Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Genesis 7:17-24 Only 22.5 feet? Hey...that's still a lot of water.
And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
The Hebrew words, naw-saw and haw-lak which are translated as bore and went respectively, shows that the flood was not as violent as often described by others. Nawsaw means, "to pick up in order to cradle or carry away". Hawlak means, "to walk". That doesn't sound like a violent storm to me. This also allows for the sea animals to survive the same way the fish and other water life survives nowaday floods.
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Fifteen cubits. Yes...that's only 22.5 feet of water covering the earth. To give a little perspective, that's only two and a half stories of a standard building. Doesn't sound like much but try treading 22.5 feet for over a hundred and fifty days. It's not going to happen. With that said, the text implies that the water gaw-bar or prevailed above the highest hills.
This is usually a major sticking point for our secular readers, even a lot of believers. However, we don't know how high the gaw-bo-ah har or high hills were. Also, it is interesting to note that the median elevation of the earth is approximately 20 feet below sea level. Is it possible that the earth, at the time of the flood, did not have the diverse topography we have today? And that the mountains and valleys were the result of the flood? Even though most secular scientists scoff at this idea, there are others that believe that the geological evidence hints at exactly that. Finally, the most important thing to remember is the fact that neither side can conclusively prove their position. One thing for certain is that this will be one of those questions we will ask the Lord when we go home.
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Pretty self explanatory. Everything and everyone, that had breath, died, except for Noah and all that was with him in the ark.
And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.
The flood waters was upon the earth for a hundred and fifty days. On the surface, this seems pretty simple. It is very interesting to note that the Hebrew word, gawbar, translated here as prevailed, does mean, "to exceed above a certain point". However, an alternate translation could be, "to excert an extreme amount of pressure upon". This has led some to the previously expressed belief that the pressure of the flood waters is responsible for the formation of the mountains and valleys. As I said before, let the Holy Spirit guide you into the truth.
Shalom Aleichem, my friends.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No Doubt,
ReplyDeleteHawlak means, "to walk". That doesn't sound like a violent storm to me."
"And that the mountains and valleys were the result of the flood? Even though most secular scientists scoff at this idea, there are others that believe that the geological evidence hints at exactly that."
I would suggest that those who believe the Flood was responsible for mountain and valley-forming are ones who also believe in an incredibly violent Flood-event. This comes across as cherry-picking on your part.
"This also allows for the sea animals to survive the same way the fish and other water life survives nowaday floods."
This very neatly ignores the problem of salt-water and fresh-water species having to exist in a mixture of both.
"Doesn't sound like much but try treading 22.5 feet for over a hundred and fifty days. It's not going to happen."
Did nobody else have a boat at this time? If the storm was as sedate as you suggest, there would have been entire flotillas of survivors, many of whom could have easily survived for 5 months at sea.
"Also, it is interesting to note that the median elevation of the earth is approximately 20 feet below sea level."
Could you provide a reference for that please? Thanks.
"Finally, the most important thing to remember is the fact that neither side can conclusively prove their position."
Only in a very pedantic, metaphysical sense. For all intents and purposes, the idea of a recent global flood was shown to be incorrect a long time ago. Those who continue to believe it do so in spite of the lack of evidence for it and in spite of the evidence against it; because they hold their belief in the infallibility of the Bible higher than the accumulated evidence of established science (that's their prerogative, and I've got nothing against that. But it's not science that they're doing, it's dogma).
Cheers,
Shalom Mr. Matt,
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if something had happened to you. I was honestly concerned. It's good to hear from you.
First of all, good counterpoints.
"I would suggest that those who believe the Flood was responsible for mountain and valley-forming are ones who also believe in an incredibly violent Flood-event.This comes across as cherry-picking on your part."
I do agree that the majority are those who believe in an incredibly violent flood. However, they are also the ones that don't read their bible. They also believe in the things they are told without doing a simple check of the facts. You have to agree that the typical human is lazy and doesn't verify the things they are told. A perfect example of this is that, when asked, the typical christian will answer, two, to the question, "How many of each animal did Noah have in the ark with him?" As for the flood, the text does not imply or even suggest a violent upheaval but a flood as I describe. However, as you have said, it is dogma of both the church and the scientific community. As for the cherry picking, I just lay out the facts as the bible truly depicts not how man has misrepresented them.
This very neatly ignores the problem of salt-water and fresh-water species having to exist in a mixture of both.
