Noah and the Ark

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't know if it was 300 years but that is beside the point really. Yes this shows Genesis was either written or edited after the fact

...
If it was written after the fact what does this do to the argument that God showing Moses his "hinder parts" refers to the past works of God?

Gill was of course a fundamentalist, but no matter.

I don't quite follow you on that last statement. Exodus 33:18-24 doesn't appear to be a revelation of things to come such as the failure of the Danite Tribe to take their assigned possession and their migration to Laish and their subsequent idolatry there "centuries" after the death of Moses.

"Hinder parts" or perhaps "afterglow" (a better term IMHO) deals with "where the LORD has been" and not with "where the people of God are headed and their failings there."

Your first statement on this matter is the better one, again IMHO.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Norman

I haven't read all the preceding posts but here is something I recently found:
(go down to #9)


http://www.eas.slu.edu/hazards.html

David Crossley, Professor of Geophysics.
http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/DJCrossley/david.html

Now that's what I'm talking about.

Because "Noah's story" is preserved in the cultural records of some many people (and in many different forms) I have come to believe that it largely reflects a cultural event. Of course, for the cultures of so many people to be impacted around the globe we could certainly envision a "climatic upheaval" as the catalyst.

The large amounts of methane found in Greenland ice from this time period still hasn't been adequately explained as the article points out; however methane is the most powerful natural greenhouse gas.

Volcanism or an undersea event that broke up a portion of the methane ice deposits that surround the continents could have lead to massive warming. Such warming would have mopped up the remnants of the last Ice Age's glaciers in otherwise protected mountain valleys and been responsible for almost universal floods in the major river valleys.

The Dead Sea is said to have risen 300 feet at this time. (Note: this is still well below the level of the Judean Hill Country).

[NotforSale]

A few other things to consider. If all of the Earth's water were to melt, how high would the Water Table be? Apparently around 200-250 feet above our current level, far from covering the mountains.

Genesis 7:19-20

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Mt Everest; 29,029 ft above sea level. Almost 5 miles.

Another interesting point. When we moved to a Native American village to pastor several years ago, the Natives told stories that the White Man deemed as being ridiculous. Tales, passed down from previous generations.

We told them, "Throw that junk away so we can tell you about Noah and the Ark".

Hmmmmm.......

[Aquila]

I believe the animals hibernated by the providential hand of God. God is a God of miracles... let science be confounded!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe the animals hibernated by the providential hand of God. God is a God of miracles... let science be confounded!

The boat was 30 cubits tall and the water was 15 cubits tall. What is more amazing is that even if the boat did float in water that was half its height this reveals that there is no way that this flood could have covered all things. The Ark when it was built was twice as tall as the waters and surely it didn't tower over mountains. Therefore, water half its height wouldn't cover mountains either.

So if you want to talk about miracles that could have been done to make the ark work... lets start with the miracle of God making 15 cubits high of water cover all the land of the whole world.

Genesis 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The boat was 30 cubits tall and the water was 15 cubits tall. What is more amazing is that even if the boat did float in water that was half its height this reveals that there is no way that this flood could have covered all things. The Ark when it was built was twice as tall as the waters and surely it didn't tower over mountains. Therefore, water half its height wouldn't cover mountains either.

So if you want to talk about miracles that could have been done to make the ark work... lets start with the miracle of God making 15 cubits high of water cover all the land of the whole world.

Genesis 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Basically the flood waters were a little higher then the ones that swamped New Orleans then. I am sure they were more violent given the prevailing theory that the flood was caused by an ice dam from the last ice age failing and wiping out most life in the valley.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The boat was 30 cubits tall and the water was 15 cubits tall. What is more amazing is that even if the boat did float in water that was half its height this reveals that there is no way that this flood could have covered all things. The Ark when it was built was twice as tall as the waters and surely it didn't tower over mountains. Therefore, water half its height wouldn't cover mountains either.

So if you want to talk about miracles that could have been done to make the ark work... lets start with the miracle of God making 15 cubits high of water cover all the land of the whole world.

Genesis 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

I think you’re misinterpreting the text. It’s obvious from the text that the ark was thirty cubits in height. However, the depth of the waters is a bit more complicated. The English Standard Version reads,

Genesis 7:20 (English Standard Version)
20The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

We are not told how high the highest peaks were in the days of Noah. Let’s assume that the highest mountain peak was 19,333 cubits above sea level. Genesis 7 verse 20 would essentially mean that the waters were 19,348 cubits deep. The waters were 15 cubits above the highest mountain peaks. This would mean that the waters in our scenario were approximately 29,022 feet deep.

With that in mind I’m not sure why you assume that the verse says that the waters were only 15 cubits deep.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think you’re misinterpreting the text. It’s obvious from the text that the ark was thirty cubits in height. However, the depth of the waters is a bit more complicated. The English Standard Version reads,

Genesis 7:20 (English Standard Version)
20The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

We are not told how high the highest peaks were in the days of Noah. Let’s assume that the highest mountain peak was 19,333 cubits above sea level. Genesis 7 verse 20 would essentially mean that the waters were 19,348 cubits deep. The waters were 15 cubits above the highest mountain peaks. This would mean that the waters in our scenario were approximately 29,022 feet deep.

With that in mind I’m not sure why you assume that the verse says that the waters were only 15 cubits deep.

quite a few versions agree with that one so its very possible that it meana 15 cubits above the mountains. On the other hand Young's Literal Translation renders it like this:

fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;

it really depends on whether you think it means the mountains being spoken of were less than 15 cubits or more than 15 cubits. If the mountains its speaking of were less that 15 cubits then they most surely were covered in this flood. It's hard to imagine a mountain being only 15 cubits (or about 7-8 meters). So it seems your interpretation is probably right and mine wrong. Though we still don't know which mountains it was speaking of so we can't say how high the water actually was.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe the animals hibernated by the providential hand of God. God is a God of miracles... let science be confounded!

I don't think so. There's no reference at all to this and when there has been a biblical miracle, detail is always provided.

Daniel survived the lion's den but detail was given that the mouths of the lions were shut.

Moses and his millions, escaped the Egyptian army, but detail is provided about the Red Sea parting.

Gideon and his 300 beat the Mideonites with their tens of thousands, but detail is provided.

David beat a tall guy, but detail is provided.


No detail is provided for WAY too many animals being on a boat that couldn't possibly float and make it 40 days in those conditions with only 8 people to care for them. It's fine if science is confounded, but in this case, even the Christians are confounded.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jfrog

quite a few versions agree with that one so its very possible that it meana 15 cubits above the mountains. On the other hand Young's Literal Translation renders it like this:

fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;

it really depends on whether you think it means the mountains being spoken of were less than 15 cubits or more than 15 cubits. If the mountains its speaking of were less that 15 cubits then they most surely were covered in this flood. It's hard to imagine a mountain being only 15 cubits (or about 7-8 meters). So it seems your interpretation is probably right and mine wrong. Though we still don't know which mountains it was speaking of so we can't say how high the water actually was.

The Scriptures would imply the flood being universal in scope:

Genesis 7:21-23
21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

I agree that we don't know how high the mountains were. I think we can conclude that the mountains were at least as high as the highest mountains today.