The Black Sea

[JohnR7]

I believe that the Bible is the true and inerrant word of God. I do not think there is any conflict between that written word and the physical evidence of His creation.

When there seems to be a conflict, one of two things is happening. Either science is coming to a faulty conclusion or we are interpreting the Scripture incorrectly. This is an absolute, ONE of these things is happening.

I am going to try this again, although I may not get any further than I did the last time.

If you look at the Black Sea then there is evidence that is went though a change from a body of fresh water to salt water. No one seems to question this. In fact after 30 years of research on this, science even in a tongue in cheek way says this is evidence of "Noah's" flood.

The question is, when did this take place? How long did it take for the transformation? Just how did this transformation take place? These are the questions that bring 30 years of research and the whole scientific methoid and proceedure into question.

No one questions that a dramatic change took place in this area of the world in the last 7000 years. No one seems to question that this is the area of the world that Noah's flood was or where it began. The question is, just what did take place here and how reliable is science to tell us about the change that took place in this area of the world.

 

[Vance]

John said:

"No one seems to question that this is the area of the world that Noah's flood was or where it began."

Are you sure about that? Setting aside all those who don't believe that it took place at all, even among those of us who believe a flood took place (whether it be regional or global), I have heard more often that the Tigris-Euphrates valley is a more likely candidate.

 

[JohnR7]

I have heard more often that the Tigris-Euphrates valley is a more likely candidate.

There is a problem with that. I just recently discovered it when I finally got a hold of some accurate elevation maps for this part of the world.

Genesis 8:4
Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat.

Mount Ararat and about 80% of Armenia is above the 5000 foot level. There is no way that you could flood the Tigris - Euphrates valley with 5000 feet of water. You would have to flood the whole world to do it. Unless there has been a huge change in the geology of this area in the last 5000 years. To flood Armenia & Turkey with 5000 plus feet of water would not be that big of a problem. In fact you could build a few man made damns and flood it today if you wanted to.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I remmember reading that Mt. Ararat is a modern name and that the mountains of Ararat are not necessarily the same place. Does anyone else have more information on this?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Vance]

Here is a bit from the Christian site, Reasons to Believe:

"The account of the ark’s resting place also seems geographically and historically plausible. Genesis 8:4 describes that place as the “mountains of Ararat,” well below the highest probable flood elevation (~400 meters) in what is now north central Iraq. Figure 4 provides a view of the raw elevation data in the layer-tint project prior to normalization. The rugged and steeply ascending mountains of Ararat are clearly visible. On a side note, one may logically assume that no post-Flood society would have left the ark’s precut lumber unexploited; searching for the ark most likely represents a fruitless exercise.[10]

Figure 4 Elevation Data in the Mountains of Ararat Region

Although the exact geographical extent of the Genesis Flood may never be known, geologists can say with some assurance that the event described in Scripture makes sense as a localized, but universal—with respect to humans and their animals—catastrophe. This interpretation of the Genesis Flood text fits the facts in evidence. A worldview that carefully and respectfully integrates biblical data with scientific data provides coherent and testable answers to big questions of life—including questions about origins, meaning, morality, and destiny.[11] A regional flood interpretation of Genesis 6-9 provides one of the cornerstones of the truth about human history that ought to be taught in Sunday school."

There are a couple of articles on the flood establishing why the regional flood is both more Scripturally sound AND more scientifically sound.

 

[JohnR7]

I remmember reading that Mt. Ararat is a modern name and that the mountains of Ararat are not necessarily the same place. Does anyone else have more information on this?

I do not know what sort of connection you have to the internet, but here is a live web cam of Ararat and it is still there in Armenia:

http://www.arminco.com/livewebcam.html

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I do not know what sort of connection you have to the internet, but here is a live web cam of Ararat and it is still there in Armenia:

http://www.arminco.com/livewebcam.html

The point is that it may not have been called Ararat thousands of years ago and that the "mountains of Ararat may not refer to modern Mt. Ararat.

Here is another creationist site with something to say on the subject.

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/ararat.html

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Vance]

Yes, that is what I had heard as well. That the mountains in Turkey called Arrarat were not called this until LONG after the Scriptures were written. Before that, the word was used for a region in central Iraq where there is some higher ground (but well below potential flood level) which, to the locals, would be called "mountains".

