We'll take up his arguments for the latter below and note, in passing, that arguments for the former should be considered on their own merits.

If you want to talk about context, are you implying that man's wickedness was over the entire earth as recorded in Genesis 6:5? If so, where in the geologic columns are we finding these massive graves of ancient civilizations throughout the world?

Jac wrote:Tebel as "Entire Earth"
Rich's argument that the word tebel "always refers to the entire earth or the entire inhabited earth" and thus would have been a better word to use falls on two grounds. First, it is an argument from silence. All agree that erets both can and often does refer to the earth. In fact, had Moses used tebel here, any right thinking scholar would question whether or not one of the meanings within tebel's semantic range wasn't "land"! The second point is more simple: the word only occurs in the poetic texts, and thus is not expected in Genesis 1-11. Moreso, Moses never uses it. In fact, he never even uses the root that the word comes from! So to ask him to use it here is simply inappropriate.

Sounds like you are grasping for straws on this one… So anytime you use a word in a poetic text it is automatically nullified in other texts that are non-poetic? Is this a new strategy for interpretation in Biblical studies?

Jac wrote:Guys, that's over 500 miles. Do you really think a 20 foot flood could carry an ark of that size that far? But, even then, we encouter yet another problem. Here's a link to a topographic map of Ararat. Even the foothills are in the thousands of meters. It is absurd to think that a 20 foot flood could evaporate away and set Noah down on the foothills there.

What about the floodwaters that came from the earth in Genesis 7: 11?

Do you really think that this global flood covered Mount Ararat which is over 17,000 feet in elevation? I've seen 13 feet of water from tsunamis cause more death and destruction than an unbelievable 17,000 feet of water… And if you want to count Mount Everest into this mix you would need over 29,002 feet of water. That is well over 5 miles of water coming from the sky. Where exactly is this water going to come from and where did it go afterwards?

This also contradicts Genesis...

Quote Woodrow: “After it stopped raining and the water began to go back down, the Bible implies the water receded (Genesis 8:3-5). A number of recognized commentators have mentioned this point. If we figure a cubit at about 18 inches, the water level would have dropped 270 inches during this time or, to round it off, 4 inches a day. If the flood depth was 29,050 feet (348,600 inches) and the water level dropped 4 inches a day, it would take 87,150 days to get back down to normal sea level. That would be almost 239 years! The whole time of the flood is normally figured at around a year in duration certainly not 239 years! All of this argues against the idea that the flood was thousands of feet in depth and strongly suggests, rather, that it was a flood of regional proportions.”

Jac wrote:Mountains or Hills or both

The statement that MOST amazed me, though, that Rich made was this:In addition, the Hebrew word har really refers most often to hills rather than mountains So, he wants us to translated "mountains" as "hills." Consider, then, the very verse he highlights: And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

And we should take this to be that the tops of the hills became visible? What about that massive hunk of land behind him? If we tranlsate it the way Rich suggests, Noah would have looked behind him and seen this:

That's Ararat. If they were only twenty feet up, a bird would have had no problem getting to that mountain, on the assumption, of course, that we are talking about the hills being submerged (in twenty foot water) rather than the mountains.

This was already addressed earlier by Greg Neyman…

“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.”

Jac wrote:Besides that, I'm curious--this thought just popped into my mind: if we are talking about 20 foot of water at any level above sea level, and if Iraq drains directy into the Persian Gulf at sea level, then how could it take over a year for that little bit of water to drain off? That should have happened in . . . what . . .a day? Two? A week, max?

That was already addressed 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

Jac wrote:Now - I've seen MUCH better arguments for a local flood put forward here. But Rich's article just doesn't cut it. It is far too reaching in way too many places. And the only reason I bring this up is the OP contrasted Rich's arguments with another. I'm just saying that, exegetically, he is weak here. A local flood needs to be defended on entirely different grounds.

As for reaching in way too many places or for forcing weak silly arguments, I would like for someone to explain to me how one can get 3,858,920 animals to fit aboard the ark? On top of that giving them salt water for drink…

Sorry, no fables here....

Jac3510, I didn't misinterpret your intent, the second sentence in that post revealed your aim.
I was just thanking you for your post.

