After the Flood: Globalism and World Conflict

Posted on:

Modified on:

  1. The Flood
  2. After the Flood
    1. Noah’s offerings
      1. How did they know that?
      2. The altar
      3. The sacrificial animals
      4. The offerings
      5. God’s response
      6. The promise
      7. How long will earth exist?
    2. Man’s commission
      1. Version 1.0 (looking back)
      2. Version 2.0 (looking ahead)
      3. Estrangement
      4. “All About that Blood”
    3. The Noahic Covenant
      1. Rainbows
      2. The intoxication of Noah
      3. The curse of Canaan
  3. Return to Shinar
    1. The Toledah
    2. Babel
      1. Migratory beginnings
      2. Babel colonized
      3. The Tower
      4. The scattering
  4. “Prehistoric Genesis” conclusion
    1. Nimrod
      1. The language of sonship
      2. Why ancient Biblical dates are unreliable
      3. Sargon of Akkad
      4. The characters of Nimrod and Sargon
      5. The conquests of Nimrod and Sargon
    2. A final toledah
    3. Abram’s calling
  5. Genesis prehistory and the End Times

Technically, this is the last installment of my “After the Dreams” series.

Mostly, I’m skipping over the Flood, because I’ve already written quite a lot about that. I will spend a bit of time on the aftermath of the Flood, but the main focus of this post is on the first half of Genesis 11, concentrating on the Tower of Babel and Nimrod. Those are two separate stories, but together I believe they present a good picture of the “last days”—globalism and world conflict!

The Flood

Genesis 6:9–8:19

This section of Moses’ narrative is separated from the previous by a very brief toledah.

Reminder–a toledah (pl. toledoth) in Moses’ writings is a short genealogy, introduced by “these are the generations of” and designed to separate two unrelated or loosely related topics.

10 And these are the generations of Noe [Noah]. Noe was a just man; being perfect in his generation, Noe was well-pleasing to God. 11 And Noe begot three sons, Sem, Cham, Japheth.
Genesis 6:10-11 (LXX-B)


I will not cover the flood in much detail here, because I have already written several articles on the subject. Click on the arrows to expand the embedded content:

Young Earth Creationism is currently dominated by followers of the late Henry M. Morris, who visualized the Great Flood as a cataclysmic worldwide flash flood with a supernatural volume of water falling mostly from heaven, and dried up by destructive high winds. This post presents a far more likely scenario for a global flood.
As much as I respect the folks who operate the Ark Encounter site in Kentucky, I disagree with almost every element of their depiction. Beginning with the giant ship model itself, which has anachronistic features; has features that wouldn’t work on a real ship; and by the way is by definition not by any stretch an ark!
From my own professional background, I know that there are a large number of geological features on earth that simply cannot be explained by a flood, whether regional or global in scope. Here I present a short list of examples.
In this post I examine Henry Morris’ lack of credentials for his claims about geology and the flood. I also explain my own background and how it bears on the subject.

We all know that the flood was God’s response to increasing corruption on the earth.

[11] Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. [12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. [13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
—Genesis 6:11–13 (ESV) emphasis mine

That humans are capable of deliberate, rebellious sin is a result of Adam’s sin in the Garden. But the presence of major, outlandish, organized sin around the globe got its start from the example set by the rebellious angels and their offspring, the Nephilim, after which it was promulgated for millennia by the demon spirits of those same Nephilim.

If you think things are bad now, it was much worse in those days! But hang on, it is presently getting worse, not better. History is repeating itself.

This time, God will spare us another flood, just as He promised Noah. Instead, we will go straight to a modern Babel situation, which He will not stop this time. I believe that the new Nimrod, like Satan, is even now alive and well on Planet Earth…

After the Flood

Genesis 8:20–9:29

Noah’s offerings

20 Noach built an altar to ADONAI. Then he took from every clean animal and every clean bird, and he offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 ADONAI smelled the sweet aroma, and ADONAI said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, since the imaginings of a person’s heart are evil from his youth; nor will I ever again destroy all living things, as I have done. 22 So long as the earth exists, sowing time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night will not cease.”
— Genesis 8:20-22 (CJB)

How did they know that?

Immediately after leaving the Ark, Noah and his family gave thanks to God by staging a massive burnt offering. The passage describing it, quoted above, seems entirely anachronistic in that it accords well with parts of the Torah sacrificial system, which was not announced until centuries in the future.

The Bible gives us absolutely no information on how the relevant instructions were delivered to pre-Sinai humanity. We know that God spoke directly to the Patriarchs. We also know that “angels” routinely spoke to humans—the Serpent, a cherub, spoke to Adam and Eve, and these two humans weren’t at all surprised. Evidently, they knew, or as it developed, thought that he was on God’s team.

The Ancient Near East produced a huge amount of lore regarding gods and demigods that frequently communicated with early humanity. In particular, Babylonian legends of the Apkallu imply to scholars like Michael Heiser that one of the pre-Flood sins of the Watchers was that they talked too much! By imparting arcane knowledge that caused civilization to advance at too rapid a pace, human pride became bloated and consciences seared.

Rather than speculate endlessly on how and why, let’s just examine this sacrifice…

The altar

Noah built an altar. (מִזְבֵּחַ mizbēaḥ, pronounced miz-BAY-akh), meaning a “place of sacrifice.” This is the first mention of a sacrificial altar in the Bible, though Abel may have prepared something equivalent for his offering.

The sacrificial animals

He offered every kind of clean land animal and clean bird. Noah had been told before the Flood to take with him seven pairs of each of the clean animals and one pair of each of the unclean. It is assumed, probably correctly, that the six extra pairs of clean beasts were for sacrificial purposes. God most likely did the collecting and herded the animals to the Ark, so how Noah knew which were clean and which were not is immaterial to what was actually done.

The offerings

Moses called them “burnt offerings.” Some scholars argue whether the burnt offering, here and later, was for reconciliation (forgiveness), atonement (temporary pardon) or thanksgiving, but they all miss the point.

In reality, it is none of the above. It was a promise of complete surrender and devotion to God, symbolized by completely burning up the animal sacrificed, except for the hide, which under Torah is donated to the priests.

Under Torah, a number of burnt offerings were offered up by priests for all the people or groups of the people, but individuals or families could provide their own animals and conduct their own sacrifices. Although other symbolism has been rightfully added to Christian baptism (particularly by Paul), I view baptism as preeminently identical in meaning to the individual burnt offerings.

Reformed churches, probably the majority of Protestants, equate baptism with circumcision, which is the reason they practice infant baptism. My soteriology is basically Reformed, but I reject pretty much all other distinctives of their theology, including their baptism.

God’s response

God smelled the “sweet (or pleasing) aroma.” Everyone who, like, me, enjoys a good steak, will agree that nothing smells better than freshly barbecued meat. To say that God “smells the sweet aroma“, or, in KJV, “the sweet savor”, is anthropomorphic. Biblically, it means that He is pleased with the offering and with the offeror.

God rewarded the offeror. Because He smelled the sweet aroma of Noah’s offering, God promised to “never again curse the ground…[or]…destroy all living things” because of the sins of mankind—Noah’s descendants.

Verse 22, in essence, promises that, as long as the earth remains, God will neither repeat nor add to the curse pronounced on the ground in Genesis 3. Specifically, He will not destroy the productivity of the ground.

Does the wording, “since the imaginings of a person’s heart are evil from his youth”, mean that God is excusing our sin? No, never, but it means that He understands that not all sin is committed with “malice aforethought.”

I think He cursed the ground in Genesis 3 because Adam’s sin brought to an end the prospect of spreading the idyllic conditions of the Garden to the outside world, and only a harsh environment would teach mankind skills needed to survive in a sin-cursed environment.

I also think that the rebellion of the Watchers and the spread of the Nephilim in Genesis 6 made a completely fresh start via the Flood unavoidable.

But now God makes allowance for hormones!

Do not confuse this promise with God’s covenant to not repeat the Flood.

The promise

“So long as the earth exists” in this verse implies that it will not always exist. While it does, we are promised that God will maintain for us the basic necessities for life on the planet. Pay attention, Gretta, there will be no more extinction events on earth!

How long will earth exist?

God and His celestial Host have no need of “homes.” In that sense, I don’t believe that “heaven” is a specific place. In 2 Corinthians 5:8, Paul suggest that when we as believers die, we will “be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” So, at that time, we too will be spirits, with no need of a “mansion over the hilltop.”

At the resurrection, though, we will acquire version 2.0 of our corporeal body, which will have physical needs. From that time, I believe that “heaven” for us will be a fully renovated earth with New Jerusalem hovering over it. As described in Revelation.

This will probably not last forever.

At about 4.6 billion years old, the sun is currently, but very slowly, expanding and getting hotter as it burns up the hydrogen fuel in its core, forming helium as a byproduct. Helium, being a heavier ion, migrates toward the center of the sun, gradually quenching the hydrogen reactions there. Through a complicated, but fairly well understood sequence, the helium, too, begins to burn and form still heavier ions. These heavier elements eventually begin burning as well.

About 5 billion years from now, the sun’s core will suddenly collapse, and its outer shells will simultaneously expand. It will become a huge “red giant” star, with Mercury, Venus, and possibly earth all swallowed up inside its volume. In yet another 10 billion years, another collapse will result in the sun becoming a very hot, but gradually dimming, “white dwarf” surrounded by a so-called “planetary nebula.”

Astrophysical diagram of the life of a “Main Sequence” yellow star like the Sun.

About a billion years from now, long before the red giant phase, earth will become uninhabitable. Never fear, though. God knows all this and has a plan. By that time, I’m sure we’ll all be ready to move to different quarters.

Hubble image of a planetary nebula surrounding a bright central star. ibtimes.co.uk.

Man’s commission

Version 1.0 (looking back)

My readers know that I am an Old Earth Creationist, that I believe Day 6 in Genesis 1 was a prophetic view backwards at ancient animals and hominids that preceded the unique formation “from dust” of Adam in Genesis 2.

In the relevant Genesis 1 passage, God delivered a commission to pre-Adamic mankind:

28 God blessed them: God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and every living creature that crawls on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Here! Throughout the whole earth I am giving you as food every seed-bearing plant and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. 30 And to every wild animal, bird in the air and creature crawling on the earth, in which there is a living soul, I am giving as food every kind of green plant.” And that is how it was. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good.
— Genesis 1:28-31a (CJB)

Who precisely this commission was delivered to is unstated and irrelevant. It simply tells us the expectations that God had for the ancient peoples. He wanted them to rule and administer the earth, in much the same way that the angelic host rules and administers the rest of the universe.

It is obvious that God’s preference was that neither man nor beast should feast on flesh. But…

Did that have the force of command?

Probably not. God explicitly granted permission for man and beast to eat flora, but I see no actual prohibition against eating flesh. God sometimes allows things that He doesn’t prefer. You might say He’s a realist. Just the fact that He gave angels, men and animals “free will” guarantees the existence of sin. Even the inanimate universe has free will of a sort, in the face of quantum uncertainty.

Did God design animals and hominids as herbivores?

Perhaps He initially designed them to be herbivores, but the fossil record unambiguously shows that adaptation eventually produced meat eaters, and He let it happen. In fact, I believe that there are limits to what adaptation can achieve. Beyond those limits, surely God has to intervene, yet still we see species that can’t survive long on leaves alone.

One more objection has to be addressed:

The final phrase in verse 30 is “And that is how it was”, or “And it was so.” I confess that this reaches the absolute tip of my ability to translate Hebrew, but through research and digging at it, I have come to the conclusion that “and it was” is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew וַֽיְהִי, which better translators than I call a “Conjunctive waw verb of type Qal Consecutive Imperfect, 3rd person masculine singular.”

Very roughly, that means, “Given that A is true, then at some time in the future, B shall also be true.” If I am not precisely correct in phrasing it that way, then at least what I’m saying is that “and it was so” was not intended to present it as a done deal.

