ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

First Mounain After The Flood

The Ark seems to have rested on the first mountain to be uncovered after the Flood. Genesis 8.4 says that was Ararat.
Everest, and other high mountain ranges wordwide must have been created later ... but when?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---alan8566_of_uk on 10/6/09
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



Warwick ... Does it matter whether you believe in UFOs? If it does not matter, why not beleive everything that is written about them?

It is of course a meaningless non-question. As phony and tricky as yours.

As to the fossils, I suspect many were from before Man existed. Now that would cause a problem to YOUR faith in the salvation that Christ gave us by His sacrifice, but it does not affect mine.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/20/09


Alan, I did read the blog entries including about half that had nothing to do with the question posed.
My point on Everest, uneven waters and evaporation had not been discussed. My point was that is was possible for Ararat to be uncovered first and Everest having already existed. I was answering the question posed AND fellow bloggers.

I did read 1st cliff's comments again and found them interesting.

I am not well-versed in this area and as always enjoy reading the comments of Warwick and others. God bless.
---larry on 10/20/09


Alan do you see what I mean about ducking and weaving? You answered neither question.

The question was: if it doesn't matter why not believe Genesis as it is written?

and

Where do you place the fossil record? Pre-sin or post-sin?

Why evade answering?
---Warwick on 10/20/09


Jerry & Larry ... Please read the whole of this blog. You will see this point has already been made, and I have responded appropriately to it. It is no longer the issue here.

Warwick ... what have fossils got to do with it.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/20/09


Warwick ... You must realise that your question is a trick one. You could apply it to any fiction book that has ever been written.

I know you will not say that means I am calling the Bible fiction, for that would be a deliberate dishonest distortion of what I have said.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/20/09




Alan where do you place the fossil record? Pre-sin or post-sin?
---Warwick on 10/20/09


Alan: "The Ark seems to have rested on the first mountain to be uncovered after the Flood." Where do you get that? Not from scripture. It came to rest where it came to rest - right where God wanted it. There is no scripture that says that Ararat was the only mountain above water at the time of disembarkation.
---jerry6593 on 10/20/09


Alan, I provided the words in parenthesis because it is the exact meaning and definiton of the verse written according to the passage and according to the context found in other places which speak of the same time in the Bible. I preach the truth, and yes, it does matter: for all things matter pertaining to the truth, for if a soul will mispercvieve one verse and believe one wrong definition and one falsehood then what is to prevent them from progressing onto believing another falsehood and more? Alan, please find confidence in what I preach and let it bring a sure foundation to your belief. You see, if we take a wrong meaning from 1 verse, then other verses we read will not congrue nor make sense when taken as a whole.
---Eloy on 10/19/09


But alan the question was: if it doesn't matter why not believe Genesis as it is written?

You are honest but you do resort to a little duck and weave!
---Warwick on 10/19/09


Alan, its possible Everest was here but Ararat was still uncovered first. That is a very small issue for God. We have huge imaginations and tiny understandings and tend to assume the globe drained equally like a bathtub. The Sun and weather systems probably produced uneven evaporation.
One day I will understand the unique arrival ofthe Penquins on the South Pole.
---larry on 10/19/09




Thank you Warwick, for saying I am an honest man!

I'm also, I hope, a courteous one, which is why I am responding. The first (lower) of my two posts of 10/18 will I hope explain why I am not worried.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/19/09


Eloy ... I quite agree with you about the reason the Peter wrote what he wrote,

But firstly, you have added the words in parenthesis, whereas my interpretation does not.

Secondly, don't overlook the little word "as".

In any case, does it really matter exactly how long ago the first act of Creation took place, or the exact moment of Jesus earthly birth?

Neither change the Gospel!
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/19/09


Alan, not hijacking, just joining. This is after all a public forum.

You say "...as far as MY faith is concerned, it does not matter a coconut whether God took 144 hours or 144 billion years.'

Alan absolutely nothing in Scripture says or even hints that the days of creation were other than 24hr days. You know that.