 

[Omnedon]

Here is a bit from the Christian site, Reasons to Believe:

"The account of the ark’s resting place also seems geographically and historically plausible. Genesis 8:4 describes that place as the “mountains of Ararat,” well below the highest probable flood elevation (~400 meters) in what is now north central Iraq. Figure 4 provides a view of the raw elevation data in the layer-tint project prior to normalization. The rugged and steeply ascending mountains of Ararat are clearly visible. On a side note, one may logically assume that no post-Flood society would have left the ark’s precut lumber unexploited; searching for the ark most likely represents a fruitless exercise.[10]

Figure 4 Elevation Data in the Mountains of Ararat Region

Although the exact geographical extent of the Genesis Flood may never be known, geologists can say with some assurance that the event described in Scripture makes sense as a localized, but universal—with respect to humans and their animals—catastrophe. This interpretation of the Genesis Flood text fits the facts in evidence. A worldview that carefully and respectfully integrates biblical data with scientific data provides coherent and testable answers to big questions of life—including questions about origins, meaning, morality, and destiny.[11] A regional flood interpretation of Genesis 6-9 provides one of the cornerstones of the truth about human history that ought to be taught in Sunday school."

There are a couple of articles on the flood establishing why the regional flood is both more Scripturally sound AND more scientifically sound.

Glenn Morton, a christian who is also a professional geologist, has already debunked both these ideas:

1. Why the Flood cannot be in Mespotamia:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mflood.htm

2. Why the Flood cannot be in the Black Sea:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htm

 

[Vance]

One problem with Morton's argument regarding Mesopotamia is that he is adopting the idea that the "mountains of Ararat" in the Bible is the same as Mount Ararat in Turkey. Correcting this error would solve most of his problems.

Second, he is basing his "scientific" conclusions of flood evidence based on a deluge which would rise to the levels needed based on his faulty Ararat. So, one error leads to another.

But, it may be true that the flood was not in that exact locale. I have no idea. But, wherever it was, it was not global.

What I find ironic is that Morton uses the continuity of a civilization as proof of the impossibility of a flood happening in Mesopotamia. This would, of course, apply to a global flood as well, since Mesopotamia is on the globe.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

One problem with Morton's argument regarding Mesopotamia is that he is adopting the idea that the "mountains of Ararat" in the Bible is the same as Mount Ararat in Turkey. Correcting this error would solve most of his problems.

Second, he is basing his "scientific" conclusions of flood evidence based on a deluge which would rise to the levels needed based on his faulty Ararat. So, one error leads to another.

But, it may be true that the flood was not in that exact locale. I have no idea. But, wherever it was, it was not global.

What I find ironic is that Morton uses the continuity of a civilization as proof of the impossibility of a flood happening in Mesopotamia. This would, of course, apply to a global flood as well, since Mesopotamia is on the globe.

I am not sure where Glenn thinks the flood was but he definitely does not think it was global. I haven't been in touch with Glenn for a few months but I could ask him if you want.

I think the flood of Noah was a large local flood somewhere in the Middle East but I don't think it necessarily lasted a year and I really doubt that Noah built a boat quite the size of the ark since no wooden boat that large has ever been built even in modern times. I suspect that Genesis was recorded after a long time of keeping the stories through oral traditions and such stories grow in the telling.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[JohnR7]

The point is that geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman gathered losts of evidence for a flood in the Black Sea area. Is this as they suggest, evidence for Noahs flood? If it is then why are their dates off a few thousand years from the date we have in the Bible?

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm

 

[Mainframes]

I am not sure where Glenn thinks the flood was but he definitely does not think it was global. I haven't been in touch with Glenn for a few months but I could ask him if you want.

I think the flood of Noah was a large local flood somewhere in the Middle East but I don't think it necessarily lasted a year and I really doubt that Noah built a boat quite the size of the ark since no wooden boat that large has ever been built even in modern times. I suspect that Genesis was recorded after a long time of keeping the stories through oral traditions and such stories grow in the telling.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

That is my thinking of all the 'miraculous' events in the bible. They were probably just fairly out of ordinary but through the magic of chinese whispers got exagerated out of all proportion. There may well have been a bloke called Noah (or close to it) but the chances are there that all there was, was a local flood and he took his family and a couple of his cows and goats on board his fishing boat. this get convoluted over time until it is eventually written down as the current story heard today.

Same could probably be siad of the feeding of the five thousand incident..... probably only 50 people most of whom already had food with them.