Noah's Flood: A Bird's-Eye View



We would agree with most of the following article, taken from:

http://www.reasons.org/astronomy/noahs-flood/noahs-flood-article-1
but certainly not its restriction of the Flood world just to Mesopotamia.


2/1/2002

by Steve Sarigianis

Ms. Johnson smiles and settles her class for the week’s lesson. She opens the Bible on her lap and begins to read the story of Noah's flood. Her first-graders sit cross-legged on the floor, wiggling a little but listening quietly. When she comes to Gen. 8:9, some children lean forward to hear her softened voice: "The dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to [Noah] . . . for the water was on the surface of all the earth." "The whole Earth?" big-eyed Bobby squeaks. "Yes," Miss Johnson replies, "The whole Earth." Thus, a Sunday school teacher often settles the question of whether the Genesis Flood was global or regional. But the question persists. In fact, it continues to arouse great passions within the Christian community. Both biblical inerrancy and scientific credibility are at stake. A quick reading of the English text of Genesis 6-9 gives readers—at least since the time of world exploration—the impression of a global event. However, scientific evidence to the contrary seems clear and compelling. This evidence includes the lack of sufficient quantities of water and the ark’s inadequacy to hold every land-dwelling species on Earth. This dilemma produces a painful tension for those who take both Scripture and science seriously. Following rigorous rules of biblical exegesis (discovering the original intent of text), a thoughtful reader finds that a global flood interpretation is neither as obvious nor as consistent as a superficial reading may suggest. Given a commitment to the veracity of both the Genesis text and the scientific record, a plausible scenario begins to emerge. The case for a regional flood can be divided into four general categories: theological, textual, anthropological, and geological. A Theological Perspective Given that Genesis 6-9 tells the story of God’s act of judgment against wholesale reprobation and spiritual ruin, scriptural integrity hinges primarily on whether the Flood killed all humanity except for the family of the one man who feared God. In other words, the key theological point is whether or not the Flood was universal in its effect, regardless of its physical extent. The original Hebrew text supports a universal flood impact and allows for a regional locus when viewed in context. Throughout the Old Testament, God’s judgment against sin is shown to be limited by the impact and extent of human wickedness. Usually it falls upon the sinners themselves, their children for several generations, birds and mammals used in their agricultural pursuits, their material possessions, and in extreme cases, their agricultural lands. If human life had not yet spread beyond Mesopotamia, God would have no reason to destroy those distant regions and the animal life there. Textual Considerations Genesis 8:9 records that the dove sent out by Noah could find no place to set her feet “because there was water over all the surface of the earth.” Yet four verses prior, in Genesis 8:5, the text says that the flood waters had receded enough so that for Noah the “tops of the mountains became visible.” Correct interpretation here depends on establishing the dove’s frame of reference. Likewise, the phrase “under the entire heavens” in Genesis 7:19 must be interpreted from Noah’s perspective in Mesopotamia, not from a modern global perspective. Several examples from other passages of Scripture demonstrate this need for careful interpretation. In 1 Kings 10:24, the reader learns that "the whole world [emphasis added] sought audience with Solomon." Did every tribe from the Americas and the Far East send representatives? Few, if any, would make such an assumption. The most distant visitor mentioned in the biblical text is the queen of Sheba, a region near current Ethiopia (1 Kings 10:1-13). Romans 1:8 describes the faith of the Romans being reported "all over the world," but most readers understand Paul to mean Rome’s world—“throughout the Roman Empire”—not every region of the planet. Further help in interpreting the Flood text comes from Psalm 104. Verses 5-9 describe the recently formed Earth, a period before creation of advanced life, when oceans completely covered the globe. As the continents arose, the water collected in the ocean basins. The events described in these verses perfectly align with known geologic facts and the formation of the first land masses on creation day three (Genesis 1:9-10). The Psalm then goes on to clearly state that water would never again completely cover the planet. An Anthropological Perspective Treacherous mountains to the north and east, and inhospitable deserts to the south and west made the well-watered Mesopotamian Plain a difficult place for early humans to leave. Virtually all world history texts designate this area as the “cradle of civilization.” The most repeated command of God to humanity in Genesis 1-9 is to multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:26, 28; 9:1; and 9:7). God’s repeated insistence is indicative of man’s consistent rebellion. People apparently resisted God’s command to fill the earth so strongly that God directly intervened at Babel (Genesis 11:9) to scatter them. As further evidence for man’s failure to expand beyond the Mesopotamian region, all people mentioned in Genesis 1-9 lived in that locale.[1]And it is a large area. Today more than 20 million people live in the modern country of Iraq, which encompasses most of the Mesopotamian Plain.[2] A Geophysical Perspective A regional flood interpretation fits the scientific facts about the quantity of water available in Earth’s crust and atmosphere. Genesis 7:11-12 indicates that the floodwaters came from Earth’s aquifers and atmosphere and eventually (according to Gen. 8:1-5), returned to those places. Physical scientists can calculate that Earth contains only 22% of the water required to cover every mountain on the planet. Some interpreters have postulated radical geologic changes over the entire Earth during the Genesis flood year as a way to reduce the required quantity of water. However, such monumental rates of plate tectonics and erosion defy all geologic evidence collected over the last 200 years. Additionally, the ark could never have withstood the catastrophic forces generated. The geologic history of Earth is well understood based upon observable tectonic processes, constantly improving radiometric dating techniques, and thousands of deep core samples taken over the entire globe.[3] Geology research findings do not support a global flood interpretation. On the other hand, a regional flood interpretation can be tested and verified. Even a localized flood of the magnitude demanded by the text and by theological considerations depends on God’s direct action. Atmospheric and geologic processes sufficient to bring about the convergence of vast quantities of water at one place, at one time, defy explanation as “coincidental” random occurrences. Although God’s intervention is difficult to prove scientifically, certain factors can be tested to show the plausibility of such an interpretation.