As you are an honest man I ask: why then do you not believe what is written, if it does not matter?
---Warwick on 10/19/09


Alan of Uk, Let me open the scripture for you, so you discontinue twisting this one: "Thereupon with this let not be hidden from you, beloved, that one day of Lord (in heaven) that a thousand years (on earth), and a thousand years (on earth) that one day (in heaven)." II Peter 3:8. I f you read the context it is speaking of people losing patience becasue it seems like Jesus is taking for ever to return as promised, but we are being told that Jesus has only left the earth a little over 2 days ago (ie: 2,000 years ago) "For a thousand years in your sight that yesterday when it is past, and a watch in the night." Psalm.90:4.
---Eloy on 10/18/09


Warwick ... You are hijacking my discussion with Eloy!!

I'm not trying or needing to point out to you that God is eternal, we both know He is.

I'm just pointing out to Eloy that he can't say that God's day equals a 1000 of our years, 'cos the Bible also says that one of our days equals 1000 of God's years.

I was also trying to indicate that as far as MY faith is concerned, it does not matter a coconut whether God took 144 hours or 144 billion years.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/18/09


Warwick ... We've discussed this before!! And got bit angry with each other!

Day and night as measures in our lives are given to us by God, using the sun, and the earth's rotation.

Looking back to the Creation though, my faith is not at all affected by the possibility (and some will say probability, and others, still Christian, will say certainty) that the Gebesis account may be an affirmation that God made the universe, and a broad description of how He did it, rather than a minute-by-minute account.

For example, we know now that the sun is more than a light placed in the sky, and yet that is how the writers (not just God's audio typists) of Genesis, with their limited knowledge, imagined it to be
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/18/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


Alan I of course agree God is eternal, therefore by definition outside of time. But where did time, in which we live, come from, is the question?

God created time for us, and this is recorded in Genesis 1:3-5 where God created light, tells us it brought about daylight, and darkness, evening and morning and that this was the first ever day. He then describes the following 5 creation days with the 'evening and morning' formula. He later (Exodus 20:8-11) says He created in 6-days, having previously defined what one day is.

The standard Hebrew lexicon says 'day' in Genesis 1:5 is a 24hr day.

Scripture was written for us, so is in our terms, our frame of reference.
---Warwick on 10/18/09


Eloy, Psalm 90 does not say one thousand years is 1 day as you claim. What it says is that one thousand years (a very long time to we humans) are 'like a day' to God who is eternal, therefore outside time. But one thousand years is not 'like' anything but a thousand years to us, because we live by the second, minute, hour and day.

The Psalmist can only write this as he and his readers already knew what 'a thousand years', and 'a day' were. It is wrong of you to say a thousand years is a day. We all know it isn't, neither to man or to God who has no days, months or years, at all.
---Warwick on 10/18/09


Eloy ... 2 Peter 3.8, as you say, specifically states "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years"

It also specifically says "and a thousand years are as one day"

Now if you take each of those two statements as being scientifically and mathematically literally accurate, they are in direct conflict to each other.

Since the Bible cannot contradict itself, neither of the statement can be literally true.

So they must mean that God is totally outside our conception of time.

And that Warwick, is my response to you as well.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/18/09


Eloy:

You miss my point. I'm not stretching anything, just going by the literal meaning of what you said. If we assume that each creation day is 1000 years, and Adam was created on day six, he could have been created in year 5001, or year 6000, or any year inbetween. Genesis says Adam was created on day 6, but gives absolutely no indication whatsoever WHEN on day 6 he was created. Assuming also that Adam was created some time around 4000BC, creation could have happened at any time between around 9000 BC or 10000 BC with a 1000-year-wide window of uncertainty about which we know nothing.
---StrongAxe on 10/18/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


Alan you wrote "Warwick is correct that what Peter is pointing out is that "God is eternal, not living in days, of any length", but unlike warwick, I would apply that to the Genesis Creation account'

The question is why would you apply it to the creation account? This is where God defined what one earth-day is, the same days as Exodus 20:8-11, and the same definition we use for 'a day' today.

