Re: The death of the RTB model

From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Thu Feb 23 2006 - 16:52:58 EST

 Bill Hamilton  wrote:

>I share your skepticism about poling the ark (although Dick's model has the size of the flood exaggerated, so why not the >ark too?). However, remember when the Mississippi flooded in the early 90's? The flood seemed to last for months, and it >was reported that at some points the river was 8 miles wide. Assuming the ark had 20 ft of free board and Noah was 6 ft >tall, I calculate that the horizon would have been about 6.3 miles distant. So a flood that spread out more than about
>12.5 miles would have put Noah out of sight of land (probably it wouldn't have had to spread that wide with the rain
>reducing visibility. In any case Noah probably kept the ark "buttoned up" most of the time -- remember they didn't have
>glass) So it's plausible that he could have been out of sight of land for maybe several months. Problems remaining: 1.
>Poling the ark upriver to "the mountains of Ararat" (+ the current would tend to take the ark into the Persian Gulf) 2. Is
>the Tigris valley wide enough that a flood could broaden the Tigris to ~12.5 miles?

It is fairly flat throughout the region and thus to have that situation and have the trees covered, one would have to have a BIG flood and then that brings up problems of water quantity, the current drift to the south, the length of poles necessary to push the ark.  And why did he keep going north?  What was so special about north.  Some sections of the waters would be deep enough that his poles wouldn't work (and a related question how did he get poles which were longer than the height of trees, which would if he id that, add weight to the poles making the job more difficult) No. poling the boat is probably inconsistent with any flood which would cover the tree tops. If the tree tops are not covered, then why would he think the world was totally covered?

As to the size of the flood one other problem.  Your calculation means that he had to stay precisely in the center of the flood. Something unlikely when there are usually eddie currents.  So, it has to be bigger than what you calculate. 


Received on Thu Feb 23 16:55:21 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 23 2006 - 16:55:21 EST