Jon Promnitz

Thanks for the link PhilVaz.

Sparrow

Thanks, Phil, for the link and response.

I can accept Genesis as the author's best explanation for how things started, embellished some over the retellings. While science is not infallible, it is self correcting and appears (to me at least) to be the best way to examine the natural world. Props to you for informing yourself in the best ways you can as you examine your worldview. Best wishes in your search.

Jon Promnitz

I was just thinking about this local flood idea and something came to mind.

Quote:

Gen 8:5 And the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

A question came to mind: How could the mountains not be visible and the flood be local? Wouldn't water on both sides of the moutain have to be level and higher then the peak.

For example, when you gently fill a glass to the top the water will bend a little and appear somewhat rounded, because the glass rim is smooth and even. BUT, when dealing with the rigid and rough terrain found in nature, this level of smoothness simply doesn't exist. Before the water would be able to reach the top and cover the mountains in the area as read in Genesis 8:5, an equal amount would have to be found on both sides of this mountain. If there was nothing on the other side, the water would begin to roll off at the lower areas and would never reach the peak. Water would be leaving and going at the same time. Therefore, it seems the mountains could never be truly covered in a local flood.

Imagine a 10 gallon barrel being filled with water. Let's say someone cut random grooves on the rim about a few inches down, varying in size, shape, etc. A couple of these will be pretty sharp and steep. Others may be lower and somewhat rounded off. It would be impossible to "locally" flood this barrel because water would be constantly running out. The "peaks" of the rim could never remain covered (even with contant water flow). Notice how before verse 8 the water had already been residing for awhile. This seems to make the "local" scenario even more difficult.

Now if we place a ten gallon barrel in a 10' deep empty swimming pool, the water will spill over and eventually fill the pool. This outer container would allow the peaks of the rim to be covered.

Just another thought of mine. Peace out.

Boro Nut

It always amuses me that creationists love to add up dates but seem incapable of subtracting. It doesn't take a genius to count back from the seventeenth day of the second month when the flood started, through the loading operation, and then the building of the ark. Deduct another two days for explaining the plan to everyone, and you arrive at the day when God spoke to Noah. Do the sum yourself. See if you get the first day of the fourth month like I did.

Boro Nut

Clivedurdle

Has anyone worked out when the Noah's Ark story was written by checking what naval technology was around when, and had anyone built a boat anything like the ark?

Lógos Sokratikós

1)
I don't think any vessel with any technology prior to the XIXth century would be able to do the things required to save earth's land animals from extinction (and some sweet water ones that wouldn't have survived if salt water would have mixed with the rest). And I don't know if that is possible even with early XXIst century engineering and materials too.

Creationists probably picture the animals in Noah's ark to be like a visit to the zoo. That's the only way I can imagine they can think so many animals to fit in one vessel. Especially one made out of wood, with incipient bronze age engineering.

2)
The writer(s) of Genesis thought all land animals reproduced sexually (one on one). Not true.

3)
Two animals of each are not enough to save the gene pool. You need to save the gene pool, not the individuals to save a species. I'm not a biologist, but I once read it takes tens, if not hundreds to save it. For example: Peolple in remote isolated villages tend to have freak birth defects due to lack of sufficient gene pool.

4)
Regarding the thesis that the flood was local: If it was just local, why in tarnation would you need to save all the animals in an ark? They'd be animals on Earth anyway after the flood!

PoodleLovinPessimist

Geez, PhilVaz. You sound like a logical, sensible guy. Where's the fun in that?

Lógos Sokratikós

Same problem for the Adam-n-Eve bit. A gene pool out of two individuals. And if Adam's rib's genes had sometihing to do with Eve's coming into being, worse even!

Sheshbazzar

Who told you the ark was "450 feet long (135 meters)"?

Chili

Hi Phil, I am with you but should tell you that the Catholic Church thinks that the flood was good for Noah but not for us because God promised that he would never send a flood again. So we have replaced it with the Advent period that will do the same for us except that it is much more subtle and very 'protestant proof' (or they would be mocking us like they did Noah for building his ark).

For us, the Church calender year finds it low point on the darkest night of the year which would be Christmas in any given year that is preceded by the Advent Period every year. This recurring period of darkness (called Advent) is supposed to find its 'high point' in the 'low life' of the upright Catholic who must feel as if his world is caving in on him and that will be the night on which Christ is born unto him (and only unto him). This makes the second coming of Christ a very personal event reserved for Catholics only if and when they allow the Church to be what it is meant to be.

The white candle (third candle) in our Advent wreath represents the glimmer of hope that emerges during the 'high-water mark' of this flood whereby we are reminded of our baptismal promise. In that sense do we, or are we encouraged to recognize this candle as our very own now returning with the promise of new life on the other side of this life as we enter Holy week . . . which really is the unfolding of the pre-existing call similar to the call that send Joseph on his journey to Bethlehem (or the flood would not be a flood nor advent be our advent).