Could it be the bible is right..that life after the flood came out of Noahs Ark in Turkey?

Faith & Science Conversation
102

oh man this article has some huge theological errors in it…and makes even worse assumptions because of those errors which are then used to support factual biblical evidence which is simple wrong.

Let me just start with a single theological issue…

Genesis chapter 1 - full creation account of every day of creation
genesis chapter 2 - only day 6

Please explain the above dilemma given that there is also a second huge huge problem in the 2 creations theory/theology:

note the following texts…

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Now read Genesis Chapter 2 closely…

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

the point of verse 2 is not explaining anything about God creating vegetation on the earth…its explaining how it was watered…nothing more!

Even St Rymond must agree that claiming verse 2 is a creation event is not in that passage of scripture…its not what the text says!

Things get worse though…keep reading Genesis 2…

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

verse 8 isn’t a creation event either…it telling us that in Eden (which already exists clearly from chapter 1 creation account on day 3), God PLANTED a garden in the EAST of Eden. If one is to use our own observed reality and a normal reading of language, then the obvious understanding of the term “planted” here must be that He [God] took existing seeds/plants/vegation and placed them in Eden and made a garden home for Adam and Eve! We know this because it note what Moses tells us in verse 5

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Adams job was to till the ground in the garden placed in Eden…to look after his own home.

103

maybe I’ve missed something there, however can someone please explain how it is that the elevation of the mountains of Ararat is 5500 metres whereas the average elevation of the Arabian peninsula is 500 metres?

How does an ark end up 10,000 metres higher than the actual elevation of the Arabian peninsula if that’s where Noah came from in the localised flood event 13,000 years ago?? Even if i went stupid with my liberalism here and said Noah came from Yemen… those mountains max out at 3600meters!

104

Although the top of Mount Ararat is over 5100 m, the “mountains of Ararat” is a broader geographic region. Noah landing towards the northwest edge of the Mesopotamian floodplain would fit the Bible’s geographic information.

2 Likes
105

The “flood model” is discredited by the text because it violates the grammar and the meanings of Hebrew terms. The existence of Jesus and the apostles does not change that. The fact that all the supposed evidence for a global flood is scientific trash is just confirmation of what the text actually says.

That’s what YEC is.

That’s not a theological issue, it’s a textual claim that does not stand up.

You mean chapter 2? No, St. Roymond doesn’t – the verb ‘asah’ is used in both chapters as a verb of creation, thus both are creations stories.

Maybe, maybe not – we’re not told. It’s likely, but asserting things the text doesn’t say is how false teaching starts.

Why? That’s you making up something that isn’t in the text, and it also contradicts the text that says God made/caused plants to spring forth from the ground.

106

That it was the mountains is an assumption. The Hebrew word also includes foothills and hill country, the first being possibly as high as a few hundred feet, the second just low rolling hills.

Did you even watch the video? and maybe check the sources? That map is based on terrain contours, and the suggested maximum flood extent goes right to the hill country of Ararat.

Even the church Fathers recognized that the scriptures have to be read to match known geography, so “hill country of Ararat” is the best rendition.

1 Like
107

this does not resolve the scientific fact that the Arabian Peninsula is generally significantly lower in altitude than the mountains of Ararat in Turkey!!!

The fact is, generally the mountains get higher the closer to the Himalayas one gets…i shouldn’t have been the first one to immediately notice the problem, raise an eyebrow and actually check this!

The second issue is the flood direction…West to East!

Without even so much as 5 minutes researched I have completely destroyed this idiots entire claim in that paper. He is a basket case!

108

It really annoys me when I’m faced with individuals who cant exercise some common sense and continue basket case argument support no matter what the actual evidences really are.

Lets look at the ending of the flood story…

Genesis 8:

5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

Now here’s the thing…

logically, if the first time Noah opens the ark, which has rested on the ground already…he sees the tops of the mountains…how is it that you manage to conclude that the ark landed on lower foothills given the dove came back because it “found no rest for the sole of her foot”?

Clearly you have never had any boating experience…because the last time i checked, boats usually float on water…so clearly the Ark must have already landed before Noah sent out the bird the first time Einstein!

109

There is no creation of Eden in Genesis chapter 2.

Now i am using your own argument against you…show me the text saying Eden was created in Genesis chapter 2. Prove with the text that it was not created in chapter 1 given chapter 1 specifically uses “the earth” before chapter 2 starts!

Gen ch 1.10God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. 12The earth produced vegetation:

Fact is, you cannot…your own demand “that isnt whst the text says” destroys your own theology…you are 100% stuffed on this and you know you are.

Gen2.8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden;

image
image1178×710 116 KB

Genesis 1.10 and Genesis 2.4
Earth = [’e·reṣ,] אֶ֔רֶץ

Genesis 1.11 and 2.4
Earth = הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ [hā·’ā·reṣ]

The hebrew above comes from Westminster Leningrad Codex text courtesy of www.tanach.us

110

Don’t forget to pay attention when young-earth and flood geology claims are demolished. But your demolishing needs work also. The Himalayas are well to the east of Mesopotamia, but Noah would be going northwest to get to the region of Ararat. More broadly, the series of mountains from Europe and North Africa through southeast Asia is sometimes referred to as the Alpine-Himalayan orogenic belt, but the statement that the mountains get taller as you get to the mountains isn’t very informative. Ararat is the tallest mountain in Türkiye, but as a stratovolcano, its height is not closely tied to that of other mountains. Being a stratovolcano, it’s also a serious problem for young-earth claims, as it is made of many layers of lava flows and ash. Each one took time to form and weather before the next one was deposited. In turn, the mountain is on top of many other geologic layers, which are claimed to be produced during or after the Flood. Ararat does not have time to build up 5100 m of ash and lava before Noah gets there in a young earth model.

