Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Do you have reference to these "investigations" that a global flood is impossible? (They are probably correct by the way )
However- Do you also have findings on whether a global flood was possible?
As calculated before, all the water in the current oceans if doubled in volume, would not be enough to cover half way up mt Ararat. In other words, if the oceans didn't exist and all was flat land where now is water, the water available would only go less than half way up Mt Ararat,. A Global Flood is impossible as described in the Bible.
There seems to be some scriptures that indicate the possiblilty that the flood was not global.
In the book of Joshua, he is speaking to the people of Isreal what God had done. What do you think?
Jos 24:2 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, [even] Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.
Jos 24:3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac. _____________________
Now Terah, Abrahams father, dwelt in Ur of the Chaldees. Which was in ancient Mesopatamia, or now around the area of modern day Iraq.
Which would indicate where the other side of the flood was.
So my question is..if the flood was global. Then how do we explain these scriptures, that say that Terah, Abrahams father, say that God moved them, from the "other side of the flood' of old time?
So my question is...
What would be considered the other side of a flood, if the whole earth was covered? There wouldn't be an "other side of the flood" if it had been on a global scale. But it seems to suggest that the flood waters had certain land mass dementions to it.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------
For with God nothing shall be impossible. Luke 1:47
Last edited by Trish1947; 17th December 2006 at 08:48 AM.
Gen 7:6 And Noah5146was six8337 hundred3967 years8141 old1121 when the flood3999 of waters4325 was1961 upon5921 the earth.776
H3999
מבּוּל
mabbûl
mab-bool'
From H2986 in the sense of flowing; a deluge: - flood.
Jos 24:2 And Joshua3091 said559 unto413 all3605 the people,5971 Thus3541 saith559 the LORD3068 God430 of Israel,3478 Your fathers1 dwelt3427 on the other side5676 of the flood5104 in old time,4480, 5769even Terah,8646 the father1 of Abraham,85 and the father1 of Nachor:5152 and they served5647 other312 gods.430 Jos 24:3 And I took3947(853) your father1(853) Abraham85 from the other side4480, 5676 of the flood,5104 and led1980 him throughout all3605 the land776 of Canaan,3667 and multiplied7235(853) his seed,2233 and gave5414 him (853) Isaac.3327
H5104 נהר nâhâr naw-hawr' From H5102; a stream (including the sea; especially the Nile, Euphrates, etc.); figuratively, prosperity: - flood, river.
Trish
Just a thought but perhaps the translators used the wrong meaning for the Hebrew word
Trish Just a thought but perhaps the translators used the wrong meaning for the Hebrew word
This could be. But the Euphrates river, is mentioned over 22 times in scripture by name, starting in Genesis, as "the river Euphrates".
So for Joshua saying "thus sayeth the Lord", I would be more inclined to believe God was referring to the "flood of old time" as stated, and not a normal coursing river such as the Euphrates, and probably would not refer to it as the "other side of the flood". Just something else we can ponder. God mentions this river himself by name, and as a river, in other scriptures.
Gen 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:"
__________________
-------------------------------------------------
For with God nothing shall be impossible. Luke 1:47
Last edited by Trish1947; 17th December 2006 at 09:45 AM.
Yep, if an organization puts the word "Research" in its name, it really sounds impressive. Too bad its wrong. It should be the Institute for Creation Storytelling. All they've done is make up a story. No research.
Funny that icr, aig, et al., think that evolution and plate tectonics over millions of years is far-fetched and nonsense, and then turn around and propose hyper basically the same evolution and plate tectonics over a mere several hundred years.
The major problem, Jig, with your cited icr story, is one of heat. Tectonics like those described, over a few hundred years (or even a few thousand years) would generate so much heat the earth would be sterilized. Just like water being released from under the earth's crust (fountains of the deep) would poach the earth. Just like all the identified meteor strikes on the earth over a short period of time would cook everything as well. Just like a "water canopy" would create such an extreme atmospheric pressure that it would crush and poach all living matter.
These organizations will pluck one small idea from science and spin a tale around it to suit their needs. Then when confronted with the scientific actualities of their tale, based on their pseudo-science, they suddenly turn a blind eye to science. Why is that, Jig? Why not just say the biblical flood was a miracle, there is no physical evidence of it, there is no natural mechanism for it to have happened, there is no rational explanation for it. God miraculously made it happen, and then miraculously made it disappear. Isn't that a more straightforward explanation? Why does your belief have to have some sort of scientific credibility (at least from your perspective)? Anyone who knows anything from the relevant areas of science that these stories touch knows immediately they are erroneous, self-contradictory, deluded, and false. What purpose do such stories serve?
Linear Mode
