![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/07\/NoahArk3.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
One \u201ceric\u201d<\/a>: a regular (and thoughtful, friendly, and articulate) commenter on atheist antitheist Jonathan Pearce\u2019s blog, made an argument there having to do with the volume and water and other difficulties in a \u201cuniversal flood\u201d view:<\/p>\n I vaguely recall an old Panda\u2019s Thumb post where someone worked out the rain density\/flow necessary to cover the Earth (up a few km from sea level) in 40 days. It worked out to be stronger than a firehose over every square inch of surface. The ark wouldn\u2019t have floated, it would\u2019ve been destroyed \u2013 flattened by the water pressure coming down.<\/p>\n A very quick back-of-the-envelope calculation: Everest = 8,848m above sea level. Divide by 40 days gives a flood rise of about 2E-3 meters per second. This can be considered cubic meters though since the rain has to \u2018fill up\u2019 the space. While that doesn\u2019t sound like much, the flow rate out of a firehose is about 3E-4 m3\/s (5 gallons per minute where 1 gpm = 6E-5 m3\/s). So the rain was coming down with a force of about 10x the force of a firehose. The ark would\u2019ve been kindling. Even if it was magically structurally sound, it would\u2019ve been pounded under the water instead of floating on top, the same way floatable things get pushed under the water at the bottom of a waterfall. (7-2-21<\/a>)<\/p>\n Well first, I brought it up mainly because I find it amusing.<\/p>\n Second, I think replacing most believers\u2019 mental images of rain falling around a boat with what it\u00a0really<\/i>\u00a0would\u2019ve looked like \u2013 essentially, the entire Earth sitting under Niagara falls, the water pounding anything and everything into dust \u2013 can be a useful way to bring home the sheer unfeasibility of the scenario.<\/p>\n Last, Mr. Armstrong seems to go to great lengths to try and figure out how various biblical events could\u2019ve occurred within the bounds of physics (e.g. nativity star = Jupiter). So there may be some value in showing those sorts of believers that no, there is no way this story can be explained by any appeal to nature. \u201cIt only rained for 40 days, then the water took 150 days to recede\u201d isn\u2019t a viable solution to the DH identification of inconsistencies, because \u201cit only rained for 40 days\u201d is a huge problem in itself. It would\u2019ve had to have been more like 4,000 days to get down to even the level of torrential downpour. (7-2-21<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is delicious (and yes, highly \u201camusing\u201d on this end, too!), in light of the fact that Pearce had just been lecturing me as follows:<\/p>\n [N]o serious Pentateuchal scholar adheres to the mosaic authorship and single-source proposal for the Pentateuch.\u00a0I have listened to countless scholars attest to this. No conference, no symposium, no meeting for the Society of Biblical Literature\u00a0entails any scholar advocating for mosaic authorship or a single source of the Pentateuch. It just doesn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n Yet the view of Mosaic authorship is very common. In apologetics only. There is a vast chasm that separates serious Hebrew Bible scholarship and Christian apologetics.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is simply untrue. Many Christian scholars accept the Documentary Hypothesis, but by no means all, as I showed in my previous paper<\/a>. Pearce was merely over-arguing it, as he so often does, absurdly exaggerating, in the service of condescension, and making his usual overzealous \u201cuniversal negative\u201d statements.<\/p>\n Right after that (after he misrepresents Christian thinking), eric comes along and strongly insinuates that all or virtually all Christian thinkers believe in a universal<\/em>\u00a0Flood, rather than a local<\/em> one. This is the very common tendency of atheists (many of whom were themselves<\/em> formerly fundamentalist Protestants) collapsing all of Christian thought into a brand that is a tiny fringe position compared to the whole.<\/p>\n Fundamentalists are a small portion of a sector (traditional or \u201cconservative\u201d Protestants) of a small minority among all Christians (Protestantism). In no sense or way does this represent all of Christian thinking. It\u2019s (without question) intellectually dishonest to ever imply that it does<\/em>. Yet this\u00a0regularly occurs<\/em> in anti-theist atheist polemics and rhetoric, thus opening up the way for massive and clueless bashing of straw men.