If you think that Noah's flood was global and wish to wager on it,

[tonychanyt]

I believe the flood was global in the sense that its effect was to wipe out all human life along with the Nephilim.

Feel free to formulate your own propositions and assign weights to them.

 

[HarleyER]

I cannot wager anything until I have more clarification on the betting rules. I believe the flood was global in the sense that its effect was to wipe out all human life along with the Nephilim. I do not think that every mountain in every continent was covered to the top, nor do I think that is implied by the text. It can be interpreted in other ways.

Gen 7:18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

It doesn't matter what WE believe. What matters is if we conform our thinking to the scriptures.

 

[SuperCow]

Gen 7:18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

It doesn't matter what WE believe. What matters is if we conform our thinking to the scriptures.

And how many ways can you understand that verse you quoted? If you take the Hebrew or Greek word translated as earth, it is also translated as land. And if you replace the English word "earth" with "land", it is also completely readable, but also represents quite a different scope of devastation.

It's a minority opinion, but a valid one.

Land or Earth? (,erets and gē) – MIKE ROGERS AD 70

I will also ask you about verse 20. How high is a mountain, and how high is fifteen cubits? How does the writer know that the water prevailed 15 cubits above the mountains if he did not measure it himself? Obviously mountains can be thousands of cubits, but it would be different every time you measured it if the ark was actually moving and not sitting in one spot on an anchor.

 

[SuperCow]

If the Flood was just a local flood, why was Noah and his family aboard the Ark for over a year?

Here's a modern day example of a guy who was blown out to sea in a fishing boat and survived for over a year before he was able to get back to land.

Lost at sea: the man who vanished for 14 months

 

[SuperCow]

Feel free to formulate your own propositions and assign weights to them.

P1 - Regional, restricted to the Middle East : 0%
P2 - Affected every continent, but only covered mountains visible to the author : 80%
P3 - Flood covered entire earth, including Mt. Everest : 20%

 

[tonychanyt]

P1 - Regional, restricted to the Middle East : 0%
P2 - Affected every continent, but only covered mountains visible to the author : 80%
P3 - Flood covered entire earth, including Mt. Everest : 20%

OK. Now, are you willing to bet based on your percentages/odds?

 

[HarleyER]

And how many ways can you understand that verse you quoted? If you take the Hebrew or Greek word translated as earth, it is also translated as land. And if you replace the English word "earth" with "land", it is also completely readable, but also represents quite a different scope of devastation.

It's a minority opinion, but a valid one.

Land or Earth? (,erets and gē) – MIKE ROGERS AD 70

I will also ask you about verse 20. How high is a mountain, and how high is fifteen cubits? How does the writer know that the water prevailed 15 cubits above the mountains if he did not measure it himself? Obviously mountains can be thousands of cubits, but it would be different every time you measured it if the ark was actually moving and not sitting in one spot on an anchor.

And how many ways can you understand that verse you quoted? If you take the Hebrew or Greek word translated as earth, it is also translated as land. And if you replace the English word "earth" with "land", it is also completely readable, but also represents quite a different scope of devastation.

It's a minority opinion, but a valid one.

Land or Earth? (,erets and gē) – MIKE ROGERS AD 70

I will also ask you about verse 20. How high is a mountain, and how high is fifteen cubits? How does the writer know that the water prevailed 15 cubits above the mountains if he did not measure it himself? Obviously mountains can be thousands of cubits, but it would be different every time you measured it if the ark was actually moving and not sitting in one spot on an anchor.

OK. Suppose we replaced "earth" with "land". Then the verses would read:

Gen 7:18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the land, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 The water prevailed more and more upon the land, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.​

​

Changing "earth" to "land" doesn't change anything as to what the text is telling us. There is really only one way to understand the verses. All the high mountains EVERYWHERE were covered whether on land or on the earth. That is pretty inclusive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a modern day example of a guy who was blown out to sea in a fishing boat and survived for over a year before he was able to get back to land.

Lost at sea: the man who vanished for 14 months

Did he take a wife, three sons, their wives, and at least two of each genus of animals with him?

 

[AV1611VET]

Changing "earth" to "land" doesn't change anything as to what the text is telling us. There is really only one way to understand the verses. All the high mountains EVERYWHERE were covered whether on land or on the earth. That is pretty inclusive.