Finally,

“It was very good” means that God was happy with the results. Those who insist that “good” precludes death and mortality are engaging in specious arguments that second-guess the Creator!

Version 2.0 (looking ahead)

1 God blessed Noach and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will be upon every wild animal, every bird in the air, every creature populating the ground, and all the fish in the sea; they have been handed over to you. 3 Every moving thing that lives will be food for you; just as I gave you green plants before, so now I give you everything — 4 only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you are not to eat. 5 I will certainly demand an accounting for the blood of your lives: I will demand it from every animal and from every human being. I will demand from every human being an accounting for the life of his fellow human being. 6 Whoever sheds human blood, by a human being will his own blood be shed; for God made human beings in his image. 7 And you people, be fruitful, multiply, swarm on the earth and multiply on it.”
— Genesis 9:1-7 (CJB)

This version of the commission, given specifically through Noah, is a similar commission to “be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth”, but if differs in important respects:

Estrangement

While “subdue and rule” are implicit, this statement introduces an unpleasant, adversarial element that was totally absent before. There is animosity here that didn’t show through in Genesis 1. Instead of a peaceful co-residence on earth (and in Eden), we are now the enemy and enslaver of the animals.

Note that while granting explicit rights to exploit the animals, there is nothing here about “clean” vs. “unclean.” This suggests to me, once again, that God is drawing away from close fellowship with mankind in general. This will come to a head at Babel, where God separates mankind, while making provision for a People of His Own (see below).

The humans who I believe existed before the Garden were omnivorous, as are we, and so consumed meat, but wanton slaughter was probably rare or nonexistent. They were just another set of predatory species, among many.

What God intended for His Adamic line was fellowship between them and at least the animals formed after Adam in the Garden. Those animals were not made to be eaten or exploited!

Life outside the Garden was tough, by design, and I can’t imagine that Adam’s kin were vegetarian for very long. I am pretty sure that the corruption that developed later extended to all sorts of abuse of animals. The animals released from the Ark scattered with a dread of humans that never disappeared.

With the help of the rebellious Watchers and instigation by their demonic offspring, the Nephilim, the world from Jered to the Flood must have been totally dystopian and utterly barbaric.

What I think that God was communicating with Noah and his family here was, “I know that my flood was not the final word. I’ve given you an opportunity to regroup and establish some order, but humanity will always be corruptible. I know that you will continue to eat flesh, and I know I can’t stop that without destroying you, but I’m going to set a limit...

“All About that Blood”

Apologies to Meghan Trainor…

God stated emphatically, “You will not be allowed to consume the blood of animals, and you won’t be allowed to kill other humans at all. This is a symbolic prohibition to emphasize that critters aren’t veggies, and all life including animals, is sacred.

I do not at all agree with the common Dispensational claim that verse 6 is a charter for human government!

Together with verse 5, God is simply pronouncing a curse on any creature, man or beast, that sheds human life. There would be no more “mark of Cain” to protects killers from just vengeance.

God does not like human government! He permits it! Ideally, vengeance belongs to Him. We were created to recognize Him and Him alone as king. When the Israelite inhabitants of Canaan demanded a human king, God warned them that they would regret it.

The Noahic Covenant

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, 9 “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
— Genesis 9:8-17 (ESV)

God now established an important covenant, not with Israel, which didn’t yet exist, but with mankind as a whole (represented by Noah and his sons) and with animal life. No more global flooding.

Rainbows

In verses 9:12ff, God appointed the rainbow as a sign of His promise.

“Rainbow flags” don’t represent me or my views, but they also don’t profane God’s covenant with Noah, his family, and “every animal on earth.”

A sequence of colors on cloth is not “the sign of the covenant I am making between myself and you and every living creature with you, for all generations to come.”

Neither is a spectrum refracted from a prism. In fact, we may choose to call that spectrum a “rainbow”, but that isn’t the Biblical definition. Read God’s definition here, and don’t get so bent out of shape over some supposed misappropriation of a physical phenomenon:

13 I am putting my rainbow in the cloud — it will be there as a sign of the covenant between myself and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth, and the rainbow is seen in the cloud; 15 I will remember my covenant which is between myself and you and every living creature of any kind; and the water will never again become a flood to destroy all living beings. 16 The rainbow will be in the cloud; so that when I look at it, I will remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of any kind on the earth.”
— Genesis 9:13-16 (CJB) emphasis mine

I’ll point out also that God did not create rainbows at this time. He created them at the time He imbedded the laws of physics into the young universe. When a stream of photons is diffracted through a mist, a spectrum is cast. God told Noah, “When you or I see such a spectrum in the clouds under these conditions, from now on it will remind us both of my promise.”

The intoxication of Noah

18 The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed.

20 Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent.
— Genesis 9:18-21 (ESV)

In view of what follows, we have to ask if there was a sin here? Wine consumption? Drunkenness? Nakedness in his tent?

I’ve written about alcohol before but not reached a firm conclusion. I’ve never been drunk, but almost everyone has, and I’m not willing to draw a firm conclusion here, either. Drunkenness obviously contributed to his nakedness, but not knowing what he was thinking of, by himself in his private quarters, I can’t judge that either.

The curse of Canaan

Perhaps the only sin here was in Hamm’s reaction. One has to think he was disrespectful to Noah.

Roughly speaking, after Babel Shem’s descendants spread throughout Mesopotamia, south into Arabia, and southeast into India. Ham’s descendants mostly ended up in northern and eastern Africa, as well as western Arabia and the southern Lavant. Japeth’s descendants tended to migrate westward into modern Europe, and north and northeast into Asia Minor and the Steppes.

Given those movements, how do we interpret the following?

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,
“Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem;
and let Canaan be his servant.
27 May God enlarge Japheth,
and let him dwell in the tents of Shem,
and let Canaan be his servant.”
— Genesis 9:22-27 (ESV)

We have all heard of “the curse of Ham”, but it was not Ham who was cursed; it was very plainly Ham’s son, Canaan. Why Canaan and not Ham? It wasn’t God’s curse, it was Noah’s, and I suggest that Noah was thinking, “You disgraced your father, now your son will disgrace his father!”

Protestants in America and elsewhere, early colonial through Civil War, in an effort to make this passage “relevant” to the slavery debate then raging, read all kinds of self-serving nonsense into this passage. Though the racist element is largely gone from most of these churches, shabby theological processing has largely prevented reevaluation of the interpretations.

The three names mentioned in the passage, Canaan, Shem and Japheth, could be a reference to the actual three persons, or to their descendants. The latter is almost universally assumed, and that would probably be my assumption, too, except that I am viscerally opposed to basing doctrine on unproven assumptions. Either way, perhaps at some point Canaan did serve Shem and Japheth. It isn’t clear from history.

Given the preponderance of Hamite tribes in Africa, the temptation for pro-slavery Christians was to ignore the fact that Ham was not the cursed party and to posit that, by golly, Ham is the father of the black Africans, so God destined them to be slaves!

Clearly there is nothing to that interpretation, but honestly, it’s difficult to detect the curse in anything we know from Biblical or secular history. One thing we do know that might be relevant in some way is that God eventually took the land of the Canaanites and gave it to the Hebrews, a Semite tribe.

I’m not sure that it’s important that we even attempt to understand the content of the curse, in any case. It apparently wasn’t God’s curse. It was Noah’s, and I don’t think a curse uttered by a drunk or hungover Noah had any teeth.

Return to Shinar

Genesis 10:1–11:9

This is another section of Scripture that is little understood by Christianity at large but yet is vitally important in world history. It is a picture of human pride and globalist ambition.

The Toledah

Like all of the toledoth in Genesis, the one written in Genesis 10:1–39 is extremely informative and helpful to the Biblical historian. In my opinion, there is none more important for showing the pivotal role that the people listed played in early civilization and the development of all civilization to the present day.

The chart shown below is one of a large number showing graphically the data of the toledah. I elected to use this one because its columnar format emphasizes the generational development of ancient society. The date ranges at the top put it into a useful perspective, but I’m not at all convinced of their accuracy, as I will discuss below.

Lineage of the Patriarchs, descendants of Noah, and Table of Nations. Per Genesis 10. http://www.cookancestry.com/Biblical%20Genealogy/02.

I’ll make just a few comments on the data as introduction for the final two sections of this post:

  • Note that the first name entry at the top of each column is the direct patriarchal lineage from Noah to Jacob.
  • Verses 4 and 5, concern Japeth’s grandsons via Gomer. The language in verse 5 refers to the dispersion at Babel, which I’ll discuss in some detail below.

From these were the islands of the Gentiles divided in their land, each according to his tongue, in their tribes and in their nations.
— Genesis 10:5 (LXX-B)

  • Verse 6 lists the sons of Ham, “Kush, Mitzrayim, Put and Kena‘an.” Anglicized, those are Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan. Those names are easily associated with the Nile Valley, the Eastern Sahara, and north into the Lavant.

    Cush, though, is a bit more complicated. Most scholars recognize that name as applying to the region of Somalia, Eretria, and Ethiopia, but I believe that Cush and his offspring also settled a large area of central Mesopotamia and eastward, well into India.
  • According to verse 8, “Kush fathered Nimrod”, the subject of the last major section of this post. Christian tradition credits Nimrod with founding Babel and building the Tower. Verse 10, however, only credits him with being king of Babel early in his life. I think that Nimrod most likely had nothing to do with building the tower. See below.
  • Some translations render verse 11 as, “Ashur went out from that land and built [Nineveh], [et al]”, but in context, a better translation would probably be, “From [Babel] he [Nimrod] went into Assyria and built Nineveh, [et al].”
  • Verses 15–20 list a number Canaan’s sons, some of whom you will recognize as the names of tribes that Joshua fought during the Conquest years.
  • Verses 21ff mention a 3rd-great-grandson of Shem, Peleg, a name that means “to split or divide.” He got that name because, “in his days the earth was divided…”. Again, see below.

    I’ve seen the silly suggestion by a Young Earth Creationist that verse 25 refers to a time after the Flood when God broke up the primordial supercontinent, Pangea, into the present scattered continents. Sorry, no! That statement can only refer to the dividing of the nations’ inheritance at Babel, Moses’ very next topic.
  • Peleg’s father, Eber, is the man from whom the clan-name “Hebrew” is derived.

Babel

Migratory beginnings

I imagine that it probably took many years for the sea level to return to its pre-Flood normal. In that regard, we were told in the Flood story itself:

1 But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided (שְׁכַךְ, shakak, “were caused to abate”). 2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters receded (שׁוּב, shub, “to turn back or retreat”) from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated (חָסֵר, chaser, “to decrease or make lower”), 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters continued to abate (chaser again) until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

6   At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made 7 and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided ( קָלַל, qalal, a very linguistically fluid term that here seems to imply that the flooding was a relative trifle compared to what it had been) from the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him. 10 He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. 11 And the dove came back to him in the evening, and behold, in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth. 12 Then he waited another seven days and sent forth the dove, and she did not return to him anymore.

13 In the six hundred and first year [of Noah’s life], in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried (חָרַב, charab, “To be dry, to be desolate, to lay waste, to destroy”) from off the earth (הָאָ֑רֶץ, ha-aretz, usually means a portion of the earth or land mass, not the whole). And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry (charab again). 14 In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth had dried out (יָבֵשׁ, yabesh, “dried up, seared, withered”).

— Genesis 8:1-14 (ESV) emphasis and explanation mine

In that passage, none of the underlined terms for the receding flood imply a completed process.

Because Moses wrote the Flood story in the form of a highly structured symmetrical poem, interpreting the sequence of its phases as described in Genesis 7 and 8 is extremely difficult. The following table from World Bible Commentary does it as well as I think it can be done.