G - I'm not going to respond to your attacks on a global flood model for three reasons:

1. Disproving one model does not prove another, especially in terms of using that as a substitute for a defense of your own argument;
2. Such arguments are a form of tu quoque. It's tantamount to saying, "Oh yeah? Well you have this problem here!" Whether or not the another argument has problems, we have to defend our arguments on their own merits; and
3. I never set out to defend a global flood. I offered a critique of Rich's article.

So . . . then dealing with your points that addressed my argument:

So anytime you use a word in a poetic text it is automatically nullified in other texts that are non-poetic? Is this a new strategy for interpretation in Biblical studies?

And no offense, I'm not getting into a discussion on Hebrew and hermeneutics with you. I've already pointed you to more than adequate resources if you want to learn them.

What about the floodwaters that came from the earth in Genesis 7: 11?

Are you suggesting that the waters that came UP caused the ark to float 500 miles in 20 foot water?

This was already addressed earlier by Greg Neyman…
. . .
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.”

I don't see where Neyman addressed my objection. Let me recast it in light of his statements and Rich's attempt at translation:

• At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the [hills] of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the [hills] became visible.

OK - so a few issues. First, we take Rich's translation of har to be "hills." The first instance of "hills" is absolutely absurd. The hills of Ararat? There are no twenty food high "hills of Ararat." Check the topographic map I posted. The foothills are a couple thousand feet high.

The first question, then, is how we could translate the first one "hills" at all. It's obvious from the context that "hills of Ararat" is the "mountains of Ararat." Do with that what you will concerning the hight of your water. A twenty foot flood doesn't cover it (pun intended). Very well, so it seems, from the context, that the second instance of har should also be taken as "moutains"!

Ah, but you have a way out. It says that the Ark rested on the mountains in the seventh month, and three months later, the tops of the mountains/hills became visible. So, you can argue that the months given imply that the tops of the hills, not mountains, became visible. Fine and good, but you then go back to my fundamental problem, which is that we are still several thousand feet up. Just look at the map.

As for the picture, my point is that if Noah was floating twenty feet above the water, and the water was only twenty feet above the ground (forget how that could make an Ark float for a minute!), he came to rest on Ararat BEFORE he could see the "tops of the harim." There isn't any being 90 miles away from the mountain. He was already there. Which means he was already at the top of the "hills" (by your translation), which means he could already see them, which contradicts the text. The picture shows just how big the mountain actually is and how far away you can see it.

That was already addressed by Hugh Ross…

Yes, and Ross also assumes that we have several hundred feet of water. Not twenty, as Rich's article suggests. I asked how long it would take a twenty foot "flood" to wash out. Perhaps my original guess was right, then?

It seems to me, then, that Rich's argument needs work on the following counts:

1. Ps. 104 disproving a global flood;
2. Kol eretx referring to the "whole land";
3. Tebel being a batter word;
4. God's "hollow" promise (my words) not to kill everyone;
5. The "self-contradiction" of "all flesh";
6. The twenty foot flood;
7. Birds not being able to find land when the ark was resting on, apparently, very low foothills of a 16,000 foot mountain;
8. The whole earth becoming a desert;
9. 2 Pet. 3:5-6;
10. And early Jewish interpretations.

Again, Gman, my problem is with Rich's argument for a local flood. I'm not here to argue for a global flood (that's a separate issue). I'm not commited enough to that model (although I do lean towards it) to strongly advocate it. If, though, you want me to answer questions, then let's deal with the text. I can suggest possible answers to some of the extra-biblical problems, but not all. Further, the suggestions I would make are not immune from criticism. With that said, even if I could offer absolutely no solution to any given extra-biblical objection, it wouldn't have any bearing on the fact that I lean towards a global model. I work with what the Bible says, no more, and no less. I would suggest we should all do the same, as that is the only infallible, sufficient source of information that we actually have. Sola scriptura and all that.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:I was trying to keep my nose out of this, but it got the best of me. Ok, local flood or not, Rich's article doesn't make sense.

Let me evaluate how good your criticisms are.

