• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

World wide Flood vs Local Flood

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I have been asked to start my own thread, so I will.

Here is a link to one of my favorite web sites. They say that when it comes to biodiversity, the Philippines makes Darwin's islands look like the little league. You have to click on the arrow on the bottom of each page, to go onto the next page in the artical.

http://www.fmnh.org/vanishing_treasures/Origins_1.htm

Off shore oil exploration has showed us a few things. First of all, the world is a very different place today, then what it was 15,000 years ago, when the last ice age was beginning to come to a end. For one thing, the ocean level has gone up 300 to 400 feet. This means around 12,000 years ago, there was a lot of world wide flooding. At the same time land in the north that had been covered with ice was again becoming productive.

One interesting thing is the Philippines, is that the biodiversity of life seems to be based on a pre flood distribution. You will find two islands with 80% identical animal life on it. If you go back 12,000 years you will see that those islands, before the ocean level went up, were joined together as one island. Just as you will find islands in the Philippines where the animal and plant life is very different from the island right next to it. There you will find that those islands were never joined together, even before the world wide flood.

Next we look at modern Turkey and Armenia. Below is a map of that area. It is pretty easy to see that the area starts at a level of 2000 feet above sea level. They would not be effected by a 300 or 400 foot flood. Unless there was a natural land dam, that held the water in. By the eleveation map, you can see IF there was a natural land dam, then it is possible that the flood could have put the water level up around the 5000 feet needed to cover the top of the hills and to get Noahs ark up to the top of Mt Arafat.

The theory then is, that there was a natural land formation, that held back the melting water from the ice. But the force of the water became so powerful that the land formation melted and this area was hit with a very rapid and violent flood. Later when the water level went down, a pass had been opened up and for the first time the people from the east and the west could begin to go back and forth. This is when the trade roads between the east and the west first began to be established.

armeniarah.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: BarbB

Aggie

Soldier of Knowledge
Jan 18, 2004
1,903
204
41
United States
Visit site
✟25,497.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
I predict that Frumious Bandersnatch will have something to say about this before the end of the first page.

But for now, have you read about an expedition to the Black Sea that found it had rapidly flooded the surrounding area--an area the size of Florida--about 7000 years ago? I went to a lecture a few month ago from the guy who conducted this expedition.

There's an article on it here: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
JohnR7 said:
Next we look at modern Turkey and Armenia. Below is a map of that area. It is pretty easy to see that the area starts at a level of 2000 feet above sea level. They would not be effected by a 300 or 400 foot flood. Unless there was a natural land dam, that held the water in. By the eleveation map, you can see IF there was a natural land dam, then it is possible that the flood could have put the water level up around the 5000 feet needed to cover the top of the hills and to get Noahs ark up to the top of Mt Arafat.
Ararat is the highest feature around. There is nothing taller than Mt. Arrarat. So just where would this land dam be such that the release of the dam could get waters over Arrarat? The dam would have to be such that the valley behind it was higher than the top of Arrarat and I just don't see any such valley. Without that valley, the theory collapses.

For instance, if there is a dam between Arrarat and that 3050 m peak to the Southeast, when the dam broke all the lower right part of the map would be flooded but Mt. Arrarat would be above the floodwaters.


armeniarah.gif
[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
John, I just thought of something else. The glaciers were to the North, right? So the local flood would have been from north to south. Now, Noah lived south of Mt. Ararat, right?

OK, how does a flood flowing from the north manage to take an ark and push it toward north?
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
lucaspa said:
The glaciers were to the North, right? So the local flood would have been from north to south. Now, Noah lived south of Mt. Ararat, right?

OK, how does a flood flowing from the north manage to take an ark and push it toward north?
A lot of the flood water was underground. Noah lived to the northeast of Mt Ararat. The land of Eden was at the head or the beginning of four rivers, two of the rivers was the Euphrates and the Tigris river.

Right now Turkey is working on a 32 billion dollar project to build dams to harness the power from these two rivers.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
lucaspa said:
So just where would this land dam be such that the release of the dam could get waters over Arrarat?
There would be no requirement to get the water above the level people were living at. Noah did not land at the very top of Ararat.
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
79
Visit site
✟30,931.00
Faith
Unitarian
There were probably a lot of large local floods in the area during the neolithic wet period, 9,000-2,500 BC, but I rather doubt there was one with 5,000 feet of water. Is there geological evidence for such a thing? I also don't think the glacier from the last ice age made it quite that far south but I am not sure about that witout looking it up which I don't have time to do right now.

I don't think the Black Sea flood is right for a number of reasons since it is a bit early and perhaps it didn't fill fast enough. I don't have time to get a lot of references as I am going out of town for a few days tomorrow and have some preparations to make.