Nothing in Scripture gives any creation time-frame, other than 6 ordinary earth-days does it?

---Warwick on 10/18/09


Alan & Strongax, Alan, you are incorrect, the scripture is not stretched to mean more than what it says, that is why it spewcifically states 1000 years is 1 day, and that is why Adam died at 930 years which is in the very 1 day of God to Adam. Strongax, I do not assume the truth, but instead I know him and he knows me.
---Eloy on 10/18/09


Eloy, so rude of you to accuse me of lying.

The point you miss is Scripture is Gods word for man. The writer of Psalm 90 can only say "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day.." because the readers already knew what a thousand years, and a day, were. Like 2 Peter 3:8 this says God is eternal, outside of time. Neither says a day is anything other than an ordinary day, as we live them. In Exodus 20:8-11 He says He created in 6-days so they would work for 6-days. The language shows these 6-days are everyday ordinary 24hr days, as we live them. If they are not then this Commandment is meaningless. Would God give a meaningless commandment, and then attach the threat of execution to it? See Exodus 31:14-17
---Warwick on 10/18/09


Scripture says "In The Beginning" God created: and not anywhere throughout does scripture say, "In the end...nor in the middle", but specifically, "In The Beginning". But I am not here to criticize they who are not versed in the Word, but rather I am here to bear witness to the truth: and if the soul will not harden their heart against my words but accept the sounding thereof and taste and see that he is good and right and pure and wholesome and health to the bones, that soul will become blessed. But if my words be offending to a soul, then loss will be to that soul who stops the ears from hearing and disses the salvation springing forth.
---Eloy on 10/18/09


Send a Free Friendship Ecard


Eloy:

God created man after the animals - but it doesn't at all say how long each of those things took or at what time. If I told you "On Friday, I painted my house, and then changed my muffler", you would not be able to tell me at what time I did either one of those without additional information.

Also, even if you could somehow assume "springtime" (something which is not mentioned in Genesis at all), how can you possibly assume that "spring" means "April 1"? Spring is a LOG longer than that. If I told you that "I planted an apple tree in spring", again you wouldn't be able to tell me what day I did it on.
---StrongAxe on 10/17/09


Eloy ... in your calculation, you use the "1000 to 1 ratio, where 1 day to God in heaven is equal to 1000 years upon earth to humans"

But if you look at the whole of the verse, you need to take into account the 1 to 1000 ratio, where 1000 years to God in heaven is equal to i day upon earth to humans.

So Warwick is correct that what Peter is pointing out is that "God is eternal, not living in days, of any length", but unlike warwick, I would apply that to the Genesis Creation account
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/17/09


Warwick, that was an excellent answer to Eloy's response. I agree with your answer because Peter was speaking from his perspective and not God's. While everything is unfolding through time for us, there is no time for God. What He ordained will happen through time, our time. God understands time much different then man. From man's view point, Christ coming seems like a long time away (Ps. 9:4). But from God's view point it will not be long.
---MarkV. on 10/17/09


strongaxe, Scripture tells it all, but you must have the desire and devotion enough to seek it out, else the deep things of God will escape your mind. The day is divided into two parts, night and day (from 6pm evening up to 6am morning), and my Jesus created man in his own shape on the 6th day after he had created all of the animals, being the end of the 6th day which is Friday afternoon. Now Jesus planted the garden and put the man whom he had shaped into his garden to keep it, signifying spring time. And you can obtain the year from counting back the genealogies or the years from each child's birth. This will bring us precisely to Friday afternoon on April 1st, 4194 B.C. is when Jesus created Adam.
---Eloy on 10/17/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


Warwick, you still speak falsehood, for clearly in more than one place in the holy scriptures indeed it says that 1 day to God is equal to a 1000 years to man: "For a thousand years in your sight that yesterday when it is past, and a watch in the night." Psalm.90:4 + "Thereupon with this let not be hidden from you, beloved, that one day of Lord that a thousand years, and a thousand years that one day." II Peter 3:8.
---Eloy on 10/17/09


