A new person wrote: The hypothesis remains that multiple comet impacts were sustained including one in the Middle/Near East.
Yes, it does. The article I referenced to start this thread pointed out that the Deluge story found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, circa 2200 B.C., contains wording that appears to identify the cause of the
deluge as a meteoroid impact. Those words are these: "...and the seven judges of hell ... raised their torches, lighting the land with their livid flame. A stupor of despair went up to heaven when the god of the storm turned daylight into darkness, when he smashed the land like a cup." Since the two stories are so similar in content and are both thought to have originated in the same part of the world at about the same time, it is very likely that the Bible's story of Noah's flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh both describe the same events. Though the Bible's flood account contains no mention of "torches" in the sky or of the land being smashed, that is quite understandable if the Bible's flood story contains the recollections of Noah and his family. For the Bible indicates that Noah and his family were shut inside the ark, without much of a view of the sky if any, before
the flood began.
When all is said that has to be said in this thread, a few very interesting facts will remain. Modern science now tells us that the climate of the Near and Middle East was greatly altered in 2350 B.C.
Major changes in climate often cause floods. The Bible indicates Noah's flood occurred in 2350 B.C.
Jan wrote: I made a little write up some time back debunking the "local flood" scenario. ... Comments welcome.
Jan,
I read your "write up" over quite thoroughly and, as you might expect, disagree with most of what you wrote. Though I don't now have time to comment on all of it, I will here try to respond to its major points.
In it you wrote: The Black Sea scenario clearly contradicts any reading of the Genesis text.
Agreed. The story of Noah's flood, as recorded in Genesis, did not spring from the flooding of the Black Sea.
You wrote: If the flood was only local, why should Noah and family have to build an ark to survive? It would have been much easier to just relocate.
As I pointed out in a post above, I believe the answer to this question can be found in 1 Peter 3:20,21. There we are told that Noah and his family, "were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism." By choosing to save the lives of Noah and his family as they passed through the waters of the flood, I believe God was symbolically pointing to a time when his people (Christians) would find salvation as they passed through the waters of baptism. There may
well also be other reasons. The Bible tells us that "Noah was a preacher of righteousness." He may very well have continued urging the residents of his land to repent and accept God's provision for their salvation right up to the day it began to rain. (Gen.7:11-13) If Noah had relocated away from the area that was to be flooded he would have been unable to offer his neighbors a way to escape God's coming judgment nearly as long as he did.
You wrote: Also, why all the work to save the animals? Animal species would easily survive elsewhere. Also, why birds? If the water started to rise, the birds would be better off flying away than staying inside a ship.
Good questions. The answers I can give to these questions can be nothing more than speculation. It is my belief that God intended for the story of the flood to serve as a picture of the events which will take place when Christ returns to judge the world. (Matt. 24:37-39) I believe Noah then pictured Jesus Christ. Possibly by having Noah act as the preserver of all life forms in his land, God was pointing to a time when Jesus Christ will prevent the annihilation of all species on
earth. I believe he will do so when he returns to judge this world, just before mankind totally destroys all human and animal life in a major nuclear war.
You wrote: The description of the Ark shows that the author hadn’t the faintest clue about how to make a seaworthy vessel.
I disagree. As has often been stated, the arks 6 to 1 length to width ratio is the ideal ratio for the stability of large sea going vessels and for that reason is still used by ship builders today.
You wrote: the sad truth about wooden vessels: they leak. ... A wooden sea vessel 140 meters (450 ft) long is simply impossible.
First, it would leak so much and so heavily that even a battery
of modern engine pumps would be hard pressed to save it from a watery grave. Second, the structure would not be strong enough to carry its own weight in calm water, and much less during a violent flood. Large wooden vessels have hardly been possible even in the industrial age, and then they needed to be reinforced with iron and of course they required constant pumping. ...To the landlubber who wrote Genesis, pitch may sound like it’s sufficient to make a boat watertight.
It is not.
I think you overstate the case against wooden ships. In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue and traversed much rough water in three wooden ships. I also believe you underestimate the intelligence and ingenuity of the ancients. If the pyramids were not still standing in Egypt today, with their thousands upon thousands of muti-ton blocks of stone perched one upon another, I'm sure you would say that the
ancients were incapable of building such fantastic structures. But somehow they did. Besides, the Bible says that God gave Noah the plans for the ark, possibly in much greater detail than is recorded in Genesis. Certainly, the God who created our universe was capable of designing a large wooden chest, one that was waterproofed inside and out, which would be able to float in what were, I believe, fairly calm waters for a few months.
You asked: Where was the local flood?
Most local flood advocates believe the flood of Noah's day covered the southern plains of Mesopotamia, which lie south of Baghdad and north of the Persian Gulf. Exactly how far north of the Gulf the flood waters extended is not clear.
You wrote: A local flood requires a totally enclosed area.
Local flood advocates believe that the Lower Mesopotamian Plain was capable of containing the waters of Noah's flood until they drained after several months into the Persian gulf. For, as COJ wrote in his post on this topic which I quoted earlier, "Iraq is often described as a "trough". The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 12 (1969), for example, explains: "Iraq consists of a lowland trough lying between asymmetrical and very different upland massifs to the east, north and west, and continuing southeastward as the Persian gulf." (Page 527) Similarly, Dr. Susan Pollock says in her recent work, Ancient Mesopotamia (Cambridge, 1999): "Mesopotamia is, geologically
speaking, a trough created as the Arabian shield has pushed up against the Asiatic landmass, raising the Zagros Mountains and depressing the land to the southwest of them. Within this trench, the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers and their tributaries have laid down enormous quantities of alluvial sediments, forming the Lower Mesopotamian Plain (also known as the alluvial Mesopotamian plain)."
