A local flood does not work scripturally, because the mountains were covered, and the geology of the area, of most areas, would not allow a local flood that covered the earth for nearly a year, including the mountains. There is nothing to stop the water from going out of the areas, since water always flows downhill. Secondly, the flood was long, not a short tidal wave. Third, the ark was too big for a local flood. A smaller boat would have been sufficient for a local flood. Fourth, it would have been simpler to walk out of the area, rather than build an ark, with that much notice. Fifth, why save so many animals, who also could have walked out of the area, or alternatively, other members of the species would have survived, so why save only two? Sixth, the rainbow was a promise to never have another such flood, but if it was local, whatâs the point of the rainbow promise?
You used your common knowledge of wolves eating sheep, to add to the story, by suggesting that this is the only possibiilty, and that therefore this must have happened. If you are not suggesting this, and only suggesting this is an alternative, not inevitable, then I agree you are not adding. The story is clear that these animals survived, at least most of them survived long enough to reproduce and maintain their kind. Changing the conclusion would be âaddingâ or ârevisingâ. Explaining how it might have happened, is not. However, it is clear that scripture does not explain how it happened, and any explanation does not have the authority of scripture, yes in that I agree.
I had several points, not just one. First, many salt tolerant plants can grow on salted land. Kochia is one example of this, and kochia is a very viable forage as well. Second, other plants can grow on most present land, even though much agricultural and non-agricultural land today has a certain low level of detectable salts in it, such as sodium or calcium salts. The levels are too low or too deep in the ground to impede plant growth, although they might inhibit germination of seeds, if the salts are within 10cm of the surface.
Third, ocean water at a much lower salt level than present, would dissolve salt, not deposit it on the land. Only if it pooled in a stranded place, and then evaporated, would such ocean water leave significant salt on the land. So there is no reason to worry about the animals(herbivores), of which there were a relatively few, to find herbage within a reasonable distance after they left the ark, which was about 3 or 4 months after some land already appeared.
In the tenth month, the tops of mountains appeared. Four months later, the animals left the ark. This is plenty of time for new plants to start growing, either from seeds, or from roots. The moisture left behind from the flood would have made ideal germination conditions, and growth conditions for both seeds and roots or even from branches. The floating mats of vegetation from uprooted trees, savanah grass, cattails, poplar and willow branches, would provide perfect starts for new shoots and plants to grow, once they were deposited back on the land.
So, could carcasses be viable as food for carnivores? Well, not all animals were dead for a year⌠it took about a month and a half before the ark actually started to float. There were likely log mats all over, and probably other debris, which some animals could survive on⌠think mice and rats, muskrats, otters, etc. But eventually, they would have drowned, or died of exposure and lack of food, but potentially much later. So their bodies would be scavenged by fish and sharks and dolphins etc. But there easily could have been some bodies tangled in the log mats, only partially eaten, and then fish stranded in pools after the waters subsided. Depending on how cold it was, decay processes would slow down. If it was warm, any bodies on these log mats could have dried out and been preserved that way. The level of bacteria would have likely been considerably lower for awhile due to the flood conditions, although bacteria do multiply quickly. And carnivores will eat what is around. Small animals do not require much, and dead animals are generally cleaned up before carnivores start chasing live ones. When I see what my dogs are willing to eat, including even cow dung, then I do not find it difficult to imagine carnivores and omnivores being able to scavenge quite successfully. Mice propogate very quickly(three week gestation), and provide a nice food supply for wolves and coyotes, and could also have multiplied on the ark (and rats, shrewsâŚ). There are numerous options.
You must also keep in mind that predators likely did not propogate on the ark, and probably were not trained to hunt, with no pack history, etc. So they would have had to learn some behaviours. In addition, sheep and other livestock would have been protected by Noah and his family, just as people protect them from wildlife today. The predators might have chased deer and rabbits, but deer run fast, and rabbits can hide; it is not as obvious as you propose.
