>Stephen writes
>
>However, I will point out that nowhere in the Bible does it say that
>the Ark floated down a river or landed on a mountain top.
Bill Hamilton replied:
>>Gen 8:4: And in the seventh month , on the seventeenth day of the month,the
ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.
Stephen brings up a point I've always wondered about: why is it that some
young-earth creationists interpret Gen 8:4 to mean that the ark came to rest
not only on Mt Ararat, but fairly high up on it? The languuage is vague, and
would be satisfied IMO if the ark came to rest anywhere in range Mt. Ararat
is in, or anywhere on the side of Ararat or a nearby peak. <<
This is an interesting point. For anyone who thinks that this can be the
description of a riverine flood, the longest river on earth is either the
Nile or Amazon depending on definitions. Both are about 4,100 miles long.
rivers travel at 1-2 miles per hour. In a year you could float a minimum of
8800 miles. Does anyone really think that after floating down hill twice the
length of the longest known river, that the Bible could describe the ark as
landing on mountains? It would land on the sea.
This leaves two options: reject the account as a fable, or find another
place which can suffice to match the description. While Stephen is correct
that it doesn't have to land on top of a mountain, it would be hard to figure
out how it could land in the mountains, like say, the mountains of Colorado,
after a year's trip running the rapids.
For those who are primarily interested in creation, and don't necessarily
see the importance of the Genesis 6-9 account, I would say that if we cannot
verify the more recent event of scripture, at which humans existed (they
weren't there at creation) how can we hope to verify the concept that God
created the world? And, the explanation of the flood that I suggest,
requires an evolutionary viewpoint.
glenn