I think the Bible says the Ark landed in the Mountains of Ararat not on Mt. Ararat which didn't even get that name until much later IIRC.

the frumious
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Aggie said:
But for now, have you read about an expedition to the Black Sea that found it had rapidly flooded the surrounding area--an area the size of Florida--about 7000 years ago? I went to a lecture a few month ago from the guy who conducted this expedition.
Didn't they do the work on the Titanic also? I do not think they were really looking for any evidence for Noah's food. They may have just been trying to make their research work on the Black Sea look interesting, so they could sell their book and raise the funds they need. Underwater research is very expensive and they need all the money they can get for equipment.

But that is kind of the slant they seem to be taking. That Noah's flood really did take place that that there is geological evidence to show that.
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
79
Visit site
✟30,931.00
Faith
Unitarian
Sheseala said:
So, said region could have been flooded on a large scale, just not to the scale that is suggested in the OP?
IMO yes. I would expect that flood such as described in the OP should have left some clear geological evidence. An example would be the channeled scablands in Eastern Washington state which experienced massive floods from the breaching of glacial dams.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/columbia/missoula.htm

Their geology is unique AFAIK and certainly distinctive enough to tell that something pretty spectacular happened there. I don't think there is any such geological evidence in the Middle East, at least I have never heard of any. The Black Sea flood looks different and is a different story. I just don't happen to think that the Black Sea flooding was the source of the Noah story but I am sure there are people who disagree with me on that and I haven't had time to research it in detail.

the frumious Bandersnatch
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
JohnR7 said:
A lot of the flood water was underground. Noah lived to the northeast of Mt Ararat. The land of Eden was at the head or the beginning of four rivers, two of the rivers was the Euphrates and the Tigris river.
Noah wasn't in Eden. Now, where in the Bible does it say Noah was northeast of Mr. Ararat. You apparently just made this up. Cain went east of Eden, but Noah isn't the descendent of Cain.

A lot of the flood water in the story is underground, but not in your theory. In your theory it is all above ground.

Right now Turkey is working on a 32 billion dollar project to build dams to harness the power from these two rivers.
So?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
JohnR7 said:
There would be no requirement to get the water above the level people were living at. Noah did not land at the very top of Ararat.
But Ararat was covered with water according to Genesis 7:19-20. Now, if the Flood didn't cover all of Ararat, and took 40 days for the water to rise, then that's plenty of time for people to flee to the mountains. There are several areas in your topo map that are as high as Ararat, so they don't even have to get to Ararat itself.

John, you have a curious mixture here of literal Genesis and other theory that does not rely on Genesis at all. Since different parts of the theory contradict the other, you need to get this straightened out. Unless, of course, you are trying to use a literal Genesis and the melting glacier flood theories to provide ad hoc hypotheses to avoid falsification of the other. But that isn't honest, because then you have special pleading. After all, if the only reason you believe part of the Genesis story but not other parts is because it avoids falsification of the glacier melt theory, then that is invalid reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
lucaspa said:
But Ararat was covered with water according to Genesis 7:19-20.
As your signature says: "we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault".

John, you have a curious mixture here of literal Genesis and other theory that does not rely on Genesis at all.
I have been thinking about that. Perhaps there is never going to be an exact match between what the Bible says and what we think we know from Science. The Bible takes a totally different approach than Science does.

I just know that whenever there is a conflict between the Bible and Science, it is always science that is proven to be wrong. Science is often just a bunch of man made opinions that just do not stand the test of time. The Bible is tested, tried, and proven, and it will always stand the test of time.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
lucaspa said:
Noah wasn't in Eden. Now, where in the Bible does it say Noah was northeast of Mr. Ararat.
What makes you think Noah was not in Eden? Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden in Eden. They were not thrown out of the Land of Eden.

We know that Eden was at the head of the Tigris and the Euphrates river. Rivers tend to start in the mountains, and the beginning of those rivers is in what is now modern day Turkey.

Some people think that the course of the rivers have changed, but I would have to see evidence for that. I live on a river here in Ohio, and it is in the same place it was before the glacers came along, from what I can tell about it.

Whenever they build along the river, they expose a layer of conglomerate rock, that they beleive is the river bottom from where the river was before the last ice age came along.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
The Bellman said:
I read this and don't know whether to laugh or cry. I just find it unbelievable that a person could possibly so head-in-the-sand as to actually believe it.
Perhaps you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Science consists of a bunch of man made opinions, that usually do not stand up to the test of time. The Bible has stood the test of time, and proven itself to be true. Year after year, century after century. It remains consistantly true.

yoga.jpg
 
Upvote 0