[4] One factor is the geography of the Mesopotamian region. More specifically, the region’s topography combined with the Flood’s extreme meteorological conditions could support the containment of the floodwaters for several months. These floodwaters would have been deep enough to destroy all humanity and associated animals except those on the ark. Topographers can use digital elevation data to make a shaded relief map (figure 1). Although subjectively appealing, this type of map offers limited help in analysis and measurement. Figure Shaded Relief Map of the Middle East. [5] A more effective way to analyze topography is to create an elevation layer tint to depict bands of elevation. Using a computer and geographic information system (GIS) software, the band/elevation combinations can be adjusted to make the desired information stand out visually. The widths of the bands also provide a general indication of slope. Elevation layer tints of the Middle East region have been made in the past, but typically from data with elevation posts at only one-kilometer intervals. Although general topography can be seen with one-kilometer data, subtle details in the terrain cannot be discerned (figure 2). Figure 2 Elevation Layer Tint of the Middle East from 1-Kilometer Data. [6] An elevation layer tint of the Mesopotamian region from 100-meter data (figure 3) created from digital elevation data with an elevation post every 3 arc seconds (~100 meters) yields significant detail. [7] The preparation of the layer tint presented here required importing 204 one-degree cells of data into ArcView GIS software. The next step was to merge the cells into one huge gridded data set covering 892,000 square miles. The data in each cell were then normalized into seven colored bands for ease of viewing and interpretation. Modern political boundaries and vectors representing the two major rivers in the area were added for reference. Finally, modern country names and map annotations were added for clarity. Because of the resolution of the elevation data, intricate topographic details can be seen at 200-, 300-, and 400-meter elevations corresponding to the probable extent of the Genesis Flood. Figure 3 Elevation Layer Tint of the Mesopotamian Region from 100-Meter Data Several important deductions can be made from the higher-resolution elevation layer tint (figure 3): 1. The topography of the Mesopotamian region forms a huge U-shaped bowl that stretches 600 miles from the Persian Gulf to the northwest. Steep escarpments that rise quickly from less than 200 meters to 1,000 meters set boundaries for the Mesopotamian Plain on the north and the east. Terrain that rises gradually, but consistently, to heights above 400 meters forms the southern and western boundaries. Elevations above 400 meters fully contain the Mesopotamian Plain except where it meets the sea. 2. The biblical flood account refers to extraordinary geophysical events. Huge underground aquifers (“the springs of the great deep” in Genesis 7:11) suddenly "burst forth." In addition, Genesis 7:12 states that “the floodgates of the heavens” opened, and rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights. In other words, hard rain fell in the region continuously for 40 days. Meteorologically, these factors constitute an unprecedented rain event in a region that averages only 10-20 inches of rainfall per year.[8] No natural explanation exists for a storm so large, intense, or persistent in this region. A super-storm of this unprecedented magnitude would have produced an enormous surge in the Persian Gulf. During a storm surge, the force of the winds circulating around the storm’s low-pressure center pushes water ashore. A large hurricane can cause storm surges 50 miles wide and 25 feet deep.[9] Shallow coastal waters like those in the Persian Gulf only amplify a storm surge (see Figure 1). And, greater storm surges are observed with slow-moving storms. The Genesis super-storm remained stationary for at least five weeks; so the height of the storm surge must have been larger (by some incalculable amount) than any Earth has experienced since that time. A storm surge that reached 200 meters deep certainly would have been sufficient to sustain the destructive flood levels for the length of time Genesis records. Assuming the Earth’s entire human population lived on the Mesopotamian Plain at that time, a flood that reached 200 to 300 meters deep would have destroyed all humanity on the land. The geographical extent of such a flood would have included areas that today belong to Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Syria (see figure 3). 3. 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. Steve Sarigianis is a research engineer and retired U.S. Army officer with a master of science degree in Geography from Penn State. He has extensive experience in the field of military mapping and has taught geography and astronomy at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Sidebar: Water-level Math (by Hugh Ross) The Genesis text does not specify the exact depth of the floodwaters. It states only that the ark floated up on the waters and that the nearby hills were so inundated that from Noah’s perspective the whole face of Earth was covered with water. That is, from one horizon to the other, all Noah could see was water. An ark 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high, loaded with animals and supplies, probably needed a draft of at least 20 feet. If Noah stood on top of the ark, his eye level would have been approximately 30 feet above the waters (refraction corrections included). The water level horizon for him would have been about 8 miles away. Any hill more distant than about 15 miles, sticking up even a hundred feet or more above the water, would have been invisible. Hills higher than 500 feet and 1,000 feet above water level would have been beyond the possible view of Noah if they were more than 28 and 38 miles distant, respectively. Are there any regions in Mesopotamia where, if the Tigris and/or Euphrates Rivers overflowed their banks by a depth of 20 feet or so, water would extend to 28 or 38 miles on either side? Yes. Such regions exist in both southern and middle Mesopotamia. It would be difficult, though not impossible, to imagine how so little water could wipe out all humans and all the birds and mammals associated with them. Fifty feet, a hundred feet, or a few hundred feet depth of water would provide a more realistic scenario. The rate at which a 50-foot, 100-foot, or higher surge of water above the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers would flow out to the Persian Gulf depends upon the slope of the land. From 400 miles northwest of Ur to Ur (the location of the Persian shore at the time of Noah), the Euphrates and Tigris rivers drop just 300 feet in elevation. This drop provides a grade of only about 0.01 percent. With that gentle a slope, the Flood waters would have moved very slowly out to the Persian Gulf. Moreover, for several months after the rain stopped, any water that exited to the Gulf would have been replaced with runoff from springs and melting snow on the distant mountains that surround the Mesopotamian Plain. Genesis 8:1 states that God removed the floodwaters by sending a wind. Given the gentle slope of the land, evaporation plays a more significant role than gravity in removing the water. Such a scenario is consistent with the worst floods that have struck the Mississippi Valley, for example. The water rose 50 feet above the banks in those Mississippi floods and then it seemed to stand still.1 Residents of the region noticed little discernable movement. They had to wait for the waters to dry up. Just how effective is evaporation for removing flood waters? During a typical Southern California summer the swimming pools lose an average of one inch of water per day to evaporation. Lower humidity, higher heat, and a strong wind can triple or quadruple that rate. Over the 335 days during which Noah’s Flood receded, that would add up to 84-112 feet of evaporation. If gravity had removed about half that much water, the total water depth removed would have been 126-168 feet. That is easily enough water to account for Noah’s seeing nothing but water for as far as his eyes could see. That is easily enough water to destroy all of Noah’s contemporaries and their animals outside the ark. And, that is easily enough water to carry the ark to the foothills of Ararat.

