PDA

View Full Version : How deep was the flood?



Naphal
Apr 26th 2007, 04:58 AM
Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
mountain
2022
02022 har {har}
a shortened form of 02042; TWOT - 517a; n m
AV - mountain 261, mount 224, hill 59, hill country 1, promotion 1; 546
1) hill, mountain, hill country, mount



cubit
The common computation as to the length of the cubit makes it 20.24 inches for the ordinary cubit, and 21.888 inches for the sacred one. This is the same as the Egyptian measurements.


15 x 21.888 = 328.32 inches = 27.36 feet

conclusion, covered very small mountains LOL
obviously the flood wasnt too deep

The 32 cubits couldn't have been how high it was above the mountains simply because not all mountains are the same height. The measurement is given as 32 cubits upward but for a mountain that was taller or shorter would change that figure. But if the figure is 32 cubits from the ground and the ground being basically at the same level give or take a few inches then I think we have to conclude the flood's depth was a total of 32 cubits which was enough to cover small mountains as such are common in the middle eastern area the flood took place.

chisel
Apr 26th 2007, 07:34 AM
It was fifteen cubits above the highest mountain. The previous verse speaks about the high mountains that were covered and the next verse says fifteen cubits upward (upward of the highest mountains mentioned in the previous verse) the waters prevailed.

Naphal
Apr 26th 2007, 08:19 AM
It was fifteen cubits above the highest mountain. The previous verse speaks about the high mountains that were covered and the next verse says fifteen cubits upward (upward of the highest mountains mentioned in the previous verse) the waters prevailed.

It does say the "high hills" were covered and then says the waters prevailed 15 cubits upward but I take that to be upward from the ground rather than upward from a mountain.

Without boats, 27 feet of water will kill everyone. Just look at how many have died in floods in recent years and those were nothing compared to this flood.

TEITZY
Apr 26th 2007, 12:48 PM
Here's (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=465521&postcount=35) an old post I did on this topic.

Genesis 7:20 is definitely referring to the height of the water above the mountains (I don't know any commentators that agree with your interpretation of this passage). Perhaps another translation might be helpful:

NIV - The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

NASB - The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

NLT - rising more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks.

ESV - The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep

CEV - Finally, the mighty flood was so deep that even the highest mountain peaks were almost twenty-five feet below the surface of the water.

HCSB - The mountains were covered as the waters surged [above them] more than 20 feet.

Cheers
Leigh

Johndigger
Apr 26th 2007, 12:50 PM
Also, did the water just appear and disappear by the miracle of God?

Taking this passage literally, is there any scientific evidence to back this up?

JD

IamRyan
Apr 26th 2007, 06:36 PM
Also, did the water just appear and disappear by the miracle of God?

Taking this passage literally, is there any scientific evidence to back this up?

JD

It got there by raining very hard for a long time and it went away by slowly drying and spreading out."By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. 14 By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry."

TEITZY
Apr 26th 2007, 10:40 PM
Also, did the water just appear and disappear by the miracle of God?

Taking this passage literally, is there any scientific evidence to back this up?

JD

This (http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf) article should be helpful. There's more here (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3000/) on the Flood if you're interested.

Johndigger
Apr 26th 2007, 11:49 PM
Thank you for the links. I did manage to read quite a substantial amount. Some of the theories are somewhat plausible, others are frankly ludicrous.

If the Genesis stories are to be taken literally, then either Science or Faith is wrong.

JD

Naphal
Apr 27th 2007, 05:08 AM
Here's (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=465521&postcount=35) an old post I did on this topic.

Genesis 7:20 is definitely referring to the height of the water above the mountains (I don't know any commentators that agree with your interpretation of this passage). Perhaps another translation might be helpful:

NIV - The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

NASB - The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

NLT - rising more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks.

ESV - The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep

CEV - Finally, the mighty flood was so deep that even the highest mountain peaks were almost twenty-five feet below the surface of the water.

HCSB - The mountains were covered as the waters surged [above them] more than 20 feet.

Cheers
Leigh



Gen 7:20

(ALT)

(ASV) Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


(BBE) The waters went fifteen cubits higher, till all the mountains were covered.


(Bishops) Fyfteene cubites vpward did the waters preuayle, so that the mountaynes were couered.


(CEV) (SEE 7:19)

(Darby) Fifteen cubits upward the waters prevailed; and the mountains were covered.




(GB) Fifteene cubites vpwarde did the waters preuaile, when the mountaines were couered.


(HNV) The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.


(JPS) Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


(KJV) Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


(KJV-1611) Fifteene cubits vpward, did the waters preuaile; and the mountaines were couered.


(KJVA) Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


(LITV) The waters prevailed, fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.


