conkermaniac

But just how "massive" was this Mississippi flood? I can hardly imagine that it would be more than 1 meter deep. But my friends here are agreeing that the flood resulted in several hundred meter deep water, while they are arguing that it was confined to the Middle East.

conkermaniac

The problem here is that my classmates are not acknowledging that the Bible is not 100% accurate. They are saying that everything in the Bible is still correct but some of it is due to the interpretation of the people of the time. However, they continue to claim that these "interpretations" aren't flaws.

GPLindsey

Re: the Ark and Mount Ararat, the Bible (Genesis Chapter 8) says that the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat on the seventeenth day of the seventh month since the flood started. The Bible then says that the tops of the mountains did not become visible until the first day of the tenth month. It then says that after 40 days (the 10th day of the 11th month? 40 days after the Ark came to rest on the 17th day of the 7th month??) Noah opened a window and sent out a raven, then a dove--which found water was still over all the surface of the earth--and then seven days later he sent out another dove which brought back a freshly picked olive leaf.

Unless the Ark came to rest on the very tippy-top of Mount Ararat itself--tetter-tottering for 2 1/2 months while the other mountains in the Ararat range became visible--dry land should have been visible to Noah immediately after the Ark came to rest. He'd have opened his window and seen the summit of Mount Ararat right above him. If the Ark landed on some other mountain near Ararat, then Ararat should have been visible off in the distance immediately anyway, since it is the highest mountain in the range (if I'm not mistaken). No need to wait for the 1st day of the 1oth month.

If Noah opened his window 40 days after the 1st day of the 10th month, then the waters should have receded considerably by then and much of the mountains around him should have been plainly visible, thus no need to send out doves--and impossible for there to be "water still over all the surface of the world," as dove #1 discovered. If it was 40 days after the 17th day of the 7th month, then the activities of the birds don't fit the time line, since by my estimate no more than 50 days passed before the bird found the olive branch (40 days, then a day for the raven to fly around, a day for dove #1 to fly around, then 7 days of waiting, and then dove #2 and Eureka! an olive branch). Yet, there must have been about 73 days between the 17th day of the 7th month and the 1st day of the 10th month (assuming a 30 day month), when the mountains first became visible.

In any event, how could the raven and dove #1 fail to find the dry land that the Ark itself was resting on? Why did Noah wait 40 days to investigate why the Ark had come to rest--didn't he notice they were marooned on something? How could an olive tree had grown sufficiently to produce leaves in the 7 days between dove #1 and dove #2? And why didn't Noah and his family simply go up on deck and walk around after the rain had stopped and the sun had come out--isn't that how normal people go about checking if there is any dry land to be seen, after being cooped up in a boat for so long???????

Epictetus

Aside from the fact that there physically is not enough water available for a flood of this size, one must realize that trying to talk Christians out of their cherished beliefs is a bit like trying to pry an abalone off a rock. It just won't budge. I have read of the Black Sea flood which geologists believe occurred approximately 10,000 years ago. Evidence of shoreline villages being inundated has been found. But this hardly qualifies as a flood high enough to cover Mt. Ararat.

leftfist

Well in that case how do they know anything? If the Bible is true, but the correct interpretation of the Bible is something other than what it plainly and clearly says, then how can you know anything about the truth of the matter?

"God wiped out every living creature that existed on earth...and only Noah and those who were with him on the ark survived."

That is a plain statement of fact. If that actually happened, it is a true statement. If it did not happen, it is a false statement. There's no "interpretation" involved.

Asha'man

A regional flood is pointless!

If you are going to destroy all of humanity because they are evil, then it doesn't really work to leave half a dozen civilizations around the world untouched, now does it?

If you are only flooding a small portion of the world, then it makes no sense to gather up all the animals of the earth to preserve them. They will just re-populate the flooded region, moving in from the outside, and it will look like nothing had ever happened in a few years. The ark itself becomes entirely meaningless.

Anyone who argues in favor of a regional flood has serious reading comprehension issues, since they apparently missed the whole point of the story.

-DM-

To allow that the Bible is subject to incorrect interpretation is, in a sense, to deny the omnipotence and/or perfection of "God."

A "God" who created all life as we know it--a perfect, omnipotent "God"--could, should, and would see to it that his "inspiration" of "God's Word" were likewise perfect and that biblical "interpretations" were correct. Anything less would deny "his" omnipotence and/or perfection. After all, we don't say that a workman's work is perfect when it is, in fact, faulty.

-Don-

-DM-

Exactly.

Exactly. But then it doesn't make sense to destroy animals and innocent children (under the age of accountability) for the sake of an evil humanity which "God" would have foreseen with his alleged omniscience. Nor does the Flood (to wipe out evil) make much sense given that humanity is still allegedly evil (which "God" would, again, have foreseen with his alleged omniscience).

Not only that, but Noah's first "recorded" action [GE 8:20] following the flood was to sacrifice one of every clean animal and bird. Considering that only a pair of each may* have been aboard the Ark, and that--in any case--only a few animals of each kind were aboard, this sacrifice is rather wasteful and defeating given that the stated purpose of taking the animals aboard the Ark was to "keep them alive" [GE 6:20]. (*Note: There are two distinct and inconsistent Flood stories in Genesis. One difference between the two has to do with the number of animals that were taken aboard.)

-Don-

Amos

"On of each" because the flood happens to us when we are "beyond reason" and we would never be able to make the distinction of numbers in pairs.

-DM-

The difference is between two and seven.

GE 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark.

GE 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken, and are taken, aboard the Ark.

-Don-