<\/p>\n Note that eric above simply assumes<\/em> that the biblical flood accounts must<\/em> be interpreted as literally universal in nature (including the waters literally covering every mountain, which would include Mt. Everest: 29,032 feet elevation above sea level). He never qualifies or nuances his statement above; never notes that any Christian thinkers believe in a local flood (let alone the vast majority<\/em> of them, as is the case, and as I will show). Eric takes for granted\u00a0that the language of \u201call the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered\u201d (Gen 7:19) was intended to be absolutely literal<\/em> in the first place. If it\u2019s not<\/em> literal, then (applying that interpretation consistently) there is no necessity for the Flood waters to literally cover even Mt. Ararat.<\/p>\n It\u2019s hard to say with precision, but I shall consider Mesopotamia<\/a> as constituting the land area of present-day Iraq, Syria, the eastern quarter of Turkey, Armenia, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel: basically what was also known as the \u201cFertile Crescent\u201d<\/a>: minus Egypt. Here are the square miles in land of all these regions:<\/p>\n Iraq 169,235 Total square miles = 374,932 [the square miles of Texas and Arizona<\/a> combined is 375,556]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The square miles of the entirety of the earth\u2019s surface (including oceans) add up to\u00a0197 million square miles<\/a>. Dividing this figure by 374,932, we find that the surface area of the entire earth (universal Flood) is 525 times larger<\/a> than the area of Mesopotamia (local Flood). So the comparison of local to universal Flood is as follows:<\/p>\n Flood water (of far, far less depth) in and around an area of approximately 374,932 square miles.<\/p>\n vs.<\/p>\n 29,054 feet of water\u00a0covering the entire earth: an area of approximately 197 million square miles (525 times larger)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s obviously vastly less water in any version of the local Flood scenario, which would have nothing to do with eric\u2019s calculations of \u201cthe entire Earth sitting under Niagara falls, the water pounding anything and everything into dust\u201d etc. A rough estimate of a local Flood in Mesopotamia covers an area 525 times smaller.<\/p>\n For further reading on the interpretation of a local Flood, see geologist Carol A. Hill\u2019s article, \u201cThe Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?\u201d<\/a> (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith<\/em>,\u00a0Volume 54, Number 3, September 2002). She writes:<\/p>\n Earth<\/strong>. The Hebrew for \u201cearth\u201d used in Gen. 6\u20138 (and in\u00a0Gen. 2:5\u20136) is eretz<\/em> (\u2018erets<\/em>) or ad\u00e2m\u00e2h<\/em>, both of which terms\u00a0literally mean \u201cearth, ground, land, dirt, soil, or country.\u201d In no way can \u201cearth\u201d be taken to mean the planet Earth, as\u00a0in Noah\u2019s time and place, people (including the Genesis\u00a0writer) had no concept of Earth as a planet and thus had\u00a0no word for it. Their \u201cworld\u201d mainly (but not entirely)\u00a0encompassed the land of Mesopotamia\u2014a flat alluvial\u00a0plain enclosed by the mountains and high ground of Iran,\u00a0Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia (Fig. 1); i.e., the lands\u00a0drained by the four rivers of Eden (Gen. 2:10\u201314). The\u00a0biblical account must be interpreted within the narrow\u00a0limit of what was known about the world in that<\/em> time, not\u00a0what is known about the world today.<\/p>\n Biblical context also makes it clear that \u201cearth\u201d does not\u00a0necessarily mean the whole Earth. For example, the face of\u00a0the ground<\/em>, as used in Gen. 7:23 and Gen. 8:8 in place of\u00a0\u201cearth,\u201d does not imply the planet Earth. \u201cLand\u201d is a better\u00a0translation than \u201cearth\u201d for the Hebrew eretz<\/em> because it\u00a0extends to the \u201cface of the ground\u201d we can see around us;\u00a0that is, what is within our horizon. It also can refer to a\u00a0specific stretch of land in a local geographic or political\u00a0sense. For example, when Zech. 5:6 says \u201call the earth,\u201d<\/em> it is\u00a0literally talking about Palestine\u2014a tract of land or country,\u00a0not the whole planet Earth. Similarly, in Mesopotamia, the concept of \u201cthe land\u201d (kalam<\/em> in Sumerian) seems to have\u00a0included the entire alluvial plain. This is most likely the\u00a0correct interpretation of the term \u201cthe earth,\u201d which is\u00a0used over and over again in Gen. 6-8: the entire alluvial\u00a0plain of Mesopotamia was inundated with water. The\u00a0clincher to the word \u201cearth\u201d meaning ground or land (and\u00a0not the planet Earth) is Gen. 1:10: God called the dry land\u00a0earth<\/em> (eretz<\/em>). If God defined \u201cearth\u201d as \u201cdry land,\u201d then so\u00a0should we. . . .