30,000 feet of water?????

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've always been curious about the great flood story in the Bible.

The most interesting thing about that story is why it's in Genesis. It seems odd to describe a deity in such unflattering terms - it errs in its creation of man, regrets its error and attempts to remedy it in an inefficient and cruel manner, and then clumsily attempts to repair the problem using the same breeding stock.

So why create that story? I have a hypothesis: they had found marine fossils on mountaintops and needed an explanation for it. Not knowing about seafloor raising, they probably assumed that the mountains as they found them had been there since their creatin and therefore must have once been submerged.

The problem these ancient mythologists repeatedly grappled with is why the world appears as it does given a tri-omni god overseeing it. So, we have a story that explains why man isn't immortal or living in paradise, but rather, lives a difficult and often short life eking out a living, or why there are so many mutually unintelligible languages, or why God flooded the earth, which would surely have killed most terrestrial life.

And the explanation is always the same - man deserved these punishments, or what today would be called blaming the victim.

A notable exception is the story of Job, which is also very unflattering to the deity, but explains nothing about their world. Why is that there?

God would need to add over 1,100,000,000 cubic miles of water.

AI agrees more or less (its answer is slightly less than 1.1b mi^3):

iAsk Question · How much water in cubic miles must be added to the earth to submerge the highest mountains?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It would have to be far far more than a mere 600 cubic
miles. Earth's area is nearly 200,000,000 square miles.
Mt Everest is 5.5 miles above sea level. So God would
need to add over 1,100,000,000 cubic miles of water.
Easy peasy when one has omnipotence & magic.

I'll have to check. I was going by memory and it is only good at clicking out quick hits today. Never-the-less, neither volume can be accounted for.

Of course, I'm still curious to know the explanation for how it was known the ark was over Mount Everest to come to a sounding of 150 cubits.

Fish finder by Humminbird?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The most interesting thing about that story is why it's in Genesis. It seems odd to describe a deity in such unflattering terms - it errs in its creation of man, regrets its error and attempts to remedy it in an inefficient and cruel manner, and then clumsily attempts to repair the problem using the same breeding stock.

So why create that story? I have a hypothesis: they had found marine fossils on mountaintops and needed an explanation for it. Not knowing about seafloor raising, they probably assumed that the mountains as they found them had been there since their creatin and therefore must have once been submerged.

The problem these ancient mythologists repeatedly grappled with is why the world appears as it does given a tri-omni god overseeing it. So, we have a story that explains why man isn't immortal or living in paradise, but rather, lives a difficult and often short life eking out a living, or why there are so many mutually unintelligible languages, or why God flooded the earth, which would surely have killed most terrestrial life.

And the explanation is always the same - man deserved these punishments, or what today would be called blaming the victim.

A notable exception is the story of Job, which is also very unflattering to the deity, but explains nothing about their world. Why is that there?

AI agrees more or less (its answer is slightly less than 1.1b mi^3):

iAsk Question · How much water in cubic miles must be added to the earth to submerge the highest mountains?

I must have forgotten to multiply something. Covid dreams I suppose.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I must have forgotten to multiply something. Covid dreams I suppose.

The AI link shows the math.

Actually, I did the calculation myself about ten years ago for a Topix post you might have seen since we're both Topix alumni, and came up with the following result, which is roughly the same as Revoltingest's figure and the AI figure.

I can't vouch for all of the links still being good. I didn't mention or include it in the post with the AI output because it was redundant. I post it now in case you're interested just to show you that it's roughly the same value of water.

I also included some numbers on the total water of the earth and the intensity of rainfall that deposits that much water in 40 days, but the literalists claim that some of the water just burbled up as if from springs and apparently returned there as well by some unknown mechanism and thus the flood was not all due to rainfall, since it's nowhere to be found today:

What volume of water must be added to the earth to flood all of its land. We calculate that by comparing the volume of the unflooded earth to the volume of the earth with ocean levels raised to above the highest mountain, Mt. Everest, which stands about five-and-a-half miles high.​

​

[1] The mean radius of the unflooded earth is about 6370 km http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius​

​

[2] The volume of a sphere is =(4/3)(pi)( r^3)​

​

[3] Thus the volume of the unflooded earth is =(4/3)(3.14)(6370) ^3 = 1.08214805 × 10^12 = 1,082,148,050,000 km3​

​

[4] The height of Mt. Everest is 8.85 km (5.50 miles, 29029 feet) http://www.bharatonline.com/nepal/mount-everest/everest-height.html​

​

[5] Volume of flooded earth =(4/3)(3.14)(6378. 85)^3 = 1.08666469 × 10^12 = 1,086,664,690,000 km3 [Notice that the radius has been increased from 6370 to 6378.85]​