Interpretation of the Chronology of the Flood, per World Bible Commentary.
The column on the right is an attempt at dating the events—format: day.month.ageNoah
Dates in italics are from the text; other dates are interpreted.

From the start of the deluge until Noah left the Ark was a year and 10 days. Apparently, it took only 40 days for the water to rise to its peak, 45 feet above the highest mountain. It then took about 6½ months to drop the flood level by those 45 feet, and nearly 5 more months before they could safely leave the Ark.

What I envision is that at the close of this period, the ground in the highlands of Armenia around the Ark’s resting place had dried out, but the lowland plains and the lower reaches of the mountains were most likely still submerged. Surely God could have removed the excess water instantaneously, but I don’t think it is ever good exegesis to assume more than is stated. See God with the Wind for the significance of God’s wind in Scripture.

I think it likely that Noah’s family hung around the Ark while long distance travel was greatly impeded. Then perhaps years later, as plant life reemerged in the wake of the falling water, it became easier to move, and they began scattering along the highlands and living as nomads over a larger and larger range.

Babel colonized

1 Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”
— Genesis 11:1-4 (ESV)

Note that “everybody speaking the same language” doesn’t necessarily mean that “all the earth (or land)” lived in the same place. That is an assumption from verse 1, but the Hebrew בְּנָסְעָ֣ם in verse 2 translates to “as they (3rd person masculine plural) journeyed, traveled, or moved.” The ESV translators chose not to assume that “everyone” in verse 1 traveled together in verse 2, saying merely that “people migrated.”

Nor does “speaking the same language” imply that dialectical differences had not developed. Only that they could still understand each other. Language drift is normal over long periods of time.

Eventually, at least one group of them made its way down the Zagros Mountains in today’s western Iran and noticed the lush plain below. They had rediscovered Shinar, the ancient region of the Garden. This area is probably the area known to secular history as Sumer, in southern Mesopotamia near the Persian Gulf. The Gulf probably extended farther north then, as shown in gray on the following map.

How you go from Armenia in the far north and enter Shinar “from the east.” You traverse southeastward down the Zagros Mountains, then turn west. Image from Google Earth™, annotated by Ron Thompson.

Sooner or later, some of these hunter-gatherers and nomadic farmers and herdsmen decided to settle down. Settling down involves permanent structures, commerce, and usually religion. Babel was the city they founded. I now think that Babel was the ancient city of Eridu (see below), which is much farther south than I showed it on the migration map.

The Tower

When the Flood survivors left the region of Ararat, they probably did not all travel together. They fanned out. By the time of Peleg, humanity has been “fruitful” for generations. They have become tribal and competitive. When tribes meet, they probably fight. Babel may or may not have been the first city built after the Flood, but by then, mud bricks had clearly been invented and brick structures erected.

By that time Yahweh was once again mostly forgotten. The settlers in Shinar recalled distorted stories of the ancient “gods” who created the world and later destroyed it again in a flood.

Drawing of the Etemenanki Ziggurat, based on ancient sources.

Many Christian archaeologists believe that the Tower of Babel was the ancient Babylonian Ziggurat of Etemenanki. Babylon is probably way too far north to be ancient Babel, though. According to Dr. Petrovich (see below), Babel was probably the ancient Eridu. However, there were eventually many ziggurats, and each had similar design.

Those who scoff at the “ancient fools who thought they could build a tower all the way to heaven” are overthinking the story. The goal, as stated, was to build, “a city and a tower with its top in the heavens.” To the ancient people, that just means tall! The tower was to be as tall as they could build it, not to leave the planet and reach the god in heaven, but to attract him to a nice penthouse in the city. The top tier of a ziggurat was a small chapel with a bed and other accouterments suitable for a god and his consort to hang out in.

The ultimate goal at Babel was that the city and tower together would be so impressive that they, and the threat of a resident protector god, would discourage marauders (their kin who left Ararat in different directions) from attacking them and driving them out.

Wikipedia, of course, calls the Tower of Babel a myth, but without the mile-high space needle that most people envision, this is just a normal piece of history. The concept of building a tall tower to attract the god and impress enemies made perfect sense. By their perspective, the tower did indeed reach into the heavens.

But what Yahweh saw was arrogance and more rebellion!

In support of Eridu as the city of Babel, a Sumerian myth called Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta presents a parallel account of Babel. It states that, “Enki … Lord of Eridu, changed the languages in their mouths, as many as he had put there, the languages of mankind, which were one.”

The scattering

Following is an English translation from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament that 1st century Jews in Judea used:

6 And the Lord said, Behold, there is one race, and one lip of all, and they have begun to do this, and now nothing shall fail from them of all that they may have undertaken to do. 7 Come, and having gone down let us there confound their tongue, that they may not understand each the voice of his neighbor. 8 And the Lord scattered them thence over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city and the tower. 9 On this account its name was called Confusion, because there the Lord confounded the languages of all the earth, and thence the Lord scattered them upon the face of all the earth.
— Genesis 11:6-9 (LXX-B)

For the third time in Genesis, we see Yahweh speaking to His angelic Divine Council: “Let us…” This is certainly not the Trinity conferring together. What one thinks, they all know. It is the triune God speaking to His Divine Council.


To review:

The Divine Council is a panel of probably 24 high-ranking angelic spirits, seen in several Biblical prophetic visions on secondary thrones around Yahweh’s throne. As explained in Gods and Demons, the function of this council was to assist Yahweh in administration of the created universe. Not because He needs help, but because He values their fellowship.


As stated above, language drift is ongoing over time, so there were probably dialect differences from place to place, but everyone could understand each other. After God’s action, different peoples in different areas ended up with incompatible languages. Presumably this division was along clan lines.

One takeaway from this story is that God does not value human globalism or multi-culturalism. In a reverse of wedding ritual, one might say, “what God has ripped asunder, let no man join together.”

Another consequence

Aside from confusion of tongues, something else of huge importance happened at the Babel scattering. There are hints throughout Scripture, particularly in Daniel and the writings of Paul, that the nations of the world are supervised in some way by angelic “princes.”

Moses doesn’t mention it here in Genesis, but he does in his final statement, delivered at the foot of Mt. Nebo and known as “The Song of Moses.”

8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
9 But the LORD’S portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.
— Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (ESV)

“Prehistoric Genesis” conclusion

We have now reached the end of my chronological coverage of what I have dubbed, “Prehistoric Genesis”, which more or less ends with Genesis 11:9. I want to wrap up the series by discussing three additional topics from Genesis 1–11 that rightfully belong to what I call the historical part of Genesis, but that tie the historical to the prehistorical.

Nimrod

The toledah of Genesis 10 served as both:

  1. a “cinematic fadeout” to chronologically separate the Flood story from the Babel story, both of which I view as of essentially equal theological importance; and
  2. a “clan-centric” view of humanity going into Babel and the separating of nations.
The language of sonship

Embedded in that toledah and arguably out of chronological sequence is a brief discussion of Nimrod:

6 The sons (וּבְנֵ֖י, ubəne, literally, “and the sons”) of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. 7 The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. 8 Cush fathered (יָלַד, yalad, “begat”) Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD. Therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.” 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 From that land he went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and 12 Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.
— Genesis 10:6-12 (ESV)

The image of Sargon on his victory stele. Wikipedia Commons

From this genealogy, you see that Cush had five sons (וּבְנֵ֖י, ubene, “and the sons”) and at least a couple grandsons. But then Nimrod is mentioned separately from the other sons, and using a different term: Yalad, the familiar “begat“, or rendered as “fathered” above. Yalad is used around 490 times in the Old Testament, and like many Hebrew words, it has a broad range of related meanings. Here is a sampling:

  • Mostly the word is used to establish a line of descent, as A begat B, who begat C, who begat D, etc.
  • It can also skip generations if those coming in between are irrelevant to the discussion, as A begat D.
  • It can also be said of motherhood, as the wife of A begat B.
  • It can be used of animals, as Cow begat calf.
  • A midwife can be said to beget a child she helps deliver.
  • Godly kings have been said to be begotten of God, a symbolic relationship.
  • God says that He begot Israel, again symbolic.
  • Of course, the Son, Jesus, is begotten of the Father. This is again symbolic, because the eternal Son was never literally born.

Given the above, Nimrod may possibly have been a remote descendant of Cush, not a literal son.

In his 2023 Book, Nimrod the Empire Builder: Architect of Shock and Awe, Dr. Douglas Petrovich of Brookes Bible College has shown, fairly conclusively in my opinion, that Nimrod was none other than Sargon of Akkad, aka, Sargon the Great.

Why ancient Biblical dates are unreliable

Not all of Dr. Petrovich’s arguments are clear. He thinks that Sargon’s reign was generations later than the Scattering, but he doesn’t provide much in the way of date evidence.

The fact is that all dates that far back in time are questionable. Ancient peoples did not have a continuous calendar like our Gregorian. Secular dating is limited to archaeological and philological data that may be very unclear. Biblical dating is better, but subject to misinterpretation of “begats”, for example.

Sargon is a historical figure whose reign is dated roughly to 2334–2279 BC. How does that match with allusions to the Scattering in Genesis 10? Referring to the chart below, Peleg was apparently contemporary with Sargon but died shortly before Sargon’s accession as King of Akkad. But since it seems the Scattering occurred during the time of Peleg, how could Sargon have come decades later as Petrovich contends?

Genealogy, Adam to Joseph, through Shem. Based on Masoretic Text.

To address that question, I decided to do a comparison of the ages of Shem’s descendants in the Masoretic, as compared to the Septuagint (LXX) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SamPent).

©Ron Thompson

In my last post, I presented a similar chart, from World Bible Commentary, for Seth’s descendants. WBC provided something similar for this period but presented less data, and it contained numerous errors. So, I felt compelled to do my own chart, which meant digging into the Hebrew language source documents.

Sure enough, I find that there are major discrepancies between these source documents, though the differences aren’t quite the same as WBC presented before. If one uses the SamPent and LXX numbers instead of MT, it changes a lot of genealogical charts done over the centuries.

Archbishop Ussher calculated the date of the “creation week” by starting with an assumed known date, say, the approximate date of Joseph’s entry into Egypt when he was sold into slavery at 17 years old; and then, using something like the Adam to Joseph Genealogy, above, to add up the ages of the fathers at first son’s birth to count back to Adam’s creation. When he did this using Masoretic dating, he came up with a creation date of 4004 BC.

But what if the ages recorded in the Masoretic text are wrong? Then the calculation is incorrect. My charted numbers for this period are mostly consistent for SamPent and LXX, but the MT numbers are a hundred years shorter. Also, LXX introduces another generation, Kainan, that the others skip. Using these bigger numbers pushes Adam’s “birth” and the Flood back many centuries.

So, which is true? Christian inerrantists like me would prefer for everything in the Bible to be crystal clear and unambiguous, but that just isn’t the way it is. Consider the following:

  • Aside from the folks who believe that KJV is an inerrant translation, even most Young Earth Creationists understand that the “begats” might skip over some generations.
  • It seems obvious to me that there are numerous roundoffs in the age data, some to the nearest five years, and some to the nearest hundred!
  • In Gen 5:32, Noah was 500 years old when he fathered Shem. In 7:16, he was 600 at the Flood. But in 11:10, Shem fathered Arpachshad when he was 100, two years after the flood. The 2-year discrepancy is simple round-off error, but it really troubles some Christian writers.

And also, regarding the source texts:

  • Most English translations are based on the Masoretic text because it is a compendium of what for centuries were the only available Hebrew manuscripts.
  • In general, older texts and fragments are considered more trustworthy because until Gutenberg, all copies were done by hand and therefore subject to copy errors.
  • The SamPent is a risky source because it was edited for sectarian purposes.
  • The LXX is a Greek translation of one or more older Hebrew texts that are no longer extant. It has to be considered accurate, because it was the Old Testament used by Jesus and the NT writers, but the Greek language obscures some of the Hebrew terminology and nuance.
  • The Hebrew language has no numerals. Instead, like Roman Numerals, Hebrew assigns numeric values to the Hebrew letters. For example, yesterday (as I write) was the Hebrew “New Year of the Trees”, TU B’Shevat. The “T” is Hebrew letter tet, with a value of 9, and the “U” is Vav, with a value of 6.

