It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How deep would The Flood have to have been to cover Earth?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 12:16 AM
link   
There is some degree of doubt regarding the precise length of the Biblical cubit, although most scholars seem to favour a length of around 1.5 feet (18 inches). Assuming the cubit to have been 1.5 feet, the Biblical Ark would have been 45 feet high, 75 feet in width, and 450 feet in length.

Okay, so if 1 cubit is approx. 1.5 feet or 18 inches, then 15 cubits is 22.5 feet or 270 inches. With these measurements in mind, please read the following few verses from the KJV,

Genesis 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

So how do you guys interpret this statement? Am I missing some obvious explanation here?

22.5 feet of water is hardly enough to cover the earth, or float the ark on. Do you think that, maybe, the mountains and canyons that exist today developed as a result of the Earth opening up to swallow the water?

Nobody ever seems to mention this verse when they discuss the Flood, yet it seems like it may be an important detail.

Any opinions?

(Not to be rude, but please don't post the usual, "Doesn't matter, didn't happen" type response if you are unable to consider the question from a "What if?" perspective.)


[Edited on 30-12-2003 by jezebel]




posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 12:19 AM
link   
It could mean 15 cubits above the tops of the mountains, it doesnt say 15 cubits from ground level or anything.



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel

Any opinions?

(Not to be rude, but please don't post the usual, "Doesn't matter, didn't happen" type response if you are unable to consider the question from a "What if?" perspective.)



Grrr...do you want my opinion or not?


Sorry... I think the most compelling thing is the use of 15 here. "Cubit shmubit" Biblical numbers tend to, well run in trends. To my knowledge 15 isn't one of the more popular ones, like 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 40. I know there are more, but I think I got the biggies.

"40" is my favorite. It means "alot". 40 days and 40 nights, 40 years wandering. I think Doug Adams was truly inspired in refining the holy version of 'alot' to more exacting scientific precision: 42!



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I think the most common sizes I have seen for the definition of a cubit is anywhere from 12-20 inches...really we have no idea.



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 12:31 AM
link   
from www.hyperdictionary.com...



The cubit varies in length in different countries, the
Roman cubit being 17,47 inches, the Greek 18,20, the
Hebrew somewhat longer, and the English 18 inches.



No matter what length you use it wouldn't be enough to cover the whole world if you start from where the water allready is. In Genisis 7:19 the water rose above the hills but doesn't tell you how much, and in 7:20 it rose another 15 cubits to cover the mountains.



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 12:45 AM
link   
If the highest mountain (Everest) is 29,000 feet above sea level, then for the Bible to be correct 15 cubits are 30,000 feet.

What is that, like 5 miles? Of course, a cubit was probably the commonly referred to 18 inches or whatever, so something's got to give...

And it aint Everest.

I mean if you think about, (if it happened)there should be fish fossils on every mountain top, and literally piles and piles of human and animal bones. Did everything not on the Ark just wait until they were neck deep to figure out something aint right? I'm not bashing here... but why just look for Noah's ark on mountian tops?

Shouldn't there be MILLIONS of dead people all in some cave near a mountain? Billions of insects on Everest? Or shouldn't every lake on the planet be salted? Imean where did Noah eventually find fresh water? More rain?


Sorry...I'm a jerk. But the flood myth really chaps my azz.

I still prefer the Sumerian version: www.historywiz.com...

Don't mess with the God Ea. He don't play.

[Edited on 30-12-2003 by RANT]



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Considering whoever wrote this had never travled to the known world as we know it


This flood encompassed the known world during that time.

Thier should be more evidence to proove otherwise, should thier not?

Deep



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Grrr...do you want my opinion or not?


Sorry... I think the most compelling thing is the use of 15 here. "Cubit shmubit" Biblical numbers tend to, well run in trends. To my knowledge 15 isn't one of the more popular ones, like 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 40. I know there are more, but I think I got the biggies.

"40" is my favorite. It means "alot". 40 days and 40 nights, 40 years wandering. I think Doug Adams was truly inspired in refining the holy version of 'alot' to more exacting scientific precision: 42!


I tend to share this belief, I think. If it was 15 cubits above the highest point, why even mention the 15 cubits? It seems like it must bear some significance beyond just the literal.

Unless of course, it was just to make it clear that no one could have escaped because the water was 23 feet higher than the highest point.

Considering the importance and complex meanings of numbers throughout the Bible, however, this seems awfully simplistic to me.



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I beleive that the 15 cubits refers to how high the water climbed above the mountains. Probably the mountains were much smaller, because in Psalms the Bible describes the mountains and valleys being made during the flood. But the question is it possible for the tallest mountains to be under water? Well expiditions to Mt. Everest have found that the very top of the mountain is covered in fossil sea shells, like clams and mollusks.