I started by counting all of the years from the first man Adam when he has his child up to when his child grew and had his child up to when his child grew and had his child, and so on up to Christ, then I counted backwards to the beginning and I arrived at the month, time of day, and year that Jesus created Adam. Then I calculated the 1000 to 1 ratio of heaven to earth and arrived at the month and day and year of the age of the world, which is 6,000 years before man.
---Eloy on 10/17/09


Eloy, Scripture does not say '1 day to God in heaven is equal to 1000 years upon earth to humans.'

The verse (2 Peter 3:8-9)you refer to illustrates God is eternal, not living in days, of any length. Peter is contradicting those who were saying Jesus was slow in returning. He points out their impatience stems from thinking God lives in time. He can only compare a day with a thousand years, and a thousand years with a day because his readers knew the difference.

"God told Adam that in "the day" that he eats of the forbidden tree, that he will die." Research will show that 'in the day' here means 'when', as most translations have it. 'In my fathers day' is not referring to a day but to 'when' he was alive.
---Warwick on 10/16/09


Eloy:

I mentioned Ussher, because his calculations, and contemporary Jewish calculations, and your calculations all agree that the time from Adam to present is somewhere near 4000 years.

However, regardless of his calculations, I still have two problems with yours: 1) If Adam was born sometime during day 6, there is still no scripture that says WHEN during day 6, so the year number could vary substantially, and 2) there is no mention of month or day, and genealogies only mention years, so how can you get a date more accurate than that?

With these two problems, it is impossible to arrive at any day or month, and the year can only be within a one-millenium-long window. I am greatly curious how you can overcome these problems.
---StrongAxe on 10/16/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


strongax, I rely upon the holy scripture for truth, and not any other words which contradict holy scripture. Ussher may have had good intent, but evenso according to the holy scriptures his calculations are inaccurate, for he did not take into consideration the 1000 to 1 ratio, where 1 day to God in heaven is equal to 1000 years upon earth to humans. Note when God told Adam that in "the day" that he eats of the forbidden tree, that he will die. Well indeed he did die that very day, for according to scripture he only lived to be 930 years which is less than 1 day to God.
---Eloy on 10/16/09


Eloy:

According Bishop Ussher's chronology (17th century) from Bible timelines, creation began in 4004BC. By contemporary Jewish calendars, it was around 3770 BC, which is in the same ballpark. I guess if you count the first six days of creation as being 1000 years long, that would give around 10000 years. Of course, using 1000 year days, it also means that Adam was created at some unspecified time during day 6, so Gen 1:1 could be anywhere from 5000-5999 years before Adam, so determining the specific year in that area is impossible.

I'm also curious how you could determine a specific month and day, since seasons aren't mentioned during creation, and the genealogies are accurate only to within years but not months and days.
---StrongAxe on 10/15/09


arrive in the spring time at night on April 1st (Genesis 2:2,11,12+ Exodus 12:2, 10194 B.C., when the Lord God Jesus created the world.
---Eloy on 10/15/09

Interesting... now please explain:

When God created the Earth, there was no April, there was no springtime.

So, how did you come by this?
---NurseRobert on 10/15/09


Strongaxe and NurseRobert, Yes, using the Holy Bible as it's own record: Beginning 6000 years up to Adam (1000 to 1 ratio, Gn.1:1,26,31, Ps.90:4, II Pt.3:8) Adam at 130 years had Seth (Gn.5:3) Seth at 105 had Enosh (Gn.5:6), and so on up to Christ's day of birth, when adding up the years this will arrive in the spring time at night on April 1st (Genesis 2:2,11,12+ Exodus 12:2, 10194 B.C., when the Lord God Jesus created the world.
---Eloy on 10/15/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


Jesus created the entire world in 10194 B.C.
---Eloy on 10/14/09

You have this down to the month and day too?
---NurseRobert on 10/14/09


Eloy:

How did you arrive at the date of 10194 B.C.? Most people who rely on a strict literal interpretation of Genesis come up with a date that is approximately 6000 B.C. (and those who don't, think it's much much earlier)?
---StrongAxe on 10/14/09


Jesus created the entire world in 10194 B.C.
---Eloy on 10/14/09


Nurse Robert, How does wind blowing on a floating object ,make it a "boat?"
No sails,steering mechanism,keel etc, NO ,it was not a "boat" Where it started from or landed is "immaterial"
---1st_cliff on 10/12/09

You have obviously never been on a boat with the wind blowing.. It moves the boat.