Mt Ararat is 16,854 feet high.

Mt Everest is 29,029 feet high.

It could possibly be that Mt Ararat was the tallest mountain at the time; and that Mt Everest didn't even exist as yet.

 

[SuperCow]

OK. Suppose we replaced "earth" with "land". Then the verses would read:

Gen 7:18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the land, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 The water prevailed more and more upon the land, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.​

​

Changing "earth" to "land" doesn't change anything as to what the text is telling us. There is really only one way to understand the verses. All the high mountains EVERYWHERE were covered whether on land or on the earth. That is pretty inclusive.

Everywhere under the heavens. It's a visual connotation. If you're taking it literally, then you need to take the word under literally as well, but the heavens is under over and around, since the earth is round. It's clearly saying that everywhere you could see was covered by water.

The water was measured as fifteen cubits deep, so less than 30 feet, and if the water covered all the mountains, then you couldn't tell if you were over a mountain top or the middle of the Indian Ocean?

 

[SuperCow]

Mt Ararat is 16,854 feet high.

Mt Everest is 29,029 feet high.

It could possibly be that Mt Ararat was the tallest mountain at the time; and that Mt Everest didn't even exist as yet.

That is unlikely, since Genesis 2:10-14 describes the rivers of Eden in post-diluvian terms. In case you're not sure what I am referring to:

The Pishon river "winds through the entire land of Havilah".
The Gihon river "winds through the land of Cush".
The Tigris "runs along the east side of Ashur".
And the Euphrates...[well all the readers seem to know that one already]

Cush and Havilah are two sons of Ham.
Ashur is the son of Shem.
All three were born after the flood.

Therefore whoever passed this story down to Abraham, and to Moses could recognize the terrain before and after the flood. (The likeliest candidates being either Noah or Shem.) If the rivers of Eden could be described in post-flood geographical areas, it would seem to be almost impossible for Everest to have changed that significantly, and yet the four rivers of Eden could still be recognized.

 

[AV1611VET]

Cush and Havilah are two sons of Ham.
Ashur is the son of Shem.
All three were born after the flood.

I don't think Moses wrote Genesis.

He edited it, but he didn't write it.

The Wiseman hypothesis, sometimes called the tablet theory, is a theory of the authorship and composition of the Book of Genesis which suggests that Moses compiled Genesis from tablets handed down through Abraham and the other patriarchs.

SOURCE

 

[SuperCow]

I don't think Moses wrote Genesis.

He edited it, but he didn't write it.



SOURCE

I agree. That is what I said in my post, that I believe Moses merely compiled his ancestors writings and added his own history to the books. Genesis was probably built in succession by Noah, Shem, Abraham, and Moses received it either through the Jacob->Joseph connection or through Midian->Jethro, or possibly a combination of both.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree. That is what I said in my post, that I believe Moses merely compiled his ancestors writings and added his own history to the books. Genesis was probably built in succession by Noah, Shem, Abraham, and Moses received it either through the Jacob->Joseph connection or through Midian->Jethro, or possibly a combination of both.

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

 

[HarleyER]

Everywhere under the heavens. It's a visual connotation. If you're taking it literally, then you need to take the word under literally as well, but the heavens is under over and around, since the earth is round. It's clearly saying that everywhere you could see was covered by water.

The water was measured as fifteen cubits deep, so less than 30 feet, and if the water covered all the mountains, then you couldn't tell if you were over a mountain top or the middle of the Indian Ocean?

People assume the Pre-flood world was as it is now. There is no evidence as to how high the mountains were or even if the oceans as we know them existed at the time. Please note the Hebrew definition of he-ha-rim (Genesis 7:19 Hebrew Text Analysis) which could mean mountains or hills.

The Hebrew (I'm not a scholar but I can use a lexicon) states: "And the waters prevailed more exceedingly on the earth and were covered all the hills high that under whole the heavens" "All" and "whole" are the same Hebrew word "kai" (Genesis 7:19 Interlinear: And the waters have been very very mighty on the earth, and covered are all the high mountains which are under the whole heavens;). "Kal" means completely everything, the whole. It is used in places like Genesis 1, "...every living creature...", Genesis 2, "...caused to grow every tree...", Genesis 5, "...So all the days...", etc. (Hebrew Concordance: kāl- -- 2745 Occurrences)

If one were to take these verses "visually", then "every living creature" would simply mean all the creatures that could be seen. Likewise, "all the days" would be all the days we know about. Since the text provides a double use of the Hebrew word all (kal) in Genesis 7:19 gives strong testimony to 1) all (everything) the high hills were flooded and, 2) everything under the whole heaven was flooded.

