Genesis 7: 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.
The book of Genesis tells us that the flood of Noah’s day covered the entire earth, and the water rose above the highest mountain. Some people try to claim that the Bible teaches that the world is flat, but not only does it never say so, but it says much which disproves this theory. One such example is the flood.
A flood above the highest mountains can’t work on a flat earth. A global flood assumes a ball earth, because only on a globe can the waters continue to rise. If the earth were flat, the water could not rise above the highest mountains. The water would run over the edge of the disk before it could pile up a mile or more.
So this accusation that Genesis teaches a flat earth doesn’t hold any water.
Boom. That’s science, bro.
For more reasons why the Flood in Genesisis real history, check out our series on the flood.
You are forgetting the magic finger of God! Certainly if he can hold the waters of the Nile at arms length he can make the world look like a infinity pool?
Greetings Dennis! I didn’t think you were still following us here at the old Bit of Orange. Welcome back.
Yes, I had thought of that. Certainly God could create a pile of water in any shape he wants, but if God was simply going to break ALL of the rules, why even make it rain? Or even have an ark? The flood is like many if not most miracles- there is some supernatural action which leads to a natural result. Or, as CS Lewis put it, God acts supernaturally, crating a cause with no NATURAL explanation, and Nature is an accomplished hostess who accommodates the cause with a Natural effect. There are some who speculate that God planned the flood into the creation of the globe itself, knowing how to set it as a ticking alarm clock of watery doom. I can’t say one way or the other. But from what God tends to do as revealed in the Bible, and what we are told in Genesis, I am thinking I have made at least a rational deduction from what I can know.
as always, thanks for your comments.
The Bible clearly assumes a flat earth as all ancient Middle East
The Bible can be made to imply Noahs flood was general.
So, either the Bible does not assume a flat earth (as defended here) or Noahs flood was not general. The one conclusion is as good as the other.
Nope. Wrong on all accounts. And again, why you make NO effort to defend these assertions? Because I have written various articles and posted links to resources which show how VERY wrong your starting assumptions are here. YOU make claim, YOU have burden of proof, YOU ought to build a case. This mere flat assertion is a waste of both of our time, and as you have seen, I get busy with other things and don’t get around to answering all of my fan mail. You really ought to try harder to make it worth both of our time.
Ha. Funny. Here are a couple of fun scriptures:
>Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. – Matthew 4:8
If you are on a mountain, and the earth is spherical, wouldn’t you see less? You could only see all if the world was flat.
>And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. – Revelation 7:1
Four corners? Like a sheet? Like a flat sheet?
>Daniel 4:7-8, “I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth.”
A tree can only be seen from everywhere if the earth was flat.
But the early xtians clearly adopted Aristotle’s ideas of a spherical earth. At least most of them. I truly doubt that between starving and being tossed in the forum that the shape of the earth was of much import. Of course, all of these scripture can be argued as poetry and not as fact, which is a very excellent point.
Greetings again, Dennis-
It sounds like you have answered your own question here: Of course, all of these scripture can be argued as poetry and not as fact, which is a very excellent point.
If you look into the kind of literature that Daniel and Revelation are, they are not intended to be taken literally. Have you read Revelation? NO ONE has ever thought it was just a literal telling of events- not even John, and he wrote it. I like to think of it as a combination of Goth art and a burrito induced dream. Similarly with Daniel (Very much like Revelation in a lot of ways) it contains dream like visions of images that REPRESENT something, not a literal depiction of it. The four corners of the earth are the four corners of a map, and we still use that language just as we refer to the sun rising, even though we all know we mean something less literal. Similarly, the Bible calls Jesus the Lamb of God but we still assume him to be walking on two legs and not always wearing wool.
The Bible is a collection of different books of a variety of styles and of course the only way to interpret any piece of literature is within the context of its own genre.
Now Matthew 4:8 is, of course, historical narrative, but what does it mean by “showed him all of the kingdoms of the earth?” Does that HAVE to be interpreted to mean they could see the whole thing at once from a standing spot? Or even that they were seeing it by the transmission of light from the source to the eyes by way of a strait line? I like to think that Satan set up a power point presentation. It makes the most sense when you think about it like a time share sales pitch.
Lots of parallels there…
I agree of course that the science of astronomy or the 3 dimensional reality of the geology beneath their feet wasn’t a live issue for many in the old days, but I find the same is true today. While subbing in public schools some years back I took a few impromptu surveys and found that NONE of the classes of middle or high school students ever agreed unanimously that the earth is round. Apparently allowing prayer in schools wasn’t the cause of faith in the flat earth after all.
In short, you come up with some good points, and I thank you for sharing them. Of course my position is built on the need to understand literature according to it’s genre and the belief that Satan is at heart a scam-marketing salesman. In a tacky suit. But that’s not so much doctrine as my interpretation of scripture.
Thanks for your comments.
You stated that on a flat earth the waters would run over the disk and that it couldn’t cover the highest mountain. My response is “unless there is an enclosed firmament above. Like a snow globe: a flat bottom with the dome above to hold in the food”. Gen 1:7,. Psalms 19:1, Ezek 1:22, Daniel
Ah. I had not considered the snow globe model. I guess that does make a certain amount of sense, doesn’t it? Are you proposing this model seriously? And if so, what are the details? Where did the water come from? Where did it go? What is the firmament made of? I always seem to find more questions than answers. Either way, thanks for stopping by and reading.
I believe the original flat earth model has everyone unclosed in a crystalline structure not unlike a snow globe… So, still works