Jac wrote:Pslam 104
It is debatable whether or not this is a "creation psalm." But even if it is, it is not true that "a global interpretation of the Genesis flood requires that certain non-flood-related verses of the Bible contradict each other." Ps. 104:9, along with 33:6-7; Pro. 8:29; and Job 38:4, 8 can all rightly be taken to be general references to God's power in the act of creation. In biblical times, the sea was thought to be uncontrollable, so if anyone could control it, they were truly powerful indeed. To say that PS. 104 means that the sea can "never again" cross its "boundaries" is taking it far beyond its intended meaning. Indeed, if Rich is going to be consistent, he has to recognize that the ocean has changed boundaries many times. Every day, every year, it changes its boundaries through natural processes.

Anything is debatable. As for concentrating on specific boundaries of the sea the full context given in verse 9 is: "You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." The writer's intention is clear as to what boundary means. And the boundary of waters being divided from land still remains even if the actual "boundary line" itself shifts.

Criticism #1 merit: 1 / 10
Criticism #1 impact upon total argument: 1 / 10

Jac3510 wrote:Kol erets translated as "whole land"
On one hand, Rich is absolutely correct here. The Hebrew words kol erets can be translated as "the whole land." But there are a few problems with this statement. First, as Rich himself notes, "of the 205 instance of kol erets in the Old Testament, it might refer to the entire planet just 40 times." So, beyond the simple fact that kol erets can be properly translated "entire earth," there are instances in the Bible where it does just that. So, we have both a semantic possibility as well as a semantic precedent. Secondly, the word kol is used emphatically, and this must be true whether or not the flood is local or global. Ask yourself, what is the difference between saying, "The flood covered the land/earth" and "The flood covered the entire land/earth"? It is one of emphasis. Now, the noun in question is not kol ("all"), but rather erets ("earth/land"). And is there a place in the context where erets refers to the entire planet? Genesis 1:1. If, then, Rich wants to be consistent, he should take erets in 1:1 to be the land as well as in the flood account.

In Gen 1:1 you have a conjunctive "shamayim et erets" (heavens and earth) which provides a flaw with your reasoning presented that earth in Gen 1:1 means entire earth. This phrase taken wholly together actually means entire universe.

Nevertheless, the words used should be determined through context which you continue...

Jac wrote:He, and others, will rightly point out that we can determine from the context that erets must be taken in 1:1 to be the entire planet. Thus, he will agree with the standard rule of all hermeneutics that a word's meaning must be determined by its context. In that case, we should ask ourselves if the context indicates the earth or the land. We'll take up his arguments for the latter below and note, in passing, that arguments for the former should be considered on their own merits.

Again you have the conjunctive in Genesis 1:1 which refers to entire universe - matter, energy, space, time.

Criticism #2 merit: No real criticism to rate
Criticism #2 impact upon total argument: none

Jac wrote:Tebel as "Entire Earth"
Rich's argument that the word tebel "always refers to the entire earth or the entire inhabited earth" and thus would have been a better word to use falls on two grounds. First, it is an argument from silence. All agree that erets both can and often does refer to the earth. In fact, had Moses used tebel here, any right thinking scholar would question whether or not one of the meanings within tebel's semantic range wasn't "land"! The second point is more simple: the word only occurs in the poetic texts, and thus is not expected in Genesis 1-11. Moreso, Moses never uses it. In fact, he never even uses the root that the word comes from! So to ask him to use it here is simply inappropriate.

The point is YECs often ask how could it have been written more strongly to indicate the whole global earth. Thus, I think you are not fully grasping the reasons for why Rich wrote this. YECs just assume kol erets (all earth) means the global earth. Your own words in your post concede Rich's point they can mean either the "global earth" or "all the land" so at the end of the day you are quibbling over details. The most sound and consistent context should determine what is meant with erets. You and Rich would both agree on this, I am sure.