<\/p>\n An excellent example of how a universal\u00a0\u201cBible-speak\u201d is used in Genesis to describe\u00a0a non-universal, regional event is Gen. 41:46: The same principle of a limited universality in Gen. 41:46 also applies to the story of\u00a0the Noachian Flood. The \u201cearth\u201d was the\u00a0land (ground) as Noah knew<\/em> (tilled) it and\u00a0saw<\/em> it \u201cunder heaven\u201d\u2014that is, the land\u00a0under the sky in the visible horizon, and\u00a0\u201call flesh\u201d were those people and animals\u00a0who had died or were perishing around the\u00a0ark in the land of Mesopotamia. The language used in the scriptural narrative is thus\u00a0simply that which would be natural to an\u00a0eyewitness (Noah). Woolley aptly described\u00a0the situation this way: \u201cIt was not a universal deluge; it was a vast flood in the valley of\u00a0the Tigris and Euphrates which drowned the\u00a0whole of the habitable land \u2026 for the people\u00a0who lived there that was all the world<\/em> (italics\u00a0mine).\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Regarding specifically the water covering \u201call the high mountains\u201d (Gen 7:19), Hill states:<\/p>\n [T]he Hebrew\u00a0word har<\/em> for \u201cmountain\u201d in Gen. 7:20 . . .\u00a0can also be translated as \u201ca range of\u00a0hills\u201d or \u201chill country,\u201d implying with Gen. 7:19 that it\u00a0was \u201call the high hills\u201d<\/em> (also har<\/em>) that were covered rather\u00a0than high mountains.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This being the case, Genesis 7:19-20 could simply refer to \u201cflood\u00a0waters . . . fifteen\u00a0cubits above the \u2018hill country\u2019 of Mesopotamia (located in the northern, Assyrian part)\u201d. The Hebrew word har<\/em> (Strong\u2019s #2022) can indeed mean \u201chills\u201d or \u201chill country\u201d, as the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon<\/em><\/a> defines it. Specifically for Genesis 7:19-20, this lexicon classifies the word as following:<\/p>\n mountain<\/em>, indefinite,\u00a0Job 14:18<\/a>\u00a0(\u201c\u201d\u00a0\u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8<\/span>); usually plural\u00a0mountains<\/em>, in General, or\u00a0the mountains<\/em>, especially in poetry & the higher style; often figurative;\u00a0\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span>,\u00a0\u05d4\u05b6\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/span>, covered by flood\u00a0Genesis 7:20<\/a>\u00a0compare\u00a0Genesis 7:19<\/a>; . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the New American Standard Version, that Jonathan Pearce believes is \u201crenowned as the most accurate\u201d (7-2-21<\/a>), har<\/em> is rendered as \u201chill country\u201d<\/a>\u00a0many times in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 10:30; 14:10; 31:21, 23, 25; 36:8-9; Numbers 13:17, 29; 14:40, 44-45; Deuteronomy 1:7, 19-20, 24, 41, 43-44; 2:37; 3:12, 25; Joshua 2:16, 22-23; 9:1; 10:6, 40; 11:2-3, 16; 11:21; 12:8; 13:6; 14:12; 15:48; 16:1; 17:15-16, 18; 18:12; 19:50; 20:7; 21:11, 21; 24:30, 33; Judges 1:9, 19, 34; 2:9; 3:27; 4:5; 7:24; 10:1; 12:15; 17:1, 8; 18:2, 13; 19:1, 16, 18; 1 Samuel 1:1; 9:4; 13:2; 14:22; 23:14; 2 Samuel 20:21; 1 Kings 4:8; 12:25; 2 Kings 5:22; 1 Chronicles 6:67; 2 Chronicles 13:4; 15:8; 19:4.<\/p>\n The same version translates har<\/em> as \u201chill\u201d or \u201chills\u201d nine times too: Deuteronomy 8:7; 11:11; Joshua 13:19; 18:13-14, 16; 1 Kings 16:24; 2 Kings 1:9; 4:27.