I bought an old book called The Bible As History by Werner Keller (New York, 1981). Yes, it's old, but it has the same general challenge the websites and the apologetics articles address, which is whether "the" flood was global or local. This book presents the evidence that a flood occured.
I will present the findings using quotes from the book, then my opinion of the article written by the website GodandScience.org. Finally I will give my personal thoughts.
“Actually it was by coincidence—during research into something quite different—that unmistakable evidence of the Flood appeared, as it were, of its own accord. And that happened at a place we have already got to know: at the excavation at Ur.” (p.44)The archeologist Woolley discovered the great kings of Ur.
“Directly under the floor of the tombs of the kings we found in a layer of charred wood ash numerous clay tablets, which were covered with characters of a much older type than the inscriptions on the graves. Judging by the nature of the writing the tablets could be assigned to about 3000 B.C. They were therefore two or three centuries earlier than the tombs.” (p. 45)Woolley dug beneath the floor of the tomb to find virgin soil, but found clay instead. “He carefully prodded the ground on the floor of the shaft and stopped short: it was clay, pure clay of a kind that could only have been deposited by water!” (p. 46) “Under this clay deposit almost 10 feet thick they had struck fresh evidence of human habitation.” (p.46) “The Flood—that was the only possible explanation of this great clay deposit beneath the hill at Ur, which quite clearly separated two epochs of settlement. The sea had left its unmistakable traces in the shape of remains of little marine organisms embedded in the clay.” (p. 47) “Other archeologists discovered a further important check-point near Kish, south-east of Babylon, where the Euphrates and the Tigris flow in a great bend towards each other.” (p. 48) “According to Woolley the disaster engulfed an area north-west of the Persian Gulf amounting to 400 miles long and 100 miles wide, looking at the map we should call it today “a local occurrence”—for the inhabitants of the river plains it was however in those days their whole world.” (p. 48) “Reckoning by the age of the strata containing traces of human habitation, and in this respect they are as reliable as a calendar, it could also be ascertained when the great Flood took place. It happened about 4000 B.C.” (p. 48) Woolley and another archeologist, Langdon, bickered about the time frame of the flood and their dating did not align. “In other words, Woolley’s “Flood” was obviously not of sufficient magnitude for the Biblical “Flood”, unless we assume that one of the flood catastrophes shown by archeology to have occurred in Mesopotamia had nevertheless had such a lasting effect on the inhabitants of those days that—with considerable amount of exaggeration—the tradition of a catastrophe to humanity could arise from it. Naturally, however, this supposition and the Biblical flood, at any rate a flood of the unimaginable extent described in the Bible, still remains “archeologically not demonstrated”.(p. 49)
Concerning the article titled: The Genesis Flood - Why the Bible Says It Must Be Localhttp://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
In this article Rich Deem lays out his reasoning behind supporting a local flood instead of a global flood. Take a moment to read the article to see what he has to say. I read the Scripture he mentioned (Psalms) and I also remember the account of the Tower of Babel, which I think is a good reference to the people of Earth at the time. I feel that it is plausible for the Lord to be speaking of the “whole earth” and mean the people in that remote area, which is similar to people currently saying, “everyone is sick”, when in reality they mean about three people in their personal circle are sick, not the entirety of the earth.
The specific verse in Psalms 104:9 “You set a boundary they [water] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.” I disagree when the article mentions that this verse makes it clear that the flood was local. I do not feel this is referring to the boundaries of the flood as it spread, but more so the boundaries of the water when it was first established at creation, and the fact that the Lord would keep his word to never flood the earth again, which pushes me closer to the idea that the Lord covered the entire earth in water, not just a certain area.
My Conclusion:
It’s clear that the brief evidence that has been presented archeologically from The Bible As History, the flood seems more local than global. I think that this heavy flood (400 miles long, 100 miles wide) does not have to be considered the Biblical flood, but should definitely be given some supernatural considerations as to its origin. I think that if a skeptic would decide to stake their opinion of the reliability of the Bible based only on what has been presented here for the account of the flood, that person is seeking to discredit the Bible without any real effort in their research. I think that this sentiment can be applied to some Christians (myself among them) who discredit evolution and other scientific theories without knowing the specifics of the issue. I feel that the research I am doing will provide a more educated response to some matters (creationism, evolution, young-earth and old-earth theories) and I would hope that it would inspire some atheists to have an educated response to Biblical things, which would mean exegetical and historical research, not just, “it doesn’t make sense, so I don’t believe it” that’s how too many religious people respond, don’t you agree?