Jac wrote:Beyond that, Rich comes dangerously close to either being factually wrong or misleading. While he does note that it can refer to the "entire inhabited earth," he is wrong that it must refer to the entire inhabited earth. It can, in fact, simply refer to countries. So the TWOT states:

Rich wrote:

• Tebel is sometimes limited to "countries" or "the inhabitable world." This meaning is more closely related to the root meaning. It refers to the world where crops are raised. This is observed in the judgment message against the king of Babylon (not Satan) for violently shaking the "world" or "inhabitable world" (Isa 13:11); 14:17). Lightning is said to enlighten the "world"--undoubtedly referring to a limited land area (Ps 77:18; 97:4)

Not, then, to belabor the point, but tebel would have been an inappropriate choice for several reasons. Its lack-of-usage cannot be construed to be evidence for a local flood nor can it be argued that it would have been a better word choice to convey the meaning of "entire planet."

Examine the Isaiah and Psalm passages you provided. Tebel appears to more refer to the universal world in general. For example, as in the Isaiah passage "I will punish the world for its evil". It is universal in scope of meaning and refers to people by implication.

For the sake of argument though, let us remove Rich's tebel argument away. What do we have? We still have agreement that erets could mean either "land" or the "global earth". Thus, removing it does not detract much from Rich's argument at all.

Criticism #3 merit: 6 / 10
Criticism #3 impact upon total argument: 1 / 10

Jac wrote:Erets as "Land"--contextual considerations


Rich cites three passages in which erets must be translated "land" as a contextual basis to understand the flood as local: 6:11, 12; 9:13. Concerning 6:11:

• Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.

It is interesting he would take the first as "land" and not the second, even though they are both the same word.

Where does Rich say he takes the first as "land" but not the second? I see no indication that he does this. In fact, the words are substituted in quite the reverse in the following translation OEC Day-Age proponents would agree (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... trans.html):

• 6:11 Now the people of the earth were corrupt in the sight of God, and the land was filled with violence.

Jac wrote:I, for one, have absolutely no problem taking the first erets to be "earth," especially given the meaning of "corrupt" (to be spoiled). Given the fact that mankind was to rule over the earth (erets), and given the fact that the erets was filled with man's violence--especially that this second instance certainly does refer to, if nothing else, the entire inhabited earth (tebel, anyone!?), there is no reason not to take the first instance in the same way.

Criticism #4 merit: 0 / 10 (strawman argument)
Criticism #4 impact upon total argument: none

Jac wrote:9:13 is interesting--or, at least Rich's take on it is. Without going into too much detail, Rich agrees that the flood was universal in the sense that it killed all of humanity. It seems rather hollow, then, for God to make this grand promise not to kill everyone with a flood again if He is not capable of doing so because He had already declared that to be impossible at the Creation event (Ps 104, according to Rich).

Firstly, God's "killing" everyone was in order to reduce the high levels of evil in the world. I wanted to qualify that as the way you wrote it just makes God seem narcissistic and I think it would be negligible for us as Christians to leave this unqualified for readers in pursuit of some personal intellectual agenda.

Turning to your argument presented, where does God say He will not wipe out everyone with a flood in Ps 104? I think you are adding more to this chapter than is there. God just sets the water in their place so they will not cover all the land.

Criticism #5 merit: 0 / 10
Criticism #5 impact upon total argument: none

I will leave it here for now. Many criticisms are easy to do, but very few I find are well founded. Just look at the case of many Atheists.

Anyone who really pays attention to Rich's article, what he writes and the reasons for particular arguments, I do not think will be swayed by your criticisms against it. I am certain only those already convinced Rich is wrong and who have a knee-jerk reaction to a local-flood scenario would welcome your criticisms regardless of merit.

I actually started out paying special attention to your criticisms as I thought this is Jac. If he says there are problems with Rich's article which I quite agree with then I am certainly interested to hear them from a person I find to be quite intellectual and well reasoned. I am sorry to say I have come away quite disappointed. I can only imagine you were trying to play devil's advocate to see what criticisms you could find to level against Rich's article on the local flood...?

Forgive the disappointment. I simply disagree that Ps. 104 is a creation psalm and that it has ANY bearing whatsoever on the global/local flood argument. I've already pointed out how the phrase "never to cross their boundaries" could be taken. I've also pointed out how, if Rich is going to be consistent, he has a self-contradicting Bible in his own right based on this very verse, for the seas have changed their "boundaries" ever since time began. Rich is just taking the passage beyond its intended meaning.