It is not inevitable that animals only eat one specific type of plant. Just because they prefer it and choose it, does not mean that they could not survive for some time on something else. Giraffes can eat a lot of different types of plants, including grass and fruit. When you see what cows can eat, you realize the wide variety that is possible; beet tops, canola plants, poplar leaves, carragana shoots, cattails, slough grass and sedges, legumes, potatoes, fescue, reed canary grass, etc., etc.
I think @Eddie has made the point well enough with regards to the challenges involving animals and plants but there is another aspect of this that I find even more troubling, and that is the human factor.
If you support the YEC claim that the flood happened <4500 years ago, then how do you explain the Inca, Mayan and Chinese civilizations? These civilizations have written records dating back 2000 BC to 1500 BC so that leaves an extremely small amount of time for them to:
a) form a population large enough descending from Noahâs family
b) develop the technology to cross the Atlantic Ocean all the way to South America
c) forget all about the technology (and supporting civilization) required to cross the Atlantic and also forget how to write about God or any history so that no records of that would remain
d) accumulate genomic mutations at a rate much higher than what is observed today in any human population
e) develop a whole new civilization from scratch with no memory of their origins <500-1000 years prior to that
So wouldnât it seem like youâre in the impossible position of being forced to choose between Noahâs flood being literal or the 6000 years being literal?
Happy New Year, John
Happy New Year
At one time, Biologos had an article on it that explained the slope of the flood plane between the Tigris and Euphrates and how with flooding of sufficient height, it would take a year for the runoff to subside, and also how water would cover to the horizon line from the vantage of someone on a 3 story tall structure. I am not finding this article. I am hoping that it was not lost in the move from the old website to the new. Here is a good article from another website that answers your questions tho. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
Edward,
You see nothing wrong with a God created flood that kills tens of thousands of people including children?
Well, Eddie, the point was not that you were importing an idea of your own. The point is simply that you were not considering other realistic and possible options. As I said, if you presented an option, okay. If you are presenting ipso facto, not okay, because there are other possibilities. There are carnivores today, and yet, herbivores and prey have existed for thousands of years in spite of that. Wolves can take down caribou, but they can also eat mice. They can survive quite well without needing to eat only sheep.
You know of course, that this is not true. There are many people who believe that the animals survived, and did not die. That predators did not eliminate the herbivores, since the herbivores are still alive and exist today. How the animals got to their locations is a question, indeed. But you are asking the question in disbelief, not asking in a genuine effort to discover a way they might have done it. Your disbelief of how the animals could translocate, is similar to thinking that the animals on the ark could not survive, or would not find food when coming off the ark. Yet such disbelief is unreasonable; there are many natural possibilities, or combination of possibilities. One dead whale stranded in a pool after the recession of the flood would provide food for carnivores for a long, long time. And floating mats of debris would have been common, providing potential transportation to numerous animals. Even after the animals left the ark, it is highly likely that flood waters were still present, and that more aquatic pathways existed. It is unlikely that everything at that time was exactly like it is today, geographically and geologically.
Good questions. I do not claim to know much if anything about this. However, a. populations can grow very quickly⌠just do the math. b. a land bridge or ice bridge is assumed from asia to north america, so technology is not really much of an issue. even if they paddled boats along the shores, they wouldnât have to walk the whole way. c. How would they forget about God? much the same way that a large part of our present population has forgotten about God⌠or think of how quickly the communists forgot about God in Russia, in the space of one generation. d. this is merely an assumption. e. no memory of origins? how comprehensive are their written records? Most aboriginal groups in north america have none. but irony, when we have a written record such as Genesis, who is it that doesnât believe the record anyway?
You have the freedom to believe what you want. Even if it is impossible for a local flood of any significant magnitude to have occurred in this location. Merry Christmas!
A three story hill is pretty small. thirty feet high⌠just a small roll in the landscape. Your other reference to Psalm 104 misses the fact that Psalm 104 clearly is also referring to the flood. God covered the mountains with water, is reference to the flood, not to creation.
