Was the flood universal?

[steve]

That is possible.

[steve7150]

As a witness to the unbelievers around Noah, and a chance for them to accept God's salvation. Had Noah and his family simply picked up and left, they wouldn't have had that witness. As usual, God bent over backwards to try to get their attention before finally sending judgment.
backwoodsman




Makes sense since Peter called Noah "a preacher of righteousness" 2nd Peter 2.5

[steve7150]

Since the dimensions of the ark are on record, it could not have been much smaller than we think










According to Woodrow for whatever it's worth, "Some feel a cubit at the period covered by Genesis may have been smaller than what came to be known as a cubit in later times. Woodrow then refers to Harpers Bible Dictionary which says "with the coming of each new conqueror and with every fresh trend in trade, weights and measures
continued to vary.

[Candlepower]

Is it possible that Noah could have used men other than his sons to help build the Ark? Their work would have been done under Noah's direction, and he could still have been given the credit for its building?

Also, it doesn't seem that these hypothetical workers would have necessarily had to turn from their wicked ways just because they worked for Noah. They could have helped build the Ark and still have missed the boat, you might say.

[steve7150]

A couple of other points mentioned by Woodrow,


"God made a wind to pass over the earth and the waters receded" Gen 8.1 A wind passing over a body of water picks up moisture forming clouds which move with the wind to drop rain in other areas. But if the whole planet were covered with water , clouds passing on to rain somewhere else would only be shuffling water around. But if it were a regional flood the clouds would have carried the water off to a different region.




"And the waters returned from off the earth continually" Gen 8.3 Water could have been draining down from the region into the Persian Gulf, but with a worldwide flood where would the water drain to?

[steve]

Water could have been draining down from the region into the Persian Gulf, but with a worldwide flood where would the water drain to?

My point exactly. It would not take a year for floodwaters to drain off into the Persian Gulf after the rains stopped. The fact that it took so long indicates that there was, in fact, no where for it to drain off to. This makes sense, if the earth was covered. If the earth was not, why didnt it drain off somewhere? It apparently had to find its way back into the atmosphere. Newly-forming ocean valleys would account for more rapid receding, but would not explain the slowness of the process.

[steve7150]

My point exactly. It would not take five months or more for floodwaters to drain off into the Persian Gulf after the rains stopped. The fact that it took so long indicates that there was, in fact, no where for it to drain off to.








I don't think it's possible to definitively know how the Mesopotamian basin which is surrounded by mountains would have drained out 4,500 years ago. Additionally while water was draining out other waters from overflowing mountain streams could have been draining in.

[backwoodsman]

It would not take a year for floodwaters to drain off into the Persian Gulf after the rains stopped.

Actually it would. The Mesopotamian basin is a very large, very flat area. Floods in the Mississippi Valley go away the same way -- they sit almost completely still because it's so flat, and go away largely by evaporation. They can take months to go away, even though the water depth is a small fraction of what would've covered the Mesopotamian plain. Reasons To Believe's regional flood model does a very good job of addressing this and most of the other objections raised in this thread.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/noah%E2 ... s-eye-view

[thrombomodulin]

Water could have been draining down from the region into the Persian Gulf, but with a worldwide flood where would the water drain to?

My point exactly. It would not take a year for floodwaters to drain off into the Persian Gulf after the rains stopped. The fact that it took so long indicates that there was, in fact, no where for it to drain off to. This makes sense, if the earth was covered. If the earth was not, why didnt it drain off somewhere? 'It apparently had to find its way back into the atmosphere. Newly-forming ocean valleys would account for more radid receding, but would not explain the slowness of the process.

Has anyone looked into the idea of catastrophic plate tectonics? As I understand, the stress relaxation that occurs in the crust offers an explanation for the "slowness of the process".

How would the local flood idea account for the ark drifting in the water over the duration of the flood? Given the long period on the water, wouldn't it be likely that winds or currents would bring the ark into contact with, at least, sight of land at the border?

[steve7150]

How would the local flood idea account for the ark drifting in the water over the duration of the flood? Given the long period on the water, wouldn't it be likely that winds or currents would bring the ark into contact with, at least, sight of land at the border?
thrombomodulin








The Mesopotamia plain is 45,000 square miles which is a huge area.