This can't be visual. Noah and his family were shut up in the ark. He didn't see anything until the waters were receding. Also, given Christ comparison of the flood to the destruction of man at the end, it is hard to see how this is a "visual" event. The Hebrew is emphatic of a universal Flood.

 

[Riot42]

P1 = 10
P2 = 0
P3 = 0

I trust Gods word, and Gods word says the waters came upon Earth, not a region.

Furthermore native Americans have myths of giants (nephalim) and the flood Ruling out a regional flood. Pretty much every ancient culture has a flood myth proving it happened, but none of that "proof" really matters to me, only Gods word does.

 

[tonychanyt]

P1 = 10
P2 = 0
P3 = 0

How many USD do you want to wager based on these odds?

 

[SuperCow]

People assume the Pre-flood world was as it is now. There is no evidence as to how high the mountains were or even if the oceans as we know them existed at the time. Please note the Hebrew definition of he-ha-rim (Genesis 7:19 Hebrew Text Analysis) which could mean mountains or hills.

I don't assume that at all, but what I do see is a description of Eden in Genesis 2:10-14 that could not have been made if the tectonics had changed the mountain heights as you are suggesting. And the Genesis 7:19 translation you mentioned supports my point of view anyway.

The Hebrew (I'm not a scholar but I can use a lexicon) states: "And the waters prevailed more exceedingly on the earth and were covered all the hills high that under whole the heavens" "All" and "whole" are the same Hebrew word "kai" (Genesis 7:19 Interlinear: And the waters have been very very mighty on the earth, and covered are all the high mountains which are under the whole heavens;). "Kal" means completely everything, the whole. It is used in places like Genesis 1, "...every living creature...", Genesis 2, "...caused to grow every tree...", Genesis 5, "...So all the days...", etc. (Hebrew Concordance: kāl- -- 2745 Occurrences)

If one were to take these verses "visually", then "every living creature" would simply mean all the creatures that could be seen. Likewise, "all the days" would be all the days we know about. Since the text provides a double use of the Hebrew word all (kal) in Genesis 7:19 gives strong testimony to 1) all (everything) the high hills were flooded and, 2) everything under the whole heaven was flooded.

Who wrote Genesis chapter 7? It was either Noah or Shem. (Maybe Japheth or Ham recorded their own version of events for their descendants, but Moses most likely got his story from his own ancestors.) In any case, it had to be visual. A flood came, he was floating around in an ark at the mercy of God for a month and a half weathering a storm, and then after the rain stopped all you could see was water. How else are you going to record the story? "All the earth was covered, but maybe some there are some distant mountains I missed that were still were above the water."

You can argue that God wrote everything himself for Moses, but even if that was the case, it certainly wasn't detailed enough to cover everything. Otherwise, you might have seen something like "every creature that moved along the ground went into the ark, but a few went extinct, because the Mastadon's and the megafauna from North America wouldn't fit." The creation account in Genesis chapter 1 certainly isn't a complete story, and neither was it meant to be. It was simply a basic story that would be understandable to everyone who read it.

This can't be visual. Noah and his family were shut up in the ark. He didn't see anything until the waters were receding. Also, given Christ comparison of the flood to the destruction of man at the end, it is hard to see how this is a "visual" event. The Hebrew is emphatic of a universal Flood.

He had to have a way to get garbage off the ark. In particular human and animal feces would have had to have been cleaned up daily. Regardless of whether it was raining or not, You would have had to see outside; however briefly in order to do this. More than likely observations started happening as soon as the rain stopped. Genesis 8:6 says that Noah made at least one window on the ark.