You call it a "chest" just going up and down. Not even close. It may not be a boat by your standard, but its not going to be stationary in a wind.

This is one of those "how many angels..." questions.
---NurseRobert on 10/13/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Shawn ... Thanks!!

I have all along tried to be friendly in this debate, and my "sorry to have been presumptious!" was intended to be humourous not offensive. Reading my entry again, I can see why you might have been upset.

Sorry!

As for Ralph, I feel he started the sarcasm. Perhaps I should not have responded to him.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/13/09


-- Alan :

Brother, I felt we were in more of a 'Maelstrom', than we were a discussion and I'm guided to apologies for not showing more compassion & patience with your response to my question.

Good Day & Peace Be Multiplied
---ShawnMT on 10/13/09


Shawn ... Thank you for your kind comments.

My presumption was that I could have a civilised converstion with you that did not descend into insult.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/13/09


-- Alan :

Brother, Your presumption was in thinking you yourself was properly engaging me back, in a discussion!!

Try asking a QUESTION first or making a statement that relevant to the general issue and you'll be able to receive a helpful comment while learning how to have a properly discussion.

Alan, You ask Ralph "How does he find the time to make valuable contributions?" Sarcastic as that was, it's because he doesn't presumptuously go on a bit babbling irrelevant things in regards to the general issue, and then expect to receive something helpful from it.

I hope you come to accept the Truth and find peace with the fact that mountain ranges will & have changed during & since the Flood.

Good Day
---Shawn.M.T. on 10/12/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


Warwick ... Ah yes, Everest and the other mountain ranges could have been formed in the last few days of the Flood

But personally I think it could have been a much longer process, directed by God, & I don't see anything in that to reduce in any way the Truth of the Gospel.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/12/09


Alan, you wrote, 'My perplexity about the timescales and order of happenings persists, bearing in mind Plagio_Clase's comments about Everest... the facts he gives imply that Everest must have reared up since the Flood.'

Whereas Plagio_Clase wrote 'Creationists would view Everest as being pushed up toward the end of the Flood. In fact, all of today's mountains were pushed up late in the Flood.'
---Warwick on 10/12/09


Shawn ... I woukld say ""why do you keep posting & telling this to me" really implies more than twice.

I wrote to you because you had been engaging in discussion with me about the general issue, and I thought you may have some helpful comment ... sorry to have been presumptious!

I'm not trying to disprove anything.

My perplexity about the timescales and order of happenings persists, bearing in mind Plagio_Clase's comments about Everest... the facts he gives imply that Everest must have reared up since the Flood.

---alan8566_of_uk on 10/12/09


Nurse Robert, How does wind blowing on a floating object ,make it a "boat?"
No sails,steering mechanism,keel etc, NO ,it was not a "boat" Where it started from or landed is "immaterial"
---1st_cliff on 10/12/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


Alan, the ark wasn't a boat, just a chest,it simply floated up then down. Ararat is at the head water of the Euphrates river that flows to Eden. So you see it didn't travel very far at all! It was not designed for travel.
---1st_cliff on 10/6/09

Genesis 8:11 and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged.