    9 + 6 = 15, so TU B’Shevat literally refers to the date 16 Shevat.
  • The Masoretic OT text is even more complicated. In Gen 11:12, the number 35 appears in a more primitive form, spelled out, as חָמֵ֥שׁ וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֖ים, which translates as “five and thirty.”
  • The same verse in the SamPent and (presumably) the source for the LXX, reads “five and three and hundred years”. One wonders if some key medieval scribe copyist working on the Masoretic text didn’t think the “and hundred” entry (ומאת) was nonsense, where it appeared, and dropped it.

Whatever the reason(s) for the mismatched age data, in my opinion scholars should abandon attempts to compute accurate dates from it, because quantitative results can only be guesses.

Since Shem and Ham were brothers, Cush was probably in the same generation as Arphaxad. Note that if Nimrod was a direct son of Cush, then he would have been roughly contemporary with Shelach, much too early to have been Sargon.

Sargon of Akkad

Because of age discrepancies in the source texts, it is a step too far for me to say that dates compiled from the toledoth prove that Nimrod lived generations after Peleg. What those discrepancies do allow me to say is that it is possible.

The descendants of Sargon of Akkad (Sargon the Great), ©John D. Croft.

Petrovich offers two other lines of support for Nimrod as Sargon.

The characters of Nimrod and Sargon

Moses wrote, “10:8b [Nimrod] was the first on earth to be a mighty man. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD.” As translated, this sounds like a complimentary description of an admired hunter and hero, but Dr. Petrovich takes issue with a number of choices made in the translation. His reasoning is too complicated to repeat here, but the bottom line is that:

  1. “He was the first on earth to be a mighty man” should be rendered as something akin to “He acted in a profane manner in his quest to become powerful on earth.”
  2. “He was a mighty hunter before the LORD” should be “He was a brutal slaughterer before the LORD.”

In other words, far from being an admired hunter of game, he was a feared and ungodly butcher of men. Like most conquerors. Like Sargon.

The conquests of Nimrod and Sargon

Moses is presenting Nimrod as the first empire-builder in history, which is Sargon’s claim to fame in secular histories. Verses 10:10–11 list cities conquered by Nimrod, beginning at Eridu (Babel?) and moving northwest in Sumer (Shinar?), then north of that into Assyria. This is the basic pattern followed by Sargon. See the two maps that follow.

Nimrod’s Empire, ©geography.bible-history.com. Compare with Sargon’s Empire, below.
The Akkadian Empire under Sargon the Great and his successors.

A final toledah

This is the genealogy of Abram/Abraham, covering his patriarchal line up to Shem. I quote it here in full because of its importance.

10 Here is the genealogy of Shem. Shem was 100 years old when he fathered Arpakhshad two years after the flood. 11 After Arpakhshad was born, Shem lived another 500 years and had sons and daughters.

12 Arpakhshad lived thirty-five years and fathered Shelach. 13 After Shelach was born, Arpakhshad lived another 403 years and had sons and daughters.

14 Shelach lived thirty years and fathered ‘Ever. 15 After ‘Ever was born, Shelach lived another 403 years and had sons and daughters.

16 ‘Ever lived thirty-four years and fathered Peleg. 17 After Peleg was born, ‘Ever lived another 430 years and had sons and daughters.

18 Peleg lived thirty years and fathered Re‘u. 19 After Re‘u was born, Peleg lived another 209 years and had sons and daughters.

20 Re‘u lived thirty-two years and fathered S’rug. 21 After S’rug was born, Re’u lived another 207 years and had sons and daughters.

22 S’rug lived thirty years and fathered Nachor. 23 After Nachor was born, S’rug lived another 200 years and had sons and daughters.

24 Nachor lived twenty-nine years and fathered Terach. 25 After Terach was born, Nachor lived another 119 years and had sons and daughters.

26 Terach lived seventy years and fathered Avram, Nachor and Haran. 27 Here is the genealogy of Terach. Terach fathered Avram, Nachor and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot. 28 Haran died before his father Terach in the land where he was born, in Ur of the Kasdim.

— Genesis 11:10-28 (CJB)

We already know that the scattering from Babel happened in the lifetime of Peleg. Since this provides no additional information on that, we still don’t know if Peleg was physically in Babel when it happened, or who the leader or leaders of the city at that time were. Peleg is only a marker for us.

Abram’s calling

29 Then Avram and Nachor took wives for themselves. The name of Avram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nachor’s wife was Milkah the daughter of Haran. He was the father of Milkah and of Yiskah. 30 Sarai was barren — she had no child. 31 Terach took his son Avram, his son Haran’s son Lot, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Avram’s wife; and they left Ur of the Kasdim to go to the land of Kena‘an. But when they came to Haran, they stayed there. 32 Terach lived 205 years, and he died in Haran.
— Genesis 11:29-32 (CJB)

The martyred deacon, Steven, gave a more detailed account of Abraham’s early movements than did Moses. This was without doubt from lore passed down verbally.

2 and Stephen said:
“Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to Avraham avinu (Abraham our father) in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran 3 and said to him, ‘Leave your land and your family, and go into the land that I will show you.’ 4 So he left the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. After his father died, God made him move to this land where you are living now.
— Acts 7:2-4 (CJB)

Genesis prehistory and the End Times

Most Christians are interested in Creation, the Garden of Eden and the Flood. Most are not interested, particularly, in the genealogies, the millennium between Cain and Abel and the Flood, or the millennium between the Flood and Abraham. Thinking about these old things to most is like watching old Black and White Japanese Godzilla movies on TV. It’s just the “weird part of the Bible”. Monster stories for kids’ comic books.

Well, what’s it even there for?

First of all, for the ancient Israelites, coming out of the pagan Egyptian culture and preparing to enter the pagan Canaanite lands, it was a polemic against all they had been taught since childhood.

All the stories were familiar, but the heroes weren’t the pagan gods and kings they’d always been taught to revere. Yahweh was infinitely greater, more powerful, and more benevolent than any of them.

For the Israelites about to cross the Jordan, He is the God who can control the most powerful forces of nature, He can wipe out all life on earth if He chooses, and He can scatter and isolate all humanity to quell rebellion.

And while He alone is the personal God of His chosen people, He has placed all other peoples under the rule of angelic overseers that He created. Although they became corrupt over time and presented themselves as gods, they serve His purposes and He can easily control them as He desires.

The same lessons are there for all other peoples of all times, both those among His elect and those who are not.

But there is another layer to this that applies to those of us living in the acharit hyamim, the End of Days..

The Serpent is still the Deceiver and the Accuser. He still has his hordes of rebellious celestial spirits and the temporarily dormant demonic Nephilim spirits.

As it was in the days of Noah, hedonism and rebellion against God are on the rise. Yahweh promised never again to destroy all flesh, but even after the flood, mankind plotted to unite in rebellion. Though He scattered them and divided them, countless Nimrods have attempted to once again unite the world against Him.

Modern rulers, through technology, persuasion, and economic globalism have renewed the effort to build a “tower to heaven”, and it is only a matter of time before a new Nimrod rises to “take control” in the name of peace and prosperity.


Similarity Breeds Contempt

Outline:
Which came first?
Common origin?
What constitutes a myth?
The Egyptian creation myth
The Bible’s use of non-Biblical sources

Yes, indeed it does! Contemporary scholarship is aware of many, many undeniable similarities between historical events, cultural traditions, and even cultic practices (temple construction and ritual) as recorded in the Bible and those recorded in the sometimes-earlier legends of various ancient pagan civilizations. Does this mean that the Biblical material is stolen, copied, or derived from pagan sources? Is the Hebrew Bible copycat literature? If so, should we question the Bible’s inspiration, inerrancy and authority?

The Flood Tablet. This is perhaps the most famous of all cuneiform tablets. It is the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic and describes how the gods sent a flood to destroy the world. Like Noah, Utnapishtim was forewarned and built an ark to house and preserve living things. After the flood he sent out birds to look for dry land. Photo by Mike Peel.

Which came first?

There may be copying, but it isn’t always clear who copied whom.

Most of you will have either heard or read somewhere that the Genesis Flood story is similar to pagan legends such as the ancient Gilgamesh Flood Myth. Since “everyone knows” that the pagan work is mythological and came first, then “surely the Biblical record must be mythological as well, and so it should not be believed by intelligent people.” The Hebrew Bible is copycat literature, right? Plagiarized!

Did the Babylonian Flood Myth really precede the writing of Genesis? The pagan myth resides primarily on Tablet 11 (of 12) of the Standard Babylonian Version of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains gaps (lacunae) but is the most complete version known. This version is dated to the period 1300–1000 BC. Wikipedia claims that this is hundreds of years before Genesis was written, but by conservative Evangelical dating, Genesis can’t have been written any later than around 1406 BC, 40 years after the Exodus, when Moses died. However, earlier Gilgamesh tablets dated to as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur, 2100–2000 BC seem to contain an abbreviated version of the Flood Myth.

Common Origin?

For me, it isn’t worth quibbling about who scooped the story, because the actual event preceded both the Genesis account and all the flood myths in the world—of which there are a great many. A key reason for the existence of any cultural parallelism was that the different cultures shared a common ancestry.

Although writing began to appear as early as 3200 BC, history and legends were mostly propagated by mouth until well after Ur III. Everyone on earth was descended from Noah, and the story would certainly have spread from Babel along with humanity itself.

According to Ussher, the Flood occurred about (circa) 2350 BC and the Tower of Babel c2200 BC. I think those dates may be just a bit off. History records the 1st Dynasty of Egypt beginning c3100 BC. That had to be years after the Flood, and likely years after the Tower. Sargon the Great (probably Nimrod of the Bible) began ruling from Akkad from c2350 BC, and that would necessarily be some years after the Tower dispersion.

Whatever the dates, knowledge of the Flood would certainly have persisted as cultural lore for hundreds or even thousands of years—dinner-table tales passed from generation to generation.

Perhaps as important is the possibility that the immortal “sons/angels of God” that He placed over the scattered nations would always know of the Flood and would have engineered religious observances that exaggerated their own roles in His cosmos. This is a topic that will be foreign to most of you. I wrote about it in detail in Gods and Demons. Here I will just include one relevant passage:

8 When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.
9 And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance.
—Deuteronomy 32:8–9 LXX-B

I would suggest that, instead of viewing such parallels as evidence that Scripture is mythical, it is more productive to view them as evidence that there may be more truth in the pagan writings than previously realized.

What constitutes a myth?

In a short blog I just released a day or two ago, titled Religion vs. Mythology, I endorsed an Egyptologist’s definition of “mythology” as allegorical stories about primordial events, which aren’t necessarily meant to be believed, but are rather intended to convey a particular worldview.

The Biblical Flood story, whether myth or history, is clearly a polemic (a “controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine”—Webster) against pagan flood mythologies. The ubiquity of the mythologies supports belief that the Flood was real. I see nothing in the Biblical story to make me think it is not historically accurate. I’ve written a number of articles on the subject (see, for example, Fountains of the Deep and Ships, Boats, Floats and Arks).

What about creation stories? Like the Flood stories, they are ubiquitous in the ancient world. We observe a universe, in which we all reside. Obviously, it exists, so that ubiquity is not surprising. I believe in causality. If something happens, including creation, then it was caused. I have way less confidence in the idea that the universe just popped up spontaneously, or that it has simply always existed, either on its own or as a bud on a multiverse that has always existed, than in the idea that it was created.

The pagan creation stories are clearly mythology. Is Genesis 1?

