Posted on 12/10/2008 9:29:13 AM PST by NYer
If that was the only sentence you’d be right. Taking it by itself is taking it out of context.
The context is that the flood waters rose 15 cubits higher that the highest mountain on earth. It has already been established in Genesis that the flood waters covered the whole earth before this statement. this statement just provides EXTRA information by telling you how high the water actually was, and it was 15 cubits HIGHER than the highest mountain.
did the mariana trench exist pre-flood or during?
What would happen if the ocean floors were to be upheaved to our present sea level?
If there was only one supercontinent, why would one assume Everest OR the Mariana trench, either one, would exist?
You are assuming that Everest existed then. When the ‘fountains of the deep broke open, you are talking massive fault line earthquakes and tectonic upheaval, with certain plates sinking, and certain plates rising, crashing together, and forming mountains.
If Everest did exist before the flood, then yes it was covered. If not, it was created during settling and tectonic instabilities during or after the flood.
Don’t worry, some of us got it.
“Noah, How long can you tread water?”
Why are you assuming one supercontinent? The continents aren’t ‘floating’ or loose. If you look at where some of the plate boundaries are they are nowhere near the edge of continents.
Oh, I wasn’t assuming anything, geographically, and I would caution everyone else from assuming that the pre-flood earth’s geography looked anything like it does today.
Thanks for the clarification. Personally I think great, great changes took place to the earth’s surface from the activity described in the worldwide flood.
Yeah, post-flood earth was a VERY different place than pre-flood earth. Unrecognizable, I’m sure.
“Am I on Candid Camera?”
Second, the Bible says that the entire earth [erets] was covered with the water about the highest hills being 15 cubits of water. Tough to do with a "local" flood. Your reasoning doesn't hold up.
BTW - there is nothing in the text that would lead one to conclude that the water covered the "known" world. It is just not there. The Hebrew word is the common word for the land, the earth, the ground. There is no concept of a "known" world...that is foreign to Hebrew.
Apparently you have not studied this subject very carefully. There is an abundance of evidence of a world-wide flood. And there are significant differences in the two accounts of the flood...sufficient to indicate they are not the same!
But look at the problems this concept involves:
Belief in a world-wide Flood, as Scripture clearly indicates, has the backing of common sense, science and Christ Himself.
1. Jonathan Sarfati, ‘How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?’, Creation 19(2):16–19, 1997. See also John Woodmorappe, Noah’s Ark—a Feasibility Study, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, 1995.
2. Note that the Bible talks about mountains rising (in connection with God’s rainbow promise, so after the Flood): see CEN Technical Journal 12(3):312–313, 1998. Everest has marine fossils at its peak. Therefore, the mountains before the Flood are not those of today. There is enough water in the oceans so that, if all the surface features of the earth were evened out, water would cover the earth to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). This is not enough to cover mountains the height of Everest, but it shows that the pre-Flood mountains could have been several kilometers high and still be covered.
3. Some ‘progressive creationists’, who cannot accept a global Flood because of their commitment to millions of years for the ages of fossils, try to promote belief in a ‘universal’ Flood. This leads many unsuspecting evangelicals to think they believe in a world-wide Flood, but what they mean by this is that even though it was a local flood, all humanity outside of the Ark perished in it. However, it boggles the mind to believe that after all those centuries, no one would have migrated to other parts. Or that people living on the periphery of such a local Flood would not have moved to the adjoining high ground rather than be drowned.
:’) thanks NYer, Fractal Trader, and Coleus!
Did Noah’s Flood start in the Carmel?
The Jerusalem Post | 10 Dec 2008 | Etgar Lefkovits
Posted on 12/10/2008 9:25:29 AM PST by BGHater
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2146233/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.