As far as kol erets goes, the point, which I believe we agree on, is simply to show that it CAN refer to the whole earth. Rich's implication that just because it CAN refer to the whole land doesn't prove that it should be. I'm objecting at that point to the mere tone of the article.

Concerning tebel, Rich is simply wrong. Moses could NOT have used tebel to indicate the entire earth. As I already demonstrated, it can refer to inhabited countries. Besides, he NEVER uses the word nor even its root. Thus, Rich's argument is unfounded here. He is simply wrong. Again, note, that even is Moses DID use tebel, any right thinking exegete (including myself) would argue that the semantic range of the word could well include a limited land mass. Words have meaning within their context. But, you agree that the argument should be removed. I wonder if he does? If so, he should remove it from the article entirely.

As far as the the translation of the second instance of erets in 6:11, you are right. I didn't see where he elsewhere translated it as "land."

Firstly, God's "killing" everyone was in order to reduce the high levels of evil in the world. I wanted to qualify that as the way you wrote it just makes God seem narcissistic and I think it would be negligible for us as Christians to leave this unqualified for readers in pursuit of some personal intellectual agenda.

This deserves a direct quote. You read are narcissism on my part into that statement completely. I made an unqualified statement because I'm not arguing for the morality of God's actions here as I would if I were debating atheists.

Then:

Turning to your argument presented, where does God say He will not wipe out everyone with a flood in Ps 104? I think you are adding more to this chapter than is there. God just sets the water in their place so they will not cover all the la

Simple. You take Ps 104 to be a creation psalm. You use it as a proof against the global flood because AT CREATION God declared that the waters couldn't go any further than their boundaries that were set back then. Therefore, a global flood is impossible. Fine.

Fast forward in time, we have all these humans living in a local area. God decides to kill them (insert qualifying statements here), but He can't do with a global flood. So He does it with a local flood. Afterwards, He makes this grand promise to mankind. "I won't kill all of you ever again with a global flood!" He assures them, and then proceeds not long afterwards to scatter them over the face of the entire earth. That means that God couldn't get them all with a flood even if He wanted to!

Of course, when God made the promise to Noah, He knew that all the people were about to be scattered. But differently, He knew that they were going to be spread out beyond a local area. So God's promise is hollow. You want me to believe that He promised not to do something that He wasn't capable of doing anyway? Ok.

I will leave it here for now. Many criticisms are easy to do, but very few I find are well founded. Just look at the case of many Atheists.

Anyone who really pays attention to Rich's article, what he writes and the reasons for particular arguments, I do not think will be swayed by your criticisms against it. I am certain only those already convinced Rich is wrong and who have a knee-jerk reaction to a local-flood scenario would welcome your criticisms regardless of merit.

I actually started out paying special attention to your criticisms as I thought this is Jac. If he says there are problems with Rich's article which I quite agree with then I am certainly interested to hear them from a person I find to be quite intellectual and well reasoned. I am sorry to say I have come away quite disappointed. I can only imagine you were trying to play devil's advocate to see what criticisms you could find to level against Rich's article on the local flood...

I have a PM for you on this later. In the meantime, get to the rest of the response, if you want. Again, forgive the disappointment, and, no, I'm not playing devil's advocate. Rich's article is absolutely terrible. I've seen good defenses for a local flood from you and August. Hugh Ross' explanation of a local flood--as I pointed out to Gman--is MUCH better. But THIS argument is ridiculous.

Above all, and this is why I responded as I did, it is dishonest. He has a few valid points. Kol erets CAN be taken to be "entire land," and harim CAN be taken to be "hills." So spend your article talking about those points. But he surrounded those points with a very questionable and self contradictory reading of Psalm 104, a misuse of Hebrew with reference to tebel, a NT passage wrongly applied, and a false implication of "early Jewish interpretation." This, and we have the rational problems like a 20 foot flood carrying a four story ark 500 miles to rest in mountains that at their lowest levels are thousands of feet in the air, all while expecting us to believe that bird couldn't find land that was only a few hundred yards away. Like I said before . . . OK.

Jac wrote:G - I'm not going to respond to your attacks on a global flood model for three reasons:

But then you did....

Speaking of attacks, it seems that you were proposing that Rich was using weak and silly arguments in defense of the local flood.