Sidebar references:

See “The Mississippi River Flood of 1993,” at www.weather.com/encyclopedia/flood/miss93.html, accessed on 14 March 2002. W. M. Smart, Textbook on Spherical Astronomy, 5th ed. (London, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 317-20. References: [1] Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 2001), 148.

[2] The World Factbook 1994 (Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 1994), 191.

[3] G. Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1991), 122.

[4] For more detailed information see Ross, The Genesis Question, chapters 17-20.

[5] World Maps, topographic color and shaded relief from GLOBE Elevations with bathymetry from Smith and Sandwell, available from ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/GLOBE_DEM/pictures/ GLOBALeb3colshade.jpg; Internet;accessed 24 January 2002.

[6] TheGlobal Land One-km Base Elevation(GLOBE) Project, available from http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/topo/img/globecol.gif; Internet; accessed 24 January 2002.

[7] The data’s absolute vertical accuracy is +30 meters at 90% linear error.

[8] Sverre Pettersen, Introduction to Meteorology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), 274.

[9] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, available from http://hurricanes.noaa. gov/prepare/surge.htm; Internet; accessed 24 January 2002.

[10] Ross, 170. [11] Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? (Dallas, TX: Word, 1994), 126.

Noah's Flood: Global or Local?

By Donald Hochner Edited: 3/24/10

I would like to share what I learned about Noah's flood. Some scholars maintained that the original location of the Garden of Eden, though known to Adam’s son, Seth and his descendants, was obliterated by the devastating effects of Noah's flood. The geographical conditions of that region had changed significantly, including the rivers which served as the borders of the garden. I believe Noah's flood was not global, which I will attempt to show you.

In scripture, the phrases "the earth" and "the world" pertained to a locality, and not to the whole earth. Even when America was first discovered by Europeans, it was called "the new world." This phrase did not refer to a new planet, but just a locality on the same planet.

We have been told in the biblical account that the flood would cover the "earth", that everything in the "earth" would die, and other statements about the "earth", all of which would teach the idea of a world-wide flood - EXCEPT for one thing: Hebrew word "erets", especially in the Book of Genesis. Its translated "earth" 665 times, "land" 1581 times, "country" 44 times, "ground" 119 times, "lands" 57 times, "countries", 15 times, and a few others. It seems that the “land” overflowed the “earth” in KJV (pun intended). Same thing with the “mountains” can be used as “hills” (#2022, har). It seems to me that all of them are in limited land areas rather than the entire planet.

We need to keep in mind that the people living at the time of Moses had no concept of a "global" planet ... to them the "earth" would be the extent of the geographical land area known to them. To apply this literal meaning throughout the Bible causes problems. (As does other LITERAL exegesis)

These false interpretations are assumed and encouraged so that we can continue to support "tradition" or orthodoxy - never mind what Scripture is really saying. In so doing, we allow these misinterpretations to contradict other verses where the same word is used! We end up making a mockery of Scripture by trying to get it to fit ill-conceived theology.

For example, the word is used concerning Abraham, "Get out of thy country [erets]...unto a land [erets] that I will shew thee" (Gen. 12:1). Of course we know God did not mean for Abraham to leave the earth and to go another earth or planet. Or another one, "Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country [erets], and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur and sojourned in Gerar" (Gen. 20:1). Notice the translators used “country” instead of “earth” even it is the same Hebrew word.

Other references in Genesis also show that "erets" was used to show specific lands: "The whole land [erets] of Havilah (Gen. 2:11)," “whole land [erets] of Ethiopia” (Gen. 2:13), "the land [erets] of Nod, on the east of Eden" (Gen. 4:16), Famine at the time of Joseph affected "all lands [erets]" (Gen. 41:54). Do word study. Try use the word "land" instead of global "earth" and it make a lot more sense because some Bible translations can be misleading.

Why, then, should any insist that the flood covering "the face of the whole earth (erets) must mean a universal flood? Not only that, there is another Hebrew word, adamah (Strong’s #127) for “land” or “ground.” Would we be assuming too much to say that the usage of "adamah" inter dispersed with "erets" would qualify that word? Would we be assuming too much to say that land affected was "Adam's" land, field, ground etc? (Opposed to Cain's or other tribes or nation's ground)

If we view the flood as global, then we must (if we are consistent) apply that same usage in other places were the same words and phrases are used. Here is the list of example with “the face of the earth/land/ground ” with Hebrew words, erets or adamah during Noah’s days:

Gen. 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground [adamah] which the LORD hath cursed.

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth [adamah], and daughters were born unto them,

Gen. 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth[adamah]; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Gen. 7:3 - Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of the earth [erets].

Gen. 7:4 - For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth [erets] forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off face of the earth [adamah].

Gen. 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground[adamah], both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth [erets]: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Gen. 8:9 - But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters [were] on the face of the whole earth [erets]: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

Gen. 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth [erets]: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked , and, behold, the face of the ground [adamah] was dry.

Gen. 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground [adamah] any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done.

You see, it seems that the translators cannot make up with their mind with “earth”, “land”, and “ground.” You can compare other Bible translations like NASB, NIV, etc. Good thing that we can check some Hebrew words.

But remember we let the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures about "the face of the earth/land/ground" in other passages:

Gen. 2:6 - But there went up a mist from the earth [erets], and watered the whole face of the ground [adamah].

Gen. 4:14 - Behold, thou hast driven me [Cain] out this day from the face of the earth [adamah]; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth [erets]; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

Gen. 11:8 - So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth [erets]: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth [erets].

Gen. 41:56 - And the famine was over all the face of the earth [erets]: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.

There is no evidence of a global famine at that time... the Bible states "all countries (erets) came to Egypt" to buy corn (Genesis 41:57). Surely it means the countries close to Egypt... Certainly not "all" countries -- unless we assume the Australians or the American Indians... were in Egypt buying corn.

If we take "erets" to mean the entire planet, then we also have to interpret that OTHER PLANETS came to Egypt to buy corn. All this, so we can maintain the false teaching of a universal flood.

Exodus 10:5, 15 - We read about a plague of locusts that "covered the face of the whole earth [erets]." It should be pretty evident that this locust plague covered only a limited LAND of Egypt... it is the same wording in both places. Yet we never assume these locusts covered the entire globe.

Num. 11:31 - And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey on this side, and as it were a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth [erets].

After the Israelites were delivered from Egypt and settled in Canaan, the scripture says they "covered the face of the earth" (erets, Numbers 22:5,11) Not even fundamentalists would say that Israelites covered every square foot of the planet...This is simply a way of stating that they occupied the land in which they were dwelling.

1 Sam. 20:15 - But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever: no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David everyone from the face of the earth [adamah].

2 Sam. 18:8 - For the battle was there scattered over the face of all the country [erets]: and the wood devoured more people that day than the sword devoured.

Isa. 23:17 - And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth [adamah].

Jer. 25:26 - And all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another, and all the kingdoms of the world, which are upon the face of the earth [adamah]: and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them.

There are many instances in the Bible where it speaks of "the earth" or the face of the earth... which clearly refers to a limited land, area, or country. We read about "all" the hills being covered... or "all" flesh destroyed. When God spoke of destroying "all flesh", He said he "will destroy them with the earth" (Genesis 6:13). The planet earth was not destroyed (of course not) neither was all the flesh on the planet -- only that flesh and land where Noah lived was destroyed.

