Universal flood evidence

[FaithT]

I agree that it was a supernatural event. And completely trust Scripture.
But I can't see how it was a global flood. Below is listed some of my concerns.

1. Biblical evidence for a universal Noachian Flood is the
“universal” language of Gen. 6-8—words like “earth,”
“all,” “every,” and “under heaven.” However, these
words are used in other places in the Bible to describe
local or regional events and, therefore, cannot necessar-
ily be taken as all-inclusive over the entire planet Earth.

2. Likewise, the terms “rain” and “mist” in Gen. 2:5–6
cannot be taken to support a canopy theory or universal
deluge, because “earth” in these verses does not mean
the planet Earth but only the “earth” or “ground” in the
area of the Garden of Eden.

3. Absolutely no geologic evidence exists for the canopy
theory, flood geology, or a universal flood.
4 The actual geology of the Mount Ararat region, where
Mount Ararat cuts across sedimentary rock, precludes
the Noachian Flood from being responsible for all of the
sedimentary rock in the world, as claimed by flood
geologists.

5. The most likely landing place for the ark is considered
to have been Jabel Judi in the Cizre, Turkey region. This
site meets all of the Bible’s requirements, including “the
mountains of Ararat,” Noah’s vineyard, and the dove’s
plucking off the olive leaf and bringing it back to the
ark. It is also the earliest traditional site for the landing
place of the ark. A landing site in the Cizre region is
compatible with a local flood model, as this region lies
within the boundaries of the Mesopotamian hydrologic
basin.

6. The problems concerned with putting all of the animal
species on Earth into the ark, as per a universal flood
model, are insurmountable barring miracles that the
Bible never claims happened. The Bible indicates that
Noah collected the animals and brought them to the
ark, and this implies a local, not universal, flood.

7. There is no archaeological evidence for a universal
flood. Even regions close to or surrounding Mesopota-
mia do not contain correlative flood deposits.

8. The picture that emerges from all of the biblical and
nonbiblical evidence is that Noah’s Flood was confined
to Mesopotamia, extending over a vast alluvial plain
as far as the eye could see, from horizon to horizon
(under the “whole heaven” or sky). The top of all the
hills (ziggurats?) were covered by this flood, and all
people and animals were drowned except for Noah, his
family, and the animals on the ark. The flood was a real,
historical event that covered—not the whole world—
but the whole of Noah’s world.

9. The idea that the Noachian Flood was a universal flood
stems from a centuries-old interpretation of the Bible
not warranted by either the biblical or scientific evi-
dence. The King James Version, written in the seven-
teenth century, reflects the very limited view that
people had then of the planet Earth and its geology, and
it is this centuries-old, traditional view that has been
passed down to generations of Christians ever since.
The Bible should always be interpreted within the
framework of the culture in which it was originally
written—in this case, the Mesopotamian culture of the
third millennium BC, not the European culture of the
seventeenth century AD. It is only by considering the
culture and world view in which Gen. 6–8 was written
that the Noachian Flood can really be understood.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol 1.pdf

what do you say a lot the above? @Daniel9v9

 

[Filippus]

what do you say a lot the above? @Daniel9v9

Sorry don't understand your post.

Shalom

 

[Daniel9v9]

what do you say a lot the above? @Daniel9v9

Well, as I explained in my previous post, we simply don’t know — a case could be made for or against the flood being global. It could have been local, but there’s no reason to assume it must have been.

What I want to emphasise is that because it was a divine act and not a normal natural flood, it would be nonsensical limit our understanding of the event to fit natural law, because God is God even over natural law. As God, He both can and does break natural law, such as raising the dead. And as with any miracle, it’s not fruitful to attempt to test or measure it. That’s not really a logical thing to do.

What we can know is that no other human being survived except for Noah and his family as recorded for us. Beyond this, I don’t think we have to be contentious about it!

 

[FaithT]

Sorry don't understand your post.

Shalom

About, not a lot

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I agree that it was a supernatural event. And completely trust Scripture.
But I can't see how it was a global flood. Below is listed some of my concerns.

1. Biblical evidence for a universal Noachian Flood is the
“universal” language of Gen. 6-8—words like “earth,”
“all,” “every,” and “under heaven.” However, these
words are used in other places in the Bible to describe
local or regional events and, therefore, cannot necessar-
ily be taken as all-inclusive over the entire planet Earth.

2. Likewise, the terms “rain” and “mist” in Gen. 2:5–6
cannot be taken to support a canopy theory or universal
deluge, because “earth” in these verses does not mean
the planet Earth but only the “earth” or “ground” in the
area of the Garden of Eden.

3. Absolutely no geologic evidence exists for the canopy
theory, flood geology, or a universal flood.
4 The actual geology of the Mount Ararat region, where
Mount Ararat cuts across sedimentary rock, precludes
the Noachian Flood from being responsible for all of the
sedimentary rock in the world, as claimed by flood
geologists.