Noah and company would have been in very poor shape if not already dead when the ark landed. (Wasnât he pretty old when he started his voyage anyway?) He would have been suffering from scurvy (vitamin c deficiency) and probably vitamin D deficiency. That on top of living in a factory-farm environment, inhaling noxious fumes from urine, diarrhea, vomit, and anal glands. Regurgitating partially-digested fish for baby oceanic birds probably did his digestive system no favor. So how did he manage to scramble down a mountain and start an ambitious land reclamation project, build a homestead, tend stock, etc.?
Some other animals, such as guinea pigs would also be suffering from scurvy. Not sure how they made their way to South America! Note that Noah wouldnât know about vitamin C, which tends to degrade after a while in vitamin C-rich food.
The idea of putting animals in suspended animation or whatever would not work, since horses cannot be in recumbency for very long.
At least there were only two barnacles attached to the ark!
It takes a long chain of miracles to make the Flood story possibleâŚ
But the only reason it is in the Bible is because it was such a widely known story prior to the Bible. No Yahweh I know is going to flood the whole earth when he could just send the Destroyer to kill exactly who had to dieâŚ
I would prefer drowning to being aboard that foul and disgusting ark, lol! But of course, itâs a teaching story with significant differences from the older story that the Israelites borrowed from paganism. .
We could discuss these points further into the minute details but I suspect you would probably withdraw from the conversation once your arguments hit too-big-an-obstacle as happened on other threads regarding the Lazarus bacteria and the alleged presence of C14 in materials that are >50,000 years old. In fact, you show that you are a logical and rational interlocutor not just by how you construct your arguments but also by when you wisely choose to no longer pursue them.
Honestly, I share your passion and respect for the Bible but I also have to agree with what others have mentioned multiple times that God also gave us our senses, our ability to reason and the book of nature so that we can learn discernment. I think at some point it would be good to ask yourself - would there ever be any amount of actual evidence that would convince you to consider that pure creationism could be a misguided reading of the Bible? Because at this stage you have had to fight back against nearly every expression of human reason (not just science but also history, philosophy, logic, etc) - do you really believe that everyone else could be so wrong by so much and that Creation Ministries International and affiliates are the only ones who âget itâ?
The natural inference is that people would have protected sheep, goats, and cattle. Noah would not have given sheep a days head start, but could have released lion yearlings first, along with hyenas, panthers and other predators. Since they saw the dead whale or dolphins or tuna stranded in the residual pools, they feasted on those first. this would be the natural assumption. The unnatural assumption would be to think that Noah didnât care about the sheep, and let the lions eat all the sheep and somehow miraculously the sheep regenerated spontaneously from bacteria or from sponges.
So what? Many of those who you call literalists are not pure literalists, since they readily recognize that there are many, many literary devices in all of scripture. Secondly, many of those who accept the story of Genesis as given, are educated adults.
Iâm not sure you really believe this statement you have made.
Of course not, in spite of what you think. Obviously there is disagreement, and so these literary arguments are not decisive at all. This is indisputable. The disputes prove the lack of decisiveness.
Happy New Year
Well, that is utterly unprovable. I would say it is false. The reason it is in the bible is because it is important, essential to an understanding of history, pivotal in Godâs dealings with his creation, and significant in its application to an understanding of who God is, not merely because it was known widely. But since it was likely written long after it happened, it would have been widely known before it was written, yes, but on the other hand the other stories are demonstrably inferior and messed-up versions of the real event.
Does it take a long chain of miracles? Well, I do think it was miracle that all these animals came to the ark. But I do also think that God used many natural things to preserve and protect these animals. The ark itself is a type of natural thing, built by human hands, and much larger than necessary for a mere 8 people, and not magically appearing the day the floods started.
Would God destroy the entire world, instead of only killing 50% or 80% who really deserved it? Thatâs not for us to judge nor decide. Everytime we try to judge God, we end up convicting ourselves, just like Job did, or like rebellious people throughout the history of Israel.