(MKJV) The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.


(RV) Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


(WEB) The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.


(Webster) Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail: and the mountains were covered.

(YLT) fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;




Gill:


Gen 7:20 - Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail,.... Either to such an height above the earth, upwards from that, or from the high hills; for though the words do not necessarily imply that, yet it may be allowed, since there was water enough to cover the highest of them; and fifteen cubits of water were enough to drown the tallest man, or largest beast that should be upon the top of any of them:

TEITZY
Apr 27th 2007, 05:53 AM
Gen 7:20
(ALT)

(ASV)

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


(BBE)


The waters went fifteen cubits higher, till all the mountains were covered.


(Bishops)


Fyfteene cubites vpward did the waters preuayle, so that the mountaynes were couered.


(CEV)


(SEE 7:19)

(Darby)


Fifteen cubits upward the waters prevailed; and the mountains were covered.



(GB)


Fifteene cubites vpwarde did the waters preuaile, when the mountaines were couered.


(HNV)


The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.


(JPS)


Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


(KJV)


Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


(KJV-1611)


Fifteene cubits vpward, did the waters preuaile; and the mountaines were couered.


(KJVA)


Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


(LITV)


The waters prevailed, fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.


(MKJV)


The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.


(RV)


Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


(WEB)


The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.


(Webster)


Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail: and the mountains were covered.


(YLT) fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;





Gill:


Gen 7:20


- Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail,.... Either to such an height above the earth, upwards from that, or from the high hills; for though the words do not necessarily imply that, yet it may be allowed, since there was water enough to cover the highest of them; and fifteen cubits of water were enough to drown the tallest man, or largest beast that should be upon the top of any of them:






None of the translations you listed prove your point of view and even Gill seems to support the view that the waters were 15 cubits above the highest hill. For one thing the flood must have been deeper than 27 feet since there would have been many trees taller than this for birds to survive yet ALL the birds and other tree dwelling creatures were on the ark. Also the ark came to rest on Mt Ararat which is about 17,000 feet above sea level.



The 32 cubits couldn't have been how high it was above the mountains simply because not all mountains are the same height.


Where did this figure of 32 cubits come from? Did I miss something? I think the intent of Gen 7:20 is to suggest that not only were all the mountains covered but the water was 15 cubits higher than the HIGHEST of these mountains.

Cheers
Leigh

Naphal
Apr 27th 2007, 06:04 AM
None of the translations you listed prove your point of view

All of them do actually. None say upwards from the top of the highest mountain. The wording suggests upwards from the ground to a height of 27 feet.


and even Gill seems to support the view that the waters were 15 cubits above the highest hill.


He believes both is possible.




For one thing the flood must have been deeper than 27 feet since there would have been many trees taller than this for birds to survive yet ALL the birds and other tree dwelling creatures were on the ark.

Birds can float on water. Didn't you know that? Most birds survived the flood either by floating on the water or on logs or by flying further than the flood reached.



Also the ark came to rest on Mt Ararat which is about 17,000 feet above sea level.

The bible does not say that. We do not know what mountain it rested upon only the general area.



Where did this figure of 32 cubits come from? Did I miss something?

Just a mistake.


I think the intent of Gen 7:20 is to suggest that not only were all the mountains covered but the water was 15 cubits higher than the HIGHEST of these mountains.

Yet it does not say that and it would have been easy for it to have said it if that was what happened.

TEITZY
Apr 27th 2007, 07:55 AM
Birds can float on water. Didn't you know that? Most birds survived the flood either by floating on the water or on logs or by flying further than the flood reached.

All the bird kinds were on the ark (Gen 6:20). If they could survive outside the ark God would have left them there like He did the fish. I thought the flood was global not local? If it was just a local flood then why the need for the ark to preserve animals that could have moved or survived elsewhere?




The bible does not say that. We do not know what mountain it rested upon only the general area.


We know the general area and all the mountains in this area are taller than 27 feet. Remember the ark was floating above the mountains before it came to rest on them.

Cheers
Leigh

Naphal
Apr 27th 2007, 08:01 AM
All the bird kinds were on the ark (Gen 6:20). If they could survive outside the ark God would have left them there like He did the fish.

It really isn't feasible for Noah to have caught all the kinds of birds in the world. Birds really didn't need saving unlike land animals.




I thought the flood was global not local? If it was just a local flood then why the need for the ark to preserve animals that could have moved or survived elsewhere?



It was not global. I don't think it's possible to have enough water flood the whole world 27 feet higher than the tallest mountain. There isn't even enough air to breath at that level so Noah would have died from lack of oxygen.




We know the general area and all the mountains in this area are taller than 27 feet. Remember the ark was floating above the mountains before it came to rest on them.