The Egyptian creation myth

In my article Genesis 1:1–5, Day 1, I presented an artist’s conception of the Mesopotamian version of creation and described how it also seems to picture the Genesis 1 account. One way that historians differentiate between “religion” and “mythology” is that religion is meant to be believed in all its detail, while mythology is intended to impart lessons or principles, without requiring slavish belief in the story itself. Though I didn’t word it quite this way, what I suggested was in a sense that Genesis 1 deliberately presents a mythological picture, obvious to Moses’ audience, in order to teach the superiority of the God of Israel over the gods of the pagans. By definition, that constitutes a polemic.

Here, I will go into a bit more detail on the specifics of the Egyptian version.

Egyptian version of creation. Note the vaguely organic shapes on “earth” and the stars on “sky”, with the sun suspended in “air”.

In the beginning, there was the Ogdoad, a group of eight frog-headed “primordial gods”, in four pairs (both brother/sister and husband/wife):

  1. Hok and Hoket, whose defining attribute was Formlessness.
  2. Amun and Amunet, whose defining attribute was Invisibility.
  3. Kuk and Kuket, whose defining attribute was Darkness.
  4. Nun and Nunet, whose defining attribute was Fluidity.

As a group, the Ogdoad represents a chaotic state, reminiscent of Genesis 1:2 (“without form, and void (or hidden), and darkness on the face of the waters“).

Out of this watery chaos rose a primordial hill, on which stood Atum, from whom all else arose. He created himself and is the father of Shu (air) and Tefnut (moisture).

Shu and Tefnut had two children, Geb (earth) and Nut (sky). This pair is pictured above wearing brown and blue, respectively. In some versions, their father, Shu, is jealous of the incestuous relationship of Geb and Nut and has squeezed himself in between them—”air” between “earth” and “sky.”

Moving beyond the creation of the cosmos, Shu and Tefnut have four children, the pairs Isis and Osiris (the good guys) and Seth (evil) and Nephis (good).

Genesis 1 in the Bible clearly describes the same cosmos as the Egyptian version (and those of other ancient pagan cultures). Clearly, the Bible teaches that the God we worship is Creator of all that exists. To me, that is indisputable. But at the same time, the description presented in Genesis 1 is too much like the pagan myths (but with Yahveh replacing all the pagan gods) and too little like the universe we live in to be taken literally. I would describe it as a polemic against the pagan versions, presented allegorically, like prophetic vision and Jesus’ parables.

The Bible’s use of non-Biblical sources

Still scandalized that the Bible stoops to make use of non-Biblical sources?

In the same way that modern scholarly writers frequently cite earlier sources, so did the Biblical writers. As I mentioned in some detail in Gods and Demons (under “Source Materials”), there are some 100 Biblical references to non-canonical sources actually cited by name by the Scriptural writers. A list can be found on Wikipedia.

Since few of these are now extant, you will often hear them referred to as “lost books of the Bible.” This terminology is unfortunate because it implies that they are inspired works that have somehow slipped through the cracks of history. Not so—I’m pretty sure that if God cared enough to oversee their writing in the first place, He would have protected them from loss.

But what if some of those lost writings were inspired? Then I’m quite comfortable assuming that they were written for a specific time and/or place in history and are no longer relevant. I refuse to waste my energy speculating on possibilities like that since it is all in God’s hand.

Another “but”: If inspired text references other writings, shouldn’t we consider them as inspired as well? Consider the following, for example,

[19] Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.
—1 Kings 14:19 (ESV)

What this tells me is that the Biblical writers researched their material. It wasn’t merely whispered in their ears by the Holy Spirit. When Christian writers today cite Josephus, they are acknowledging that he was a 1st Century historian who had access to sources that are now unavailable. We believe that Josephus was mostly pretty accurate, so we use what he says where it makes sense, even though we know that (a) he did make occasional demonstrably incorrect statements; and (b) he did write with certain political biases, for a Roman audience. When we cite him without qualification, we are endorsing (at least provisionally) the material applicable to our own work, but not at all the rest of his writings. When a Biblical writer does the same, we aren’t to think that the source material is infallible, just that the Holy Spirit has infallibly endorsed the ideas gleaned from it.

Another use of the term “lost books of the Bible” is in reference to the so-called deuterocanonical (“second canon”) books. These include the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books found, for example, in Catholic bibles. Also sometimes included are various “gospels” that some folks think should be regarded as canon. They are not “lost” in the sense of being non-extant. All I’ll say about these is that many good books have been written about the selection of Christian canon, and I’m happy to take the position that the Church Fathers did the best possible job in setting the official canon. Though there is much I think can be learned from these sources regarding historical and cultural issues, and common beliefs that were held by ancient peoples, I agree that they cannot be considered inerrant.

Random pages from The Complete 54-Book Apocrypha: 2022 Edition with the Deuterocanon, 1-3 Enoch, Giants, Jasher, Jubilees, Pseudepigrapha & the Apostolic Fathers. ©Covenant Press

The Bible also contains a number of actual quotations from extrabiblical sources like the Book of 1 Enoch. That a non-canonical source was quoted does not mean that the source was Spirit-inspired, only that the Spirit approved the material from that source that was used by the Biblical author. That a passage from 1 Enoch was quoted by Jude and Peter likewise does not imply that the Book of 1 Enoch was inspired; but it does invest the quoted passage with a “seal of authenticity.” In other words, Jude and Peter were inspired in their restating of the quoted words.

I think that we sometimes err in not paying enough attention to such quoted material. Consider, for example,

14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,
15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
—Jude 1:14–15 ESV

Jude may be the most underrated book of the Bible. At first glance it seems to have a very simple theme: In times past, and still today, God condemns heresy and wickedness. We are familiar with most of the historical examples of bad behavior given in Jude. Most studies treat them as simple examples of sinful humanity. I think there is way more to it than that. Pending a future blog on the subject, I’m just going to state now that the verses quoted above can’t be understood without also reading the source material, which in this case is still available.

Ships, Boats, Floats and Arks

Edited 1/6/2024

  1. Linguistics
    1. “Ark”
    2. “Gopher wood”
    3. “Roof”
  2. Boat vs. Float
  3. Wind and Waves
  4. Architecture
  5. Water Wave Physics
  6. Features of the AiG Design

I know, this is far from the most important theological question most of us will face in our lives, but I’ll bet that most of us are at least a little bit interested. What Exactly is an “ark”? Answers in Genesis (AiG), parent ministry of the Ark Encounter theme park, who I frequently agree with and frequently disagree with, says, “Noah’s Ark was a ship; therefore, it likely had features that ships would commonly have.” No, and no…

My purpose here is not to question their motives or their overall theological purity, but rather to point out where my opinions and theirs differ on some textual interpretations and scientific/nautical engineering principles.

Artist’s conception: Noah’s Ark, somewhat as I envision it.

Linguistics

“Ark”

Nowhere does Scripture say the Ark was a ship! All that floats is not a ship. I did a search in several English translations to get a sense of the Biblical usage, concentrating mostly on KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV and CJB. I found that the Hebrew “Oniy or the related “Oniyah” is translated as “ship(s)”, “boat(s)”, “sailing vessel(s)”, or “watercraft” in the Old Testament. The word can also refer to a fleet (of ships), a Navy, or seamen. Another Hebrew term, Tsiy is translated variously as “ships“, “boats” or “vessels (of papyrus reeds)”.

There are three contexts in which the term “ark” occurs in English translations of the OT. When referring to Noah’s Ark and the basket into which Moses was placed to escape Pharaoh’s attack on Israelite children, the Hebrew is “tebah“, which literally means “a box or chest“. When referring to the Ark of the Covenant, the Hebrew is “aron“, meaning “a box, chest or coffin“.

What is the difference in meaning between these words? AiG suggests that tebah is related to the Egyptian word for “coffin”, and comments that being sealed in the Ark would be like “being sealed in a coffin.” Their post says nothing at all about aron.

Ancient Hebrew and Egyptian were both Semitic languages of the Afro-Asiatic language family. It is possible, but not proven, that the Hebrew term is a loan-word from their Egyptian sojourn. The Hebrew alphabet, especially in its ancient form, is an “abjad“, meaning that it contains no vowels. “Tebah“, then, as transliterated to English, becomes “t-b-h“. The Middle Kingdom Egyptian hieroglyphs included a full set of phonetic glyphs. When using only these glyphs for writing, the similar word is transliterated as “t-b-t“, and according to the Brown-Driver-Briggs concordance, which I consider to be better than Strong’s, it does, in fact mean “chest, or coffin”. Nevertheless, the leap to comparing Noah’s Ark to a coffin is a total (and absurd) shot in the dark!

Based on my own survey of Jewish sources, I believe that tebah refers to containers for the “common“, while aron refers to boxes, chests, and cabinets dedicated to sacred objects.

Regarding the latter,

  • The Ark of the Testimony (Aron HaEdut) was “home” to God’s Sh’kinah, and contained, for a time, a jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. All of those are Jewish sacred objects.
  • For most of their history, the most sacred object associated with any Jewish synagogue has been their Torah scroll, and the second most sacred has been their Holy ark (aron HaKodesh) in which the scrolls are stored. These arks are cabinets, usually ornate, that stand against the synagogue wall most nearly facing Jerusalem and the Holy Mount (the west wall in Europe and the Americas).
  • When the Israelites left Egypt with Moses, they took with them, in an aron, the revered body of Joseph:

Genesis 50:26 (CJB)
[26] So Yosef died at the age of 110, and they embalmed him and put him in a coffin [aron] in Egypt.

“Gopher wood”

Some translations render it as “gofer wood” a direct transliteration from the Hebrew) and many as “cypress wood“. The actual meaning is obscure and may refer to a type of tree or a type of wood, for example.

Calling it “cypress wood” is only a guess, but not unreasonable, since cypress is water and rot resistant, pliable and toolable. Even today it is widely used in outdoor furniture and boat construction. Its growth is fairly ubiquitous in northern temperate regions, especially in warm climates that are periodically dry (for seed germination) and swampy (for subsequent growth). In Iraq, trees of any kind are scarce today, but in Noah’s day cypress was probably plentiful in the lower Tigris and Euphrates region.

Brown-Driver-Briggs suggests that “gofer wood” should be translated as “pitch-wood” since the Hebrew gofrith, meaning “brimstone” is from the same Hebrew root. This may still designate cypress, since it could refer to the oily sap that gives that species its water and rot resistance.

“Roof”

There are a number of ways to interpret Genesis 6:16a. I think JPS says it best:

“Hebrew tsohar is another unique word. It is either the “window” of 8:6, or it means “a roof.” Depending on which meaning is adopted, the unclear directive to “terminate it within a cubit of the top” (lit. “from above”) could variously mean that a space of one cubit is to be left between the top of the window and the roof, that the window itself is to be a cubit in height, or that the slanting roof should project one cubit beyond the side of the ark.
— Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary. Accordance electronic edition, version 3.2. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Perhaps it is important that, in addition to “roof” or “window”, tsohar can also, depending on context, mean “midday” or “noon”. I suspect that this is why some translators render verse 16a as, “Make a skylight in the Ark, within a cubit of the top you shall finish it…” (Alter, The Hebrew Bible); or “You are to make an opening for daylight in the ark eighteen inches below its roof.” (Stern, The Complete Jewish Bible“). Emphasis mine in both cases.

Note that the “window” (Hebrew challon) of Gen 8:6 is capable of being closed, presumably by a shutter or shutters.

Because challon is not used in 6:16, and with an eye towards watertightness, I lean towards the interpretation that it is speaking of a roof with 18-inch eaves, providing shelter for some type of opening or openings for both light and ventilation. This may have been the shuttered window(s) of 8:6.