You wrote: The Bible does not actually say that the Ark landed on Mt Ararat. It says: ...“The ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.” Ararat, in this text, does not describe a mountain, but a
region.
That is correct. And as COJ pointed out, "The "Ararat" of the Bible was not a mountain, but originally a geographical area, which later, in the Assyrian period, was consolidated into a kingdom. ... In cuneiform inscriptions the form of the name is "Urartu". ... Archaeological findings show that the southern border of the kingdom of Urartu extended down to the area of Nineveh (close to present-day Mosul) and the Zab rivers. (It is quite possible that the earlier
geographical area called Urartu was larger and extended further south and southeast.)
You wrote: The local flood believers thus have to relocate the flood to some other region.
As Carl showed, this is not the case. Regarding the kingdom of Urartu, he went on to say, "Vast areas of the southern kingdom of Urartu was only between 300 and 200 meters above sea level. But at the time of the Flood these areas may have been much lower, as the mountain building movements of Iraq and southwestern Persia have been going on since that time. Drs. G. M. Lees and N. L. Falcon point out: "This mountain system has developed out of a broader zone of
depression or geosyncline, by a relative approach between central Persia and the stable massif of Arabia which compressed the mobile strip between and formed a series of giant earth waves or fold mountains. The time of the maximum tangential movement was in the late Pliocene but THE ELEVATION OF THE MOUNTAIN BELT AS A WHOLE, AS DISTINCT FROM FOLD MOVEMENTS, CONTINUED INTO RECENT TIME AND IS IN FACT STILL ACTIVE." ("The Geographical History of the Mesopotamian Plains," The Geographical Journal, Vol. CXVIII, 1952, p. 27. My emphasis.)
You wrote: We also have to ask how large the flooded area would have to be. ... the Genesis text insists that Noah and the other people on the Ark did not see land during many months when they sailed around on the water. ... A rule of thumb, well known to sea men, is that the distance to the horizon in nautical miles is 1.17 times the square root of your height of eye in feet. So, since the Ark was 45 feet high (and the window was at the top) ....
Excuse me. Try cutting that in half as approximately half the ark's height would have been submerged. That is probably why it's occupants knew that the water had risen "to a height of more than 15 cubits," since 15 cubits was approximately its submerged depth and the ark floated in the water above the land it had previously rested on. (Gen. 7:20) Now redo your math and you will find that the area which was flooded was not necessarily nearly as large as you first imagined.
You asked: Is that possible in a turbulent, violent flood?
Who said the flood was turbulent and violent? The Bible does not say such a thing.
You wrote: Anyone who has forgotten to moor a small boat, or done it badly, will know that even in smooth waters, only a few hours later the boat will be a speck on the horizon.
Who says the ark was not anchored? The fact is some flood traditions specifically say that it was. With these traditions in mind, some claim that various giant stones found in areas said to be the
arks final resting place were the arks "anchors."
You wrote: In the context of the local flood, there are two words usually brought up, those translated ‘earth’ (erets) and ‘mountain’ (har). They point out, quite correctly, that erets can be just as easily translated ‘land’ or ‘ground’ as ‘earth.’ Likewise, the word for mountain, har, can also be translated ‘hill.’
You are correct. This subject has been discussed at length many times. I will not argue the proper translation of these two Hebrew words with you again here. I will, however, agree with you when
you say that "context" must determine their proper translation. If the writer of Genesis was describing a global flood then the context would demand that the proper translation of those words would be along the lines of, "The highest MOUNTAINS on the planet EARTH were
covered." If, on the other hand, the writer of Genesis was describing a local flood then the context would demand that the proper translation of those two words would be along the lines of, "The highest HILLS in the LAND in which Noah lived in were covered."
You spent some time writing about what you believe were the motives of the writer of the Genesis flood account, and how those motives demonstrate that he must have intended for his words to be understood as describing a global flood.
I do not believe we can possibly know with any certainty what the "writer's motivation" was. So, I will not comment further on this matter.
You wrote: As pointed out by most Bible scholars, but beyond this discussion, it is obvious that two different literary traditions are merged into one text.
That may well be the case. It is certainly possible that Moses combined two different flood stories which the Hebrew people had preserved for many centuries, both of which contained important elements of the full story of Noah's flood.
You wrote: The absurd ages of early Bible heroes may not pose a problem to religious conservatives, but to others this indicates a story more legendary than factual in content.
The Bible tells us that at one time some people actually lived to be over nine hundred years old. Certainly such things could not have really happened. Or could they have? Who can possibly believe that any human being ever really lived that long? You know who. The
same kind of people who believe that God will one day give them lives that will last, not just several hundred years, but several trillion years and beyond. The same kind of people who believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. People of faith.
In referring to the dove which Noah sent out after the ark came to rest, and which returned with an olive branch, you wrote: Amazing how fast this olive tree has grown up from an area covered in water (salt water, even).
I see this as evidence of a couple things. One, that the writer of Genesis could not have been describing a global flood. For he would have known that olive trees would not survive some nine months under water. Thus, the doves return with an olive leaf is evidence that the leaf must have been plucked from an area that was spared the flood. And two, that the writer of Genesis did not believe that the ark came to rest on a high mountain. Because olive trees do not grow on high
mountains or anywhere near high mountains.
You wrote: Making us question, of course, where all that water had gone. Over the edge of the Earth, presumably.
No, into the Persian Gulf.
You wrote: The important question is: How did they come down from this tall mountain? Ararat is a quite tough mountain to climb.
It is odd that you ask this question since earlier you acknowledged the fact that the Bible does not say that the ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat, but only in the mountains (or hills) of the region then
known as Ararat.
Hey, is that a tatoo of a cross on your arm? I'm thinking of getting one of those. :)