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I personally think that:

1. the "global" flood only refers to flooding of the "known" world at the time (i.e. largely just the middle east).
2. it wasn't all-covering, just enough to wipe out major settlements.
3. happened in the earlier days of man. (pre-history)
4. did disrupt the society that existed at the time.



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 10:32 AM
link   
If you want a scientific explanation of the flood and how it could have happened you can visit this site. www.creationscience.com... It contains a well thought out theory of a global flood. while I don't count it to be absolute truth it certainly has no more holes in it than the current theory of millions of years of dust accumulation upon the surface of the earth creating uniform layers in the strata. It is a good read if you will take the time to evaluate the information in total rather than picking apart a piece here or there. Check it out if you are open to new theories as science is intended to be.



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 10:45 AM
link   
It says...

Genesis 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

-so what are you missing?

-the mountains were covered, plus 15 cubits more.

[21] And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

[22] All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

-all land was covered.



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 12:10 PM
link   
It didn't flood the whole world, but just parts of it. It is described very clearly in other religions. The flood of the whole world is just as the "almightyness" of the Gods.

-edit:

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


Another religion describes it from within a cave of a mountain, does any bell ring to anyone when saying this?

[Edited on 31-12-2003 by LeenBekkemaa]



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Well expiditions to Mt. Everest have found that the very top of the mountain is covered in fossil sea shells, like clams and mollusks.


this can be accounted for in continental drift, before India impacted Asia and created the Himalayas that region could have very easily been flooded and fossils deposited there, and then those fossils got pushed up with the rest of the mountains, India and Asia met relatively recently, therefore those mountains were created relatively recently, this is no evidence of a flood high enough to cover them

I just want to point out that there isn't enough water on the planet to completely cover every inch of land



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 01:23 PM
link   
if i make no sense here then its b/c i didnt have the time to read any of these posts on this thread, but this is what i thought of when i read the title.

pangae (sp?)... when all of the continents were together to form a "supercontinent". so the rest of the earth would be oceans. (this next part is debatable, as is everything ive already said) but from i learned, mt. everest and other mountains were made by the plates converging underground. so possibly the highest points of earth werent very high. so it wouldnt take much to cover the entire earth.

i'm probably wrong but thats what came to mind.



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Well since everyone knows that the earth is flat it shouldnt have taken very much



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 01:59 PM
link   
pangea hasn't existed in hundreds of millions of years, far before man existed, the world of man has always been nearly the same, mainly the big changes to the world while we have been here have been climate



posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Or shouldn't every lake on the planet be salted? Imean where did Noah eventually find fresh water? More rain?



The Salt that is in the oceans today come from rocks containing various salts. Wind, rain, and erosion gradually wear down mountains and rocks. Rain then dissolves the salts in to streams that eventually reach the sea.

Most Lakes are relatively new compared to the age of the earth, and the salt from rainwater runoff has not had time to build up. In addition many lakes have outlet streams or rivers to let the water out when it reaches a certain height. The lakes may also be in a cooler climate which prevents a high degree of evaporation.

The salty lakes that we have today (Great Salt Lake, Salton Sea, Dead Sea, etc...) are salty because they are in desert enviroments that lead to greater evaporation and also have no outlet.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by KKing123
pangea hasn't existed in hundreds of millions of years, far before man existed, the world of man has always been nearly the same, mainly the big changes to the world while we have been here have been climate


you got me on that... and congratulations on your new addition to the family.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
If the highest mountain (Everest) is 29,000 feet above sea level, then for the Bible to be correct 15 cubits are 30,000 feet.

youre reading single verses which suit your designs. it rose 15 cubits to cover the mountains, the hills were already covered.

What is that, like 5 miles? Of course, a cubit was probably the commonly referred to 18 inches or whatever, so something's got to give...

And it aint Everest.

I mean if you think about, (if it happened)there should be fish fossils on every mountain top, and literally piles and piles of human and animal bones. Did everything not on the Ark just wait until they were neck deep to figure out something aint right? I'm not bashing here... but why just look for Noah's ark on mountian tops?

Shouldn't there be MILLIONS of dead people all in some cave near a mountain? Billions of insects on Everest? Or shouldn't every lake on the planet be salted? Imean where did Noah eventually find fresh water? More rain?


first off, fossils dont form so easily. hence we dont find millions of fossils of dinosaurs and such, because conditions have to be PERFECT for a fossil to form. something off, and its all moot. plus, fossils take millions of years to form, and the flood was said to have happened mere thousands. theory disproved. next;
lakes arent normally static things, hence they wouldnt stay salted for very long, atleast not in the timeframe of the earth


Sorry...I'm a jerk. But the flood myth really chaps my azz.

I still prefer the Sumerian version: www.historywiz.com...


Don't mess with the God Ea. He don't play.

my god can beat up your god.


[Edited on 30-12-2003 by RANT]


[Edited on 7-1-2004 by forsakenwayfarer]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join