The flood in Genesis

[rusra02]

And I am curious about your line of argument.

I understand you to be bible-believing christian who has taken the "faith" seriously. (if I am in error do please correct me).

Since your "faith" is indeed faith and not based on verifiable fact or physical evidence WHY does it matter to you whether or not science agrees with the bible?

Suppose the earth REALLY is billions of years old. Does that fact make your god disappear?

The dating methods used by scientists are built on assumptions that can be useful but that often lead to very contradictory results. So, dates given by them are constantly being revised.
A report in New Scientist of March 18, 1982, reads: “‘I am staggered to believe that as little as a year ago I made the statements that I made.’ So said Richard Leakey, before the elegant audience of a Royal Institution evening discourse last Friday. He had come to reveal that the conventional wisdom, which he had so recently espoused in his BBC television series The Making of Mankind, was ‘probably wrong in a number of crucial areas.’ In particular, he now sees man’s oldest ancestor as being considerably younger than the 15-20 million years he plumped for on television.”—P. 695.
From time to time, new methods of dating are developed. How reliable are these? Regarding one known as thermoluminescence, The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976, Macropædia, Vol. 5, p. 509) says: “Hope rather than accomplishment mainly characterizes the status of thermoluminescence dating at the present time.” Also, Science (August 28, 1981, p. 1003) reports that a skeleton showing an age of 70,000 years by amino acid racemization gave only 8,300 or 9,000 years by radioactive dating.
It should be noted, however, that scientists believe that the age of the earth itself is much greater than the age of man. The Bible does not disagree with that.

Much of what passes for science is blind credulity based on fear of men who mock those who disagree with them. Many scientists accept the Bible as God's Word.
I find it amazing that a Book completed some 2,000 years ago stands up to scientific scrutiny. My faith is based on evidence and proof that convinces me. Lack of faith does not disprove the Bible. ​

 

[Arlanbb]

According to Bible chronology, the global Flood of Noah’s day occurred in 2370 B.C.E. Archaeologists have assigned dates earlier than this to numerous clay tablets they have excavated. But these clay tablets are not dated documents. Hence the dates that have been assigned to them are merely conjectural and provide no solid basis for establishing a relationship in time to the Biblical flood.

Hi rusra02 ~ I have been involved with archaeologically for over 20 years now and your statement about the information on clay tablets is not true. Yes there are many tablets that have no date on them but there are also many tablets that have written information on them that tells when Kings rained. You have made a general statement that was only half right. Most of the Information on the Kings list come from writings on walls in burial chambers with very long list of different Kings and date of how long they rained. From the way you talk I see you have never been on a dig. I have been on two. You might learn something if you go on one.

 

[themadhair]

I find it amazing that a Book completed some 2,000 years ago stands up to scientific scrutiny. My faith is based on evidence and proof that convinces me. Lack of faith does not disprove the Bible.

I find it astounding that anyone living in a first world country, with free access to education and the wealth of information that implies, can believe the above.

I also find it astounding that someone in a first world society thinks that by simply quote-mining some articles, without adequately researching or understanding the information contained in those articles, they are presenting something more than their ignorance.

I also find it astounding that someone in a first world society can present information attributed to sources that they have never even read and, in some cases, are decades out of date.

But most of all I find it absolutely astounding that a person, simply because they regurgitated from their favourite website, can cite to sources containing information that comprehensively debunk their claims, but are too ignorant to realise it.

I dare you to watch Robert Leakey’s documentary. I dare you to read some recent science articles.

I also dare you to actually think rather than copy&paste.

Compare the following quotes. The first quote comes from:
UNVEILING BIBLICAL TRUTHS - VOLUME II: BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGICAL DATING - Calculating the "Seven Times!"

The dating methods used by scientists are built on assumptions that can be useful but that often lead to very contradictory results. So, it has been demonstrated from time to time that dates given by them are constantly being revised by the various scientific bodies involved.