5. The most likely landing place for the ark is considered
to have been Jabel Judi in the Cizre, Turkey region. This
site meets all of the Bible’s requirements, including “the
mountains of Ararat,” Noah’s vineyard, and the dove’s
plucking off the olive leaf and bringing it back to the
ark. It is also the earliest traditional site for the landing
place of the ark. A landing site in the Cizre region is
compatible with a local flood model, as this region lies
within the boundaries of the Mesopotamian hydrologic
basin.

6. The problems concerned with putting all of the animal
species on Earth into the ark, as per a universal flood
model, are insurmountable barring miracles that the
Bible never claims happened. The Bible indicates that
Noah collected the animals and brought them to the
ark, and this implies a local, not universal, flood.

7. There is no archaeological evidence for a universal
flood. Even regions close to or surrounding Mesopota-
mia do not contain correlative flood deposits.

8. The picture that emerges from all of the biblical and
nonbiblical evidence is that Noah’s Flood was confined
to Mesopotamia, extending over a vast alluvial plain
as far as the eye could see, from horizon to horizon
(under the “whole heaven” or sky). The top of all the
hills (ziggurats?) were covered by this flood, and all
people and animals were drowned except for Noah, his
family, and the animals on the ark. The flood was a real,
historical event that covered—not the whole world—
but the whole of Noah’s world.

9. The idea that the Noachian Flood was a universal flood
stems from a centuries-old interpretation of the Bible
not warranted by either the biblical or scientific evi-
dence. The King James Version, written in the seven-
teenth century, reflects the very limited view that
people had then of the planet Earth and its geology, and
it is this centuries-old, traditional view that has been
passed down to generations of Christians ever since.
The Bible should always be interpreted within the
framework of the culture in which it was originally
written—in this case, the Mesopotamian culture of the
third millennium BC, not the European culture of the
seventeenth century AD. It is only by considering the
culture and world view in which Gen. 6–8 was written
that the Noachian Flood can really be understood.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol 1.pdf

If you study the biblical story carefully you'll quickly see that the biblical flood and the flood that is debunked by science and scholars isn't the same flood. For example, the bible nowhere suggests a huge vapor 'canopy' that came crashing to earth during the flood. The narrative simply says it rained for forty days and nights.

Also the certainty that man had spread beyond Mesopotamia requires a wider flood. The year long duration of the flood must also be considered. This would serve to kill any that survived the initial flooding as they would eventually perish from starvation or exposure.

Also of note is that scholars and other critics continue to call the ark a "ship" (then present arguments against its 'seaworthiness'). It was actually a large watertight warehouse.

Regarding geological evidence, the slow moving flood would leave little, and that would have been degraded over the millenia.

 

[Filippus]

For example, the bible nowhere suggests a huge vapor 'canopy' that came crashing to earth during the flood. The narrative simply says it rained for forty days and nights.

I did not claim the Bible did propose a vapor canopy.

But for some who proposed a Global flood it was included as evidence in supporting for a Global flood narrative.

A huge vapor 'canopy' was proposed by Christian scholars who tried to explain the dinosaurs and the reason why the first 10 patriarchs grew that old.

This vapor 'canopy' was also proposed by Christian scholars as one of the water sources needed to supply the volume of water required to cover the planet earth.

This was made popular through preachers like Kent Hovind, who did great work, but has also been discredited by his personal issues.

The vapor canopy is not required for a local flood.

Shalom

 

[Filippus]

About, not a lot

Again sorry I didn't understand what you are saying or asking.

Shalom

 

[Filippus]

Something interesting.

I have followed his work for more that 20 years, and there is much more evidence than presented in these video's, like the drag stones or anchor stones found around the site.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I have yet to formulate an opinion on answers in genesis but taking the theory and checking outside sources the evidence does seem to support a universal flood as the continents split apart. The rock layers do support that they were layed down quickly and the fossil do indicate drowning. I believe that there was a universal flood that was created by the continents splitting. My only question is whether or not it was the flood of noah.

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | National Center for Science Education

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The simplest agument against AIG claims are ...

Eight people feeding and caring for all the animals daily.

Each Human would have to sleep around 8 hours a day.
Meals and preparing food for themselves being conservative 2 hours for each person. Taking breaks and Bathroom 1 hour each. Daily maintence of self 1 hour each. Thus leaving 12 work hours per person.
When working on a farm, I was able to care for 20 animals a day --- feeding, cleaning up after them, checking for disease and so on. This would including daily cleaning three animals. It was 12 hour days.
So 8 times 20 is only 160 animals a day. So, how many animals were on the boat?

One estimate is 7,000
How Many Animals Were On Noah’s Ark?

