A contentious issue that seems to be a major dividing point between atheists and the religious, as well as among various religious groups themselves, is the biblical account of the Flood. This has ranged, comically in some cases, from external discussions regarding the breathing space and window size needed for x number of species to apparent internal contradictions in the durations of the flood itself. Obviously, undertaking every issue would require more time than I have to spare, but I can hopefully settle enough in the following posts so as to dissipate some of the histrionics that plague serious discussion. First of all, the notion of the geographic universality of the Flood can, contrary to some interpreters, be abandoned while still doing justice to the Genesis account and without compromising the anthropological universality the Deluge.
Pace the dogmatic assertions of many, the notion of a local flood can be defended with considerable scientific plausibility and remain biblically sound. I would like to, first, enumerate some of the various objections made to the concept of geographical universality:
1) There is no geological evidence that supports the idea of a global flood. Wouldn’t an event of such magnitude yield a considerable amount of geological evidence? In fact, it would seem that geology would point to this event with such force that it would be impossible not to affirm.
2) There seems to be a gap in our understanding as to where the water actually originated. Moreover, the point is made that 40 days of even the most extensive and severe rainfall could not have accounted for the extent to which the waters would have needed to be raised to cover the Earth. Borrowing some rounded figures, the Earth’s surface is two hundred million square miles, and the highest point is about 30,000 feet. This would be approximately 2.85 billion cubic miles of water. The rate at which it would have to rain over a forty day period to achieve this amount of water is simply unfathomable. Besides, where did this massive amount of water come from? It simply won’t do to posit mysteriously undiscovered lithospheric lakes.
3) The mixing of fresh and salt water in a geographical flood would be such that both sorts of fish would likely die.
4) How would Noah and his family have been able to go to the various remote areas of the Earth to acquire the necessary animals, as well as sustain the necessary food for this variegated group of animals? Also, given the antediluvian technology, how could the boat have provided necessary conditions for animals from varying portions of the Earth, say, like a camel and a penguin?
5) In connection with the aforementioned, assuming that most proponents of geographical universality are apt to accept the picture of the continents as we currently see them, how could Noah have possibly gotten to the Americas to bring back the necessary species?
There are of course many other objections, but I think these would absorb them in varying degrees. These objections seem, precluding miracles, to present a difficulty for geographic universality. In order to avoid 1-5, you would be forced to admit to the more than considerable role of miracles in the process, which is not a problem per se, but should at least be a stance taken in the light of well- attested biblically accounted for miracles that one is not forced to impose upon a text that seems otherwise silent on the issue. Therefore, I think that a local flood event jives much better with what we can discover scientifically. But the question remains: Is this account of a local flood biblically acceptable?
No comments:
Post a Comment