We know that after Joshua had led the Israelites into the Promised Land, we read: "So Joshua took the whole land [erets]...and the land [erets] rested from war" (Joshua 11:23). No one would think of reading "earth" into this passage! We know that the conquest of Canaan didn't include America, China, and Australia!! So, I think the "land" in a limited area is more consistent than the word "earth” [erets]:

Gen. 19:31 - God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's daughters said "there's not a man in the earth to come in unto us.” We know that not every man in the world was killed... only those in the area of the destruction.

Exodus 9:33 - "The rain was not poured upon the earth." Of course we understand it is just speaking about a certain area in Egypt.

2 Chronicles 36:23 - Cyrus' empire is said to have encompassed "all the kingdoms of the earth ." But there were kingdoms in the Far East which were surely not included.

Ezra 1:2 - Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth ; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Jer. 34:1 - "All the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the peoples, fought against Jerusalem." There the phrase "of the earth" is limited to "his dominion," i.e., the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar.

Hab. 1:6 - For, lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, which shall march through the breadth of the land , to possess the dwelling places that are not theirs.

Here are a few examples in the New Testament:

Acts 11:28 - Speaks of a similar famine throughout the entire world, yet it is not likely it really meant over the whole globe including the New World.

Luke 2:1 - Refers to a decree which went out to tax "the whole world." But this was only refers to Romans who controlled the land of Judea.

Rev. 1:7 - Refers to the coming of Christ during the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, "Behold, he [Jesus] cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds [tribes of Israel] of the earth [land of Judea] shall wail because of him." All futurists believe the coming of Christ will be seen from all over the earth.

Let me give you a few more points to ponder:

1. We read also that "the water increased and bare up the ark, and it was lifting up ABOVE THE EARTH" (Gen. 7:17). Do you think that's possible the ark was lifted into the space and orbited above the earth?!?

2. As I said before, if the flood was global, how did the water drained? What about the rain? This would be like dipping water out of one end of a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end. The level would be remaining unchanged!

3. Ralph Woodrow wrote, "Notice the order of events in Genesis 8:4, 5: And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.”

It was 74 days AFTER the ark rested that "the tops of mountains were seen." We believe these were some mountains right around the spot where the ark came to rest. If the writer meant all the mountains in the world, he should have said the tops of the mountains were seen and AFTER this the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat. This is self-evident, for there are MOUNTAINS ALL OVER THE WORLD THAT ARE HIGHER THAN ANY IN THAT LAND THAT WAS ANCIENTLY KNOWN AS ARARAT!" (p. 14).

4. He also wrote, "After it stopped raining and the water began to go back down, the Bible implies the water receded at the rate of 15 cubits in 74 days (Genesis 7:20; 8:4, 5). A number of recognized commentators have mentioned this point. If we figure a cubit at about 18 inches, the water level would have dropped 270 inches during this time or, to round it off, 4 inches a day. If the flood depth was 29,050 feet (348,600 inches) and the water level dropped 4 inches a day, it would take 87,150 days to get back down to normal sea level. That would be almost 239 YEARS!" (p. 17).

5. Another fact is, if there were ALL animals and species in the world went into the ark, some of them do not live a year! Like for example, some incest like bee, male ants, fly, etc. Remember that all of these creatures who were in the ark did not reproduction UNTIL after they came out the ark (Gen. 8:15-17).

6. Another problem arises, God told Noah to bring the creatures into the ark and sort the male and female creatures. If there were every creature in the world, this would require more knowledge than distinguishing between a bull and a cow. What about snakes, ants, termites, snails, etc?

7. What more, how about feeding lions, leopards, tigers, cats, etc.? How much extra animals would be required for all the meat-eating animals? What about the elephants? One elephant eat 44 lbs of grain, 66 lbs of hay, 20 to 70 lbs of turnips, carrots, cabbage or fruit. If an elephant eat 170 lbs of food each day, this would be 62,050 lbs during the year in ark. Don't forget to double those pounds to 124,100 for two elephants! Even some animals like panda (Asia), koala (Australia), and three - toed sloth (South America) require a specialized diet. Did Noah and his family gather some for them? What about the woodpeckers that peck the wood or termites eat the wood! That would be much trouble! =) Did the dinosaurs also included as some would claim?

8. When the rain came, the rivers filled and ran into the seas which rose until the entire world was covered - according the universal flood view-point. All water became salty. Some fish can only live in fresh water and some require water of a certain temperature. I don't suppose Noah provided climate-controlled aquariums for fish! (Woodrow, p. 38-39)

9. If we figure a cubit at 18 inches, this works out to the ark being 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. Dividing the height of the ark by 3 (for the three levels) would allow a maximum of 15 feet per level. But we must remember that to support the tremendous weight that would be carried, large beams in floors and ceilings would be required, making actual clearance about 13 feet. The door would have been no higher than this. If huge animals such as African elephants and giraffes (dinosaurs? DH) were involved - as world-wide flood would require - some would have had problems even getting in the door! (Woodrow, p. 44)

10. What I find this very interesting from the writings of Josephus, the noted 1st century Jewish historian. He quoted from Nicolaus of Damascus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia...upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in the ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote." (Antiquity of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 3)

Josephus goes on to say: "Now the sons of Noah were three...these first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and PERSUADED OTHERS WHO WERE GREATLY AFRAID OF THE LOWER GROUNDS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FLOOD, and so were very loath to come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples. Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called Shinar. God also commanded them to send colonies abroad..." (Antiquity of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 4)

It seems to me that Josephus approved the writing from Nicolaus of Damascus otherwise he would have corrected Nicolaus’ account. Therefore, his understanding of the flood is important because he is the first century Jew who lived contemporary to the time of the writing of the New Testament.
 

....

Taken from: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/noah.html
 

Egyptian Evidence for Great Flood: Giza Plateau Once Under the Sea

 

The following, taken from:

http://www.gizaforhumanity.org/report-from-mr-sherif-el-morsi/
 

may be a further indication of the Great Flood. The following article would agree, though it seems to place the Pyramids prior to the flood. We, instead, would place them well after the Flood.

Report from Mr Sherif El Morsi

A convincing clue proving that the Giza plateau was once covered by the sea is being studied, along with other evidence of erosion due to saturation by deep water of the surface of the plateau. An echinoid (a type of sea urchin or shallow marine creature) petrified in “recent times” has been found embedded upright in the upper surface of a block adjoining the Menkaura pyramid and within the ancient intertidal range. This is a splendid discovery by an Egyptian researcher.

Preface

“I am very proud to present to you a first report on the splendid discovery by Mr Sherif el Morsi. For several reasons: first, because it is only the beginning of seriously questioning dating and other data which have been wrong for years, and because this is very thorough work based on proofs that become stronger every day. It is time for science to get its message across! I am very happy also that this is an Egyptian discovery because Egyptian researchers and scientists well deserve it.
A more personal reason is that for the last 20 years now I have also been collecting evidence of sea erosion due to deep water saturation on the Giza plateau. My own theory (already published in France in 2007) is that the last Great Flood (and no doubt others before it) came up the Giza plateau, and that the Ancient Egyptians with their incomparable skills adapted the plateau from the beginning in order to protect their population and their science beneath it.”

