How did the Floodwaters Recede?

[Tcg]

.
Genesis 8 states this about the waters receding after the flood:

8 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down.

Ignoring the odd statement that after the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down given that Noah and crew stayed in the ark for over a year, how did the water recede? The only hint we have is that it was due to a wind that God sent. Does this suggest evaporation?

Perhaps more importantly doesn't the phrase the "water receded steadily from the earth" imply that the receding was uniform? In other words, it receded from the earth at the same rate all over the earth? If so, how could this receding be responsible for the creation of the Grand Canyon or other canyons around the world as some claim? Unless there were a plug pulled somewhere that would cause draining faster in one area than another, there'd be no reason for water to flow from one area to another. We read that the "springs of the deep had been closed" so this is not a viable option.

Given that the Bible reports a steady and uniform decrease in water to end the flood, how could it be responsible for the formation of canyons such as the Grand Canyon?


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #4]

"The waters receded" would be very strange language to use if one intends to describe mountains rising. Of course, if one intends to defend the impossible, little details like mountains rising versus water receding may not seem like a big issue.


Tcg

Indeed. Though putting on my Theist hat (the one with bells and whistles) I'd argue 'Well that proves it's eyewitness as Noah is describing what he saw rather than what was actually happening'.

I wasn't aware that a theist would suggest this was written by Noah. As far as I know, most suggest Moses. In any case, if God had anything to do with this tale one would suspect he'd know the difference.


Tcg

Also true. Which would (at best) suggest that the Bible is the work of men without any knowledge that a god would have. In which case it stands an falls on internal credibility, not on divine Authority.

[Tcg]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #4]

"The waters receded" would be very strange language to use if one intends to describe mountains rising. Of course, if one intends to defend the impossible, little details like mountains rising versus water receding may not seem like a big issue.


Tcg

Indeed. Though putting on my Theist hat (the one with bells and whistles) I'd argue 'Well that proves it's eyewitness as Noah is describing what he saw rather than what was actually happening'.

I wasn't aware that a theist would suggest this was written by Noah. As far as I know, most suggest Moses. In any case, if God had anything to do with this tale one would suspect he'd know the difference.


Tcg

True, but since Noah is before Moses, Moses is using the eyewitness account of Noah (probably) as Moses wasn't there. Just as he wasn't there for the creation of Man.

Now you are suggesting that Moses interviewed Noah? Did Moses also interview God for the details of creation? If so, he had quite the scoop, no?


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #4]

"The waters receded" would be very strange language to use if one intends to describe mountains rising. Of course, if one intends to defend the impossible, little details like mountains rising versus water receding may not seem like a big issue.


Tcg

Indeed. Though putting on my Theist hat (the one with bells and whistles) I'd argue 'Well that proves it's eyewitness as Noah is describing what he saw rather than what was actually happening'.

I wasn't aware that a theist would suggest this was written by Noah. As far as I know, most suggest Moses. In any case, if God had anything to do with this tale one would suspect he'd know the difference.


Tcg

True, but since Noah is before Moses, Moses is using the eyewitness account of Noah (probably) as Moses wasn't there. Just as he wasn't there for the creation of Man.

Now you are suggesting that Moses interviewed Noah? Did Moses also interview God for the details of creation? If so, he had quite the scoop, no?


Tcg

With Noah, possibly, or his descendants or something along the lines of Oral tradition - is what the Theist would argue. They can usually come up with some apologetic. But there are generally some that are harder (the 'biggies') like the account of creation which nobody was there to see and God is the only person that could have told Adam Noah or Moses or anyone else about it.

Which is why the light before the sun was created is rather a good one, because Noah could have seen the mountains rising out of the water and thought the water was going down, but God telling Moses about the sun being created and it was only 'cloud -cover' that stopped it being visible from earth, but it was the cause of the light, is what God knew, and he would know that the sun was not created after the light.

That's why I don't waste time on arguments of when the tomb -door was rolled back, but on Luke altering the message that was given. The Biggies; the ones that can't so easily be explained away.

[Miles]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

We also have to remember that the entire earth was said to be covered with water to the tops of the highest mountains. Ignoring that impossibility for now, how is it possible for the waters to recede since there is nowhere for it to go? It is already everywhere.

.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Miles in post #14]

WOW! Now why didn't I think of that? Oh, wait....... I think I know the answer to that.

[1213]

...Ignoring the odd statement that after the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down given that Noah and crew stayed in the ark for over a year, how did the water recede? The only hint we have is that it was due to a wind that God sent. Does this suggest evaporation?

The story itself hints planet cooled. 40 days of rain and cloudy weather would probably cool this planet, cause an ice age, which I believe happened after the flood. Part of the water begun to be collected to glaciers. But, I believe most of the water stayed where it was, but because the ocean floor and all that sunk was now covered with vast water layer, it was compressed and that is why the level of water seems to have gone down. This means also, mountains don’t rise, it is the ocean floor that goes down and makes it look like dry land is rising.

