Ya know, those pesky birds have really made me think. There are a couple of
things to consider here.
The dove flew down into a valley to get an olive leaf (olive trees only grow
in lower elevations). How did it manage to fly back up to 17,000 feet (or
pick your favorite tall mountain number) to the ark? Doves are not
physically equipped to fly to those altitudes.
And then there is the famous olive leaf itself. If we assume a global
flood, all trees at the elevation of olive trees would have been completely
submerged and thus, after that waters started to receed, very dead.
Assuming that new trees would have had to grow and considering that that
would take awhile especially with all the sediment now covering everything
from the flood, where did that olive leaf come from?? I mean, was it a
really tiny olive tree? Even then you would have to assume several months
for a little tree to sprout and produce leaves.
These two thoughts lead me back to thinking that it was a regional flood.
>From: gordon brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: Noahic Covenant
>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:01:50 -0600 (MDT)
>My reasoning is based on my interpretation of what the text has to say
>about the birds. In Gen. 8:9 the dove returns to the ark because it can't
>find any place else that isn't covered by water. This suggests to me that
>the level of the water was still above the bottom of the ark and that the
>water was receding at a very slow rate. Perhaps others don't read this
>verse that way.
>Department of Mathematics
>University of Colorado
>Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 PASAlist@aol.com wrote:
> > Gordon wrote,
> > << I think there are some pretty good clues in Genesis that
> > point away from a 17,000 foot volcano as being the resting place of
> > ark. Before the water had receded from the land around the ark, other
> > mountains were visible even though Ararat is the highest mountain in
> > region. Where was the olive tree growing? The description of the
> > of the ground doesn't sound like what would happen to volcanic rock.
> > Gordon, please explicate your thinking. The way I read Gen 8:4,5 is
> > after the ark grounded, there were two and a half months of the water
> > yet further before other mountain tops became visible. This implies
> > ark landed very high up in the mountains. It may not have landed on
> > now called Mt. Ararat, but it must have been on some much higher than
> > mountain in Urartu, some mountain apparently virtually equivalent to
> > This may not conflict at all with what your are driving at, but I'm not
> > what you are driving at.
> > Paul
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 21 2002 - 20:45:51 EDT