With the wind God made, the boat would not be stationary, but would be blown about. Also, where in the Bible does it say WHERE Noah was before the flood?
---NurseRobert on 10/11/09


alan8566_of_uk
Yes, it would have created a lot of waves. But ask yourself where the eyewitnesses were at that time. All eight of them were in the Ark and that was sitting on the Mountains of Ararat. The account does record the horrific devastation of the Flood in graphic terms (see Genesis 7:17 ff).
---Plagio_Clase on 10/11/09


-- Alan :

Brother, It's called 'Going On A Bit'(Your words not mine) when twice you responded to me about "doves finding no rest", without providing a reason for making that statement when asked.

What I asked was "why do you keep posting & telling this to me ??", since it's irrelevant to my original post.

Alan, Were you trying to disprove my original comment about "Don't assume Ararat was the first mountain to be uncovered worldwide after the Flood" because if you were & you're telling me now you've accepted that comment & the earth's shifting plates, then why are you "Still Perplexed" ??

I did say platelets but was thinking earth's tectonic plates. Thanks Mate, Cheers
---ShawnM.T. on 10/11/09


Ralph ... Thank you so much for your valuable contribution to this discussion.

How do you find the time?
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/10/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


Shawn ... those things you say I keep going on about ... I don't! Can't you see I have accepted the comments.

But the time scales and the when of creation of mountains still perplex me, especially with the information given about Everest.

Hey ... isn't a platelet something to do with the blood? ... nothing to do with tectonic plates?
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/10/09


Alan must be really bored.
---ralph7477 on 10/10/09


--- Alan :

Forgive me Brother, You're right I brought up shifting platelets pushing under one another because it's the reason for mountain rangers to rise!!

You phrase it this way "they(mountains) must have been raised since the Flood. Just wondering about the times scales involved. But there's not much evidence of that happening in the last 5000 years".---alan85666_of_uk on 10/8/09

Now with that all cleared up.

What does the times scales of mountains rising have to do with your assumption of Mt. Ararat being the first mountain uncovered worldwide after the Flood......and what does all of that have to do with why you keep telling me about doves finding no rest for their feet???
---Shawn.M.T on 10/9/09


Plagio_Clase ... Surely if it occurred then & over such a short period, it would have created the most enormous tsunami?

But no records in the Bible of these?
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/9/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


The top of Mt Everest consists of marine limestones containing marine fossils. It was deposited under the sea. Geologically it was pushed up recently. Creationists would view Everest as being pushed up toward the end of the Flood. In fact, all of today's mountains were pushed up late in the Flood.
---Plagio_Clase on 10/8/09


Strong Axe, Touche' Point taken!
---1st_cliff on 10/8/09


Warwick ... I had been going by the KJV of Genesis 7.20. The NIV seems clearer.

Thanks!

Surtsey does not seem to have the same structure as mountain ranges, with crazily tilted layers of rock, including sedimentary. But I don't claim to understand any of this!

Shawn .. I think it was you thst has talked about platelets!
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/8/09


--Alan :

Brother, I don't know but Google it!

What does the times scales on platelets shifting have to do with doves finding no rest for their feet and Mt. Ararat being the first mountain uncovered worldwide after the Flood?

The Ark rested on Mt. Ararat because it was in the area and Maybe doves won't rest on the tops of mountains and will only looking for dry land to rest on.

I state this possibility about doves only because in Gen.8:5 it states that there "were the tops of the mountains seen", and Noah sent the raven & dove out in Gen.8:7-8 and in Gen.8:9 is where it's stated that the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, but scriptures says nothing about the Raven not finding rest.
---ShawnM.T. on 10/8/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


In Genesis 7:20 it says the waters rose until the mountains were covered over by 15 cubits of water. Not that 15 cubits of water was enough to cover mountains. Quite a difference.

"But there's not much evidence of that happening in the last 5000 years."