Given that the Bible reports a steady and uniform decrease in water to end the flood, how could it be responsible for the formation of canyons such as the Grand Canyon?

The main form of the canyon looks to me that it is the result of sudden, not something that could happen is very slow prosses. I think there are two options how the canyon was formed after the flood. One way is that it is the result of relatively fast melting ice age glaciers. Second option is that there was a lake remaining and at some point, its one edge was broken and it released the water to run and carve the formation.

[nobspeople]

.
Genesis 8 states this about the waters receding after the flood:

8 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down.

Ignoring the odd statement that after the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down given that Noah and crew stayed in the ark for over a year, how did the water recede? The only hint we have is that it was due to a wind that God sent. Does this suggest evaporation?

Perhaps more importantly doesn't the phrase the "water receded steadily from the earth" imply that the receding was uniform? In other words, it receded from the earth at the same rate all over the earth? If so, how could this receding be responsible for the creation of the Grand Canyon or other canyons around the world as some claim? Unless there were a plug pulled somewhere that would cause draining faster in one area than another, there'd be no reason for water to flow from one area to another. We read that the "springs of the deep had been closed" so this is not a viable option.

Given that the Bible reports a steady and uniform decrease in water to end the flood, how could it be responsible for the formation of canyons such as the Grand Canyon?


Tcg

I saw somewhere (I can't remember the documentary at this time) but the person interviewed said the correct term was 'plain' not 'world'. So in other words, it's his claim that the story was a misunderstanding: the whole world wasn't flooded but the whole specific area where the story takes place was flooded. Which would make loads more sense and answer a lot of questions.
But alas, if his POV was correct, it's not as 'impressive' and christians want their god to seem.
Past all that, there've been other questions other than 'where did the water go'?
How could the atmosphere hold that much moisture to make it rain enough to cover everything?
How was the salinity of the ocean protected? Or, if you like, how was the freshness of the water protected?
How did the sea animal cope with fresh water? Or, if you like, how did the fresh water animals cope with salt water? Or did all sea life die?

To answer the topic question:
magic
God specific magic
When it doubt, just claim 'god works in mysterious ways' and go on about life, I suppose.

[brunumb]

The story itself hints planet cooled. 40 days of rain and cloudy weather would probably cool this planet, cause an ice age, which I believe happened after the flood.

So Noah must have emerged from the ark in the midst of an ice age. You realise of course that these things don't come and go in a matter of months, don't you? In any case, what you believe happened is immaterial if you cannot provide any support for it. Just making up stuff does not make for a very convincing argument.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Ignoring the odd statement that after the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down given that Noah and crew stayed in the ark for over a year, how did the water recede? The only hint we have is that it was due to a wind that God sent. Does this suggest evaporation?

The story itself hints planet cooled. 40 days of rain and cloudy weather would probably cool this planet, cause an ice age, which I believe happened after the flood. Part of the water begun to be collected to glaciers. But, I believe most of the water stayed where it was, but because the ocean floor and all that sunk was now covered with vast water layer, it was compressed and that is why the level of water seems to have gone down. This means also, mountains don’t rise, it is the ocean floor that goes down and makes it look like dry land is rising.

Given that the Bible reports a steady and uniform decrease in water to end the flood, how could it be responsible for the formation of canyons such as the Grand Canyon?

The main form of the canyon looks to me that it is the result of sudden, not something that could happen is very slow prosses. I think there are two options how the canyon was formed after the flood. One way is that it is the result of relatively fast melting ice age glaciers. Second option is that there was a lake remaining and at some point, its one edge was broken and it released the water to run and carve the formation.

I see some problems with that. I can't see how anything would compress the oceans to make them lower. The only thing I can think of would be God increasing gravity. Then I haven't checked up on all the ice ages but the global one was when life was just forming and we had mainly the basic earth -forming rocks being eroded and the sedimentary layers, coal, oil and fossils would all come later and then of course the Ice age in human times which covered only half the globe. That doesn't fit a global Flood -scenario. This is just the Geology. The matter of fossil - distribution hasn't even been addressed.

And the Grand canyon does not (because of its' meanders) fit a theory of being caused by a flash -flood, but several million years or erosion by the river. Which starts in the Rockies and end in the sea. No need to talk of broken lakes. Further mountains do rise, and the strata within shows that to be the case, it is often water -laid strata in mountains and contains fossil sea -bed features. They must have 'risen' though whether through tectonic surface movement over millions of years r over a matter of months during the Flood is down to the explanation of how rock strata can apparently 'bend and fold'.

Reminder - the unwritten rule is - God just can't wave a magic wand or you don't need the Flood at all. It has to happen through 'natural forces'.

[TRANSPONDER]

Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth's history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present).

So what we have is the one during Human times (the quaternary 2 - odd million years ago, and the ones from 260 - 850 million years ago, really before land life was going on at all, and the early one when life was just starting as spores, really 2 -odd billion years ago. The only way that could work as a Flood -scenario is to wish all the Ice ages and the geological strata into just one year or so.