Antoine Gigal

Report from Mr Sherif El Morsi

“I have spent the past 12 years doing on-site research in the Giza Necropolis. My research has brought some important discoveries such as the Neolithic honeycombed community of cavern dwellers on the Great Pyramid eastern escarpment, the megalith ramp used for hauling the granite blocks up the escarpment to be used in the construction of the Kings chamber, and just recently the different extensive erosion patterns found on different elevations in the Giza plateau with an existing ancient shoreline.I Like to thank Ms. Antoine Gigal for this honourable invitation to put on her prestigious board my following work. I am following the footsteps of the renown geologist Dr. Schoch and the great writer/journalist Graham Hamcock, but expanding their theory that is based on erosion patterns found on the Sphinx body due to water erosion. I have found that the extensive erosion patterns at the lower elevations of the plateau are different to the erosion patterns found at higher elevations. These erosion patterns are due to the Necropolis’s inundation by water. The inundation of water reaches a maximum of 75 meters over our current sea level creating a shoreline at the Khafra enclosure that spans all the way across to the Menkara temple. This shoreline is a 2 meter high intertidal range showing pitting and tidal notches due to seawater, wave mechanics, and tidal ebbing. At the lower levels such as at the Sphinx, the Sphinx temple, the first 20 courses of the Great pyramid including the boat pits; we see erosion due to deeper water saturation, where the stone blocks and wall linings have absorbed sea water. As the waters receded and a dry sunny windy climate took place, these megalithic stone blocks started weathering, creating tafoni erosions which are due to the salt chemically reacting and flaking the limestone with pitting formations. During a catastrophic sea surge and the forthcoming water regression, we clearly observe at certain areas such as corners, outlets, and trenches… horizontal indentures due to water force gushing and turbulence. On the top temple blocks we have sediment and alluvium deposits that have collected on the flat surfaces such as seen in shallow sea beds and lagoons, creating an oozing spongy effect due to the water regression that left these deposits.

Tafoni pitting due to sea water saturation on the Great Pyramid first course polished facing stones. The large tafoni pittings seen on the top of the block takes milleniums to reach this size,..plus another few milleniums of wind abresion to smooth them down to near non-existance. A 25 centimeter loss of surface limestone due to this type of erosion can be calculated by the 10,000s of years.

Reaching the maximum level of the inundation, which is 75 meters over our current sea level, we see a different type of erosion that is due to wave mechanics and tidal ebbing that has created a 2 meter high ancient intertidal range. This ancient shoreline spans from the Khafra enclosure up to the Menkara temple, where the rock hewn cliffs plus the temple blocks are all extensively eroded with tidal notches and extensive pitting. The erosions are so extensive that most blocks are nearly dilapidated out of existence, losing block mass and disfigured into grotesque shapes. This disfiguration is due to wave hitting, sea spray, and shallow marine habitation.

The great south eastern boat pit showing the horizontal indentures due to water turbulance from gushing forces during the sea surge and regression. Tafoni pittings on the sides have been weathered by wind during milleniums.

The Khafra south west corner core stones. This is an outlet into the southern desert plain from the Khafra enclosure, where water turbulance and powerfull gushing forces accentuated at corners and bottlenecks creating these horizontal indentures during the sea surge and regression. The water hitting while entering and existing at this corner must have created whirlpool turbulance and gushing forces.

Top block on the Sphinx temple, showing extensive tafoni pitting and grainy flood sediment and alluvium deposits that have accumulated and oozed off the top surface of the temple block, left by the eventual sea regression. This erosion pattern is unique to Giza and shows its pre ancient age.

A megalithic temple block at 75 meter over our current sea level and part of the ancient shoreline. It stands in a 2 meter intertidal range showing a clear tidal notch. It’s dilapidated state with more than half its mass lost is due to wave mechanics, sea water erosion, and probable marine habitation. During my photo shoot of this ancient seashore line, I nearly tripped off a 2nd level temple block. To my surprise the bulge on the top surface of the block that nearly made me trip was a petrified exoskeleton of what seems to be an Echinoid (sea urchin), which is a shallow sea marine creature. The coincidence to discover a petrified shallow marine creature laying on a top surface of a temple block that sits right under the ancient intertidal range, is a blessing. This is probably the most absolute proof that the Giza Necropolis was inundated by a sea surge. The petrified Echinoid and the dilapidated temple block stand together creating for us such a solid picture of an ancient lagoon that once existed at the Menkara temple during a high sea that inundate the Necropolis.

A megalithic temple block at 75 meter over our current sea level and part of the ancient shoreline. It stands in a 2 meter intertidal range showing a clear tidal notch. It’s dilapidated state with more than half its mass lost is due to wave mechanics, sea water erosion, and probable marine habitation.

We can see the petrified exoskeleton of this Echinoid or shallow marine creature laying gravitationally flat on the top surface of the megalith temple block (forefront). The top surface of this block seems to be covered by lagoon sediments and alluvial sands that have cemented to it due to the forth coming hot dry climate after the sea water regression. In the background we can clearly see a top megalith temple block that has lost half its mass and disfigured due to seawater spray, wave mechanics, and marine habitat. Both block and the petrified Echinoid are 75 meters over our current sea level were a 2 meter high intertidal range spans from the Khafra enclosure up to the Menkara temple. Both temple block and petrified Echinoid are existing in this intertidal range.

Since the Mokattam limestone is formed out of miniscule fragmented marine shells such as numulites and echinoids that date back to the Eocene Epoch which is circa 30 million years ago, geologists and archeologists are debunking this discovery believing that this petrified marine creature has eroded out of the limestone block. I disagree due to these forth coming points; first, this petrified marine creature’s exoskeleton is in pristine condition with minute details of the shell perforation showing clearly, therefore it must have been exiting from a much later date such as the Pleistocene or early Holocene periods. Second, this petrified creature is laying gravitational flat in its natural sitting position on the surface of this temple block. Third, it is living in its natural environment which is in the intertidal range in a shallow lagoon with sea bed sediments. Fourth, it is not a miniscule fragment like most shells that make the limestone formation, but a large entire specimen.

We can clearly see the pristine condition and minute details of the exoskeleton perforation which means that this marine creature must have petrified from recent times. It is not a body fossil as most fossils are that date back to 30 million years, but petrified by the sediment deposits that have filled its hollow.