​

[6] The difference = about 4,500,000,000 km3 of water that must be added to the earth to cover Everest. Can that much water fall in 40 days?​

​

[7] “About 3,100 mi3 (12,900 km3) of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water.” http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html Thus the atmosphere can provide about 12,900 of the 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers (about 1,100,000,000 cubic miles) of water needed, or about 1 inch of the five miles needed. What would happen to the marine life if you added this much fresh water to the oceans?​

​

The total amount of water on earth is about 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html​

​

So, the water needed to flood the land completely - about four times as much water as the earth presently holds in all forms including oceans, ice, lakes, rivers, ground water, atmospheric water, and the water in living things - could neither appear nor disappear without magic, could not be contained in the atmosphere and fall as rain, would fall like a waterfall (30 ft/hr*) everywhere at once destroying the ark and drowning its inhabitants if it did, and **would kill all non-freshwater living aquatic life to boot.​

​

*[Forty days is 960 hours. For the water to rise 29029 feet in 960 hours, 30.2 feet of water must fall ever hour over every square inch of the earth at once, or twice as much over half of the earth at once. Imagine a shower filling up a three story building in an hour.]​

​

**[If you added another 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of fresh water - in excess of a tripling of the total earth water - the salinity of the oceans would fall to about 22.4% of its present level, killing virtually all marine life]​

​

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html​

​

*********************​

​

Edit: apparently, I've posted it here a few times as well:​

​

 

[Revoltingest]

The most interesting thing about that story is why it's in Genesis. It seems odd to describe a deity in such unflattering terms - it errs in its creation of man, regrets its error and attempts to remedy it in an inefficient and cruel manner, and then clumsily attempts to repair the problem using the same breeding stock.

So why create that story? I have a hypothesis: they had found marine fossils on mountaintops and needed an explanation for it. Not knowing about seafloor raising, they probably assumed that the mountains as they found them had been there since their creatin and therefore must have once been submerged.

The problem these ancient mythologists repeatedly grappled with is why the world appears as it does given a tri-omni god overseeing it. So, we have a story that explains why man isn't immortal or living in paradise, but rather, lives a difficult and often short life eking out a living, or why there are so many mutually unintelligible languages, or why God flooded the earth, which would surely have killed most terrestrial life.

And the explanation is always the same - man deserved these punishments, or what today would be called blaming the victim.

A notable exception is the story of Job, which is also very unflattering to the deity, but explains nothing about their world. Why is that there?

AI agrees more or less (its answer is slightly less than 1.1b mi^3):

iAsk Question · How much water in cubic miles must be added to the earth to submerge the highest mountains?

I said over that amount because it would be unacceptable
to have the top of Mt Everest peeking above the waves.
The water should be far enuf above it to be navigable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I totally agree. On then other hand, this kind of "debunking" usually follows some fundamentalist claiming that the bible story is factually true. I personally have no trouble accepting the story as mythological, and also guessing that it might have been based on a real, but local, flood.

The story works as a tale of faith. It does not work as history. Demanding that the Bible has to be literally true places limitations on it that end up refuting the Bible. If one wants to keep one's faith alive one should accept a broader interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said over that amount because it would be unacceptable
to have the top of Mt Everest peeking above the waves.
The water should be far enuf above it to be navigable.

By 15 cubits if I remember correctly. Call it twenty feet.

 

[blü 2]

There are lots of debates about the global flood, including several that have risen and receded here like the tides. In order to cover the entire earth and all its land features, it would require over 600 cubic miles or more of extra water that has no known source.

To cover the tip of Mount Everest ─ the bible refers to "the tops of the tallest mountains" ─ you'd need somewhat more than a billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth. (In the rough, from the sphere whose radius is the distance from earth's center to the tip of Mt Everest, deduct the volume of the earth, whose radius is from earth's center to mean sea level, and further deduct the volume of the land above mean sea level.)

 

[Audie]

There are lots of debates about the global flood, including several that have risen and receded here like the tides. In order to cover the entire earth and all its land features, it would require over 600 cubic miles or more of extra water that has no known source.

How would that affect day length and orbit, and
relationship to moon?

 

[blü 2]

I think the problems occur when people try to make sense of a mythical story by using factual analysis instead of using symbolic analysis.

There is a myth about George Washington that claims that he never told a lie and that he threw a dollar coin over a mile, across the Delaware River. Now, factually, these are both extremely unlikely and therefor unbelievable. This does not mean that the existence of George Washington is extremely unlikely or unbelievable. Which is what we might surmise if we assess this mythical story on a purely factual level. However, what if we assess the mythical story based on the myth being symbolic? Then we might surmise that George Washington was notably honest, and notably strong. Which is, of course, much more understandable and believable.