Doesn't say the ark rested on the top of those mountains. I think the flood was 27 feet deep and killed everyone because they lived in the low lands where Noah lived.

TEITZY
Apr 27th 2007, 10:45 AM
It really isn't feasible for Noah to have caught all the kinds of birds in the world. Birds really didn't need saving unlike land animals.

Not all birds in the world just 2 of each kind. And God brought the animals to Noah (Gen 6:20).




It was not global. I don't think it's possible to have enough water flood the whole world 27 feet higher than the tallest mountain. There isn't even enough air to breath at that level so Noah would have died from lack of oxygen.


Firstly, we don't know what the pre-flood environment or topography was like so such statements are mere conjecture on your part.

Secondly, you seem to be dogmatic about the language of Gen 7:20 so how about these:

Gen 6:17 And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.

Gen 8:9 But the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, and she returned into the ark to him, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself.

Jesus said that the flood killed everyone not on the ark (Matt 27:37-39). As I said earlier, if the flood was only local why the need for the ark? If God wanted to save Noah He could of just told him to move somewhere else! Same with the birds - why did they need to be on the ark when they could just fly to another location not flooded? The duration of the flood waters (12 months) would also suggest this was not just a local event. If it was just a local flood then God has also broken the promise He made to Noah (Gen 8:21) many times over.



Doesn't say the ark rested on the top of those mountains. I think the flood was 27 feet deep and killed everyone because they lived in the low lands where Noah lived.

So in other words you don't trust the Biblical account!

Cheers
Leigh

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 27th 2007, 11:17 AM
Why question the Biblical account? Has science become the foundation of all knowledge? Does the Bible need to stand the test of something so limited as the product of the human mind and experience, namely science? I thought that as Christian we believed the Bible to be true and reliable by default and that science should bow before the reliability of the Bible.

Never will I attempt to make the Bible work with science. I would sooner try to make science work with the Bible, since the Bible is 1000x more reliable than science.

Johndigger
Apr 27th 2007, 11:39 AM
Wouldn't all the vegetation have died? So, it would have been a barren world? Very few plants can survive underwater.

ikester7579
Apr 27th 2007, 11:43 AM
Math of the flood

The bible says the flood covered every mountain (Gen 7:19-20). Mount Everest is the current largest mountain. Its approx 5.5 miles above sea level. I have rounded it down to 5 miles because its better to under estimate than over estimate.
There are some theories that mountains weren’t as high as they are now, and that the flood only flooded a 17,000 foot high mountain. However there are flaws to both of these, and ill address them later.

The Radius of the Earth = 3963 miles
The Radius of the earth with 5 miles of water = 3968 Miles.
The volume of the earth = 260711882973.3396 cubic miles
The volume of the earth with water = 261699925947.5533 cubic miles.
261699925947.5533 - 260711882973.3396 = 988042974.2136999965
So the volume of the flood water = 988,042,974.2136999965 cubic miles. But lets round it to 988,042,974 Cubic Miles.
If this water was put into a sphere, it would have a radius of 618 Miles.

According to this site (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html) there is a total of 326,000,000 Cubic Miles of water on the earth. So the flood waters were 3 times the total amount of water on the entire earth.
The data says there there is approx 9,016,000 Cubic Miles of water that is currently underground or not filling a space on the surface (like an ocean). These sources of water would include Ground water, soil moisture, ice caps and glaciers.
The bible says that some of the water came from the ground and some from rain (Gen 7:11). So if we gave the bible the benefit of the doubt and say that 10X more water resided under ground then, than it does now (10 times more water in the soil and ground water) and that the ice caps melted. We would get 27,160,000 cubic miles of water. It would still only equal 3% of the total flood waters.

http://geocities.com/arikayx/index.html (site is against creation and the flood, but has good information)

And the rest of the water is found here:

A mineral called wadsleyite:
And if the whole mantle contained 500 parts per million of water, Frost calculates that would be the equivalent of 30 oceans of water.

You can read about this on an old earth site here: http://www.ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html

Where did the water come from that is in the wadsleyite minieral?

gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Anything that comes through the windows of heaven, comes directly from God. So the extra water for the flood was poured from heaven. then when returned unto the earth, was put inside the mineral called wadsleyite.

So not only do we have the verses that ell where the water came from. But we have the evidence of where the water went.

ikester7579
Apr 27th 2007, 11:45 AM
Wouldn't all the vegetation have died? So, it would have been a barren world? Very few plants can survive underwater.

Seeds can survive a flood.

Johndigger
Apr 27th 2007, 11:58 AM
Interesting. What do they live on? Are they even alive?