Another estimate is 3,858,920
https://lisbdnet.com/how-many-anima...our count up,birds which number fourteen each.

So, 7,000 divided by 8 equals 875 person.
12 hours times 60 times 60 is 43,200 seconds.
Divde by 875 gives us 49 seconds per animal a day.

When was the last time you were able to feed and clean up after a dog or cat within 49 seconds? This does not include bathing them. Taking the dog for walk. Think about it, if an animal is cramped in a cage, very little exercise.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

A more conservative guess is 1,500 animals on the ark.
1500/8 = 187 animals per person
12*60*60/187 = 231 seconds per animal or 3 min 51 seconds per animal. Being kind let's say it is four mintues per animal.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Just imagine caring for a dog in four mintues per day.

How man tons of waste to deal with per day?

AIG says As much as 12 U.S. tons (11 m. tons) of animal waste may have been produced daily. Caring for the Animals on the Ark

How much does one ton weigh?

Manure 1 cubic foot 25 pounds
Manure, cattle 1 cubic yard 1,628 pounds
Manure, dried poultry 1 cubic foot 41.2 pounds
Manure, dried sheep & cattle 1 cubic foot 24.3 pounds
Manure, horse 1 cubic yard 1,252 pounds
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/conversions.pdf

A ton weighs 2,000 pounds, 12 US tons 24,000 pounds. How many trips to carry this by 8 people to the deck to throw overboard?

Oh how many days did it rain? forty days and forty nights.

How much water as rain fell in a day to flood the whole planet?

"Now the claim is that ALL mountains on Earth were covered. That must include Everest, which is approximately 8.86 km. high. The claim is, therefore, that Earth was covered with water to a depth of 8.86 km. This amounts to a water volume of roughly 4,500,000,000 km3, which is about 3.25 times the total amount of water in the oceans today! And - the atmosphere contains only 13,000 km3. That's tiny compared to the total. Where does all that extra water come from? And where does it go when the flood recedes? If you postulate that is now in the Earth, it would occupy a cube about 1,650 km. on a side. That's just over 1,000 miles per side, or 1/8 of Earth's radius! That would show up FAST in seismic studies, and no such reservoir has been seen."
Physics 3333 / CFB 3333 Noah's Flood

Clearly they would not be able to dump the animal waste for at least 40 days. Meaning 12 times 40 meaning a back log of 480 tons of animal waste.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

wife is kicking me off.

Good luck with the math.

God bless all and have a good night.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I forget what is the volume of the ark? How much space does 480 tons of animal waste take?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

start reading at post 4

 

[Filippus]

Well, as I explained in my previous post, we simply don’t know — a case could be made for or against the flood being global. It could have been local, but there’s no reason to assume it must have been.

It’s only after comparing the implications of a local vs global flood, that you realise the local flood is supported by scripture but also doesn’t remove any truth from the Biblical account. And actually, supports and helps us grow our faith in the word of God.

Exploring the local flood narrative doesn’t need to be feared which is generally rooted in the fact that we have to acknowledge that our teachers taught us to the best of their ability at the time, but was wrong.

What I want to emphasise is that because it was a divine act and not a normal natural flood, it would be nonsensical limit our understanding of the event to fit natural law, because God is God even over natural law. As God, He both can and does break natural law, such as raising the dead. And as with any miracle, it’s not fruitful to attempt to test or measure it. That’s not really a logical thing to do.

Your quote: “claiming it would be nonsensical to limit our understanding of the event to fit natural law”, doesn’t match the claim from scripture which records a natural event, but to a scale to clean the inhabited earth.

What we can know is that no other human being survived except for Noah and his family as recorded for us. Beyond this, I don’t think we have to be contentious about it!

What we know is that no other human being survived? Claiming that we know doesn’t prove it!

And claiming scripture does, is a conclusion solely based on the presumption that it was a Global event and disproves itself.

The Global flood doesn’t explain the Aboriginals in Australia, the Chinese, the North and South American natives or the African tribes. And including a pair of animals from the planet earth would simply be unsustainable.

If this was the case it would require miracle upon miracle, including help from angels which is not claimed by scripture.

On the contrary, the local flood narrative not only supports the claims made by scripture but is also supported by external accounts captured in external texts of the time.

Shalom

 

[Filippus]

The simplest agument against AIG claims are ...

Eight people feeding and caring for all the animals daily.

Each Human would have to sleep around 8 hours a day.
Meals and preparing food for themselves being conservative 2 hours for each person. Taking breaks and Bathroom 1 hour each. Daily maintence of self 1 hour each. Thus leaving 12 work hours per person.
When working on a farm, I was able to care for 20 animals a day --- feeding, cleaning up after them, checking for disease and so on. This would including daily cleaning three animals. It was 12 hour days.
So 8 times 20 is only 160 animals a day. So, how many animals were on the boat?