<\/p>\n Even the location of the present-day Mt. Ararat as the landing place of the ark is not required in the biblical text. Hill continues:<\/p>\n [T]he Bible does not actually pinpoint the exact place where the ark landed, it merely\u00a0alludes to a region or range of mountains where the ark\u00a0came to rest: the mountains of Ararat<\/em> (Gen. 8:4). Ararat is the\u00a0biblical name for Urartu (Isa. 37:38) as this area was known\u00a0to the ancient Assyrians. This mountainous area, geographically centered around Lake Van and between Lake\u00a0Van and Lake Urmia (Fig. 1), was part of the ancient region\u00a0of \u201cArmenia\u201d (not limited to the country of Armenia\u00a0today). \u201cMountain\u201d in Gen. 8:4 is plural; therefore, the\u00a0Bible does not specify that the ark landed on the highest\u00a0peak of the region (Mount Ararat), only that the ark landed\u00a0somewhere on the mountains or highlands of Armenia\u00a0(both \u201cArarat\u201d and \u201cUrartu\u201d can be translated as \u201chighlands\u201d). In biblical times, \u201cArarat\u201d was actually the name\u00a0of a province (not a mountain), as can be seen from its\u00a0usage in 2 Kings 19:37: \u201c\u2026 some escaped into the land of\u00a0Ararat\u201d<\/em> and Jer. 51:27: \u201c\u2026 call together against her (Israel)\u00a0the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Askkenaz \u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n She additionally noted that:<\/p>\n Only in the eleventh and\u00a0twelfth centuries AD did the focus of investigators begin\u00a0to shift toward Mount Ararat as the ark\u2019s final resting\u00a0place, and only by the end of the fourteenth century AD\u00a0does it seem to have become a fairly well established tradition. Before this, both Islamic and Christian tradition\u00a0held that the landing place of the ark was on Jabel Judi, a\u00a0mountain located about 30 miles (48 km) northeast of the\u00a0Tigris River near Cizre, Turkey (Fig. 1).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jabel Judi<\/a> is 6,854 feet in elevation. The current Mt. Ararat wasn\u2019t even known by that name until the Middle Ages (see more on its names<\/a> in Wikipedia).<\/p>\n Lorence G. Collins<\/a> is a geologist and petrologist. His Wikipedia page observed that he is \u201cknown for his opposition to\u00a0creationist\u00a0geological\u00a0pseudo-science.\u201d He has 36 articles on a website Opposition\u00a0to Creationism<\/em><\/a> that\u00a0describe various views of young-earth creationists and their scientific\u00a0errors in interpretations. He wrote a fascinating article, \u201cYes, Noah\u2019s flood may have happened but not over the<\/a> REGIONAL EVIDENCE FOR THE\u00a0NOACHIAN AND SIMILAR\u00a0FLOODS<\/p>\n Two rivers, the Euphrates and\u00a0Tigris flow through Mesopotamia,\u00a0which is now the country of Iraq\u00a0(Figure 1).There are several layers\u00a0in exposed rocks near these two\u00a0rivers in southeastern\u00a0Mesopotamia (Iraq) that are likely\u00a0flood deposits. Most are about a\u00a0foot (0.3 m) thick, but one is as\u00a0much as 3 meters thick\u00a0(MacDonald 1988). Flood debris\u00a0from this same thick deposit along\u00a0the Euphrates River near the\u00a0ancient Sumerian city of\u00a0Shuruppak about 200 km southeast of Baghdad has been dated by\u00a0the C14 method, giving an age of\u00a02900 BCE (Best nd). Flood deposits\u00a02.4 meters thick are also reported\u00a0by MacDonald (1988) as far northeast as the ancient Babylonian city\u00a0of Kish (120 km south of\u00a0Baghdad). At any rate, the many\u00a0flood-deposit layers show that\u00a0flooding in southeastern\u00a0Mesopotamia was not unusual in\u00a0ancient times.<\/p>\n Reference Source:<\/p>\n MacDonald D. 1988. The Flood:\u00a0Mesopotamian archaeological evidence<\/a>.\u00a0Creation\/Evolution<\/em> 8 (2): 14\u201320.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Bible habitually uses phenomenological language. Collins makes note of this with regard to the Flood:<\/p>\n Northeast and southwest of the\u00a0nearly flat surface that contains the\u00a0two rivers, the topography rises to\u00a0more than 455 m [1493 feet] in Saudi Arabia\u00a0and in Iran. Calculations show that\u00a0elevations of 455 m high cannot be\u00a0seen beyond 86 km [53 miles] away, and\u00a0these places are more than 160 km [99 miles] from the Euphrates or Tigris\u00a0Rivers. Therefore, none of the high\u00a0country in Saudi Arabia or Iran\u00a0would be visible to a tribal chief\u00a0(or Noah). On that basis, the\u00a0\u201cwhole world\u201d would definitely\u00a0appear to be covered with water\u00a0during the Flood, and that was the\u00a0\u201cwhole world\u201d for the people in\u00a0this part of southeastern\u00a0Mesopotamia at that time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here is a good topographical map of Mesopotamia<\/a> (see also a second one<\/a>). One can see that there is a sort of \u201cbasin\u201d in the alluvial floodplain in this area. An article about the region<\/a> referred to:<\/p>\n . . . the floodplain of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which is bordered by the Zagros Mountains to the east, the Himreen Mountains to the north, the Arabian Plateau to the west and the Persian Gulf to the south.