One such incident of note as follows: A report in New Scientist of March 18, 1982, reads: "'I am staggered to believe that as little as a year ago I made the statements that I made.' So said Richard Leakey, before the elegant audience of a Royal Institution evening discourse last Friday. He had come to reveal that the conventional wisdom, which he had so recently espoused in his BBC television series The Making of Mankind, was 'probably wrong in a number of crucial areas.' In particular, he now sees man's oldest ancestor as being considerably younger than the 15-20 million years he plumped for on television." —P. 695.
From time to time, new methods of dating are developed. How reliable are these? Regarding one known as thermo-luminescence, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976, Macropsedia, Vol. 5, p. 509) says: "Hope rather than accomplishment mainly characterizes the status of thermo-luminescence dating at the present time." Also, Science (August 28, 1981, p. 1003) reports that a skeleton showing an age of 70,000 years by amino acid racemization gave only 8,300 or 9,000 years by radioactive dating.
Popular Science (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry "believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude." The article points out that his findings would lead to the conclusion that "man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."
It should be noted, however, that scientists believe that the age of the earth itself is much greater than the age of man. The Bible does not disagree with that.

The second quote comes from rusra02:

The dating methods used by scientists are built on assumptions that can be useful but that often lead to very contradictory results. So, dates given by them are constantly being revised.
A report in New Scientist of March 18, 1982, reads: “‘I am staggered to believe that as little as a year ago I made the statements that I made.’ So said Richard Leakey, before the elegant audience of a Royal Institution evening discourse last Friday. He had come to reveal that the conventional wisdom, which he had so recently espoused in his BBC television series The Making of Mankind, was ‘probably wrong in a number of crucial areas.’ In particular, he now sees man’s oldest ancestor as being considerably younger than the 15-20 million years he plumped for on television.”—P. 695.
From time to time, new methods of dating are developed. How reliable are these? Regarding one known as thermoluminescence, The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976, Macropædia, Vol. 5, p. 509) says: “Hope rather than accomplishment mainly characterizes the status of thermoluminescence dating at the present time.” Also, Science (August 28, 1981, p. 1003) reports that a skeleton showing an age of 70,000 years by amino acid racemization gave only 8,300 or 9,000 years by radioactive dating.
It should be noted, however, that scientists believe that the age of the earth itself is much greater than the age of man. The Bible does not disagree with that.

So there you have it folks. Apparently creationists can't do their own research either.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

YES Dirty Penguin I pointed that out in the sentence before and I happen to like colors like blue and red etc. for anyone who wants to know.

Cool....


And for the record...colors don't bother me....:yes:

 

[fantome profane]

Here is a list of the main problems, I think.

1. Can't build a wooden boat that big without it falling apart.
2. Not enough time to gather all the animals.
3. Not enough room for all the animals.
4.Not enough water.
5. No accounting for different erosions of present mountains, i.e. why don't the Rockies look like the Appalachians?
6. Impossible to maintain polar ice caps or regrow them in time period since flood.
7. No sedimentary traces on sea floor.
8. No evidence of flood in ice core samples.
9. No evidence of flood in tree rings.
10. Order of fossil sorting inconsistent with flood, e.g. ancient flyers, such as pteranodons, are in older layers than modern sloths.
11. Surface features preserved in rock layers, such as rain drops, dunes, and so forth. How could that happen with a flood?
12. Sedimentary layers too keep for a single flood, unless it laid down miles of sediment per day.
13. Varves. Period. Varves alone blows the whole thing out of the water, so to speak. Ask me ifyou don't know what they are.
14. Layered fossil forests. How do you get one forest to grow on top of another during a flood?
15. Limestone.
16. Chalk.
17. Layers of solid salt.
18. coral layers.
19. Too many fossils to have all been alive at the same time.
20. Too much coal and oil for the forests to have existed at the same time--it would be bigger than the earth.
21. How did ground plants survive being under water for months on end?
22. How did freshwater, brackish water and salt water fish all survive?
23. What about short-lived species, like may-flies?
24. Why are there kangaroos in Australia, but not Arizona, and roadrunners in Arizona, and not Australia? e.g. how did koala bears get from Armenia to Australia, and why did none of them stop on the way?
25. Why no records of the flood by Egyptians and even Babylonians?

Thanks to Mark Isaak

Good list, but I think you missed one, and an important one.

Genetic bottleneck. Two individuals of any species is way to low to establish a viable population. Even seven pairs is still ridiculously low. Every species on earth would be on the endangered list. Actually I think you need much more than this to be considered endangered, at populations this low they are for all intents extinct.

Which is why I think the most amusing part of this story is that the first thing Noah does when he steps out of the ark is take some of these incredibly endangered animals that he tried to save and set them on fire. And Why does Noah torch these animals? Because “God” likes the smell of burning carcases.

 

[themadhair]

I heard the Chinese were doing research to try and find Noah's ark. To hopefully find out what he did to get the Panda's up an going.

