Re: Noahic Covenant

From: Victrorian Wife (
Date: Fri Jul 19 2002 - 13:50:24 EDT

  • Next message: Adrian Teo: "RE: Comment's on Allens postings"

    I'll give a few general and then some specific comments to think about in
    relationship to global versus regional flood.

    Was it global?
    1. It destroyed all life under the heavens (6:17)
    2. The waters rose at least 20 feet above all the high mountains (7:19-20)
    3. The flood lasted 371 days, indicating more than just local flooding.
    4. The final fiery judgement of the "whole earth" is compared to Noah's
    flood (2 Peter 3:3-7).

    Was it regional?
    1. Why did the ark land on Mount Ararat (8:4), floating so few miles from
    where it started?
    2. Why doesn't the original Hebrew use the most common word for "world" even
    once in the whole account? Why instead does it use a word for "earth" that
    can also be translated "land" or "country"? (The same word is used later to
    describe a famine "in all the world", meaning the world as known from the
    writer's perspective.)
    3. It may have covered a region of the world but is described in universal
    language - much as speaking about a world war without precisely meaning that
    every nation was involved.

    Now onto the science and logistics of a global flood (just to make it clear
    - I support a more regional flood).

    1. If the sea level rose for 150 days until it covered the tops of the
    mountains and then subsided for another 150 days, it is relatively easy to
    prove that this is physically impossible. If the sea level rose to the
    16,946 level of Mount Ararat (this doesn't take into account even the taller
    Alps) the sea would have had to rise approximately 16,946 feet all over the
    planet earth. That would require 630 million cubic miles of additional
    water weighing 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. Where did all that water go
    during the second 150 days? It could not evaporate or it would still be the
    atmosphere and it is not and it couldn't drain to low places because they
    were already filled up. That much water vapor would obscure the sun from
    the earth and life would not be sustainable.

    2. Assuming 21,000 species of animals represented on the ark, that would
    have required taking 42,000 individuals. There were 8 people on the ark and
    they would have had to of visited 2,637 cages a day for feeding and
    cleaning. Other problems include loading all those animals, discarding
    78,750 liters of urine, etc.

    3. How can there still be freshwater lakes and streams if they were all
    inundated with salt water? How did the freshwater fish survive?

    4. How could have animals only found in Australia today gotten back to
    their continent? How did they get to Noah?

    5. How did the animals (such as hippos and elephants) get down off of the
    high peaks of Mt Ararat. How did the animals get back to their native

    These are only a few examples, I could list more. I think it is obvious that
    the logistics, when put into a scientific light, would be all but
    impossible. Obviously, some could argue divine intervention to "make it all
    happen" but if we are using the Biblial text as it reads, there is no
    mention of other interventions.

    There are other compelling geological and language arguments for a regional
    flood but I won't go into them unless there is an interest. I think the
    most important thing is to always keep in mind the theological significance
    of the Genesis flood story. What it tells us about God, man and sin is the
    most important thing. Debating the logistics and scientific detail are more
    like brain candy - I love sweets!

    If I am covering old ground, I apologize - I didn't go back and conduct an
    extensive review of the archives.


    Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 19 2002 - 18:14:14 EDT