The high winds and torrential rainfall postulated by AiG would be incompatible with any type of open skylight or window. Even the shutters of 8:6 would be difficult to make watertight in ancient times. It took God, Himself to seal the door. The flood “mechanism” I propose in Fountains of the Deep would produce heavy global rains, but without heavy winds associated with hurricanes or other destructive forces caused by large pressure gradients.

Boat vs. Float

Ships, boats and barges, in all their myriads of varieties, generally have one thing in common: they are designed to transport people and/or other objects from one location to another, on or under the water. By “transport”, I mean to actively move them, using some form of energy, be it wind (in a sail), machine, or muscle. The term “ships” generally refers to relatively large vessels designed to withstand the rigors of navigating the open sea or large rivers and lakes. The term “boats” can include “ships” as a subset, but more commonly it refers to relatively smaller watercraft. A “barge” is usually a box-like vessel designed to be pulled or pushed by some external means, including ships, boats, or even oxen or powered vehicles alongside a river or canal.

By contrast, a vessel or platform, or even an air-filled vest, of any kind that is designed, not to navigate under any kind of propulsion, but simply to float on water and go wherever the forces of nature takes it, is called—well—a “float“! Noah’s Ark was not a ship; it was a float. God said, “Build this, get in it with a herd of critters, and let it float you to wherever I send it by means of the forces at my command.” If it was a float and not a ship or boat, then it doesn’t need to have had “features that ships would commonly have.”

Wind and Waves

The design on AiG’s Ark Encounter, in fact the basis of much of their flood theology, depends on an assumption that the Great Flood would have included catastrophic winds, waves and consequent destruction.

However, I think the argument is faulty. I see nothing in scripture to indicate that wind factored into the Genesis Flood in any significant way, so neither wind nor wave would have been an issue. According to Gen 7:11, “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of the sky were opened.” I don’t believe that this event can be compared in any way to a modern storm. I have discussed a likely mechanism for the flood in Fountains of the Deep. In that post I suggest that the vast majority of the flood water was miraculously brought up from earth’s mantle transition layer, primarily through volcanic eruptions in the mid-oceanic ridges. This would have perhaps generated tsunamis on coastlines, but tsunamis cause very little disturbance in deep water, and even on shore, the damage to the coast itself (as opposed to structures and life) tends to be superficial except for erosion of coastal sands. Widespread volcanism generates huge amounts of ash, as well as CO2 and water vapor that would spawn torrential rain but could quell pressure gradients and suppress the worst of the winds.

The only mention of wind in the Flood text is in Gen 8:1b,”God caused a wind [ruach] to pass over the earth, and the water began to go down.” The Hebrew ruach can mean wind, breath, or any of a number of related English terms, but most often in the Bible, it means “spirit“, as in Gen 1:2b, “and the Spirit [Ruach] of God hovered over the surface of the water.” No amount of physical and literal wind could dry up that much water in the time allowed by Scripture; the waters of the deep were miraculously returned to their home in earth’s mantle through the power of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). I suggest that “wind” in Gen 8:1 is more akin to “God’s breath” than to a meteorological phenomenon. For more on God’s use of wind (see God with the Wind).

Architecture

As a Naval Officer back in the day, I put in a lot of both formal and informal time studying subjects related to my job. Not that I could ever build a ship “from the keel up”, but I do have training in naval architecture, both technical and historic. The small “n” in “naval” means both military and civilian watercraft.

AiG has tried to justify their design of a ship-like Ark at Ark Encounter, as opposed to a parallelepiped (rectilinear solid), box-like float of the same overall dimensions, by appealing to model studies in wave pools. I can tell you from personal experience and my knowledge of physics that because of their inertial characteristics, massive ships won’t perform anything like small models in either wind or waves. Not … even … close!

I have been at sea on a minesweeper (off Alaska), a destroyer (off California), a battleship (off California), and, for long periods, an aircraft carrier (in the North and South Atlantic, the North Sea and the Mediterranean). On all but the battleship, I have served on the “bridge” (a ship’s navigational control center) while under way, and experienced “heavy seas” (storm conditions). On the minesweeper and the carrier, I periodically “had the con“, meaning I had command over the vessel’s engines and rudders, as well as the bridge crew, engine and steerage crews, lookouts and other underway personnel. In Navy parlance, a minesweeper is a boat, and designed for operations in littoral, i.e., coastal, waters, though able to transit oceans if necessary. My other “rides” were smallish, large and very large ships, respectively.

My destroyer, the USS O’Brien, DD-725, was about 80% the size of the Ark, so it gives me a good basis for comparison. We definitely felt the waves, but when under power, it was easy to control our direction of advance. If we cut our speed to “all stop“, or “zero turns on the ship’s screw“, we would fairly quickly lose our forward motion (go “dead-in-the-water“), and eventually the forces on the hull would drag us around until we were parallel to the swells (that’s the proper term for deep-water waves). Once so “broached“, there is a tendency for any vessel to roll side to side. This isn’t comfortable, especially on smaller vessels, but sailors are used to it and prepared for it. Even in rough seas, very few ships will capsize from it, though, because buoyancy and inertia limit the magnitude of the roll. A box with the same dimensions as the ship will have less tendency to roll than a ship with a curved hull, given proper weight distribution aboard the two.

Water Wave Physics

Elsewhere in the AiG documentation, they state that waves would have driven the Ark forward. But that could happen only in near-shore surf where wind shear pushes surface water onto the shallows.

In deep waters, waves are propagated in a horizontal direction, but the only water movement is near the surface where molecules simply bob up and down in tight elliptical cycles. It is the bobbing action that moves along the surface, not the water itself.

Wave motion in open waters.

In the diagram above, the motion of individual water molecules is depicted in red. In deep water, waves “propagate” away from their source (wind or a surface disturbance), but the water itself moves mostly in vertical directions. A solid object like a boat or a bottle will bob upwards on wave crests and downwards on wave troughs. As a crest approaches, the object will tend to move forward in the direction of the advancing wave as it slides down the wavefront, but then it will slide in the opposite direction after the crest passes. Winds above the waves or currents below the waves may push the object, but the waves themselves impart little or no net horizontal movement, either longitudinal or lateral.

As waves encroach into shallow water, on the other hand, the solid seafloor begins to disrupt the elliptical motion of the water molecules at the bottom of their cyclic movement. As a result, the peaks tend to overtake the troughs, and the wave tumbles forward. This causes the constituent water molecules to wash towards the shore at and near the surface, but then to rush back towards the open water near the floor. The return part of this cycle is the dreaded “rip tide.”

Features of the AiG Design

In several blog posts, AiG explains why, from a sea-worthiness perspective, they think that the Ark needed to be a ship-like vessel, rather than a box. They use this diagram to illustrate:

Noah’s Ark, per Anwers in Genesis™
  • “Noah could have added a fixed ‘sail’ on the upper bow of the Ark so the wind could turn the ship into the rough waves.”

The idea here is that the raised bow fin would act like a weathervane, causing the Ark to pivot and turn end-on to the wind. But, just as a weathervane turns itself so that the “sail” is downwind, the AiG description makes no sense from a mariner’s perspective. Swells propagate in the direction the wind is blowing; that is, a wind blowing towards the east would cause waves that also “move” toward the east. “Into the rough waves” therefore implies that the fin would turn the Ark in such a way that the wind would be blowing bow to stern, but if the fin worked at all, it would cause the bow to turn away from (not “into”) the oncoming waves.

Functionally, the object of either “tuning into” or, the opposite, “following” the waves is to keep the Ark from broaching or turning broadside to the wind and waves. Facing either bow or stern into the waves is very much preferable, but unlike a light model, this fin design would not be workable with a massive ship. It would take a very large force against the fin to overcome the angular momentum of the massive Ark and its contents. Also, enough wind to push on the fin would push even more on the windward hull of the ship, resisting any pivot. A longitudinal sail in the bow of a ship like AiG’s Ark would make steering into the wind very difficult, if it had any effect at all.

  • “Noah could have added a fixed ‘rudder’ at the lower stern of the Ark to keep the ship turned into the rough waves.”

This is another statement that makes no sense. A fixed rudder, more commonly known as a “skeg“, is an underwater fin or projection that can be used to stabilize the motion of a powered watercraft. There is no reason to suppose that Noah, or God, provided the Ark with a propulsion mechanism, so the most that a skeg would have accomplished was a slight reduction of rocking. It would have no effect at all on the orientation of the Ark with respect to waves, since ocean swells involve no sideways motion beneath the surface (see above).

  • “A ship’s keel is a structure built along the bottom of the ship’s hull to support the main body of the ship. In some cases, the keel is extended downward to function as a stabilizer for the ship. Noah’s Ark, as described in Genesis 6, may have had a keel since it seems to have been an essential piece for the ship to survive the wind and waves.”

If the Ark was a ship, then given its size, a keel might have been necessary to anchor ribs (the curved side-to-side cross-pieces in the Jesus Boat, below, for example) and strakes (the fore to aft planks forming the hull of the Jesus boat). If the Ark was a box, then no such structure would have been necessary, since structural stability would be adequate using only rails (horizontal members of a frame), stiles (vertical member of a frame) and cross-braces (diagonals to prevent torquing of the frame).

“Jesus Boat”, ©2008, Ron Thompson
“Jesus Boat”, ©2008, Ron Thompson

There is no evidence from literature or archaeological findings that keels ever existed before they were invented by the Vikings in the 8th Century AD. Early ships and boats, including those built by the Egyptians and the Phoenician “Sea Peoples” were built by lashing or pegging planking (strakes) to bent or shaped ribs that ran perpendicular to the length of the craft. The 2,000-year-old “Jesus Boat” on display at Kibbutz Ginosar, Israel, was modeled on Phoenician boats from earlier centuries.

Earlier structures positionally related to keels did exist in ancient times. Egyptian vessels, for instance, featured what is now called a “plank-keel.” This was not a true keel, but rather a wide strake (hull plank) at the very bottom of the hull where keels would later be located. The function was primarily to give the boat a stable base while beached.

Another device that appeared frequently in ancient ships (and is still often used) is a “keelson“, which is a structural beam or cleat in the bilge area, but not extending outside the hull. It was used mainly to help support masts in sail-powered boats, but often did add strength to the hull. Neither of these features would function on an Ark. The Roman ship shown below, built prior to the invention of a keel, includes a short keelson spanning two ribs. The rectangular hole in the forward part of this keelson is most likely a mortise, made to hold a tenon at the base of a mast. Mortise and tenon joints (as in, “insert tab A into slot B”) have been used by craftsmen from ancient times to join perpendicular wooden or stone structural members.

Roman ship, sunk around AD 190.
  • “The box-like Ark is not entirely disqualified as a safe option, but sharp edges are more vulnerable to damage during launch and landing.”

Among many avocations, I have been a cabinet maker during my lifetime, and I still have a completely furnished cabinet and general woodworking shop in my basement. My opinion is that square corners (“sharp edges”) are vulnerable to dings and dents but are sturdier and more puncture-proof than a rounded wooden surface.

  • “Blunt ends would also produce a rougher ride and allow the vessel to be more easily thrown around”

A minor effect. Most ships and small boats have a “sharp” bow for “cutting through” the water, but the vast majority have a “blunt” stern, and many larger ships have “blunt” vertical sides, as well. How much a vessel is “thrown around” is more a function of its mass and how deep it sits in the water (its “draught“). And, of course, a flat bottom is much less prone to broach or roll than a ship’s curved hull.

“While many designs could work, the possibility shown here reflects the high stems which were a hallmark of ancient ships.”

  • Though I couldn’t find more explanation of what precisely this statement means, I assume it is referencing raised prows and sterns on many ancient ships. In the case of Egyptian vessels, these were carved, stylized papyrus umbels (flat-topped or rounded flower clusters). The Egyptians used the stem of papyrus plants to make sails, cloth, mats, cords, and paper, so these plants were appropriate decorative symbols of the realm. Other civilizations decorated their ships in the same manner with religious totems.
  • “Noah was 500–600 years old and knew better than to make a simple box that would have had significant issues in a global Flood (e.g., forces on the sharp corners would be too destructive, it could capsize if it is not facing into the wind and waves, and so on).”