The Mesopotamian flood model has the flood persisting due to winds out of the southeast pushing the water (and anything floating on it) to the northwest, towards the region of Ararat. Eventually the waters would drain to the southeast. .

3 Likes
111

Look at the map – the flood area touches the hills of Ararat.

Everyone else seems to have paid attention to the map, which shows that the maximum suggested area of the flood reached the hills of Ararat, and so didn’t pay any attention to the Himalayas (which aren’t relevant anyway).

What is this even talking about?

Really? In five minutes you investigated the topography, the power of month-long monsoons, the likely amount of rainfall, the rate of flow, etc., and calculated that the area shown could not have flooded? If you didn’t do those, you didn’t do any research since research requires rigor.

So? The tops of the הָרִֽים (hareem), the hills or hill country or foothills or mountains can be seen from quite a ways away if you’re on top of a big floating vessel.

Your literalist-modern science reading runs into a problem here: if “the waters were on the face of the whole earth” then mountaintops wouldn’t be visible.

Another literalism problem: “an olive leaf pluckt off” means there was a mature, living olive tree. After hundreds of days of being submerged, no olive tree would have survived, so where did this olive tree come from? The soil would be imbued with salt, all the soil bacteria and fungi and worms and beetles and such necessary for plants to grow would be dead, with no source left for more and with the ground poisoned by salt months at least of rain would be needed to flush the salt out before more of those soil organisms could grow even if there was a source.

The doves I know of won’t land in mud. I conclude that the ark landed on lower foothills because that meaning of the word הַר (har) best fits the topography and the text.

LOL Boating experience is not relevant, but FWIW I taught all the aquatics merit badges for Boy Scouts.

This makes no sense; it is also unnecessary since the text tells us the ark had already touchd down.

1 Like
112

Using your interpretive methods – making things up that the text doesn’t say – I can definitely assert that “plainly” Eden was created in chapter 2, because it wasn’t mentioned in chapter 1.
But I didn’t say there was – I say “we don’t know”.

I don’t have to since I didn’t say that.

No, it’s up to you to prove that it was, since my point was “we don’t know” yet you’re asserting that we do know.

It uses “הָאָ֖רֶץ” (ha-ah-retz), “the land” or “the ground”. Using “earth” here distorts the text by implying modern science.

There’s no theology involved here, just an analysis of the text.

1 Like
113

Especially if there are to be olive trees sprouting anywhere near!

1 Like
114

At sea for a year and the size of it?

115

they have uncovered sediment at various depths in and around the Kush area at the approximate time of te Genesis flood as reported. However, none of the sediment depths were of a size to qualify as a Genesis flood as described. They were ascribed to befrom local flooding typical of the low but irrigatable region with run off from snow melt in the spring.
Not sure about the monsoons but flood evidence should support a Genesis like flood.

116

Size – yes; a timber vessel that large can’t be structurally seaworthy, but timber-framed and a reed hull could be if the frame was allowed to flex.

A year? Ordinary-sized reed boats could last for a number of years, so presumably a large vessel could as well.

And both become far more plausible in the proposed regional flood since the storm waves wouldn’t be nearly as large – open-sea storm waves can reach or top fifty meters high; in that regional basin I expect twenty meters would be the maximum.

1 Like
117

Monsoons weren’t covered in my meteorology course, so I’m just guessing . . . but if the area was subject to repeated monsoons most of the deposits would have ended up in the gulf – after all, flood deposits are made as the waters slow and subside. We have local floods pretty much annually here, and there have been cases where the deposits made by a flood from one storm have been mostly washed away by the next; more commonly they get re-arranged. We’ve even had some floods that only left woody debris marking the high point; sediments were scarce because the rainfall scoured everything that had been loose and flushed it all right to the bay (resulting in some impressive dirt-brown ridges on top of the normal bay sand). I’d have to do some actual research to get a grasp on how that could play out in a flood covering much of the ANE.

1 Like
118

Good points. I am still uncertain about location odf flood.I tend to come down on the side of the Black Sea Deluge and a northern location in Armenia, eastern Anatolia for Noah to have built the arc.
I am in the process of publishing my book titled Reflections on Genesis 1-11. The book alighns evidence from archeology, physics, geology and paleontology relative to the major events in this section of Genesis which takes place in Mesopotamia. So your comments are very interesting and important and timely. If you have referwences to the sea worthiness of reed type boats I would like to access them.

Thank you.

119

Many of the issues mentioned here are addressed in this article:

1 Like
120

For what it’s worth, modern ones built the same way as they were 7k years ago still take to the seas:

matarangiIIatsea
matarangiIIatsea768×698 223 KB

1 Like
121

Worth a lot. Did not know that. Could they built big enough like the ark.