Most mythical stories begin with actual people and/or events, but then become morphed and exaggerated factually to provide the proper symbolism for the message the story is intended to carry. Once we understand this, then we can stop trying to analyze the story based on the facts it's presenting to us and instead, we can focus on the message those symbols mean to convey.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people around these days that have a lot of trouble doing that, as they have no training or practice at interpreting symbolism. And of course when we are discussing religious mythology, we will have a lot of people that don't want to recognize the symbolism so they can denigrate the stories on the basis of the absurd facts: ignoring the symbolic message all together.

It's the same ol' enemy at the gates, them danged creos.

 

[Audie]

I said over that amount because it would be unacceptable
to have the top of Mt Everest peeking above the waves.
The water should be far enuf above it to be navigable.

15 cubits.

they navigated to it and dropped a line.

 

[1213]

I've always been curious about the great flood story in the Bible.
Supposedly God flooded the earth with a rainstorm for 40 days and nights.
...

I think it would be good to notice that it was not just rain that caused the flood. Bible tells that the water burst out from the "fountains of great deep". To understand the story correctly, it is important to know that in the beginning there was just single continent that was "stretched" over water. Below the continent there was vast amount of water, the "great deep". When the flood came, it happened because the continent was broken and the water below it came out and the pieces of the continent sunk. Result of this are the modern continents and for example mid-Atlantic ridge. This also formed the modern orogenic mountains. After the flood, the water has compressed all the sunken material, which has made the water level go down so that it seems mountains rise. At the flood moment things had not been compressed yet as much, which is why the amount of water was sufficient to cover up everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it would be good to notice that it was not just rain that caused the flood. Bible tells that the water burst out from the "fountains of great deep". To understand the story correctly, it is important to know that in the beginning there was just single continent that was "stretched" over water. Below the continent there was vast amount of water, the "great deep". When the flood came, it happened because the continent was broken and the water below it came out and the pieces of the continent sunk. Result of this are the modern continents and for example mid-Atlantic ridge. This also formed the modern orogenic mountains. After the flood, the water has compressed all the sunken material, which has made the water level go down so that it seems mountains rise. At the flood moment things had not been compressed yet as much, which is why the amount of water was sufficient to cover up everything.

View attachment 99030

Sorry, but you keep cooking Noah and family. Besides that we know when the continents split. Here is the nice thing that happens when you do not demand that the continents have to race at insane speeds. The heat generated will safely dissipate.

Did you ever have to climb a rope in gym class? Do you know what happens if you just slide down?

 

[danieldemol]

God's cruelty is easily explained as working "in mysterious ways".

I'd love to treat YHWH in a mysterious way lol.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think the problems occur when people try to make sense of a mythical story by using factual analysis instead of using symbolic analysis.

There is a myth about George Washington that claims that he never told a lie and that he threw a dollar coin over a mile, across the Delaware River. Now, factually, these are both extremely unlikely and therefor unbelievable. This does not mean that the existence of George Washington is extremely unlikely or unbelievable. Which is what we might surmise if we assess this mythical story on a purely factual level. However, what if we assess the mythical story based on the myth being symbolic? Then we might surmise that George Washington was notably honest, and notably strong. Which is, of course, much more understandable and believable.

Most mythical stories begin with actual people and/or events, but then become morphed and exaggerated factually to provide the proper symbolism for the message the story is intended to carry. Once we understand this, then we can stop trying to analyze the story based on the facts it's presenting to us and instead, we can focus on the message those symbols mean to convey.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people around these days that have a lot of trouble doing that, as they have no training or practice at interpreting symbolism. And of course when we are discussing religious mythology, we will have a lot of people that don't want to recognize the symbolism so they can denigrate the stories on the basis of the absurd facts: ignoring the symbolic message all together.

But made a lot worse by those who literally believe what they read - as witnessed here so often by YEC believers and such - and where any science which might disprove any particular proposal is ignored. So thus knocking several IQ points off of any likelihood of understanding reality and especially the past. So, is it these who don't understand myths?

 

[blü 2]

I think it would be good to notice that it was not just rain that caused the flood. Bible tells that the water burst out from the "fountains of great deep". To understand the story correctly, it is important to know that in the beginning there was just single continent that was "stretched" over water. Below the continent there was vast amount of water, the "great deep". When the flood came, it happened because the continent was broken and the water below it came out and the pieces of the continent sunk. Result of this are the modern continents and for example mid-Atlantic ridge. This also formed the modern orogenic mountains. After the flood, the water has compressed all the sunken material, which has made the water level go down so that it seems mountains rise. At the flood moment things had not been compressed yet as much, which is why the amount of water was sufficient to cover up everything.

