Is there enough water to cover the earth?

[Targ]

One answer is that the flood narative is written in common language. It is not a scientific report and that it in fact describes a local flood. Personally I think there is a good chance this is true (though vastly exagerated).

I tend to like that solution as it upsets Fundies and radical athiests about equally.

Yes, I would agree. There is strong internal evidence that it is only describing a local event.

 

[Split Rock]

People should read the Bible:

Gen 8 1And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;

Gen 8 the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. 14And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.


The water dried out as the result of a wind.

As for the metaphor, what is the metaphorical meaning of the event?

First of all, I said nothing about where the waters went. Secondly, if the wind "dried it up" then that still does not explain where it went... now does it?

The purpose of the Flood story is to warn the Hebrews of the consequence of Sin.

 

[Targ]

All this talk about catastropic planet reforming events during The Flood ignores the Bible, The Flood didn't even kill the plants:

Gen 8 11And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

Also, if you look up the definitions of each of the Hebrew names of the creatures taken on to the ark, it only mentions medium-large mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds. No mention of insects, spiders, marine life etc. I'd always thought that 'creeping things' was a cover all for all creatures that creep, but according to various lexicons, the definition explicitly excludes insects, spiders and other small creatures. And yet somehow they survived, suggesting that it was only a local flood.

Whitcomb and Morris can take a hike

Likewise, though it does make a good doorstop.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Suppose, for fun, we imagine the Earth is made perfectly smooth and all the water in the oceans sits uniformly upon it. How deep would the water be?

If we say the perfectly smooth Earth has an area of 510x10^6 km^2 and the existing water in the oceans has a volume of 1.3x10^9 km^3, then the depth of the water would be about 2.5km or 1.6 miles.

There is a heck of a lot of water in the oceans.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Curiously, the film Evan Almighty is on TV as I write this. Coincidence or is it a sign?

 

[Soul Searcher]

I wonder where some get that there were no mountians before the flood? It would seem to be a classic case of making it up as they go.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Clearly the bible says that there were both hills and mountians at the time.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Of course these high hills and mountians must not have been very tall as the verse above says the water rose about 22.5 feet. That is about equal to the flood we had here in 1996 that did the most damage of any flood recorded in the area but alas the mountians still stood tall above the flood waters.

And I might add that the mountians here were taller at the time the biblical flood was supposed to have happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about during the time of the Noah's Flood? What are the conditions be like that is different from today that can flood the whole earth?

18

 

[Split Rock]

If you want to go with a theory that places emphasis on the ocean overrunning the land (and less emphasis on it raining), then I propose this scenario:

That God could have simply (but gently) squeezed the sides of the earth, and the water would then do its thing.

Remember that at the time of the Flood, the earth had one giant supercontinent on it --- some call it Pangaea, I call it Eden.

However you look it, one thing is for certain --- God did it.

God "gently" squeezed the earth??? Kind of like a ripe orange, huh?

Where does it say in scripture that there was one continent called Pangea? In fact, the Bible describes the Middle East pretty much as it is today (Euphrates and Tigris rivers, mountains of Arat, etc.), not during the time of any "Pangea."

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact, the Bible describes the Middle East pretty much as it is today (Euphrates and Tigris rivers, mountains of Arat, etc.), not during the time of any "Pangea."

No, It doesn't.

Show me the Tigris River in the Bible.

The Bible says the Garden was planted "eastward" in Eden.

Assuming that Pangaea is Eden, that would put the Garden of Eden in China -- (or towards it) -- not the 'middle east'.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Eastward of where? How far? No idea how you get China out of that. For all you know it could have been talking about Vegas.
Of course you also start with an invalid assumption so it should be of no surprise that the conclusion is also unfounded.

 

[Split Rock]

No, It doesn't.

Show me the Tigris River in the Bible.

The Bible says the Garden was planted "eastward" in Eden.

Assuming that Pangaea is Eden, that would put the Garden of Eden in China -- (or towards it) -- not the 'middle east'.

Sorry... it mentions Eden in reference to the Euphrates and three other rivers, but does not use the name "Tigris." Nevertheless, the Euphrates is in the Middle East... not China. Where do you get the idea Eden was therefore in China? Certainly not from scripture..

 

[AV1611VET]

Eastward of where?

Um ... Eden?

(Or Pangaea -- whichever you prefer.)

How far?

I thought I stipulated -- China.

No idea how you get China out of that.

Are you kidding me?

For all you know it could have been talking about Vegas.

Um ... no.

Vegas isn't even eastward in the United States.

Of course you also start with an invalid assumption so it should be of no surprise that the conclusion is also unfounded.

And what would that invalid assumption be?

That the Bible is correct?

 

[Cabal]

God "gently" squeezed the earth??? Kind of like a ripe orange, huh?

This is going to be like that disease that "gently" shrinks your skull while allowing you to remain alive.

I'm not even going to bother asking why no mention is made of the massive tectonic incidents that would result from "gently squeezing" the plates of the earth - it will just be the usual timewasting inevitable recourse to "Goddidit".

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry... it mentions Eden in reference to the Euphrates and three other rivers, but does not use the name "Tigris."

No, but that certainly didn't stop you from using it, did it?

Nevertheless, the Euphrates is in the Middle East... not China.

The Euphrates II is in the Middle East.

Put your uniformitarian bologna aside for a minute and think global Flood and instant tectonic rearrangement.

On second thought -- don't.

(Just consider the problem to be on my end, and let's shorten this conversation.)

Where do you get the idea Eden was therefore in China?

You're trying desperately to trip me up, aren't you?

Eden ≠ China --- Eden = Pangaea

Certainly not from scripture..

Genesis 2:8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Didn't you claim you went to your pastor once with a bunch of questions he couldn't answer? or was that someone else?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not even going to bother asking why no mention is made of the massive tectonic incidents that would result from "gently squeezing" the plates of the earth - it will just be the usual timewasting inevitable recourse to "Goddidit".

That, and you'll get a "lecture" on uniformitarianism.

You are, no doubt, assuming that land masses were scattered all over the earth in about what? five or seven different continents?

Did it occur to you that all God would have had to do is put His hand right in the middle of the sea -- (note "sea" -- not "seas") -- and gently push; and the waters would have overflowed the land?*

* Remember: we're talking about another way God could have flooded this earth, besides what it says in the Bible.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Vegas isn't even eastward in the United States.

If you are in California it is.

The point being that eastward depends directly on your point of reference. For example My front door is eastward. If we are starting from my kitchen.

And what would that invalid assumption be?

That Eden=Pangea.

That the Bible is correct?

You seem to try and shoehorn things into your interpretation of the bible and say it is correct. I have a hard time believing that you do not already know this.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

* Remember: we're talking about another way God could have flooded this earth, besides what it says in the Bible.

I can suggest another way God could have flooded the Earth but I'll be banned if I do.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, but that certainly didn't stop you from using it, did it?

The Euphrates II is in the Middle East.

Euphrates II? You need to invent rivers in order to make your theology work, AV?

Put your uniformitarian bologna aside for a minute and think global Flood and instant tectonic rearrangement.

Why substitute one brand of bologna for another?

Eden ≠ China --- Eden = Pangaea

You forgot to add "in my opinion," AV -- people are going to mistake this nonsense for theology if you're not careful.

 

[Nathan Poe]

* Remember: we're talking about another way God could have flooded this earth, besides what it says in the Bible.

Well, as you're as you're conceding that the Bible is wrong, it's a start.

(btw, how big is God's hand?)