Actually there is. For one example do a search on the Island of Surtsey which rose rapidly appearing on 14th November 1963. Interestingly the island now appears old.
---Warwick on 10/8/09


No doubt it was the conveniance of God that Mount-Ararat was there just for that reason of the Ark to set & rest on.
This isn't Bible. 7 days into the flood while the Ark was floating. Noah's wife says Noah honey what seems to be wrong, you seem to be sweaty & nervous. Noah says asks his wife, did we not put 2 of each creature on this Ark, she says yes. Noah says, I went through & counted All of the paired creatures & I got sweaty-nervous & shaky, I canNot find where those 2 termites are.
---Lawrence on 10/8/09


1st_cliff:

Yes, if you are on the top of a mountain that is several thousand feet above sea level, you can see for hundreds of miles. But when the sea level is so high that only the very peak of the mountain is above water, it isn't really a mountain anymore (at least from the perspective of offering great long distance vision).
---StrongAxe on 10/8/09


Strong Axe, The reason I mentioned Everest is because the writer of Gen. went to great lengths to say no land peeked above the water!
At 16,000 ft.(Ararat) you can see more than a hundred miles. (Old pilot here)
---1st_cliff on 10/8/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Shawn ... Because the birds could not find anywhere to land, Ararat must then have been higher than than any nearby mountain ranges. So they must have been raised since the Flood.

But there's not much evidence of that happening in the last 5000 years.

Just wondering about the times scales involved
---alan85666_of_uk on 10/8/09


1st_cliff:

Whether or not Everest was covered (or whether it was the tallest at that time) isn't really relevant. Regardless of whether it was or wasn't, if Noah was in the vicninity of Ararat, Everest would have been thousands of miles away. Since you can only see tens of miles due to the curvature of the earth, he wouldn't have seen Everest even if it had come up first.
---StrongAxe on 10/7/09


-- Alan : ****** Shawn ... Gen 8.7-9 indicates there were no other mountain peaks for the bird to find rest on. There are now nearby mountains ranges much higher than Ararat.---alan8566_of_uk on 10/7/09*********

O.K. Brother, I hear you, but why are you posting this to me??

You're stating nothing to the contrary of my previous post, that scriptures doesn't state whether or not Ararat was the first mountain uncovered worldwide after the Flood.......and that shifting platelets have been pushing under one another since then raising mountain ranges.
---ShawnM.T. on 10/7/09


Cliff ... I was attempting to point out that there is a vast difference between 5 miles and the 15 cubits rise mentioned in the Bible.

So that must nean that Everest and other high ranges were created after the Flood.

That of course is if the Genesis description of the Flood is to be taken strictly literally.

Or am I missing something?
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/7/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Alan, Since Gen. says the water covered all the mountains, it would include Everest which is like 5 mile high.
Either the water was that deep or Everest was pushed to that height. There are valleys in the ocean 5 miles deep. In any case 4/5ths of our planet are covered with water!
So,pre-flood there was a lot more dry land than we have today!
---1st_cliff on 10/7/09


Cliff ... I am sure you are right, but ...

Shawn ... Gen 8.7-9 indicates there were no other mountain peaks for the bird to find rest on. There are now nearby mountains ranges much higher than Ararat.

Another query ... Gen 7 19 & 20 ... Fifteen cubits deep water would cover all the mountains?
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/7/09


I agree with---1st_cliff's answer given on 10/6/09.
---mima on 10/7/09


Alan, the ark wasn't a boat, just a chest,it simply floated up then down. Ararat is at the head water of the Euphrates river that flows to Eden.
So you see it didn't travel very far at all! It was not designed for travel.
---1st_cliff on 10/6/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


--- Alan :

Platelets have been push under one another, all through out history, causing mountain ranges to rise.......but Genesis 8:4 doesn't state that 'Ararat' was the highest or first mountain to be uncovered.

It stated that "the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat".

Instead of assuming that Ararat was the first mountain to be uncovered after the Flood, could it just possibly be that the ark was in the area of Mt. Ararat when the waters were returning from off the earth and that's why it rested there ??
---Shawn.M.T on 10/6/09


Cluny ... Presumably then Noah did not land on the first mountain to be uncovered?
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/6/09


That the ark happened to land on Ararat does not mean that this was the highest mountain in the world. It's just that the Bible says this is where it landed.

It doesn't follow that Everest and others were created later.
---Cluny on 10/6/09


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.