 

[Autodidact]

The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873) However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69) So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.
Some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

1. TELL US WHAT CREATIONIST YOU'RE PLAGIARIZING. Stealing other people's work is immoral.

2. So, how many "kinds" do you think were on the ark?

 

[Autodidact]

According to Bible chronology, the global Flood of Noah’s day occurred in 2370 B.C.E. Archaeologists have assigned dates earlier than this to numerous clay tablets they have excavated. But these clay tablets are not dated documents. Hence the dates that have been assigned to them are merely conjectural and provide no solid basis for establishing a relationship in time to the Biblical flood.

You obviously know no more about Egyptian archeology than you do about Geology. Please read this very slowly and carefully: The Egyptians, like the Chinese, kept written records of every King and every dynasty, which records extend before, during and after the flood.

 

[themadhair]

1. TELL US WHAT CREATIONIST YOU'RE PLAGIARIZING. Stealing other people's work is immoral.

Could be from Yahoo answers.
First part from Who cleaned the poop on the arc? god? - Yahoo! Answers :

Noah and his family. Most animals are not that big. And there were not that many animals at the time of the flood. They were just beginning to populate the earth. The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873) However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69) So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals

Second part from Just how big would Noahs Ark had to have been to fit every species in? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers :

Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. The ark had about (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space, ample for the passenger list.
The ark had a carrying capacity equal to that of 10 freight trains of about 25 American boxcars each!
The book In Search of Noah’s Ark quotes George Hagopian, an Armenian, who claimed that he climbed Mount Ararat and saw the ark in 1902 and again in 1904. On the first visit, he said, he actually climbed on top of the ark. “I stood up straight and looked all over the ship. It was long. The height was about forty feet.” Regarding his observation on his subsequent visit, he said: “I didn’t see any real curves. It was unlike any other boat I have ever seen. It looked more like a flat-bottomed barge.”
The “kinds” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.” It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”, the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two.

The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind, short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin, all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

 

[Autodidact]

The dating methods used by scientists are built on assumptions that can be useful but that often lead to very contradictory results. So, dates given by them are constantly being revised.
A report in New Scientist of March 18, 1982, reads: “‘I am staggered to believe that as little as a year ago I made the statements that I made.’ So said Richard Leakey, before the elegant audience of a Royal Institution evening discourse last Friday. He had come to reveal that the conventional wisdom, which he had so recently espoused in his BBC television series The Making of Mankind, was ‘probably wrong in a number of crucial areas.’ In particular, he now sees man’s oldest ancestor as being considerably younger than the 15-20 million years he plumped for on television.”—P. 695.
From time to time, new methods of dating are developed. How reliable are these? Regarding one known as thermoluminescence, The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976, Macropædia, Vol. 5, p. 509) says: “Hope rather than accomplishment mainly characterizes the status of thermoluminescence dating at the present time.” Also, Science (August 28, 1981, p. 1003) reports that a skeleton showing an age of 70,000 years by amino acid racemization gave only 8,300 or 9,000 years by radioactive dating.
It should be noted, however, that scientists believe that the age of the earth itself is much greater than the age of man. The Bible does not disagree with that.​

Do you know what the word "quote-mining" means? It is a form of lying, so you should not imitate creationists who do it.

What is your basic point, that radiometric dating doesn't work? First, you're wrong--it does. That doesn't mean there is no such thing as an error--a faulty scale does not mean that weighing things is impossible. Do you see that? Second, as has been pointed out to you, nothing so far in this thread relies on it. Third, how do you account for the fact that it correlates with other obvious dating methods, such as tree rings? (I will post a longer separate post about this later.)

Much of what passes for science is blind credulity based on fear of men who mock those who disagree with them.

Yes, we know you hate science and think it is stupid prejudice. We find it hilarious that you post your anti-science lies on a computer, a gift to you of science.

Many scientists accept the Bible as God's Word.

Of course they do. What they do not accept is that Genesis is literally true.

I find it amazing that a Book completed some 2,000 years ago stands up to scientific scrutiny. My faith is based on evidence and proof that convinces me. Lack of faith does not disprove the Bible.

