I've not been a "Flood" aficianado, so I haven't read all the YEC
literature and replies thereto. But something just struck me in all this.
Glenn, for one, has been asking why the geological evidence doesn't seem to
give a picture of a global flood. This is from a uniformitarian position,
of course, which assumes that the dynamics would have been exactly the same
then as today. But is this premise valid?
I went back to Genesis 8 and read the following in verse 1:
"But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that
were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters
receded." (NIV)
A couple of things struck me. It was not that the waters abated normally.
God sent a wind to do the job. Also, the word "recede" in the Hebrew is
best translated "assuage" or "subside." In verse 3 it literally states the
waters "returned" as a result.
Now, the wind here is like the wind God used another time:
"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the
LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry
land." (Exodux 14:21, NIV)
Check that out. The wind not only parted the waters, but made DRY LAND.
That's certainly NOT what your uniformitarian would expect, is it?
This, then, is my question: Could not the miraculous wind God used to dry
the Earth make the Earth, many thousands of years later, look exactly
like it does today? Might it indeed answer every single one of Gelnn's
objections if this is the case?
Jim