Who cares what they did after the flood???
They could have jumped up on top of each other in a big pile on a football field after the flood, but this concerns whether or not they were spread out before the flood, or am it missing something?
Let me quote your previous statement:
No it's not doubtless. What I doubt is that they would cling together when they were told not to:
In Genesis 9, God commands Noah to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth. What happens in the narrative right after the Flood? Babel. They DID cling together when told not to. Which leads me to think that the command was fulfilled later. Adam
(humanity) has now spread out across the planet, thus fulfilling God's command.
The entire environment would have been completely changed after the flood. If the original environment was less hostile than the post flood environment had become then I would think that 1,500 years is an incredible stretch of time for people to be huddled together.
If you had read my previous thread (post flood migration) you would need to have rather habitable conditions almost immediately after the Flood in order to have the animals migrate to their current positions at all. Therefore, animals would all stick together in the face of such post-Flood conditions and wouldn't migrate until the people at Babel were able to. It's a horrible inconsistency. Besides, there's a lot of factors involved in migration, not just environment. Environment alone wouldn't pressure people to move across the planet so rapidly.
If you'll read Genesis about Babel, you'll see that the people were constructing a huge city. I find it unlikely that people would have had the time to worry about building a city, given the harsh post-Flood conditions in the global flood model. They did not cling together because they were faced with cataclysmic conditions, they clung together because they were afraid of being scattered.
Genesis 11:Then they said to each other, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
The city was not a means of defense against earthquakes or ice ages. The purpose was so that they could make a name for themselves and so they could stay in a single spot. They did not want to be scattered over the face of the Earth.
This is a complete non-sequitur.
Arguing that the flood was not global because it only had to wipe out every person is an argument without any rational value.
My point was that people would have most likely inhabited a certain region. The point of the Flood was to drown out all people. The interpretation that 'erets' means 'human world' applies here.
In response to my claim that people would have migrated in one direction:
It's not speculation. It's supported by the following:
Genesis 3:24After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Genesis 4:16So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
So Adam and Eve went east from the garden. Cain also went east of the garden (although in a slightly different location) in the land of Nod. Nowhere does it mention worldwide migrations of several million/billion people to fill up the planet within 1,500 years. People moved eastward.
If Eden was in Tabriz, and if people migrated eastward, it would just so happen that they would end up in the Caspian sea drainage basin. (in fact, the garden of Eden was destroyed by the Flood, so even if they stayed in the garden the flood would have destroyed them). If humans spread all over the planet in all directions from Eden, it would be unlikely God would position the cherubim facing eastward only.
As you can see, my claims are not based on speculation.
In response to my statement about Psalm 104:
Or it directly corroborates the promise given at the end of the flood.
It better fits in the context of creation. In fact, the verses immediately before describe God laying down the foundations of the Earth. The context is obvous here. The floodwaters would not have been global, and it goes perfectly with the other verses describing creation.
The simple and obvious interpretation is that God marked the boundaries that the waters could not cross during creation, then when humans came along he wanted to be done with them and their sin (except for Noah). He caused a huge regional flood that covered the entire human
world, the entire extent of their range, and only Noah was saved. Then God promised he would never flood the human world again. To this day, no flood that killed all humans has occured. In our present
day, the 'world' would mean the globe, as we humans have conquered the globe, but in the past, the 'world' would carry a different meaning. It really is simple.
Unless people lived all over the planet, there would be no point to killing off all the wildlife that inhabited other continents. Humans tend to congregate in places like valleys and basins. This would have been an easy place to flood.
Besides, the Bible says God sent a wind to cause the waters to recede. This would work well with a local flood (to disperse the waters and cause them to lower) but not a worldwide flood, as the water would have no place to go.