Rusra02 said above:
As I mentioned in a previous post, The Bible tells us the Earth of Noah's day existed "in the midst of water" (2 Peter 3:5) Apparently the Earth was surrounded by water above the Earth's atmosphere that kept the planet at a consistently warm temperature.
Correct me if I'm wrong but my bible reads as follows
2 Peter 3:5
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the Heavens of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water.
2 Peter 3:6
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
Surely this is a straight forward description of heaven "standing out of the water" and the land "in the water" in other words a land like an Island in a surrounding sea on a "flat" earth. How on earth, do you draw the conclusion from "and in the water" to mean the early world was at the bottom of some magical saturnine ring ocean. That is a way long stretch. It simply says the land is an island in the sea. A sea that apparently rose so far that it drowned all the creaures of the planet. (except those on the Ark). BTW I guess plants can hold there breath for more than 40 days.
Also, the ocean moderates coastal temperatures because of its huge heat capacity naturally. (no need for super Deity on that point.)
Today there is about 1.4 billion cu km (326 million cu mi) of water on the earth. It covers more than 70 percent of the globes surface. The average depth of the oceans is 4 km (2.5 mi); average elevation of the land is only 0.8 km (0.5 mi) above sea level. If the earths surface was smoothed out, it would all be covered with water to a depth of 2,400 m (8,000 ft). The pre-flood mountains were evidently much lower than the mountain ranges the effects of the Flood brought into existence. Next time you swim in the ocean, give thought to the fact the water you are in may have fallen to earth in Noah's day for the first time.
As so many others do, you assume that the Earth has always been as it is today.
Geologists tell us otherwise.
Here is what a textbook on geology says: From Pre-Cambrian times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. . . . Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated. Compare this with the poetic language of the psalmist: With a watery deep just like a garment you covered [the earth]. The waters were standing above the very mountains. Mountains proceeded to ascend, valley plains proceeded to descendto the place that you have founded for them.Psalm 104:6, 8.
Thus, your premise for your math is faulty.
Nothing wrong with my maths it is sound. The fault appears to be the differing assumptions. If we are to discuss this equitably we should have some ground rules instead of grabbing a bit here and a bit there to argue with. Lets bring some consistency to this discussion.
First when exactly are we talking about? Are we talking about a period that both the religious and scientists appear to agree on ie the beginning of civilization which evidence suggests occurred around 5000BC with the development of Agrarian societies at the expense of Nomadic cultures. Or are we using some illogical twist to throw the Noah concept further back in time, to a point where human like creatures could not exist, or do you believe the earth has had an oxygen rich atmosphere for the whole of its existence?
So may I presume those who take the Noah Myth literally also accept a date for the flood of around 5000BC?. If this presumption is correct, I'll stick by my interpretation of events as described above, as the geological evidence suggests the basic landscape of the planet then was nearly identical to that which exists today.
However if the premise is, that the part about Noah and his wooden ark is true literally, but the time is now precambrain earth, then we have a problem. One of logic. Are you are talking about the Hadean period before the oceans formed. Minor other inhibitory aspects include no oxygen yet for Noah to breath and no animals yet. And wouldn't that contradict the biblical description of a garden of Eden prior. An atmosphere high in sulfuric acid does not bode well for good grape and apple harvests.
But lets forget logic for a minute and assume all the water is in the sky and none (or very little) is on the surface of this ancient earth ie maximum flood value. So now it rains this planetoid volume of water and the valleys fill eventually covering the land of the pre-ocean ancient earth with new oceans. Can I ask was it just the low lands or the high lands as well? Is the earth flat and dead smooth. No! logic and geological evidence indicates we probably have always had and are always likely to have mountains and valleys of similar size to that which we have today even though they move around a bit (Plate tectonics) over the EONS.
So the bible says "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." Well I read that as pretty unambiguous if you were not on the ark you were dead, (bye Bye Skippy). Since many animals including humans can normally climb hills to highlands, even a bit at a time, rather than stand helplessly in rising water, I contend that for a total earth extermination the water must have risen well above your little hills and well up the mountains to be effective, where low oxygen and freezing conditions prevail. Even then some animals and human were sure to survive so long as any land remained out of the water.
I would also point out, the bible in reference to this, mentions "the hills" of Ararat/ Irat/Iraq, so hills and valleys were present, so its not dead flat, its similar to today and why wouldnt it be? The same physics and geological processes apply. It also points to a geographic region recognised as that of a more recent time not Gondwana or Pangaea. Over eons mountains do rise and fall while others form and grow. How ever the vertical relief profiles seem consistant through out the EONS. In other words my argument still holds for any period since the ancient oceans formed, in the post Hadean Period. Geological evidence indicates that during interglacial periods and sea level rises and falls are in the order of +/- 100m not the +/- kilometers, your arguement requires.
You state "Well I don't know if Mt Ararat has shrunk or grown significantly since then, but today it is recognized to be approximately 5181m above mean sea level". What about the height of Mt Ararat before the flood? There are vast mountain ranges currently under water.
So what. In 5000 years there probably has been some minor tectonic changes, but basically the continents are the same today as they were 5000 years ago. The mid Atlantic ridge hasn't grown overnight, covering Africa and South America to then suddenly retreat to its present position in such short geological time. So what are you actually saying.
Since no one can say what the earth was like or how high the mountains were before the global deluge, any math based on current conditions is both speculative and based on faulty reasoning. Mocking the Bible record does not make your reply more scientific, nor does it make the Bible account any less truthful.
No I wasn't there to draw a contour map but the evidence suggests yes, they can. Have you ever heard of the lands called Pangaea and Gondwana? Did these super continents exist before or after Noah according to you?
I don't mock the bible, but its interpretations often do have a tendency to mock themselves.
Cheers
).
