Was the flood universal?

[backwoodsman]

Has anyone looked into the idea of catastrophic plate tectonics?

If you follow the link in my last post, you'll see RTB says it defies all the geological evidence, and the ark (not to mention its contents) never could've withstood the forces generated. That sounds a lot more reasonable to me than the suggestion that a wooden boat and the fragile life inside it could've survived the kind of catastrophic destruction the plate tectonics idea would require.

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?

Not if God didn't want it to.

[Paidion]

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.

Is it of any relevance what a cubit had been in at the period covered by Genesis? It is Moses who wrote the account — whether by tradition or revelation. So the size of a cubit in the account must have been what Moses understood its size to be.

[steve7150]

Is it of any relevance what a cubit had been in at the period covered by Genesis? It is Moses who wrote the account — whether by tradition or revelation. So the size of a cubit in the account must have been what Moses understood its size to be.






It might be relavant since Moses wrote about an event a thousand years before him he may have simply written what was given to him. So if cubits were a smaller measurement back then , the ark may have been smaller. After all Noah didn't build the ark to carry hundreds of neighbors it was for "the saving of his house." Hebrews 11.7

[steve7150]

However, if the details were given to Moses supernaturally by God (after all, God said he spoke to him "face to face"), then the account Sounds more global than local.





Well Christopher i agree Moses was inspired but the main reason most believe the flood to be global is because erets is translated as earth, but Moses repeatedly uses "erets" to mean land elsewhere in Genesis , where i think we would agree he was just as inspired. Here are a few examples.

"the whole land (erets) of Havilah"
"the whole land (erets) of Ethiopia"
"the land (erets) of Nod
"the land (erets) of Shinar"
"the land (erets) of Canaan
"the land (erets) of Egypt"
"the Philistines land"
"the land (erets) of Moriah" Gen 2.11-13