Professor Carol Hill Brings Science and Common Sense to Noachian Flood Debate



 

 

[THE AMAIC WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY AGREE WITH CAROL'S ARTICLE, BUT NOT E.G. THE VIEW THAT THE LOCALISED FLOOD WAS SIMPLY RESTRICTED TO MESOPOTAMIA]

 

 

For full article, go to: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%201.pdf



Professor Hill introduces her article:
 
 

 The Noachian Flood:

Universal or Local?

The biblical and scientific evidence pertaining to the subject of a universal versus local
Noachian Flood are discussed in this paper. From a biblical perspective, a universal

flood model (and its corollary models: flood geology and the canopy theory) is based

primarily on:


(1) the universal language of Gen. 6.8,

(2) Gen 2:5.6, and (3) the

presumed landing of Noah.s ark on the summit of Mount Ararat (Gen. 8:4).


It is argued

that the .universal. language of Gen. 6.8 was meant to cover the whole known world

of that time (third millennium BC), not the entire planet Earth, and that this

interpretation also applies to Gen. 2:5.6.

the verses on which the canopy theory is

based. It is also argued that the .fifteen cubits upward. flood depth mentioned in

Gen. 7:20 favors a local rather than a universal flood.

From a scientific perspective, a universal flood, flood geology, and canopy theory are

entirely without support. The geology of the Mount Ararat region precludes the

premise of flood geologists that all of the sedimentary rock on Earth formed during

the time of Noah.s Flood. The most likely landing place of the ark is considered to have

been in the vicinity of Jabel Judi (the .mountains of Ararat. near Cizre, Turkey)

within the northern boundary of the Mesopotamian hydrologic basin, rather than on

17,000-foot-high Mount Ararat in northeastern Turkey. Since it would have been

logistically impossible for all animal species on Earth to be gathered by Noah and

contained in the ark, it is concluded that the animals of the ark were those that lived

within the Mesopotamian region. The archaeological record outside of Mesopotamia

also does not support a universal flood model. All of the evidence, both biblical and

scientific, leads to the the conclusion that the Noachian deluge was a local, rather than
universal, flood.
....