A simple rope with knots tied at regular intervals would have been enough to tell how deep the water is, as described in Genesis 7:20. The rain stopped after 40 days, but it didn't start receding until 150 days. At this point the ark rested somewhere in the Ararat mountain range, but the tops of the mountains weren't visible for another 5 months. So is Everest already pushed up to 29,000 feet by this point or is it still pushing up a couple thousand feet per month to become visible. Or is it just possible that since it was several thousand miles away that Noah didn't see it?

 

[HarleyER]

I don't assume that at all, but what I do see is a description of Eden in Genesis 2:10-14 that could not have been made if the tectonics had changed the mountain heights as you are suggesting. And the Genesis 7:19 translation you mentioned supports my point of view anyway.





Who wrote Genesis chapter 7? It was either Noah or Shem. (Maybe Japheth or Ham recorded their own version of events for their descendants, but Moses most likely got his story from his own ancestors.) In any case, it had to be visual. A flood came, he was floating around in an ark at the mercy of God for a month and a half weathering a storm, and then after the rain stopped all you could see was water. How else are you going to record the story? "All the earth was covered, but maybe some there are some distant mountains I missed that were still were above the water."

You can argue that God wrote everything himself for Moses, but even if that was the case, it certainly wasn't detailed enough to cover everything. Otherwise, you might have seen something like "every creature that moved along the ground went into the ark, but a few went extinct, because the Mastadon's and the megafauna from North America wouldn't fit." The creation account in Genesis chapter 1 certainly isn't a complete story, and neither was it meant to be. It was simply a basic story that would be understandable to everyone who read it.



He had to have a way to get garbage off the ark. In particular human and animal feces would have had to have been cleaned up daily. Regardless of whether it was raining or not, You would have had to see outside; however briefly in order to do this. More than likely observations started happening as soon as the rain stopped. Genesis 8:6 says that Noah made at least one window on the ark.

A simple rope with knots tied at regular intervals would have been enough to tell how deep the water is, as described in Genesis 7:20. The rain stopped after 40 days, but it didn't start receding until 150 days. At this point the ark rested somewhere in the Ararat mountain range, but the tops of the mountains weren't visible for another 5 months. So is Everest already pushed up to 29,000 feet by this point or is it still pushing up a couple thousand feet per month to become visible. Or is it just possible that since it was several thousand miles away that Noah didn't see it?

I would agree that the account was most likely recorded by someone within the ark. I still can't see how one can say that it was a local flood based on "visual" sighting. There is nothing in the scriptures that supports this interpretation. It doesn't say, "Mesopotamia was flooded." Nor was the record partial in the account. God states:

Isaiah 54:9 “For this is like the days of Noah to Me, When I swore that the waters of Noah Would not flood the earth again; So I have sworn that I will not be angry with you Nor rebuke you.​

This isn't written by Noah or his sons. Rather it is recorded by Isaiah as to what God states. And He states that He flooded the earth, not just a few places.

As you stated, the creation story certainly isn't a complete picture. Neither is much of the scriptures. John tells us that if everything was written just about Christ, all the books wouldn't be able to contain them. Without a doubt the same is with the Old Testament. To be sure, there is some things that are confusing and sometimes requires some interpretation. However, it is very dangerous to speculate beyond what the scriptures plainly state or trying to fit scripture to fit what we would like it to state. Lots of hereies have been generated by doing both of these things and people have gone off the rails.

Noah certainly wouldn't have seen what was going on 2,000 miles away. But God's word plainly states, in more than one place, He flooded the entire earth. Why people want to go beyond what scripture states is the real mystery to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

But God's word plainly states, in more than one place, He flooded the entire earth. Why people want to go beyond what scripture states is the real mystery to me.

If I told you I took a bath last night in my brand new bathtub, and you investigated my claim scientifically and found:

1. no watermarks
2. no soap scum
3. no bathtub ring
4. no evidence whatsoever (microscopic or otherwise)

Would you believe my claim?

Of course not.

Yet when God bathed the world, then cleaned it up, it's as if it didn't happen.

Some people go beyond what Scripture says, because they're trained to do that.

If they can't see it with their eyes, then they'll send their equipment out to find it.

And if their equipment doesn't find anything, they'll conclude it didn't happen.

The proper conclusion is that they didn't find anything.

But instead of saying they didn't find anything, they'll say it didn't happen.

It's circular logic.

They didn't find anything so it didn't happen; and so it didn't happen because they didn't find anything.