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, all that remains is to show that the opinion of a local Flood is mainstream Christian thought. Its rather easy to do. First I go to the Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> (since I am a Catholic). It\u2019s article on \u201cDeluge\u201d<\/a> was written in 1908, so these are no recent<\/em> developments in scholarly thinking.<\/p>\n Universality of the Deluge<\/strong><\/p>\n The Biblical account ascribes some kind of a universality to the Flood. But it may have been geographically universal, or it may have been only anthropologically universal. In other words, the Flood may have covered the whole earth, or it may have destroyed all men, covering only a certain part of the earth. Till about the seventeenth century, it was generally believed that the Deluge had been geographically universal, and this opinion is defended even in our days by some conservative scholars (cf.\u00a0Kaulen<\/a>\u00a0in Kirchenlexikon). But two hundred years of\u00a0theological\u00a0and scientific study devoted to the question have thrown so much light on it that we may now defend the following conclusions:<\/p>\n The geographical universality of the Deluge may be safely abandoned<\/strong><\/p>\n Neither\u00a0Sacred Scripture\u00a0nor universal\u00a0ecclesiastical tradition, nor again\u00a0scientific\u00a0considerations, render it advisable to adhere to the opinion that the Flood covered the whole surface of the earth.<\/p>\n (a) The words of the original text, rendered \u201cearth\u201d in our version, signify \u201cland\u201d as well as \u201cearth\u201d; in fact, \u201cland\u201d appears to have been their primary meaning, and this meaning fits in admirably with\u00a0Genesis 4,\u00a05\u00a0and\u00a010; why not adhere to this meaning also in\u00a0Genesis 6:9, or the Flood story. Why not read, the waters \u201cfilled all on the face of the land\u201d, \u201call flesh was destroyed that moved in the land\u201d, \u201call things wherein there is the breath of life in the land died\u201d, \u201call the high mountains under the whole\u00a0heaven\u00a0(corresponding to the land) were covered\u201d? The primary meaning of the inspired text urges therefore a universality of the flood covering the whole land or region in which\u00a0Noah\u00a0lived, but not the whole earth. . . .<\/p>\n (c) There are also certain scientific considerations which oppose the view that the Flood was geographically universal. Not that\u00a0science\u00a0opposes any difficulty insuperable to the power of\u00a0God; but it draws attention to a number of most extraordinary, if not\u00a0miraculous\u00a0phenomena involved in the admission of a geographically universal Deluge.<\/p>\n For Protestant opinion, I cite the\u00a0International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/em>: a marvelous helpful work similar to the Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>. It dates from 1915. I quote from its article, \u201cDeluge of Noah\u201d<\/a>. It was written by George Frederick Wright<\/a> (a Congregationalist), about whom Wikipedia states:<\/p>\n . . . an\u00a0American\u00a0geologist\u00a0and a professor at\u00a0Oberlin Theological Seminary, first of\u00a0New Testament\u00a0language and literature (1881 \u2013 1892), and then of \u201charmony of science and\u00a0revelation\u201d (until retirement in 1907). He wrote prolifically, publishing works in geology, history, and theology. Early in his career he was an outspoken defender of\u00a0Darwinism, and later in life he emphasised his commitment to a form of\u00a0theistic evolution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And now from the article:<\/p>\n Was the Flood Universal?