Someone writes:

“Genesis 7:20 says the floodwaters were 15 cubits high, and they covered the mountains. To me, that says the whole eretz (earth or land) which is in the scope of the narrative is an extremely flat place where the mountains are less than about 22-25 feet. This describes Sumer very well. Eden, Noah, and Babel all have overt Sumerian contexts, and versions of each story exist in Sumerian literature as well.

Every modern translation makes an interpretationally driven edit to the syntax of that verse to turn it into “the flood waters rose fifteen cubits [above the tops of the] mountains” and I have never run into anyone who can suggest a Hebrew rule or a parallel passage that might suggest that this is a possible reading. It’s just Second Temple and post-Second Temple doctrine being injected back into the text.”

OK, I do not know Hebrew. But some YEC’s have told me after the flood the mountains rose over 7000 feet in some places, including the Rockies and including Flagstaff Arizona and the western north american continent. According to this hypothesis humungous geological upheaval was required to preserve the global flood myth. Based on weak Hebrew interpretation.


My sarcastic conclusion might be: “Sure it is. Next they will be telling me I get to have 70 wives if I decide to become a martyr.” In other words, I think the credibility of the global flood story is incredibly low.

I am more concerned about these ideas being based on weak arguments, weak evidences, and weak interpretations of ancient languages. I fail to understand the headlong plunge into premature commitment to poorly supported ideas. And the demand that all of humanity must join in that headlong plunge. I would very much prefer a very solid case be made for biblical ideas. Why do people insist on making a weak case instead of a strong case?