It would be amazing, but we have shown in this thread that it is nothing but a myth.
​

 

[themadhair]

[/size=-2]Eleven years ago, an artistic South African grandmother, Joan Ahrens, produced some fine paintings using rocks as her canvases, imitating traditional Bushman art. Later, one of her painted rocks was picked up in the veld near her former home in the city of Pietermaritzburg. Eventually it got into the hands of the curator of the city’s museum. Unaware of the origin of this rock art, the curator had it dated in England by the Oxford University radio carbon accelerator unit. Experts estimated that the painting was 1,200 years old! Why such an embarrassing error? “It has since been established,” according to a report in South Africa’s Sunday Times, “that the oil paint used by Mrs Ahrens contained natural oils which contained carbon—the only substance dated by Oxford.”


Verbatim to content on this page

Popular Science (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” The article points out that his findings would lead to the conclusion that “man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”

Identicle to content from here

Incidentally, any change in radiation would have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14 to such an extent as to invalidate all radiocarbon dates prior to the Flood.

Identicle to content from here

rusra02 is a creationist spammer.

 

[rusra02]

The nasty personal attacks are disappointing but not surprising. Notwithstanding, the Bible has stood the test of time and will continue to be, as it claims to be, "the Word of God" that is so beneficial if read and applied. (2 Timothy 3:16,17 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The nasty personal attacks are disappointing but not surprising. Notwithstanding, the Bible has stood the test of time and will continue to be, as it claims to be, "the Word of God" that is so beneficial if read and applied. (2 Timothy 3:16,17 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13.)

1 Thes. 2:13-16 have often been regarded as a post-Pauline interpolation. The following arguments have been based on the content: (1) the contradiction between Romans 9-11 and 1 Thes. 2:14-16. (2) The references to what has happened to Jews as a model for a Gentile Christian church. (3) There were no extensive persecutions of Christians by Jews in Palestine prior to the first Jewish war. (4) The use of the concept of imitation in 1 Thes. 2.14 is singular. (5) The aorist eftasen ("has overtaken") refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (6) The syntax of 1 Thes. 2:13-16 deviates significantly from that of the surrounding context. [source]

Many modern biblical scholars argue that 2 Timothy, along with the other Pastoral Epistles, was not written by Paul but by an anonymous follower of the Apostle in the first century AD after Paul's death, who also wrote 1 Timothy and Titus. However, the ideas and language of this epistle is notably different from the other two Pastoral letters yet similar to the later Pauline letters, especially the ones he wrote in captivity. This has led at least some scholars to conclude that the author of 2 Timothy is a different person from 1 Timothy and Titus. Raymond E. Brown proposed that this letter was written by a follower of Paul who had knowledge of Paul's last days. [source]

The willful ignorance is disappointing but not surprising, and quoting equally ignorant anonymous sources is silly at best.

 

[InfinityUnlocked]

Translation: I refuse to allow physical reality to question my beliefs.

Does this mean that even the bible knew how wrong the global flood was? And that it knew that those whole believed the global flood would be subjected to ridicule?



It’s truthfulness does, however, depend on its correlation with physical reality.

I have a genuine question that I want you to consider the next time you are preaching:

If you want to understand the physical world then science is where it is at. Your computer, your car, every electrical device in your house, your healthcare, etc. etc. are all products derived from the understanding of the physical world delivered by science. Whenever someone is arguing against science they are, in essence, demonstrating there incapacity to understand the physical world. So my question to you is – given that you have failed in your attempts to understand the physical world, why should anyone trust your understanding of the metaphysical one??

Well put.

 

[InfinityUnlocked]

The willful ignorance is disappointing but not surprising, and quoting equally ignorant anonymous sources is silly at best.

Agreed. At worst you have people drooling over the idea of other human beings suffering in an eternal hell. If the bible was God inspired, with the infinite complexity of the universe and all of everything we know, you'd expect a book containing absolute terms that would be absolutely understood by absolutely anyone acquiring the messages... being that the bible doesn't, I doubt it's authenticity as the word of God. Although, that doesn't make me doubt the concept of God. Actually, it makes it easier to live and enjoy life because it's done through real free will -- in the absence of fear and needing a crutch to prop up a fear-based faith.

 

[Arlanbb]

The nasty personal attacks are disappointing but not surprising. Notwithstanding, the Bible has stood the test of time and will continue to be, as it claims to be, "the Word of God" that is so beneficial if read and applied. (2 Timothy 3:16,17 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13.)