The Flood is a folktale which the Babylonians (a Semitic people) picked up from the Sumerians (not Semitic) when their cultures cohabited in Mesopotamia. A polished version of the original is found in The Epic of Gilgamesh, which I recommend to you for reading. That its origin is a real flood on the Tigris or Euphrates in very early days ─ the Sumerians were in Mesopotamia by 5000 BCE ─ is a tempting hypothesis.

The God of the bible doesn't appear until around 1500 BCE, and as you know, [he] was originally simply a member of the Canaanite pantheon (and for a time had a consort, Asherah). [He} doesn't become the only god until the end of the Babylonian captivity, roughly the time Isaiah was written.

But if you want to go into the physics involved, the first thing to remember is that the ancient authors believed that the earth was flat and immovably fixed at the center of things, that the sky is a hard dome you can walk on and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose, they'll fall to earth, and more. You can read the relevant bible quotes here (ignore the title on the link) >Gravitational waves in Newton theory are 4-th order, in Einstein's are 2-nd!!!<.

So in the story it's not clear what contained the waters and made it possible for them to accumulate and cover the tops of the highest mountains, but it's clear where the waters went when the flood receded ─ that is, over the sides of the (flat) earth and into the waters (or perhaps the void) below the earth.

If indeed there had been a real Noah's flood, then evidence of it would be everywhere and there could be no doubt that it had occurred. We would find a single geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor.

Since all land species were reduced to two (or seven) pairs, we'd find a consequent genetic bottleneck in all species of land animals, all of the same date as the flood layer.

And we'd be able to answer the question, That extra billion cubic miles of water which made it possible for the tip of Mount Everest to be something like 15 feet under water ─ where is it now?

And many many more evidences would be everywhere.

But of course since there was no such flood, there is no evidence of it.

 

[PureX]

But made a lot worse by those who literally believe what they read - as witnessed here so often by YEC believers and such - and where any science which might disprove any particular proposal is ignored. So thus knocking several IQ points off of any likelihood of understanding reality and especially the past. So, is it these who don't understand myths?

Myth is a form of fiction, and so does requires a degree of the 'suspension of disbelief'. Some people take this to an absurd extreme by completely rejecting their disbelief. Nevertheless, they are still capable of recognizing and grasping that a myth is intended to convey an ideal through the intellectual mechanisms of symbolism, allegory, and metaphor.

Meanwhile, those who argue with them based on the lack of accurate factuality are just ignoring the fact that myths do not adhere to factuality because they are symbolic in their essential nature and purpose, and are intended to convey ideals, not facts. So of the two groups, at least the literalists are capable of recognizing the actual purpose of mythical stories whereas their antagonists just completely ignore this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Myth is a form of fiction, and do requires a degree of the 'suspension of disbelief'. Some people take this to an absurd degree by completely rejecting their disbelief. Nevertheless, they are still capable of recognizing and grasping that a myth is intended to convey an ideal.

Meanwhile, those who argue with them based on the lack of accurate factuality are just ignoring the fact that myths do not adhere to factuality because they are symbolic in their essential nature, and are intended to convey ideals, not facts. So of the two groups, at least the literalists are capable of recognizing the actual purpose of mythical stories whereas their antagonists just completely ignore this.

I think that have that backwards as usual.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Myth is a form of fiction, and so does requires a degree of the 'suspension of disbelief'. Some people take this to an absurd extreme by completely rejecting their disbelief. Nevertheless, they are still capable of recognizing and grasping that a myth is intended to convey an ideal through the intellectual mechanisms of symbolism, allegory, and metaphor.

Meanwhile, those who argue with them based on the lack of accurate factuality are just ignoring the fact that myths do not adhere to factuality because they are symbolic in their essential nature and purpose, and are intended to convey ideals, not facts. So of the two groups, at least the literalists are capable of recognizing the actual purpose of mythical stories whereas their antagonists just completely ignore this.

But not recognising the differences between fact and faction?

 

[PureX]

But not recognising the differences between fact and faction?

That's a very common human problem given that reality is, itself, a fictional conception of our perceived experiences.

But the point is that your battle with this issue completely ignores the function and purpose of myth. While the literalists you are arguing with are only concerned with the myth and it's purpose. So this whole debate becomes a never-ending exchange between people talking right past each other. One focused on the myth and it's meaning for them, the other focused on the myth not being factual. Two entirely unrelated subjects.

Of the two, it's the latter group that are really missing the mark the most.