So, did the flood really occur? According to what has been presented a flood did occur, whether it’s “the” flood will be up to the individual. Since none of us were present when this flood happened we either have faith that it was not the flood of the Bible or have faith that it was. We either have faith that the flood covered the entire world or we have faith it was local. Whatever happens, we must use our faith to decide for us because the evidence can only verify it happened, but cannot verify every detail, take the pyramids for example, as far as I know, we’re still having trouble understanding how they were built. Basically, it’s our understanding of the subject as a whole that determines what we’ll believe.
An Example:
Fact: Women lie.
My mother is a woman, therefore she’s a liar.
But from what I know of her as a person, she speaks the truth more than lies. In response to my understanding of her and experience with her, I believe my mother is honest.
This does not overrule the fact that she’s a liar instead belief allows me to extend trust that my knowledge of her is sufficient for me to continue being connected and in contact with her.
(My knowledge of God (based on understanding and experience) is sufficient for me to extend trust in the Bible and to continue being connected and in contact with the Bible and God, though some facts may oppose me.)
Based on my understanding of God as revealed in the Bible I believe that the Flood took place around 4,000 BC. I think it’s convenient to say that it was local because then the Egyptian civilization could still be moving and growing, unharmed, while all the other wicked people are washed away in this huge restricted flood. I would rather stick to the original idea that the Flood was worldwide and that the animals needed to be aboard the ark because God wasn’t going to let the others survive. I think that a local flood would rarely maroon a boat on a mountain and I also think that constant rain for 40 days and 40 nights would cause a lot more rushing water than just 400 miles long, 100 miles wide.
This is what I have come up with.
Salty (Q2: Did the exodus really occur?)
I will present the findings using quotes from the book, then my opinion of the article written by the website GodandScience.org. Finally I will give my personal thoughts.
“Actually it was by coincidence—during research into something quite different—that unmistakable evidence of the Flood appeared, as it were, of its own accord. And that happened at a place we have already got to know: at the excavation at Ur.” (p.44)The archeologist Woolley discovered the great kings of Ur.
“Directly under the floor of the tombs of the kings we found in a layer of charred wood ash numerous clay tablets, which were covered with characters of a much older type than the inscriptions on the graves. Judging by the nature of the writing the tablets could be assigned to about 3000 B.C. They were therefore two or three centuries earlier than the tombs.” (p. 45)Woolley dug beneath the floor of the tomb to find virgin soil, but found clay instead. “He carefully prodded the ground on the floor of the shaft and stopped short: it was clay, pure clay of a kind that could only have been deposited by water!” (p. 46) “Under this clay deposit almost 10 feet thick they had struck fresh evidence of human habitation.” (p.46) “The Flood—that was the only possible explanation of this great clay deposit beneath the hill at Ur, which quite clearly separated two epochs of settlement. The sea had left its unmistakable traces in the shape of remains of little marine organisms embedded in the clay.” (p. 47) “Other archeologists discovered a further important check-point near Kish, south-east of Babylon, where the Euphrates and the Tigris flow in a great bend towards each other.” (p. 48) “According to Woolley the disaster engulfed an area north-west of the Persian Gulf amounting to 400 miles long and 100 miles wide, looking at the map we should call it today “a local occurrence”—for the inhabitants of the river plains it was however in those days their whole world.” (p. 48) “Reckoning by the age of the strata containing traces of human habitation, and in this respect they are as reliable as a calendar, it could also be ascertained when the great Flood took place. It happened about 4000 B.C.” (p. 48) Woolley and another archeologist, Langdon, bickered about the time frame of the flood and their dating did not align. “In other words, Woolley’s “Flood” was obviously not of sufficient magnitude for the Biblical “Flood”, unless we assume that one of the flood catastrophes shown by archeology to have occurred in Mesopotamia had nevertheless had such a lasting effect on the inhabitants of those days that—with considerable amount of exaggeration—the tradition of a catastrophe to humanity could arise from it. Naturally, however, this supposition and the Biblical flood, at any rate a flood of the unimaginable extent described in the Bible, still remains “archeologically not demonstrated”.(p. 49)
Concerning the article titled: The Genesis Flood - Why the Bible Says It Must Be Localhttp://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
In this article Rich Deem lays out his reasoning behind supporting a local flood instead of a global flood. Take a moment to read the article to see what he has to say. I read the Scripture he mentioned (Psalms) and I also remember the account of the Tower of Babel, which I think is a good reference to the people of Earth at the time. I feel that it is plausible for the Lord to be speaking of the “whole earth” and mean the people in that remote area, which is similar to people currently saying, “everyone is sick”, when in reality they mean about three people in their personal circle are sick, not the entirety of the earth.