Jac wrote: 1. Disproving one model does not prove another, especially in terms of using that as a substitute for a defense of your own argument;
2. Such arguments are just a form of tu quoque. It's tantamount to saying, "Oh yeah? Well you have this problem here!" Whether or not the global flood model has problems, you aren't justified in holding to a fallicious model; and

The problems you raised are not problems at all…

Jac wrote:3. I never set out to defend a global flood. I offered a critique of Rich's article.

Right… I never see you try and disprove the global flood either.

Jac wrote:Are you suggesting that the waters that came UP caused the ark to float 500 miles in 20 foot water?

I'm suggesting that there was other water that also contributed to this flood. 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. This is most likely what Genesis 7: 11 was talking about… If so, there would have been much more water to deal with and a longer time for it to drain.

Jac wrote:I don't see where Neyman addressed my objection. Let me recast it in light of his statements and Rich's attempt at translation:

At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the [hills] of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the [hills] became visible.

OK - so a few issues. First, we take Rich's translation of har to be "hills." The first instance of "hills" is absolutely absurd. The hills of Ararat? There are no twenty food high "hills of Ararat." Check the topographic map I posted. The foothills are a couple thousand feet high.

The first question, then, is how we could translate the first one "hills" at all. It's obvious from the context that "hills of Ararat" is the "mountains of Ararat." Do with that what you will concerning the hight of your water. A twenty foot flood doesn't cover it (pun intended). Very well, so it seems, from the context, that the second instance of har should also be taken as "moutains"!

Ah, but you have a way out. It says that the Ark rested on the mountains in the seventh month, and three months later, the tops of the mountains/hills became visible. So, you can argue that the months given imply that the tops of the hills, not mountains, became visible. Fine and good, but you then go back to my fundamental problem, which is that we are still several thousand feet up. Just look at the map.

As for the picture, my point is that if Noah was floating twenty feet above the water, and the water was only twenty feet above the ground (forget how that could make an Ark float for a minute!), he came to rest on Ararat BEFORE he could see the "tops of the harim." There isn't any being 90 miles away from the mountain. He was already there. Which means he was already at the top of the "hills" (by your translation), which means he could already see them, which contradicts the text. The picture shows just how big the mountain actually is and how far away you can see it.

Well I'm looking but I don't see what you are talking about… I see a number of hills of Ararat to the north and to the south in yellow… The reference points fit well with Greg Neyman's argument if you believe the flood to be in the Mesopotamian plains.

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

By the way, most YEC believers would argue against what you are saying... For the most part they believe the mountains (like Ararat and Everest) were formed AFTER or during the flood meaning that the topology wasn't the same....

Jac wrote:Again, Gman, my problem is with Rich's argument for a local flood. I'm not here to argue for a global flood (that's a separate issue). I'm not commited enough to that model (although I do lean towards it) to strongly advocate it. If, though, you want me to answer questions, then let's deal with the text. I can suggest possible answers to some of the extra-biblical problems, but not all. Further, the suggestions I would make are not immune from criticism. With that said, even if I could offer absolutely no solution to any given extra-biblical objection, it wouldn't have any bearing on the fact that I lean towards a global model. I work with what the Bible says, no more, and no less. I would suggest we should all do the same, as that is the only infallible, sufficient source of information that we actually have. Sola scriptura and all that.

In other words what you are saying here is that anyone who opposes your literal interpretation of the Bible is saying that it is FALLIBLE and that it is NOT a sufficient source of information… I disagree with you Jac on many levels for your statements…. To propose that everyone here is saying that the Bible is fallible and not a reliable source of information is a low blow to those who believe different from you. Again you can't spot-weld God's word to your literal interpretation. That was why this web site was created, to challenge those beliefs and to hold fast to the word of God.

Let's just be truthful… Obviously you do believe in the global flood otherwise you wouldn't be attacking the local flood model. The problem is that you simply rely on the English interpretation of the Bible for this global flood. And whatever it says you HAVE to believe in it regardless of the physical implications it brings. To me not only does the global flood go against scripture, but it also goes against the physical boundaries that God has sent up. You then seem to be side stepping my questions because you know they bring sufficient arguments to your beliefs..