One estimate is 7,000
How Many Animals Were On Noah’s Ark?

Another estimate is 3,858,920
https://lisbdnet.com/how-many-animals-of-each-species-were-on-the-ark/#:~:text=That brings our count up,birds which number fourteen each.

So, 7,000 divided by 8 equals 875 person.
12 hours times 60 times 60 is 43,200 seconds.
Divde by 875 gives us 49 seconds per animal a day.

When was the last time you were able to feed and clean up after a dog or cat within 49 seconds? This does not include bathing them. Taking the dog for walk. Think about it, if an animal is cramped in a cage, very little exercise.

I kept 4 calves that had access to water in rivers and ponds but consumed 1000 litres (265 ga) from a water tank I needed to fill every 4 to 5 days. That is over 70 000 litres (18500 ga) a year for 4 animals and does not include their food. Which is 15 kg per day or 21900 kg (48 281 pounds) per year, I obviously graced them, but the daily consumption is well known.

In my view simply looking at the text the Biblical evidence for a universal Flood is the “universal” language used in Gen. 6-8, which was a result of the translations.

The words like “earth,” “all,” “every,” and “under the heaven” were used to imply universal.

However, these words are found in other places in the Bible to describe local or regional events and, therefore, should not be taken as all-inclusive over the entire planet Earth.

Reading it as "local" not only makes sense but also harmonises the scripture.

Shalom

 

[Daniel9v9]

It’s only after comparing the implications of a local vs global flood, that you realise the local flood is supported by scripture but also doesn’t remove any truth from the Biblical account. And actually, supports and helps us grow our faith in the word of God.

Exploring the local flood narrative doesn’t need to be feared which is generally rooted in the fact that we have to acknowledge that our teachers taught us to the best of their ability at the time, but was wrong.



Your quote: “claiming it would be nonsensical to limit our understanding of the event to fit natural law”, doesn’t match the claim from scripture which records a natural event, but to a scale to clean the inhabited earth.



What we know is that no other human being survived? Claiming that we know doesn’t prove it!

And claiming scripture does, is a conclusion solely based on the presumption that it was a Global event and disproves itself.

The Global flood doesn’t explain the Aboriginals in Australia, the Chinese, the North and South American natives or the African tribes. And including a pair of animals from the planet earth would simply be unsustainable.

If this was the case it would require miracle upon miracle, including help from angels which is not claimed by scripture.

On the contrary, the local flood narrative not only supports the claims made by scripture but is also supported by external accounts captured in external texts of the time.

Shalom

There are several things I have to take issue with here, but I'll leave this for now as I don't think there's any need to be contentious about whether the flood is local or global. Suffice to say, though, I believe it would be a mistake to understand the flood in naturalistic terms, because it's recorded for us as a miracle. I'll leave it at that.

What I must insist on, however, is that the people who perished in the flood is all people, and not all people in a certain region. You are right in that the Holy Scriptures uses "all" in two senses: one referring to all locally, and the other, all globally (and in a third sense as hyperbole). In this instance, the context demands that "all" is global. We can know this from the immediate context as well as the broader context. For one, God limits man's life to 120 years, and this is universal. Likewise, the wickedness on earth is also universal. The rainbow is universal. So, the Lord is not dealing with a local people or tribe, but all people. It's also the plain reading when considering the whole narrative. There's nothing in the immediate text itself to indicate that this is dealing with a group of people when the context deals with all people; there's no indication that the text jumps between two meanings. To think otherwise would be to impose a foreign understanding into the text which doesn't belong.

That the text deals with all people can also be understood from the broader context. Compare our Lord using it as an example of His return to judgment of all people, particularly when bearing in mind what Peter writes in his epistles — especially the mention that only eight survived, and that this corresponds to Baptism, which is universal.

There is a place for reason in exegesis, but reason should be governed by God's Word. That is, our understanding of a text should not be shaped by theories. The Bible expresses that all perished in the flood, except for Noah and his family, and so we confess exactly that and nothing more.

 

[SkyWriting]

Answers in Genesis is a great resource for those wanting a biblical perspective against the pseudo-science that is being propagated by the secular public. All of those here that say otherwise do not take the account in Genesis as literal (if not outright deny essential points of the Christian faith).

We can say that Jesus asking his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood was not all that literal and do that without outright denying the essential points of the Christian Faith.

We can even say it is far more essential.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | National Center for Science Education

The author makes the common mistake (among many) of assuming that the ark was a "ship", requiring design skills unknown at the time. It was a large, watertight building, just as the story reveals.

The author did get this part right.

"Despite ingenious efforts to lend a degree of plausibility to the tale, nothing can be salvaged without the direct and constant intervention of the deity."