We can clearly see the pristine condition and minute details of the exoskeleton perforation which means that this marine creature must have petrified from recent times. It is not a body fossil as most fossils are that date back to 30 million years, but petrified by the sediment deposits that have filled its hollow.In the upcoming image we can clearly see the petrified shallow marine creature sitting normally on the flat surface of the second level temple block, protruding 6 centimeters over the surface. In the back ground we have another perspective of the third level temple blocks that make these gargantuan temple walls and are part of the 2 meter high intertidal range that spans all the way to the Khafra enclosure. These blocks are extensively eroded showing intertidal notches that are due to wave mechanics and sea spray.

This echinoid, sea urchin, or shallow marine creature has petrified in its habitat which is a shallow lagoon that existed during the inundation of the Menkara temple. The sea surge must have sustained this 75 meter over our current sea level for quite a few centuries due to the amount of sediment and alluvium deposits that lay on the temple block surface. For an Echinoid to reach the size of 8 centimeter diameter takes at least 15 years of life. The extensive intertidal erosion seen on the blocks also take centuries. We can clearly observe the crack on the top of the petrified marine creature,..this crack could have been due to a catastrophic regression, in which the opening was filled with sediment and alluvium such as deposited on the temple block surface. Petrification equates to cementation were the sediments harden with time keeping the organism in its intact form. One can clearly see the cementated sediments in the petrified exo skeleton which has kept its thick calcite shell form and looks like it could be peeled off.”

Credit text and pictures: Shérif El Morsi, 2010.

Menkaura pyramid with in front lost blocks by the flood. Photo Gigal	Menkaura pyramid with in front lost blocks by the flood. Photo Gigal
Boat pit erosion.Photo Gigal	Water erosion inside boat pit East side GP. Photo Gigal

Sea and wind erosion between khafre to Menkara pyramid in the farfront Maenkaura temple

• Video

• Gigal Research

Copyright © GIZA FOR HUMANITY - Recherches archéologiques et historiques

Noah's Flood

 

Taken from:

http://www.answersincreation.org/flood.htm

By Greg Neyman
© Answers in Creation
First Published 29 May 2003

The global Flood of Noah is one of the centerpiece arguments for young earth creation science theology. Because of this, I have been asked what I believe the Flood of Noah was like.

 

To answer this question, let us first look at what the Flood is not…it is not the event that has been described by young earth creationism. There is no possible way the Flood could produce the rock record we see, nor could the flood produce all the coal layers, oil reserves, or chalk layers that we see in the rocks. If you want to explore these topics first, click on them to examine them in closer detail.

Was the Flood Global?

This is probably the biggest question I get asked. This will be a short answer to such a big question, but…no.

You may ask how I can believe in an inerrant Bible if I don’t believe the Flood was global. The Bible says the waters covered the entire face of the earth (Gen. 7:19). However, when considering any writing, one must take into account the author’s point of view.

What is the author of Genesis’s point of view? He is writing the story from the viewpoint of the witnesses, or, mankind. At the time of the Flood, mankind was still limited to the Middle East. Therefore, if you wipe out mankind, which all existed in one geographic area, you could easily say the Flood was global, since everywhere that man lived, it was flooded. Does that mean that North America was flooded? Think of it this way. You are in your house, and a flood comes and covers your entire house, leaving you sitting on your rooftop, with no land in sight. This flood event may not be global, or, over the entire surface of the earth, but to you, it is definitely ‘global’, for your entire world, all the land that you own, all the land that you can see, is flooded.

Or, think of it from Noah’s viewpoint. All the flood stories from around the globe originated from Noah, since all mankind is descended from him. If you are Noah, on the Ark, floating around with no land in sight for months on end, you too would certainly call the Flood global. Therefore from his viewpoint, global would be the correct word, even though there is no proof that the Flood actually covered the entire earth.

If the Flood was global, there is no proof that it covered the entire earth, either geologically or from writings, including the Bible. It was certainly ‘global’ from Noah’s viewpoint, but we can’t be certain that he completely circled the globe to prove that it was indeed global.

Food Supply

In Genesis 8:11, the dove that Noah sent out brought back an olive leaf as proof of dry land. Let’s look a little closer at this from a young earth perspective.

In order to prove the Flood, and the necessary erosion that took place in order to deposit all the rock layers we see today, two young earth creation science theorists, Baumgardner and Barnette, worked out a simulation of the current patterns and speeds if the entire globe was covered in water. The important thing to note here is that the water currents were at least 131 feet per second, or more than 89 miles per hour! (Actual speeds varied between 89 MPH and 194 MPH). These are the velocities over the continental land masses, as the higher currents formed gyres over the continents. At that velocity, all previously existing trees would have been torn from their roots, and there would be no living trees or plants to survive the flood. So, where did the olive leaf come from? It would have to be a leaf from a seedling which the dove brought back, because none of the pre-existing trees would have survived.

Since none of these trees could have survived, there would have been no plant food for any of the animals (or Noah) to eat. How did the plant-eating animals survive after they were released from the Ark? The young earth creation science model cannot answer this.

How did the meat-eating animals survive? They would naturally have to immediately feed on the plant-eaters, which would have made them extinct within a matter of weeks. The young earth global flood model again fails to answer this.

However, if the Flood were local, not global, then the animals would merely have to migrate a short distance to find food. Clearly, the local flood model is the only one which can logically explain survival of animal species after the Flood of Noah.

Wildlife Ranges

What about the other continents…where they flooded? Was Australia flooded? If so, how did the wildlife there, such as Koalas and Kangaroos, get to Australia from the Ark? Did they swim across the sea? Of course not. If they migrated from Noah’s Ark, you would expect Koala and Kangaroo populations to exist all along this migratory route…but they are only located in Australia. A young-earth flood model cannot explain the wildlife habitat ranges that we see today in Australia, nor the other continents.

Dinosaurs

Young earth creation science proponents are quick to use dinosaur graveyards as evidence of Noah’s Flood. They claim the dinosaurs herded together, and then were quickly buried. However, this explanation is not feasible.

The dinosaur graveyards referred to are mostly in North America, in sediments in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and Canada. However, looking at the positioning of the rock layers, there are thousands of feet of sediment below these layers that the young earth theorists claim were deposited by the Flood.

To make this more understandable, let’s look at the Grand Canyon. Steven Austin, in his book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, claims the Canyon rocks represent those which were deposited during the rising waters phase of the Flood (Figure 4.1). The “Late Flood”, or receding water rock deposits, are the Mesozoic sediments.

