Ever wondered if Noah's flood really could have happened? Could all the animals fit on the ark? How did the animals disperse back to their continents? How did Noah possibly capture so many animals? How could so many animals survive for a year on a boat without climate control? What about food?
Back in my days as a marine biologist, I wrote several posts about how Noah's flood couldn't have happened in the last 10,000 years. If it were a flood that covered "all the highest mountains" in the region, it would have definitely killed 100% of certain coral species--these coral species are around today (but wouldn't have had time to evolve), so the flood didn't happen.
http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral.html
http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral-planetary-flood.html
I really thought it was an example of a definite error in the Bible, and one that had major theological significance due to it's proximity to the stories of Adam and Abraham.
It turns out I was wrong.
The translation of two key words in a single verse, Genesis 7:19, makes all the difference.
Here is the translation from NET Bible:
"The waters completely inundated the earth so that even all the high mountains under the entire sky were covered."
And here is the Hebrew:
"והמים גברו מאד מאד על הארץ ויכסו כל ההרים הגבהים אשר תחת כל השמים"
The two words I highlighted are הארץ and ההרים, pronounced "erets" and "har", which mean "earth" and "mountain".
But what do they really mean?
Well, "erets" almost certainly doesn't mean the entire globe. It is most frequently translated "land", as in "land of Israel" (as opposed to "planet of Israel"), and it can also mean ground, country, territory, region, and a smattering of other closely related words (from Strong's Lexicon). "Entire globe" almost definitely is NOT what the author had in mind--ancient Hebrews didn't understand the planet the way we do. It was probably closer to something like this:
http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2012/11/Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe.png
At any rate, there simply isn't a good reason to think that the author of Genesis had "entire planet" in mind. I think the best translation is "region".
As for "har", it is most frequently translated "hill", although it can also mean mountain, hill country, or mount (from Strong's Lexicon). There is no context that suggests "mountain" is a better translation, but even if it were, what exactly qualifies as a mountain? Is the cutoff at 100 meters high? or 1,000 meters? Further, the author specifies that the water covered the mountains by 30 meters. If the flood covered Everest, there would only be one mountain that could have been covered at that depth, not multiple mountains.
Because of all this, the most reasonable interpretation of the verse is as follows:
"The waters completely inundated the region so that even all the high hills were covered."
This means that Noah only needed to get the animals that were already close to him, freeing up plenty of room to stretch on the ark. There would be no extinct coral, and land animals would have no problem making a local comeback. There would be no global distribution problem. It could have just been a record-setting flood that hit a single region, but had no global impact.
What's more, the last Meltwater Pulse at the tail-end of the last ice-age was within the time range that Noah's flood could have happened. Even without divine intervention, there probably were record-setting floods going off all around the globe (think Gilgamesh and other ancient flood stories).
In conclusion, I was wrong. I thought that Noah's Flood couldn't have happened the way the Bible describes it, but it definitely could have.
Back in my days as a marine biologist, I wrote several posts about how Noah's flood couldn't have happened in the last 10,000 years. If it were a flood that covered "all the highest mountains" in the region, it would have definitely killed 100% of certain coral species--these coral species are around today (but wouldn't have had time to evolve), so the flood didn't happen.
http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral.html
http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral-planetary-flood.html
I really thought it was an example of a definite error in the Bible, and one that had major theological significance due to it's proximity to the stories of Adam and Abraham.
It turns out I was wrong.
The translation of two key words in a single verse, Genesis 7:19, makes all the difference.
Here is the translation from NET Bible:
"The waters completely inundated the earth so that even all the high mountains under the entire sky were covered."
And here is the Hebrew:
"והמים גברו מאד מאד על הארץ ויכסו כל ההרים הגבהים אשר תחת כל השמים"
The two words I highlighted are הארץ and ההרים, pronounced "erets" and "har", which mean "earth" and "mountain".
But what do they really mean?
Well, "erets" almost certainly doesn't mean the entire globe. It is most frequently translated "land", as in "land of Israel" (as opposed to "planet of Israel"), and it can also mean ground, country, territory, region, and a smattering of other closely related words (from Strong's Lexicon). "Entire globe" almost definitely is NOT what the author had in mind--ancient Hebrews didn't understand the planet the way we do. It was probably closer to something like this:
http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2012/11/Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe.png
At any rate, there simply isn't a good reason to think that the author of Genesis had "entire planet" in mind. I think the best translation is "region".
As for "har", it is most frequently translated "hill", although it can also mean mountain, hill country, or mount (from Strong's Lexicon). There is no context that suggests "mountain" is a better translation, but even if it were, what exactly qualifies as a mountain? Is the cutoff at 100 meters high? or 1,000 meters? Further, the author specifies that the water covered the mountains by 30 meters. If the flood covered Everest, there would only be one mountain that could have been covered at that depth, not multiple mountains.
Because of all this, the most reasonable interpretation of the verse is as follows:
"The waters completely inundated the region so that even all the high hills were covered."
This means that Noah only needed to get the animals that were already close to him, freeing up plenty of room to stretch on the ark. There would be no extinct coral, and land animals would have no problem making a local comeback. There would be no global distribution problem. It could have just been a record-setting flood that hit a single region, but had no global impact.
What's more, the last Meltwater Pulse at the tail-end of the last ice-age was within the time range that Noah's flood could have happened. Even without divine intervention, there probably were record-setting floods going off all around the globe (think Gilgamesh and other ancient flood stories).
In conclusion, I was wrong. I thought that Noah's Flood couldn't have happened the way the Bible describes it, but it definitely could have.
