Some Observations on The Noadic Flood

Some Observations.

1. If the Noadic flood was confined to a particular region in
Mesopotamia, and was in fact a local flood as physicist Gerhard Schroeder (Jewish) and astronomer Hugh Ross (Christian) state, why is there such emphasis on universal words in the account found in Genesis 6-7?
"For my part I mean to bring a flood, and send the waters over the earth, to destroy all flesh on it, every living creature under heaven; everything on the earth shall perish." Genesis 6:17
"For in seven days I mean to make it rain on the earth for forty days and nights, and I will rid the earth of every living thing that I made." Genesis 7:5
"The waters swelled and rose greatly on the earth and the ark sailed on the waters. The waters rose more and more on the earth so that all the highest mountains under the whole of heaven were submerged. The waters rose fifteen cubits higher, submerging the mountains. And so all things of flesh perished that moved on earth, birds, cattle, wild beasts, everything that swarms on earth, and every man. Everything with the breath of life in its nostrils died, everything on dry land. Yahweh destroyed every living thing on the face of the
earth, man and animals, reptiles and the birds of heaven. He rid the earth of them, so that only Noah was left, and those with him on the ark." Genesis 7:17-24

Since universal words can be used in localized settings (Genesis 41:56, I Kings 10:24) it must be stressed that the context allows the reader to discern. However, the repetition of the universal words found in the Noadic account is a way of emphasizing the desired details. The author's intention is clear.
2. Why was the Ark so big? If the flood was local a much
smaller boat could have been built to accommodate the Mesopotamian animals and Noah's Family?
The boat was 300 cubits in length, 50 in width, and 30 cubits high. That is 450 feet by 75 by 45. The Gilgamesh Epic places the Ark as a perfect cube of 120 cubits (180 feet) in each direction. This Ark would simply slowly spin around and around. Given the Genesis account of the dimension, the
Genesis account is a picture of objectivity and rationality. (More details if requested).
Critics however, have a field day with the Ark.
a. The Global Flood Would Have Destroyed the Ark
Actually this is not the case. It has been noted that the following method would have been used to construct the Ark. As was common among ancient boat-building, one piece of wood would have thick projections that would fit
into sockets drilled into another piece of wood, forming a strong joint. This would have prevented the leaking and bending that some have speculated would have caused such a boat's destruction. Time was the greatest hindrance to such a manner of building and because of this, the method was eventually abandoned, but as Noah may have had up to 120 years to build the Ark (Genesis 6:3) time was not a factor.
Second the greatest hindrance for wooden ships was their masts. The Ark was neither designed for speed or mobility, but simply to float, thus it would have had no need for a mast.
b. Animals
Animals from cold adapted life can (and do) adapt to warm
temperatures when placed in warmer temperatures. (Think Zoos). Animals like the kangaroo, only found today in Australia, would have lived on the same continent where the Ark was built, and would have only traveled to Australia, and would have only been confined to Australia when a
massive land bridge (that we have an abundance of
evidence for) connected Asia to Australia in the earliest part of the post-Flood period.
c. The care of Animals
We are looking at approximately 8000 pairs of land animals. However, it is entirely possible through non miraculous means for eight people to feed, water and remove waste from 16 000 animals and still have plenty of time for other tasks.
Also, other like Dr. Whitcomb suggest that God supernaturally imposed a year long hibernation on the animals, where the animals bodily functions would have been reduced to a minimum. He, and others, defend this by the following points
-God supernaturally controlled the bodily functions of these
animals in order to bring them to the Ark, so why not while they were on the Ark?
-there was no reproduction of the Ark for it was built to
accommodate pairs
-taking food on board does not rule out hibernation for
contrary to popular belief hibernating animals do still need food
occasionally
However, the hibernation question is not one we should be dogmatic about. It is merely proposed by one expert to meet the question of how all the animals were cared for. Yet based on manpower studies, hibernation is not required, for such studies preformed by Dr. Woodmorappe show that the care of all the animals is quite attainable.

3. If the flood was merely a localized one, perhaps even in an
area able to contain a larger than expected degree of water, given that Noah had up to 120 years before the Flood came, why not journey to the other side of a mountain range where the water would have apparently not reached, rather than build an ark?

4. If the Flood was local rather than global, why collect 2 of
every winged animal for this unnecessary Ark, when they could merely have flew out of danger? Why collect 2 of every land animal? The obvious answer is to allow them to avoid extinction but if the flood was local then these types of animals who would not have been confined to a particular Mesopotamian region would not have faced extinction.

In conclusion, I would like to compare this question to that of Old Testament authorship that I have spent a great deal of time studying. When for the longest period of time, one particular belief was held, and then it is suddenly abandoned, we must not simply jump ship, but seek to understand why a change in though has taken place. Philosophical presuppositions that inform us that the miraculous does
not occur is what promoted Higher Critics to propose new authorship theories for Books such as Isaiah and Daniel, whereby a later date is
given to the composition of the Book so as to convert prophetic
claims into simply a recording of current events. Higher Critical
theories dominate academic centers of learning, and while the
presuppositions are facing a backlash, the theories that were
promoted because of them are almost accepted as 'Dogma.' Similarly most believers believe that God is capable of the Flood credited to him in Genesis, but because of certain presuppositions that first caused individuals to deny the global flood, many simply deny the literalness of the story.
We also feel that because Science does not speak of a Global flood, it must be local. It is not always safe to interpret our Bible based on what Science does not have evidence for. Also, many scientists do provide evidence for a Global flood, which we can detail further. 'The Genesis Flood,' written by scientists Herny Morris and John Whitcomb actually established the creation science movement, and forty years later, individuals from Answers and Genesis, or The Institute for Creation Science, all qualified scientists with recognized credentials still defend the Global nature of a Flood that
took place approximately 4500 years ago. (Created in 1997, the Kolbe Center, which claims to 'Defend Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perpsective, also defend the Global nature of the Noadic Flood).
KJN