It is interesting to note that all the dinosaur fossils, including the mass graves, are Mesozoic in age. This means that all the dinosaurs died in the receding water phase of the flood. However, it is clear from Genesis 7:21-23, that all life was killed during the first 40 days of the Flood. Some young-earth theorists will argue that the bodies floated around, and eventually sank, based on various factors as body size, density, and so forth. However, this cannot be true, because the dinosaur footprints all exist in the same Mesozoic rock layers, as do all the dinosaur coprolites (fossilized dinosaur poop), and fossilized dinosaur eggs. Clearly, the dinosaurs were alive and well, after the declaration in Genesis 7:21-23 that all living things were killed during the first forty days of the flood. Clearly, the young earth flood model cannot explain the dinosaur fossil distribution in the rock record. However, if one accepts a local flood event, with the dinosaurs having lived over 65 million years ago, there are no problems.

Conclusion

The young earth creation science model for the flood falls flat on its face when compared to the rock record. There is no global, geological evidence for a flood, nor can the young earth model explain animal survival when there was no food supply, animal distribution ranges, nor dinosaurs which survived the first forty days of the flood.

The old earth explanation can handle all these problems. You can believe in an old earth, and still believe in Noah’s Flood. It was not “global” over the entire earth, but it certainly was “global” if you were in Noah’s shoes.

Assessing the Various Flood Models

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

Above (for full story, see http://bribiebaptist.com/) is a picture of a ‘Noah’s Ark’ that a sincere Dutch Creationist, Johan Huibers, has lovingly built in order to recreate the exact design of the original Ark of the Book of Genesis. This most captivating tale, Genesis 6-9, which we take to be true history, and not mere myth or fable – {and which has its echo in the folklore of practically every nation and people on earth, thereby verifying both the story’s actuality and the common origins of humanity} - has nonetheless been interpreted in quite divergent ways, even by those who believe in the accuracy of the Bible.

Some secular scientists, too, would admit that there had once been a great ‘Flood’ that gave rise to the later legends, particularly in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), in which region some commentators tend entirely to confine the ‘Flood’.

Mesopotamia is also believed by many to have been ‘the cradle of civilisation’. After the Flood, we are told, men migrated ‘to the land of Shinar’ (or Sumer) (Genesis 11:2), which is basically southern Mesopotamia.

Afterwards, thanks to the Babel incident, humankind was scattered over the whole world (11:8).

I find it fascinating that Ian Wilson, renowned Turin Shroud expert, has discerned likenesses between the finest early aboriginal art (‘the Bradshaws’) in the Kimberley region of NW Australia and aspects of the early Mesopotamian culture, known as ‘Ubaid.

And that linguist Charles J. Ball had, in his book Chinese and Sumerian (London: Oxford University Press, 1913), painstakingly connected hundreds of Chinese words to the ancient Sumerian language of Mesopotamia, thought to be humanity’s original language.

http://www.archive.org/details/chinesesumerian00balluoft

 

Similarly, but now pertaining to Egypt, a bit removed from Mesopotamia, another scholar, Charles William Johnson, has identified Egyptian words in the Nahuatl language (the one spoken by Juan Diego of Our Lady of Guadalupé fame), after removing the letter ‘l’ from the Nahuatl words. Now, ancient Egyptian did not have this letter ‘l’ in its alphabet.

http://www.earthmatrix.com/linguistic/nahuatl.htm

 

I just throw in these examples to demonstrate that - against the evolutionary view of origins - mankind actually connects, from antiquity to the Far East, to indigenous living a Stone Age existence, even to the New World of the Americas.

Now to a consideration of the main Flood models.

The Genesis account of the Flood is brief and to the point. So why then, one might wonder, are some Flood models so different the one from the other?

At the extremes, we find these two versions:

(i) the model favoured by Creationists, that would have the Flood so gigantic and global as to have erased absolutely all prior trace of civilisation. And, by contrast,

(ii) the localised model, confined to Mesopotamia only, based on archaeo-geological evidence of a large flood in the region of ancient Ur. This last is often espoused by those who do not see any need to regard the Genesis Flood as having overwhelmed all of humanity, save Noah and his family. Australian earth scientist Professor Ian Plimer, for instance, can accept this dimension of flood, and he has posited a corresponding ark vessel for it (in Telling Lies for God, Random House, Australia, 1994).

I would reject both of these models (i) and (ii) as being - as I see it -unbiblical. For one there is, I would suggest, a biblical pre-Flood (antediluvian) world based on Genesis 2:10-14 that is still traceable, albeit dimly perhaps, even after the Flood (post diluvian) – and even to this very day.

And there is also an apparently Cain-ite (pertaining to Adam’s son, Cain) archaeology in southern Mesopotamia (Sumer) that pre-existed the Ur flood, which latter I take to be part evidence, only (hence my rejection of model (ii)) for the great Noachic Flood, which affected the whole Genesis 2:10-14 world.

Now Wal Johnson, appreciating the significance of this archaeological evidence, but also believing with the Creationists that the biblical Flood ought to have been global, had, in his quite unique model, (iii), argued for both scenarios at the same time. This, while well-intentioned, is realistically impossible - and so no wonder that scientists lose patience with such illogical, supposedly Bible supporting, arguments!

Very recently some Creationists have, as we have noted before, started to bend to the view that pre-Flood (antediluvian) civilisation is in fact discernible even after the Flood. See our:http://genesisflood-amaic.blogspot.com/

The different Flood scenarios (i) & (ii) have their correspondingly different Ark sizes, too, varying from the sort of massive model as pictured on p. 17 above, representing (i), to the more Kon Tiki type of reed boat, representing model (ii). In (i), the biblical data is interpreted at face value, or using ‘western logic’, as literally ‘all the mountains of all the earth’ (as we would say it), being submerged. Proponents of this model, either ignorant of, or disinterested in, an antediluvian archaeology (best exemplified in Mesopotamia), do not seem properly to account for the fact that Genesis 6-9 was written (toledôt) by Noah (6:9) and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth (10:1), who were most ancient people, and who had neither a global familiarity with the earth, nor had the technological expertise to build a boat the size of the one built by the Dutch Creationist: a feat not possible until the late C19th AD, and even then, apparently, not effectively seaworthy.

Admittedly - and as is apparent from the fact that the Dutchman has created such an Ark using a biblical blueprint - the figures given in Genesis would seem to add up to a ship of such a size. But what do we know of antediluvian measurements? Do we need to take ratio into account? Raul Lopez has argued, for instance, that the massively inflated Sumerian figures (hundreds of thousands of years) for the ages of the antediluvian kings of the region are compatible with the biblical ages of the Patriarchs if it is realised that the Sumerian version was using a sexagesimal system (“The antediluvian patriarchs and the Sumerian king list”, CEN Tech J. 1230: 343-357, 1998):

... The Sumerian King List records the lengths of reigns of the kings of Sumer. The initial section deals with kings before the Flood and is significantly different from the rest. When the kingdom durations of the antediluvian section are expressed in an early sexagesimal numerical system, all durations except two are expressed as multiples of 60². A simple tally of the ciphers used yields six l0x60² signs, six 60² signs and six 60 signs.