Hi rusra02 ~ I have read the bible and so far I have not found one word that God wrote. Please show me where God personally wrote in the bible???
Most of the bible is a history of the Hebrew people written by Hebrews but the first part of Genesis has nothing to do with the Hebrew nation and as most of us have shown you it does not follow early history of the real world.
Just because a book claims to be God's word does not make it God's word. I could claim to be God but does that prove i am. Wake up to the real history of this world. The bible has a lot of contradictions
in it. Read the stories of young Jesus in Matthew and Luke Ch. 2 both stories can't be true. One story says that the family fled to Egypt after Jesus was born the other says that they stayed around Bethlehem for 40 days then went home. Which is true????

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

What's a "kind"?

I gather from your post that it's a taxonomic group larger than a species, but how big, exactly? Is it larger than a genus? Larger than a family?

 

[rusra02]

Hi rusra02 ~ I have read the bible and so far I have not found one word that God wrote. Please show me where God personally wrote in the bible???
Most of the bible is a history of the Hebrew people written by Hebrews but the first part of Genesis has nothing to do with the Hebrew nation and as most of us have shown you it does not follow early history of the real world.
Just because a book claims to be God's word does not make it God's word. I could claim to be God but does that prove i am. Wake up to the real history of this world. The bible has a lot of contradictions
in it. Read the stories of young Jesus in Matthew and Luke Ch. 2 both stories can't be true. One story says that the family fled to Egypt after Jesus was born the other says that they stayed around Bethlehem for 40 days then went home. Which is true????

“All Scripture is inspired of God,” explained the apostle Paul. (2 Timothy 3:16) The Greek word rendered “inspired of God” literally means “God-breathed.” That is, God used an invisible force to influence the minds of human writers, transmitting his message to them. In the case of the Ten Commandments, however, Jehovah himself inscribed the words on stone tablets. (Exodus 31:18) Sometimes God dictated his message directly to human servants. Says Exodus 34:27: “Jehovah went on to say to Moses: ‘Write down for yourself these words . . .’”

In response to your second question, both are true. Though Luke 2:39 may seem to indicate that Joseph and Mary went to Nazareth right after presenting Jesus at the temple, this text is part of a condensed account. It appears that quite some time after the presentation at the temple, Oriental astrologers (Magi) visited Mary and Jesus in a house at Bethlehem. Matthew simply adds details of Jesus life not mentioned in Luke.

 

[themadhair]

“All Scripture is inspired of God,” explained the apostle Paul. (2 Timothy 3:16) The Greek word rendered “inspired of God” literally means “God-breathed.” That is, God used an invisible force to influence the minds of human writers, transmitting his message to them. In the case of the Ten Commandments, however, Jehovah himself inscribed the words on stone tablets. (Exodus 31:18) Sometimes God dictated his message directly to human servants. Says Exodus 34:27: “Jehovah went on to say to Moses: ‘Write down for yourself these words . . .’”

From Re: WHO AUTHORED THE BIBLE? - Do You Believe? - AOL Message Boards

"All scripture is inspired of God," explained the apostle Paul. (2 Timothy 3:16) The Greek word rendered "inspired of God" literally means "God-breathed." That is, God used an invisible force to influence the minds of human writers, transmitting his message to them. In the case of the Ten Commandments, however, Jehovah himself inscribed the words on stone tablets. (exodus 31:18) Sometimes God dictated his message directly to human servants. Says Exodus 34:27: "Jehovah went on to say to Moses: 'Write down for yourself these words...' "

Did I mention rusra02 was a spammer?

 

[Heneni]

I noticed studying the story of the flood that Noah entered the ark at a certain date, and then exited the ark at a certain date. According to my calulations it was exactly 370 days from the time they entered to the time they exited.

What was curious about this to me, was the fact the land had become dry 2 months and 27 days prior to then exiting. Why dos the story have them hanging out another 2 months and 27 days before exiting.

Any Genesis buffs here, want to shed some light?

Thanks...

The thought has crossed my mind that during the time of Noah, all the continents as we know them today were not what the dry land looked like in the times of naoh. It could very well be that the land was much smaller, therefore a world wide flood not improbable. By that I mean that the part of the continents that were above water were significantly less than it is today. Therefore the whole world, that was dry land, could have been flooded.

Why the wait to get out of the ark? Because the ark landed on a hill(mountain) . The hill would be dry before other parts. Though the hill would be dry it would less likely have been suitable for habitation. Therefore he had to wait till more inhabital parts were dry. Just a thought.

God bless
heneni.