I’m perfectly happy to let the OP frame the question any way they like, for any reason they like. If he’s talking about the flood with regular folks, regular rain is probably the idea they’ve picked up.
Several people have mentioned underground water and modern geology. Kanicbird referred to the bible verses about the divided waters. According to the one comparative religion class I took (yeah, I know - and it’s been awhile, too), the cosmology in the OT (matching Babylonian cosmology) starts with the universe being water. God divides the waters from the waters, making an area for a flat earth. Above the earth is the vault of the heavens, which is keeping back the water. The sun, moon, and stars are either on the vault of the heavens, or just under it. Then there’s air/the winds, then there’s flat land, then there’s the underworld, then there’s the rest of the water that makes up the rest of the universe.
That’s a universe of water, albeit a smaller universe than we’re accustomed to. Actual rain would be negligible compared to it. Although depending on the actual language used at the time, any water coming down from above might have to be described as “raining” - that is, using a word that would have been translated as raining.
Ooo. This bit is interesting.
Cubits vary, but are usually about a foot and a half. I have to believe they mean to say that the top of the mountains were covered by at most twenty three feet of water.
As to how it went away:
Sounds like the bubble in the vault was deliberately drained. Although they may not have wanted to look at that too closely. I’m not sure what the wind was doing. To me it sounds like it was calming the churning of the flood water.
Given your prior concerns about thread etiquette, it seems surprising that you don’t appear to have read the thread. TokyoBayer already answered the question with a much simpler approach that doesn’t require volume calculations at post #6.
It’s straightforward to check if land elevation makes a significant difference.
~29% of of the surface is land, at a mean elevation of ~2,600 ft amsl, giving a mean evelation for the entire surface of ~750 ft amsl. That’s less than 3% of the height of Everest, so TokyoBayer’s calculation of a rainfall rate of ~6" per minute is still correct to the nearest inch.
Genesis says that the water extended 15 cubits above the highest mountain. Therefore all you need to do, as before, is decide the height of the tallest mountain, add 15 cubits, divide by 40, and you get the rainfall per day. Clearly this is bit high since you don’t account for the volume of the mountains.
I understand that if we are using science Everest is the highest, but I don’t think that is an assumption you can make. I’ve also seen people who claim that the post-flood world was all connected, to explain how the kangaroos got to Australia.
If you’re responding to a question in a creationist scenario, you kind of have to play by creationist rules. You certainly don’t have to accept them.
How does wold-wide climate change affect things? This is a math question. How would that change? Does climate change mean that 1 inch of water is less or more than 1 inch of water then.
It really doesn’t matter. Mr. Ararat is at 16,854 ft. which would made the hourly rainfall 3’ per hour. Scientifically, that’s impossible as well.
Young Earth Creationism simply requires abandoning science and relies on miracles. Employing miracles which hide all evidence of themselves means that it can’t be debated.
If there are real people who are making claims that the mountains did not exist, they are not reading the Bible.
I know the YEC like to torture readings into supporting whatever they want (I grew up LDS, after all), but no, the text says mountains.
You’re absolutely right, you didn’t. So I am curious as to why you mentioned cubits, a measurement which by any reasonable definition hasn’t been in use for a good 200 years.
I’ve noticed before that you like to be “cute” and try to sneak things in without actually explicitly saying so. Anybody with the slightest knowledge of the world’s religions knows exactly what you’re doing and what you’re referring to.
You’ve been around long enough to know that the innocent guise and the “just asking questions” excuse doesn’t cut it around here.
WHERE would all this excess water come from that would be needed to actually flood an entire planet?
There isn’t enough water on this planet to flood it. Even if all the mountains were leveled, you would still have land sticking out from the water. You would need more water than this planet has, in order to flood it.
Let’s not be disingenuous. Your reference to 40 days and 40 cubits obviously refers to a specific flood described in a specific literary source.
It’s OK to ask the question as a hypothetical, but I’m sure you already knew that the event described is scientifically impossible, not just on the basis of rainfall but on a dozen other grounds. You can’t ask the question in the way you did and expect people not to bring up other features of the event as described.