The lives of the biblical patriarchs, however, have a precision of one year. If Adam and Noah are not included (as in the King List), and the lives of the patriarchs are similarly rounded to two digits, the sum of the lives has 10³signs, six 10² signs and six 10 signs. In addition, if the number representing the sum of the ages was wrongly assumed as having been written in the sexagesimal system, the two totals become numerically equivalent.

It is suggested that the Sumerian scribe that composed the original antediluvian list had available a document (possibly a clay tablet) containing numerical information on the ages of eight of the patriarchs similar to that of the Genesis record and that he mistakenly interpreted it as being written in the sexagesimal system.

That the two documents are numerically related is strong evidence for the historicity of the book of Genesis. The fact that the Sumerian account shows up as a numerically rounded, incomplete version of the Genesis description, lacking the latter's moral and spiritual depth, is a strong argument for the accuracy, superiority, and primacy of the biblical record. In addition, the parallels between the Sumerian and biblical antediluvian data open up the possibility of establishing chronological correlations between the rest of the Kings List and the book of Genesis.

[End of quote]

In similar fashion as I see it, in relation to the size of the Ark, modern commentators may be superimposing their own mathematical matrix upon the ancient text, thereby arriving at impossibly inflated figures, thus making of Noah and his sons technological supermen of their actually ‘primitive’ (in the sense of most ancient) age. All of a sudden, the Genesis ‘Ark’ becomes capacious enough to have included the largest and most exotic of known creatures, even dinosaurs in the more extreme (though seemingly quite mainstream) Creationist cases.

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, by contrast, told that: “The largest animals, white elephants [?] and camels, went in [to the Ark] first” (“Noe [Noah] and his Posterity”). What! No giraffes, woolly mammoths, hippos, or Tasmanian Devils?

The Flood model that I favour (iv), sits between the global version (i) and the purely Mesopotamian one (ii); though closer to the latter in geographical extent. It is based on Genesis 2:10-14, the antediluvian world of man as described in the Bible, enframed by the four rivers, extending approximately from Iraq to Ethiopia (Kush). It is a far more vast world than the one that merely covers Mesopotamia alone, but it is by no means global. It extends throughout what I believe to have been the region inhabited by man from Adam unto the Flood, before the topography, geography and hydrology of the world was changed dramatically. And it is the world that is perhaps best shown archaeologically by the pre-Flood civilisation, from bedrock to the Flood as identified at Ur by Sir Leonard Woolley in 1929. This model can address the following series of questions thrown up against global Floodists (e.g. by Professor Plimer, op. cit., pp. 74, 105):

“If there was indeed a ‘Great Flood’, then …:

- how come we still have ravens, if one of the pair was sent off by Noah and never returned?

- from where did the dove get the branch if the whole earth was overlayed by miles of sediment?”

- Could an ark be built to accommodate all the organisms?

- Did Noah really have the mathematical skills to solve the differential equations necessary to understand the bending moment, torque and shear stress associated with the roll, pitch, yaw and slamming expected in the turbulent globe-enveloping flood?

- What shipboard problems would exist on an ark of this size?

- How did the organisms travel from the beached ark to their current locations?”

Plimer will also, despite his off-handed treatment of the polystrate fossils, employ many scientific arguments (especially geological); for example, if the Flood were ‘global’, then [ibid., p. 75]:

- every oil well, every coal mine, every drill hole in sedimentary rocks and every cliff profile would show a gradation from basal conglomerate to sand to uppermost siltstones, mudstones and claystones. … [but they don’t, Plimer maintains].

- in the record of rocks, we see evidence that some sedimentary rocks (and fossils therein) are formed in freshwater environments whereas other sedimentary rocks are formed in saline marine water. This presents a slight insuperable problem as the fictitious flood fluids were either fresh or saline but unquestionably could not be both”.

Added to this is the fact that the Genesis 2:10-14 riverine system world actually sits upon six miles of sedimentary rock, considered by Creationists, however, to have been the result of the biblical Flood. Carol A. Hill well explains this in her challenging article, “The Garden of Eden: A Modern Landscape” (Science in Christian Perspective):www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3_00Hill.html

…. This interpretation of the Garden of Eden as existing on a modern landscape presents a major conflict between what the Bible says and what flood geologists say. …. The reason is this: there are six miles of sedimentary rock beneath the Garden of Eden/Persian Gulf. How could Eden, which existed in pre-flood times, be located over six miles of sedimentary rock supposedly deposited during Noah's flood?

What flood geologists are implying is that the Garden of Eden existed on a Precambrian crystalline basement and then Noah's flood came and covered up the Garden of Eden with six miles of sedimentary rock. But this is not what the Bible says. It says that Eden was located where the four rivers confluenced on a modern landscape. It says that the Garden of Eden was located on top of six miles of sedimentary rock, and thus this sedimentary rock must have existed in pre-flood times. …

[End of quote]

Admittedly my model (iv) does have its own inherent problems. These might be exposed by such probing questions as the following from the Creationist partnership of K. Ham, J. Sarfati and C. Wieland (The Answers Book :Expanded and Updated), Tribune Press, Brisbane, 2002, pp. 138-141):

“If the Flood were local, why …

- did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and escaped ….

- was the Ark big enough to hold all the different kinds of land vertebrate animals to reproduce those kinds …?

- did God send the animals to the Ark to escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce those kinds ….

- would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to far-distant higher ground….

- people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not have been affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin. ….

- How could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 metres) above the mountains (Gen. 7:20)?

- God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a Flood again. There have been huge ‘local’ floods in recent times ….”

Yes, massive floods have occurred recently in Queensland (Australia) and in the US, for instance. But these did not leave alive only one human family, as in the case of Noah. I have endeavoured to answer all of these Creationist queries in my article: “Just How ‘Global’ Was The Great Genesis Flood (Genesis 6-9)?”, at our site: http://genesisflood-amaic.blogspot.com/

Once again, it may be a case of Creationists applying a modern mentality, in this case geographical, to an ancient world. Or what St. Peter calls “The world that then was” (2 Peter 3:6).

One possibly important aspect that I had not previously considered in my article was the ancient notion that the world was encircled by “Ocean” (Okeanos), possibly the so-called ‘Tethys Sea’ for which, apparently, there is scientific evidence. This may better explain (but in addition to some of my own arguments) why Noah did not just do the obvious (in the case of a non-global Flood model) - just save himself all the trouble of having to build the Ark and ‘walk to the other side of the mountains’.