Page 27 - BV10

in mind, it should be mentioned that Moses could easily have meant that the supersaturated atmosphere
(with its thick clouds, fog and rain) caused the mountains to be "HIDDEN FROM VIEW" by the waters that
were coming "from above." This in fact was the cause. Only after a five month period of supersaturation of
the atmosphere (and a two month drying out period) was it possible once again TO SEE the tops of the
mountains. By Moses using the word KAHSAH in Genesis 7:19, 20, he meant that the mountains had been
HIDDEN FROM VIEW for seven months. HE DID NOT MEAN THEY WERE SUBMERGED (Solving
the Riddle of Noah's Flood, pp. 22-23).

The understanding of the Hebrew word "kahsah" mentioned above fits properly with the
context of the Flood narrative Moses gave in Genesis. We should remember, however, that the Bi-
ble shows that in the pre-Adamic period the entire planet was submerged in water -- see Genesis
1:2, 9. In Psalm 104:6 the Bible even says "the waters stood above the mountains." But we should
note carefully the Psalm was NOT talking of Noah's time. "The previous verse shows that the inun-
dation was at a time in the first age of the world when God 'laid the foundations of the earth'
(Psalm 104:5)" (ibid., p.23). Even geology indicated -- as we have already seen -- that in the pre-
Adamic age many mountain regions were once under water, thus explaining the fossil evidence. In
fact, there were numerous submergences during the history of the earth.

What About Noah's Ark?

Now what about Noah's ark? Doesn't Genesis 8:4 say that "the ark rested in the seventh
month, the seventeenth day of the month, ON THE MOUNTAINS OF ARARAT"? Yes, it does.
Doesn't this verse seem to suggest that the waters rose to such a height that even Mt. Ararat was
covered? Yes, this is what most people seem to think Moses was trying to say, But, once again,
this is NOT the case at all! Moses clearly had something else in mind.

This dilemma can easily be resolved. The reason the ark landed in the "mountains of
Ararat" is because that's where it was probably built! Also, we must remember that Ararat was the
name of a REGION or COUNTRY in millennia past -- so the "mountains of Ararat" could be any-
where in a large geographical area. Another thing we must remember is that the Hebrew word for
"mountains" can also mean "hills." The truth is, Noah constructed the ark in a basin area in the land
of Ararat -- probably in the region where Lake Van is located today. Since the area around Lake
Van has no outlet to the sea, the ark would have been lifted up with the rising waters from the 15
cubits of rain that fell. Explains Martin --

In actual fact, the watershed area in the basin could have caused a lake to develop (possibly Lake Van it-
self) to a height well over 40 or 50 feet deep from the waters that came "from above." Since the ark was
not constructed to navigate to some distant area (it was simply built to float), it could have been built in
the basin area where Lake Van is presently situated (where there was much timber) and it touched land
once again just a few miles from where it was built (ibid., p. 24).

One thing is for sure -- the ark DID NOT come to rest near the top of Mount Ararat at the
15,000 foot level, as some suppose! Moses plainly said it anchored in "the mountains of Ararat,"
NOT on Mount Ararat itself. The area near the shores of modern Lake Van -- being in a basin area
-- could very well be where the ark again touched ground. The fact that the ark landed in a basin
area (where a new lake had formed because of the incredible amount of water that came "from
above" and fell on the earth) may well explain how other basin areas without outlets to the ocean
became partially filled with water during the time of the deluge. An example of this would be the
27