Keep in mind, the bible tells us that the flood is the first time humans encountered rain. Before that the water leached up through the surface and watered the land. After the flood, this water, which was in the firmament underneath the land gathered into the great seas or oceans.
According to todays accepted scientific thought, the oceans became salty over time after the oceans were formed. Therefore, I suggest to you that there were only fresh water species at the time of the flood and over the years, the ones in the ocean adapted slowly to their new environment.
"Did nobody else have a boat at this time? If the storm was as sedate as you suggest, there would have been entire flotillas of survivors, many of whom could have easily survived for 5 months at sea."
As for the boats, I honestly don't know. However, for argument sake, let's assume there were a lot of boats. When the rains began, they gathered all the food, they had, into the boats. How long would that food have lasted after being soaked in the rain for forty days and nights? I don't think for very long. The average human being can only go between 20-40 days without eating as long as they have ample supply of drinking water. I'll give you the possibility of their food lasting the 40 days of rain. Add the 40 days of starvation afterwards and that is 80 days. Let's forget that. Let's say they lasted the whole time of the flood. What did they eat after the flood waters receded? See the problem?
"For all intents and purposes, the idea of a recent global flood was shown to be incorrect a long time ago. "
ReplyDeleteOnly in a very pedantic, metaphysical sense. I you don't mind, me using your own response as the beginning of my response. It is very appropriate.
I have to admit that our perception of the biblical timeline may be possibly a little skewed. However, I also have to admit that even geologists don't agree thier methods of dating. The earth changes so rapidly, how can we say with absolute assurance when anything happened?
"Those who continue to believe it do so in spite of the lack of evidence for it and in spite of the evidence against it; because they hold their belief in the infallibility of the Bible higher than the accumulated evidence of established science"
If I can also add, We also continue to believe in the infallibility of the scriptures because of lack of reliable evidence against it. How can we honestly say either side is absolute? We can't...except for the spiritual equation, that is the presence of G-d within our lives. I'll stop there.
Finally, as for the exact quote and equations of the elevation comment, you'll have to give me a little time to find the right book. I will get back to you.
BTW....What do you think about this really cold winter this year? Have you gotten more snow than usual?
Shalom Aleichem my friend.
If you are referring to a violent storm with the flood then I see what you are saying, but the Bible says that water burst through and the floddgates were opened. So at first it almost had to be violent. I can see what you are saying but the rain itself had to be destructive. The waters rushing everywhere to fill the earth had to be destructive in its own sense of what water can do i.e., it can cut, it can erode, it can push.
ReplyDeleteAnd about the boats, yes they may have been able to get on their boats but only those who had boats and who lived around the seas. Plus, perhaps many did not know it was coming (although I actually doubt this since it took 100 years to build), but even more so no one believed him so no one was prepared. This is also why I think the first part of the flood was violent. Man couldn't react fast enough to save himself. Only thoise who were righteous were saved and they were not saved by their own hands but by the grace of God.
I guess I need to know what everyone is thinking when they say violent. It sounds like to me that the only violence was the eruptions from when the fountains burst upwards into the "firmament". Am I right?
ReplyDeleteIt looks like Gozreht is reading the NIV, which is a liberal interpretation of the bible, while No Doubt is using the KJV. Both have mistakes in them. I do like the way you go to the actual Hebrew to interpret. You have intrique me. I'll stick around a while.
ReplyDeleteActually Anonymous, I use something called the Complete Jewish Bible for most of my reading. I use the NIV to teach with because it uses words that all English-speaking people will understand. I do not use the KJV because it is outdated as a language and has to be interpreted anyway for us in the 21st century. But I agree with you No Doubt does do some good research on bringing in the original Hebrew, which is very important and all should do. The mostakes you are referring to I would say is because of the English language constantly changing. I would not call them mistakes per se. Or did I put words into your mouth?
ReplyDeleteHiker Boy,
ReplyDeleteThat is what I am referring to, yes.
Keith,
ReplyDeleteMay be a silly question. What are your thoughts on the world flood not being a world flood, but rather a huge "local flood". I understand that the word "earth" is used in several ways and not necessarily used as "world".
As for the "highest hills" could it be describing it from Noah's view like joshua and the sun stopping in the sky?
Food for thought, I think the place where some people think the local flood could have happened would be in the middle east basin, which of course would have been where the garden of Eden was and the dwelling place of mankind.