<\/strong>:<\/p>\n In considering the credibility of the Biblical story we encounter at the outset the question whether the narrative compels us to believe the Flood to have been universal. In answer, it is sufficient to suggest that since the purpose of the judgment was the destruction of the human race, all the universality which it is necessary to infer from the language would be only such as was sufficient to accomplish that object. If man was at that time limited to the Euphrates valley, the submergence of that area would meet all the necessary conditions. Such a limitation is more easily accepted from the fact that general phrases like \u201cEverybody knows,\u201d \u201cThe whole country was aroused,\u201d are never in literature literally interpreted. When it is said (Genesis 41:54-57<\/a>) that the famine was \u201cin all lands,\u201d and over \u201call the face of the earth,\u201d and that \u201call countries came into Egypt \u2026. to buy grain,\u201d no one supposes that it is intended to imply that the irrigated plains of Babylonia, from which the patriarchs had emigrated, were suffering from drought like Palestine (For other examples of the familiar use of this hyperbole, see\u00a0Deuteronomy 2:25<\/a>;\u00a0Job 37:3<\/a>;\u00a0Acts 2:25<\/a>;\u00a0Romans 1:8<\/a>.)<\/p>\n As to the extent to which the human race was spread over the earth at the time of the Flood, two suppositions are possible. First, that of Hugh Miller (Testimony of the Rocks) that, owing to the shortness of the antediluvian chronology, and the violence and moral corruption of the people, population had not spread beyond the boundary of western Asia. An insuperable objection to this theory is that the later discoveries have brought to light remains of prehistoric man from all over the northern hemisphere, showing that long before the time of the Flood he had become widely scattered.<\/p>\n Another theory, supported by much evidence, is that, in connection with the enormous physical changes in the earth\u2019s surface during the closing scenes of the Glacial epoch, man had perished from off the face of the earth except in the valley of the Euphrates, and that the Noachian Deluge is the final catastrophe in that series of destructive events.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Likewise, we can cite The Christian View of Science and Scripture<\/em><\/a> (1954) an immensely influential work from Baptist theologian Bernard Ramm<\/a>, representing mainstream evangelical [as opposed to \u201cfundamentalist\u201d] Protestant, post-World War II thinking:<\/p>\n Although many Christians still believe in the universal flood, most of the recent conservative scholarship of the church defends a local flood. (p. 238; he cites the article directly above as \u201cthe best discussion on the flood\u201d)<\/p>\n Criticisms of the universal flood interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n . . .\u00a0(i) It cannot demonstrate that totality of language necessitates a universal flood . Fifteen minutes with a Bible concordance will reveal many instances in which universality of language is used but only a partial quantity is meant. All does not mean every last one in all of its usages. Psa. 22: 17 reads: \u201cI may tell all my bones,\u201d and hardly means that every single bone of the skeleton stood out prominently. John 4: 39 cannot mean that Jesus completely recited the woman\u2019s biography. Matt. 3: 5 cannot mean that every single individual from Judea and Jordan came to John the Baptist. There are cases where all means all, and every means every, but the context tells us where this is intended. Thus, special reference may be made to Paul\u2019s statement in Romans about the universality of sin, yet even that \u201call\u201d excludes Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n The universality of the flood simply means the universality of the experience of the man who reported it. When God tells the Israelites He will put the fear of them upon the people under the whole heaven , it refers to all the peoples known to the Israelites (Deut. 2: 25). When Gen. 41: 57 states that all countries came to Egypt to buy grain, it can only mean all peoples known to the Egyptians. Ahab certainly did not look for Elijah in every country of the earth even though the text says he looked for Elijah so thoroughly that he skipped no nation or kingdom (I Kings 18: 10). From the vantage point of the observer of the flood all mountains were covered, and all flesh died. (pp. 240-241)<\/p>\n There is the problem of the amount of water required by a universal flood. All the waters of the heavens, poured all over the earth, would amount to a sheath seven inches thick. If the earth were a perfect sphere so that all the waters of the ocean covered it, the depth of the ocean would be two and one-half to three miles. To cover the highest mountains would require eight times more water than we now have. It would have involved a great creation of water to have covered the entire globe, but no such creative act is hinted at in the Scriptures. (p. 244)<\/p>\n Getting rid of such a vast amount of water would have been as