This is yet more speculation by a writer with no technical expertise. If Noah had any training in shipbuilding, naval architecture or engineering dynamics, it isn’t mentioned in Scripture, and he sure would not have learned from practical experience. God may have coached him or given him engineering drawings or advanced physics training, but this is also unmentioned.

It is worth mentioning that most large ships today do incorporate a rough box shape, though with rounded corners and keels, because flat bottoms are intrinsically more stable and less prone to grounding, while vertical sides are more efficient for loading capacity. This is true for large military vessels, cargo ships, and even ocean liners. Not to mention…

Ark Encounter Noah’s Ark mock-up.

In any case, Noah built an Ark, not a ship!

And yes, I’m quite willing to be dogmatic about this.


Fountains of the Deep

Posted on:

Modified on:

  1. The Deep
  2. The Fountains & Floodgates
  3. Identifying the Fountains of the Deep
  4. Likely Mechanism of the Flood

In ancient times, the peoples of the Middle East held a deep-seated, superstitious awe for the oceans and other large bodies of water. To them, the deep-water basins were abyssal, bottomless pits, full of monsters and evil spirits or demons. The continents floated on the ocean waters, which were also the common source of springs and subterranean rivers, so these source waters, too, were infested with evil spirits. Take, for example, the river Banias, which today flows from between rock strata down-slope from the famous cave at Caesarea Philippi. In Jesus’ day, the river flowed from the mouth of the cave. The pagans of Decapolis named the cave “The Gates of Hell” and surrounded its exterior with shrines to the god Pan.

The same ancient peoples who feared the deep waters also recognized that they were the source of life, providing fresh drinking water for humans and animals alike, water for the fields, and an abundance of fish, the staple of life for many civilizations.

To Top

The Deep

The Hebrew word most often used in the Bible to refer to this interconnected reservoir of water, either in whole or in part, is tehom, usually translated as “the deep.” Exactly what elements are included in any particular reference to tehom must be inferred from the context or modifiers. In Gen 1:2, most would agree that it referred to an all-encompassing ocean, prior to the formation of dry land surfaces. In Gen 49:25, Jacob is giving his deathbed blessing to Joseph, speaking of “the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep [tehom] that lieth under…” (KJV) I believe that he is, here and in the parallel passage, Deut 33:13, referring to the entire, composite water system lying beneath the canopy of “heaven above.” In Job 28:14, in his discourse on Wisdom, Job defines his own usage of the term by means of the poetic doublet, “The deep says, ‘It isn’t in me,’ and the sea says, ‘It isn’t with me.’” (CJB) In Isaiah 63:13, tehom refers to the Red (or Reed) Sea, opened up for Moses and the Israelites.

To Top

The Fountains & Floodgates

This diagram shows the cosmos as visualized by Moses, and by the people of virtually every culture in the Ancient Near East. Oceans, lakes, springs, and even the waters above the firmament were believed to be interconnected and were often collectively referred to as “the Deep.” Terrestrial waters rose to the surface of the land through fountains. Water falling from the sky was released by spirit beings through floodgates in the dome of the firmament.

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.” (KJV)

Gen 8:2“The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;” (KJV)

What, then, are “the fountains of the deep”, or ma’yenot tehom, as mentioned in the Flood story? Ma’yenow (singular) denotes a spring, fountain, or source. Can this be taken literally, like a spring in the desert, or is it poetically descriptive of the fact that water from “the deep” was gushing freely from some aperture or region? When considered in parallel with “the windows of heaven”, wa’rubot (chimneys or windows) ha-shamayim (the heavens, or elsewhere, “firmament”), my own opinion is that the “fountains” and “windows” must both be poetic terms, whereas the water and the flood were most certainly literal!

To Top

Identifying the Fountains of the Deep

Young Earth Creationists often take the view that “the fountains of the great deep” refers to continental springs, geysers, fissures, Artesian wells, and other surface openings that God miraculously ripped open and caused to spout abnormally great volumes of water from natural aquifers deep in the earth’s crust. This rending and subsequent flow, they say, caused cataclysmic changes in the topography, including newly up-thrust mountain ranges, massive erosion, and even the division of large supercontinents into the smaller continents we know today.

fountains_of_great_deep

A fairly traditional view.

Others take the view that God caused volcanoes to sprout across the continents and spew water and, presumably, lava (since that’s what volcanoes do).

I can’t resist mentioning still another view that I ran across proclaiming, presumably with a straight face, that the unprecedented heavy rain was associated with a drop in barometric pressure so severe that water under the earth’s crust for some unspecified reason “pushed up and out … to come to the surface”, evidently causing the crust to pop like a balloon! Incredible, since the normal barometric pressure at sea level is typically below 15 psi, which is pretty much the same pressure that my own bare feet exert on earth’s crust when I stand on it!

fountainsofdeep1

An incredibly naive view.

My view is that the term “fountains of the deep” describes features of the ocean floor. Opening of these “fountains” may have caused some shifting of the tectonic plates and therefore some near-shore damage on the continents, but the main effect was a sudden simple rising of the sea level. I will discuss a probable mechanism below, but first I would like to present some brief arguments against continental “fountains”:

  • Scripture nowhere states that the flood caused catastrophic changes in Earth’s geology. This isn’t even a long-standing tradition. It is a theory that was proposed in my lifetime, and there is no valid scientific evidence that either the topography or the stratigraphy of the earth was greatly influenced by a single massive flood. The idea that the Genesis Flood accounts for the apparent old age of the earth is simply an assumption made in an effort to explain something that the Bible itself made no effort to explain. It is a defensive theology aimed at those scientists and others who deny scripture. Since it is in no way backed by scripture, it must meet the objections of science and of common observation, and it simply fails to do so. In a separate post, Geology a Flood Cannot Explain, I presented a substantial list of geological phenomena that to my personal knowledge cannot possibly be explained by the Genesis Flood. I also presented my credentials for addressing the various issues discussed.
  • Crustal aquifers exist, not in caverns, but in porous and permeable rock formations. While sometimes quite large, they are limited in their areal extent and thickness. Many thousands of deep oil and gas wells (including a number that I was involved in drilling and evaluating) and countless geophysical studies have shown no evidence of permeable rock formations in continental crust large enough to contain the enormous volumes of water that would be necessary to cover the highest mountains, even if they were much lower than they are today. And were they? Possibly a bit; the Himalayas, for example, are demonstrably rising even now as a result of plate tectonics and the ongoing collision of the Indian Plate with the Eurasian Plate. But consider Mt. Ararat: after God closed the windows of heaven and stopped up the fountains of the deep, Ararat, at Over 16,000 feet above the normal sea level, was still under the receding water!
  • Sufficient quantities of sub-continental water would most certainly have had to come from deep within Earth’s mantle unless they were created by God, on the spot (which I acknowledge to be theologically possible, but not necessary). Any continental aperture of sufficient depth to reach these depths and sufficient width to handle the volume of water necessary would, I think, have to be fairly humongous. Why are there no traces of anything like this?
  • Continental volcanoes might account for a large volume of deep-sourced water, but I don’t think there is evidence of enough continental volcanism to provide that much.
  • Finally, I think that Gen 7:11 provides an important clue. This passage states that it was the “fountains of the Great Deep” (tehom rabaah) that God opened to start the rising flood. That terminology in Scripture normally refers only to the abyssal ocean basins, not to continental features.

To Top

Likely Mechanism of the Flood

There are two likely mechanisms, that I can see, that God might have used to bring that much water up from the deep, and then to store it again once He was done with it:

  1. First, he could have simply created it on the spot, flooded the earth with it, and then de-created it again when he was done with it.
  2. It seems to me, though, that His modus operandi as described in scripture is normally to wrap what He has already created in some sort of miracle when He wants to make a major power statement. I think that He “foreknew” what He was going to do and incorporated that plan into His original design.

Every school child since before my day has known that the earth has an upper “crust”, a central “mantle”, and a lower “core”. Geophysicists now believe that the mantle consists primarily of different forms, or “phases” of the mineral Olivine, which is a “magnesium iron silicate.” The simple Olivine of the upper mantle, under the heat and pressure of lower depths is converted to a phase called Perovskite in the lower mantle. Between the two regions is a transition zone consisting of Olivine phases called Wadsleyite and Ringwoodite. Both of these mineral phases can be very heavily hydrated and are now thought to contain as much as 3.5 times as much water as in all the earth’s oceans. Many young-earth creationists, as well as ancient-earth creationists like me, speculate that this is the primary source of the water that God used to flood the earth in Noah’s day.

mantle_water
Schematic cross-section of earth. The oceanic crust, riding on the plastic mantle rock beneath it, is welling up at the “mid-oceanic ridges” and sliding toward the continents at a rate of 1–2 inches a year. At the continental margin, this migrating crust then sinks back below the surface and circulates back to where it started, moving on great convection currents. Even in normal times, prodigious amounts of water are carried along with this cycle.

Most people probably think of the deep regions of the earth as simply dead, stagnant, unmoving rock. In reality, the earth is a dynamic, “living” system from surface to center. We have all been taught about the “water cycle”, where ocean water evaporates, clouds form, rain falls on the continents, and streams and aquifers return the same water back to the oceans. There is also a water cycle involving the mantle transition zone: ocean water is dragged, in prodigious quantities, into the depths of the mantle by the “subduction” of Earth’s oceanic tectonic plates. This water charges the transition zone, and much later is returned to the ocean through the agency of deep-ocean “smokers” (hydrothermal vents) and volcanism along the Mid-Oceanic Ridges; in the Island-Arc and Continental-Arc volcanoes near subduction zones; and in “hot spot” volcanoes like the Hawaiian volcanos and the Yellowstone super-volcano.

It turns out, paradoxically, that water itself is what spawns volcanic activity, because the melting point of rock is drastically lowered in the presence of water. There is, in fact, an intriguing theory that there should be a sheet of molten rock at the upper surface of the transition zone. From my own knowledge of petrology and fluid flow in rock, that makes me think that conditions in such a region could be right, under certain circumstances (like a gentle push from the Hand of God!) for water-laden, low viscosity, basaltic magma to suddenly channel rapidly through this discontinuity into the Mid-Oceanic ridges, causing a subsequent rise in sea level that could be described poetically as the “fountains of the great deep” opening up.

If this superheated and thus buoyant water were to bubble quickly to the ocean surfaces (or be injected directly into the atmosphere), I would expect it to quickly rise through the cooler air near the surface, and to spread out and rapidly cool near the stratosphere, setting off a global rain event. Since no pressure front would be active in forming this rain, I would not expect serious damaging winds such as are postulated by followers of Henry Morris.

Regarding the return of the flood waters to the transition zone: in my view, the text implies a direct miracle.

Gen 8:1 – “God remembered Noach, every living thing and all the livestock with him in the ark; so God caused a wind [ruach] to pass over the earth, and the water began to go down.” (CJB)

The Hebrew ruach can mean “wind” in scripture, but it often is translated as “spirit”. In Genesis 1:2, the Ruach of God hovered over the surface of the water. In 8:1, God caused His Ruach to hover over the face of the water-covered earth! In both cases, the earth was covered with an unbroken expanse of water, and God sent His Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) to deal with it! For more on the “wind of God”, see God with the Wind.

