rain waters?
Paul Arveson (arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil)
Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:24:43 -0400
>On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, Matthew Bell wrote:
>
>> 'And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth/land; and *all* the
>> high hills, that were under the *whole* heaven, were covered'.
>>
>> This verse was brought to my attention from another list where the
>> following 'difficulty' was also posited.
>>
>> '. If ALL the high mountains under the WHOLE heaven were covered, then we
>> can reasonably conclude that at least several HIGH mountains were covered,
>> can't we? So how can this be harmonized with the fact that water will seek
>> its own level? In other words, how could water cover just some "high
>> mountains" without first leveling off, as it sought its own level, so that
>> NO high mountains could have been covered until the water had fallen to a
>> level that was higher than the "HIGH" mountain? To imagine the local-flood
>> scenario that Matt hinted at, one would have to visualize a "mound" of
>> water standing suspended over the mountains of Ararat in defiance of the
>> scientific law that says water will seek its own level.'
Maybe it just means that the RAIN waters covered all the mountains???
Paul Arveson, Code 724, Research Physicist, Signatures Directorate
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
9500 MacArthur Blvd., West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil bridges@his.com
(301) 227-3831