miraculous as providing it. If the entire world were under six miles of water, there would be no place for the water to drain off. Yet the record states that the water drained off with the help of the wind (Gen. 8: i). A local flood would readily account for this, but there is no answer if the entire world were under water. (p. 245)<\/p>\n The flood was local to the Mesopotamian valley. The animals that came, prompted by divine instinct, were the animals of that region; they were preserved for the good of man after the flood. Man was destroyed within the boundaries of the flood; the record is mute about man in America or Africa or China. The types of vegetation destroyed quickly grew again over the wasted area, and other animals migrated back into the area, so that after a period of time the damaging effects of the flood were obliterated. . . .<\/p>\n We judge, then, that within Christian and supernaturalistic premises, there is nothing in the Scriptures about geological matters which should cause offence to anyone; on the contrary, we may believe the Biblical records with full assurance of being in agreement with geological science according to the principles developed in this chapter. (p. 249; all page numbers correspond to my hardcover edition, published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company [Grand Rapids, Michigan], in 1954; my copy reprinted in 1966).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ramm also discusses \u201cThe Babylonian Flood account\u201d on pages 247-249. It can be read online at the link. In the\u00a0International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/em>,\u00a0George Frederick Wright\u00a0(see the link above) also devotes significant space to it in his sections 9 and 10: for those who want to understand the true nature of the comparison of the Babylonian and biblical accounts. Here are a few striking differences, as elucidated by Wright:<\/p>\n The dimensions of the ark as given in Ge (6:15) are reasonable, while those of Berosus and the cuneiform tablets are unreasonable. According to Gen, the ark was 300 cubits (562 1\/2 ft.) long, 50 cubits (93 2\/3 ft.) wide, and 30 cubits (56 1\/4 ft.) deep, which are the natural proportions for a ship of that size, being in fact very close to those of the great steamers which are now constructed to cross the Atlantic. The \u201cCeltic\u201d of the White Star line, built in 1901, is 700 ft. long, 75 ft. wide and 49 1\/3 ft. deep. The dimensions of the \u201cGreat Eastern,\u201d built in 1858 (692 ft. long, 83 ft. broad, and 58 ft. deep), are still closer to those of the ark. The cuneiform tablets represent the length, width and depth each as 140 cubits (262 ft.) (II. 22, 23, 38-41), the dimensions of an entirely unseaworthy structure. . . .<\/p>\n The accounts differ decidedly in the duration of the Flood. According to the ordinary interpretation of the Biblical account, the Deluge continued a year and 17 days; whereas, according to the cuneiform tablets, it lasted only 14 days (II. 103-7, 117-22). . . .<\/p>\n [T]he duration of the Deluge, according to Genesis, affords opportunity for a gradual progress of events which best accords with scientific conceptions of geological movements. If, as the most probable interpretation would imply, the water began to recede after 150 days from the beginning of the Flood and fell 15 cubits in 74 days, that would only be 3 2\/3 inches per day\u2013a rate which would be imperceptible to an ordinary observer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Despite these massive differences,\u00a0
\nSyria 71,498
\nTurkey (one-fourth) 75,634
\nArmenia 11,484
\nLebanon 4,036
\nJordan 34,495
\nIsrael 8,550<\/p>\n
\n\u201cAnd the famine was over all the face of the\u00a0earth.\u201d<\/em> This is the exact same language as\u00a0used in Gen. 6:7, 7:3, 7:4, 8:9 and elsewhere
\nwhen describing the Genesis Flood. \u201cAll\u00a0(kowl<\/em>) the face of the earth\u201d has the same\u00a0meaning as the \u201cface of the whole (also kowl<\/em>)
\nearth.\u201d So was Moses claiming that the\u00a0whole planet Earth (North America, Australia, etc.) was experiencing famine? No, the
\nuniversality of this verse applied only to the\u00a0lands of the Near East (Egypt, Palestine,\u00a0Mesopotamia), and perhaps even the Mediterranean area; i.e., the whole known<\/em> world\u00a0at that time.<\/p>\n
\nwhole earth\u201d (Reports of the National Center for Science Education<\/em>, 2009,\u00a029(5): 38-41. He lays out geological evidence for a local Mesopotamian Flood:<\/p>\n\n