To Top


Geology a Flood Cannot Explain

Posted on:

Modified on:

  1. Examples
    1. Fine clastics
    2. Homogeneity and sharp boundaries
    3. Limestone strata
    4. Reversed sequences
    5. Discontinuities and crossbedding
    6. Aeolian deposits
    7. Glaciation
    8. Evaporites
  2. Conclusions

Examples

In a recent post, The Hijacking of Creationism, I discussed the currently obligatory conservative Christian view of why the earth appears to be billions of years old when traditional interpretations of Genesis 1 say it is only about 6,000 years old. I expressed my misgivings about that explanation, which proposes that all or certainly most of the appearance of age is due to damage to the earth’s crust caused by torrential rains and upheavals associated with the Genesis Flood. I also expressed doubts about the qualifications of Henry Morris, popularizer of the Flood Theory.

I do believe in the historicity of the Genesis Flood itself, but I don’t believe that the best explanation of how God brought this judgement about (see Fountains of the Deep, an earlier post) would have caused the level of devastation that Flood Theory requires.

As recapitulation of my own technical and professional qualifications: I am not a geologist, but I am well-trained in relevant aspects of geology. In a long career as a petroleum engineer, I worked extensively with and/or in place of geologists.

There are several sub-fields of petroleum engineering, and I have worked most of them. For most of my tenure with both large and small companies, both as an employee and as a consultant, I served as a petroleum reservoir engineer. As such I have had to be intimately familiar with all aspects of stratigraphy (rock layering), including rock and fluid properties, strata deposition mechanisms and deformations, fluid saturations and flow mechanisms, and, for diagnostic purposes, subsurface electrical and radioactivity profiles. As a well-site drilling engineer, I have examined rock cores and bit cuttings, electrical logs, pressure and flow tests, and more, from the surface to more than a mile deep. As a production engineer, I have observed how both productive and non-productive rock strata behave under a wide variety of external disturbances. In short, I probably know more about rock layers and how they behave than most geologists in non-petroleum fields.

One way to solve the age problem is to simply say, “What’s the problem? God simply spoke everything into existence exactly the way we would have seen it in 4004 BC!” Now, I don’t doubt for an instant that Almighty God is capable of just such a mighty act but just because He can, does that mean that He did? Observation suggests that He did not. To borrow a phrase from 1 Cor. 14:33, God is not the author of confusion, so why would His creation be so complex and appear so tremendously old, if it is not? Just to fool scientists and throw people off the track? I don’t think so!

Several years ago, before the advent of smartphones, I set out to make the 22-minute drive from my home to Belton, Missouri, where I was taking a semester of Theology at a Bible College. The topic of the day was to be Creation, and I knew that my professor was a proponent of Flood Theory. On the way I decided to pull out my microcassette recorder and list as many geological phenomena as I could think of, before I got there, that I know cannot be explained by the flood. I’ve since lost the list, but I recall most of what was on it. Here are some of the key items (in no particular order), with my reasoning added:

To top

Fine clastics

Clastics” are the small, sometimes microscopic, rock fragments formed by “weathering” of larger fragments or massive rock formations. “Erosion” is the process by which clastics are subsequently moved from place to place and deposited in broad areas by the force of moving water, wind, glaciation, volcanic action, or simple gravity. When these clastic “sediments” become fused together over long periods of time by heat, pressure or chemical action, they become the sedimentary rock strata that we see today. My focus here is on the fragments themselves, not the strata.

Weathering of solid, non-sedimentary rocks like granite is generally not due primarily to frictional erosive flow in stream beds as most people think, but rather is caused by expansion/contraction cycles. Perhaps the most important of such processes, often called “frost wedging“, occurs when water enters small cracks and pores in the rock, freezes, expands, and wedges the openings larger. Over many alternate cycles of freezing and thawing, the two sides of the wedged rock can completely separate. Plant growth in these opening can accelerate the wedging. Another very common process that weathers rock is “exfoliation“, which occurs as the surface of a rock heats and cools more rapidly than the interior, causing layers near the surface to flake off.

The so-called “Split Rock of Horeb” is an archaeological fraud, but it illustrates both frost wedging and exfoliation. The large split and the rocks at its base are examples of wedging, and both the Split Rock itself and the foreground rocks show extensive exfoliation. From Google Earth.

Eventually, weathered rock fragments can become small enough to be transported by erosion. As they tumble along, they will be further broken up as they knock into other fragments, a process called “saltation“. Roiling water from the Genesis Flood could have redistributed loose fragments—soil, dirt, pebbles, and even larger rock—and further broken and shaped some of these fragments, but it could not, in a span of only 40 days, have caused any significant erosion of solid rock, even if heavily laden with abrasive silt. Nor could the Flood account for the rounding and blunting that we typically see in sand grains and many other clastics. The Flood, as cataclysmic as it was, simply did not last long enough or provide the temperature swings or friction surfaces needed to account for the clastic structure we see.

Can I prove this? No, but it is my professional opinion, and Scripture has nothing to say on the process. Scientific studies could be done to prove the feasibility (or not!), but I haven’t seen any such research. The relevant discipline to conduct such studies is called “rock mechanics“, and in fact rock mechanics was the focus of my own master’s thesis.

To top

Homogeneity and sharp boundaries

Sedimentary rock strata sometimes extend laterally for long distances—often hundreds, or even thousands, of square miles which, strangely, Flood Theory enthusiasts seem to regard as proof of their point. In general, the strata tend to be mostly homogeneous, with few random impurities indicating uneven mixing with other rock types during deposition. Furthermore, the boundaries between layers tend to be crisp and well-defined. A sandstone, for example, does not normally grade into a shale or a limestone.

These characteristics are the opposite of what one would expect of sediments transported by a violent flood. During the rain, and afterwards as the water receded, any large or dense rocks transported would quickly have sunk to the bottom, followed by smaller and less dense rocks, and finally silt. The final result would be a single, deep, turbidity layer, grading from heavy, dense rock at the bottom, to lighter clastics at the top. Sorting would be by size and weight, not by rock type.

To top

Limestone strata

Limestone is formed from the skeletal material of sea life. A critter dies and sinks to the bottom. Its soft tissues decay, and what remains calcifies. Over time, enough of this material accumulates to form beds that fuse into massive rock strata. In a Flood scenario, we should expect to see calcified remains more or less distributed throughout the single, thick stratum discussed above. Of course, we do see some distribution of calcified fossil remains in all rock types, but additionally we see massive continuous beds of relatively pure limestone interbedded with sandstones and shales and other rock types. I simply don’t see how this can be accounted for without repeated flooding over long intervals of time. Almighty God could have simply spoken it into being in this configuration, or He could have directed the Flood waters and upheavals in such a way as to “stack it” to His own specifications, but why? Only to fool us into discounting our own senses? If I could see anything in Scripture to make me think this way, I would accept it. But I simply don’t!

Let’s say that the cataclysmic geologic activity associated with such a flood caused mountains to cyclically rise and recede in a very short time span and caused rock and debris to wash into the low areas, burying forests and animal life forms. If the up-thrust rock was composed differently from place to place, couldn’t this alternating rise and fall account for the rock strata that we observe? No! Such a violent scenario would cause mixing of the materials, not sorting and stratification, particularly since most of the rock strata are composed of very fine-grained clastics that are themselves a product of weathering and subsequent erosion over long periods of time.

To top

Reversed sequences

Geologists have mapped the “normal sequence” of rock strata—the so-called “geologic column“—at many locations throughout the world. At any particular location, it is not at all uncommon to find that various members of the normal column are missing, since stratum thicknesses vary naturally from place to place, all the way down to zero; but the overall sequence is nevertheless still normally recognizable. It is also not terribly uncommon to find regions where the sequence is exactly reversed; in other words where we find the apparent age of the rocks decreasing with depth. This is evident, for example, in some of the rocks exposed by the Grand Canyon. Genesis Flood theorists are fond of chuckling at the irony they see in this. “Haha, geologists, the joke’s on you! Not only is the sequence wrong, but it is exactly opposite from what you expected!” In reality, this is easy to explain. Tectonic forces cause deformation and bending of entire sequences of strata. In nature we find them tilted to all angles, including completely flipped over. This is the same thing that happens when you use your fingers to push the left and right edges of a newspaper towards each other. The difference is that solid rock is more or less rigid, unlike newsprint. Such deformations over the course of days or even years or decades would cause the rock to crumble and the strata to disintegrate. Over geologic time, however, “solid” rock tends to undergo “plastic” deformation. In geologic (not meteorological) time, it can flow like a viscous fluid—in fact, exactly like a glacier.

To top

Discontinuities and crossbedding

An unconformity in the region of the Chimborazo volcano, Ecuador. The lower strata were deposited horizontally, uplifted to the right, and then after a period of erosion, the upper strata were laid horizontally across the exposed edge. Subsequent uplifting was to the left. From GeologyIn.com.

A related effect that we frequently see over geologic time is that strata get “tilted” to some angle by those same tectonic forces, then the tilting action stops and weathering/erosion cuts horizontally across exposed edges of the strata. Flowing water initially brings debris down from the highlands and cuts river channels in those transported debris fields, but then over time there is a levelling effect, forming the broad, flat plains between mountain ranges and the coastal peneplains. Still later, deposition may form new strata in horizontal beds lying across the eroded edges of the older rock. The interface between the canted strata and the horizontal strata is called a “discontinuity” or “unconformity“. “Crossbedding” usually refers to unconformities in aeolian sands (see below).

To top

Aeolian deposits

Crossbedded aeolian sand deposits at Antelope Canyon, near Page, Arizona. From imgix.net.

Not all rock strata are deposited by water. Sometimes wind blowing over long periods of time can deposit clastic materials and form rock strata. These “aeolian” deposits have a very distinctive structure that is readily recognizable to geologists. Fossilized desert sand dunes are a subset of this group. I see no possible way that the Genesis Flood could account for these.

To top

Glaciation

U-shaped glacier-cut valley.
U-shaped glacier-cut valley.
Bridal Veil Falls, Yosemite National Park. Water spilling from a hanging valley into the glacial valley that cut across it.
Bridal Veil Falls, Yosemite National Park. Water spilling from a hanging valley into the glacial valley that cut across it.

Still other features are formed only by glaciers flowing slowly and plastically downhill. Flowing water cuts V-shaped valleys. Glaciers scoop out large and obvious U-shaped valleys, like using a giant spade. “Hanging valleys” are formed when one glacier melts away, leaving behind its characteristic U-shaped valley, and many thousands of years later a new glacier flows by at an angle to the first.

As glaciers flow, the debris that they scoop out of the canyons strings out to the side like snowbanks formed by plows after a storm. The debris itself is called “till” and it is tumbled and polished into a form that is easily recognizable. The so-called Split Rock of Horeb, in the first figure above, is a “glacial erratic” (a large, out of context rock pushed ahead of a glacier) sitting on a till deposited by a glacier during the last ice age, in what is now northwest Saudi Arabia. The ridges of till that I have described are called “lateral moraines.” The Genesis Flood could not in any way account for the effects of glaciation. Glacial ice, like rock strata, would crumble if it were deformed and forced to try and flow over a short time span.

To top

Evaporites

Salt, gypsum and a number of other deposits are laid down as a result of evaporation over long periods of time. Water simply cannot hold enough of these materials to form, in a short time span, the deep beds of such “evaporites” often found.

To top

Conclusions

I don’t think that God set out to destroy or remake the entire planet with the Flood! His purpose was to show fallen mankind after the Flood that He would not tolerate their evil ways forever. He saved Noah and his family. He saved animal species that could not swim. He did not destroy plant species or swimming animals, because they could survive the limited time span of the Flood. There was no reason to break up land masses, nor was there a mechanism for doing so, because “the fountains of the deep“, I believe, were the volcanic vents along the mid-oceanic ridges, and the rains were spawned by out-venting from those. So, far from being smashed by raging torrents and mudslides, the wicked were destroyed by rising waters, like in a huge bathtub. Similarly, the waters receded by means of suction into tectonic plate subduction zones, on a smaller scale, a proven and well-understood process.

Another important question not answered by the Flood Theory is, how would the Flood account for the apparent (and in my opinion, demonstrable) 13.7-billion-year age of the universe?

To top