The specific verse in Psalms 104:9 “You set a boundary they [water] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.” I disagree when the article mentions that this verse makes it clear that the flood was local. I do not feel this is referring to the boundaries of the flood as it spread, but more so the boundaries of the water when it was first established at creation, and the fact that the Lord would keep his word to never flood the earth again, which pushes me closer to the idea that the Lord covered the entire earth in water, not just a certain area.
My Conclusion:
It’s clear that the brief evidence that has been presented archeologically from The Bible As History, the flood seems more local than global. I think that this heavy flood (400 miles long, 100 miles wide) does not have to be considered the Biblical flood, but should definitely be given some supernatural considerations as to its origin. I think that if a skeptic would decide to stake their opinion of the reliability of the Bible based only on what has been presented here for the account of the flood, that person is seeking to discredit the Bible without any real effort in their research. I think that this sentiment can be applied to some Christians (myself among them) who discredit evolution and other scientific theories without knowing the specifics of the issue. I feel that the research I am doing will provide a more educated response to some matters (creationism, evolution, young-earth and old-earth theories) and I would hope that it would inspire some atheists to have an educated response to Biblical things, which would mean exegetical and historical research, not just, “it doesn’t make sense, so I don’t believe it” that’s how too many religious people respond, don’t you agree?
So, did the flood really occur? According to what has been presented a flood did occur, whether it’s “the” flood will be up to the individual. Since none of us were present when this flood happened we either have faith that it was not the flood of the Bible or have faith that it was. We either have faith that the flood covered the entire world or we have faith it was local. Whatever happens, we must use our faith to decide for us because the evidence can only verify it happened, but cannot verify every detail, take the pyramids for example, as far as I know, we’re still having trouble understanding how they were built. Basically, it’s our understanding of the subject as a whole that determines what we’ll believe.
An Example:
Fact: Women lie.
My mother is a woman, therefore she’s a liar.
But from what I know of her as a person, she speaks the truth more than lies. In response to my understanding of her and experience with her, I believe my mother is honest.
This does not overrule the fact that she’s a liar instead belief allows me to extend trust that my knowledge of her is sufficient for me to continue being connected and in contact with her.
(My knowledge of God (based on understanding and experience) is sufficient for me to extend trust in the Bible and to continue being connected and in contact with the Bible and God, though some facts may oppose me.)
Based on my understanding of God as revealed in the Bible I believe that the Flood took place around 4,000 BC. I think it’s convenient to say that it was local because then the Egyptian civilization could still be moving and growing, unharmed, while all the other wicked people are washed away in this huge restricted flood. I would rather stick to the original idea that the Flood was worldwide and that the animals needed to be aboard the ark because God wasn’t going to let the others survive. I think that a local flood would rarely maroon a boat on a mountain and I also think that constant rain for 40 days and 40 nights would cause a lot more rushing water than just 400 miles long, 100 miles wide.
This is what I have come up with.
Salty (Q2: Did the exodus really occur?)
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." Hebrews 11:6
![[Image: Evolution.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FPublic%2FEvolution.png)
![[Image: liar-animated-animation-liar-smiley-emot...-large.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FEmoticons%2520Insults%2520and%2520Kudos%2Fliar-animated-animation-liar-smiley-emoticon-000361-large.gif)