JD,
is no botanist. Nice Maths there, by the way. ;)

Naphal
Apr 27th 2007, 12:40 PM
[QUOTE]
Quote:
It was not global. I don't think it's possible to have enough water flood the whole world 27 feet higher than the tallest mountain. There isn't even enough air to breath at that level so Noah would have died from lack of oxygen.
Firstly, we don't know what the pre-flood environment or topography was like so such statements are mere conjecture on your part.



We do know the topography. The mountains we have today like Everest existed in much the same way as it did in Noah's time.




Secondly, you seem to be dogmatic about the language of Gen 7:20 so how about these:

Gen 6:17 And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.

Gen 8:9 But the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, and she returned into the ark to him, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself.

It's not literal. Many verses in the bible use this type of exaggeration. I have already shown such an example that appears to speak of all but isn't.




As I said earlier, if the flood was only local why the need for the ark?

Same reason God choose to use a flood rather than merely snap his fingers and kill the wicked.



If God wanted to save Noah He could of just told him to move somewhere else! Same with the birds - why did they need to be on the ark when they could just fly to another location not flooded?

Many birds are not prepared or used to flying long periods or to survive in oceanic conditions.




The duration of the flood waters (12 months) would also suggest this was not just a local event.


No, it suggests how long the waters prevailed not how far.




If it was just a local flood then God has also broken the promise He made to Noah (Gen 8:21) many times over.

God has not brought a flood of that magnitude ever again so God has NOT broken his promise.






Quote:
Doesn't say the ark rested on the top of those mountains. I think the flood was 27 feet deep and killed everyone because they lived in the low lands where Noah lived.
So in other words you don't trust the Biblical account!


Don't use that type of language.


Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Like I said, the scriptures DO NOT say the ark rested upon the top of a mountain, nor the top of a mountain called Ararat. There is no such mountain. The ark rested somewhere in the mountains of the land of Ararat!

Get the facts correct before you go around making accusations.

TEITZY
Apr 27th 2007, 10:50 PM
We do know the topography. The mountains we have today like Everest existed in much the same way as it did in Noah's time.

Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Like I said, the scriptures DO NOT say the ark rested upon the top of a mountain, nor the top of a mountain called Ararat. There is no such mountain. The ark rested somewhere in the mountains of the land of Ararat!

Get the facts correct before you go around making accusations.

Perhaps you should read my posts more clearly. Earlier I said:


We know the general area and all the mountains in this area are taller than 27 feet. Remember the ark was floating above the mountains before it came to rest on them.


So we do know the area in which the ark came to rest and clearly it was "upon the mountains of Ararat". You yourself said that the mountains we see today have not changed since Noah's time and we know the mountains in this area are signficantly higher than 27 feet.

2 Pet 3:3-6 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

If you want to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the Scriptures to accomodate your own intellectual conclusions well so be it, but you leave yourself open to critical attack from unbelievers who will ask why you don't apply this same logic to the Virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ.

Cheers
Leigh

Naphal
Apr 28th 2007, 12:39 AM
Perhaps you should read my posts more clearly. Earlier I said:

So we do know the area in which the ark came to rest and clearly it was "upon the mountains of Ararat". You yourself said that the mountains we see today have not changed since Noah's time and we know the mountains in this area are signficantly higher than 27 feet.

It doesn't say it rested upon the top of a mountain. Either the ark traveled to a mountain range higher than the flood reached or the waters lowered and deposited the ark on the mountain but not it's top.




2 Pet 3:3-6 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

If you want to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the Scriptures to accomodate your own intellectual conclusions well so be it, but you leave yourself open to critical attack from unbelievers who will ask why you don't apply this same logic to the Virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ.


Those are not the same thing at all. There is a difference between denying or questioning what scripture says and UNDERSTANDING what it says. God does not state the entire globe was flooded and we know from various clues God left that the flood was not global. A careful study of this topic reveals a large but not global flood.

StrongVibe
Apr 28th 2007, 02:49 AM
does anyone know where all the water came from?

Naphal
Apr 28th 2007, 02:55 AM
The bible says the water came from fountains within the earth as well as out of heaven. That's rain from the sky not literally out of heaven.

ikester7579
Apr 28th 2007, 04:33 AM
The bible says the water came from fountains within the earth as well as out of heaven. That's rain from the sky not literally out of heaven.


gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

Here we have three sources, and two action to stopped them:

1) Fountains of the deep. Were stopped.
2) Windows of heaven. Were stopped.
3) Rain from heaven. Were restrained.


mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

If blessings get poured out through the windows of heaven. Do blessings come from rain clouds?

Naphal
Apr 28th 2007, 04:36 AM
mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

If blessings get poured out through the windows of heaven. Do blessings come from rain clouds?

It's a figure of speech.