Global Flood?

[Mallon]

Why do you have to use the brain God blessed you with, Papias? Why can't you just believe what C4 is telling you without questioning it? You're going to hell for that, you know.

 

[Alive_Again]

If you only want to hear from people who agree with you, why don't you go post in the creationism subforum? Here, criticism is fair game.

We can "suffer" long with those who don't receive the Word of God as it is written.
I don't mean that in a bad way. The reality is though, that the Holy Spirit ministers the Word to our hearts. Areas of the Word that for whatever reason (possibly carnal judgments made while unbelievers) we do not receive the Word are strongholds. Anyone can suffer from them and we all deal with them from time to time. It's interesting seeing pics of fossils at higher altitudes, etc. I see the Word as true in this matter, even if demonstrative evidence wasn't available until the day before the Lord's return.

It is a little cumbersome to present visual evidence to someone who cannot "see" (in this area). I'm interested reviewing whatever comes forth.

I think that the most important thing in matters like these, is to solidify one's relationship with the Lord, who brings to light the hidden treasures of darkness. He knows it all. He doesn't "wag" signs under unbeliever's noses, but He does confirm His Word to those who acknowledge Him and esteem His Word above all else.

 

[Mallon]

Caly, it's not an opinion, it's the straight observations of the "item" you posted. Here are some observations;

1. Leaves settle flat in water. You can see that for yourself on many walks outside in the autumn. Because of this, varves would be at 90 degrees to your supposed varves in that photo.
2. Caly's alleged varves don't continue down the whole sample. That makes no sense. Caly, are you saying that only the top half are varves, and the bottom half has been erased by space aliens or something?
3. Varves vary in thickness with weather changes, while the supposed "varves" of caly are all the same thickness, ....... oddly, just like saw marks. Here are some real varves for comparison:
   
4. Caly's leaf "just happens" to be abraded right along where the "varves" are, suspiciously just like one would expect if the "varves" were saw marks, which would have also abraded the leaf.
5. Real varves are made of particles of different sizes, hence the difference in settling speed. Caly, do you have a paper (from an actual, peer reviewed journal, or at least from a real scientific institute) identifying these?

One more thing to add to the list...

6. The type of catrastrophic flood that C4 says carved the Grand Canyon does not -- cannot -- deposit varves. By definition, these take years and years to form and then only in quiet depositional environments.

 

[shernren]

And yet despite this clear proof of a global flood, Sydney and Canberra are quite dry.

Very unfortunate choice Assyrian - this year (by the grace of God!) southeast Australia has been quite thoroughly drenched, to the point that rural New South Wales (the state in which Sydney and Canberra are) has been experiencing flash floods.

 

[Assyrian]

Very unfortunate choice Assyrian - this year (by the grace of God!) southeast Australia has been quite thoroughly drenched, to the point that rural New South Wales (the state in which Sydney and Canberra are) has been experiencing flash floods.

Goodness, you're right... there really must have been a global flood.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

I've always wondered this- was Noah the only person who had a boat? Surely there must have been fishermen around.

And, of course, all creatures of the sea survived the Biblical flood.

 

[gluadys]

I've always wondered this- was Noah the only person who had a boat? Surely there must have been fishermen around.

And, of course, all creatures of the sea survived the Biblical flood.

Actually, given that a flood would change pressure, temperature and salinity---all things that sea creatures are susceptible to--there is every reason why a flood would kill them too.

Look at all the corals dying today because ocean temperatures are rising beyond their level of tolerance.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Well, since there is no mention of aquariums on the Ark, all creatures in the sea couldn't have died. Maybe the fresh water fish would have done better.

On the other hand, if the premise that I brought up earlier is correct- that the Biblical flood may have been caused by a massive surge of water that came in from the Atlantic Ocean through the Straits of Gibraltar, and only affected the then-inhabited part of the world, which would have been the Mediterranean Basin- it would have in fact been salt water sea creatures from the Atlantic that were involved.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Goodness, you're right... there really must have been a global flood.

Either the flood was global or you are forced to assume life only existed in the local region and was somehow absent from the rest of the world, as scripture is crystal clear all life on earth was extinguished save for those on the ark. And did life really exist only locally?

 

[Mallon]

Either the flood was global or you are forced to assume life only existed in the local region and was somehow absent from the rest of the world, as scripture is crystal clear all life on earth was extinguished save for those on the ark. And did life really exist only locally?

Maybe the Bible authors only knew about what lived locally, so God accommodated His message to what they knew. After all, the Bible never makes any mention of the New World. Luke 2:1 says that Caesar Augustus took a census of the entire world, when only the Roman world was understood. I think the world is a lot bigger than the Hebrews thought it to be, and so they described the Flood as global in its reach.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Maybe the Bible authors only knew about what lived locally, so God accommodated His message to what they knew. After all, the Bible never makes any mention of the New World. Luke 2:1 says that Caesar Augustus took a census of the entire world, when only the Roman world was understood. I think the world is a lot bigger than the Hebrews thought it to be, and so they described the Flood as global in its reach.

Ah, so all life on earth wasn't "really" extinguished, Noah and everyone on the ark weren't "really" the only ones who remained alive. In such a case, the Bible becomes suspect.

 

[Mallon]

Ah, so all life on earth wasn't "really" extinguished, Noah and everyone on the ark weren't "really" the only ones who remained alive. In such a case, the Bible becomes suspect.

Why? The Bible is ripe with instances of accommodation. Why does the Bible suddenly become suspect if the story of Noah is another instance of accommodation?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Ah, so all life on earth wasn't "really" extinguished, Noah and everyone on the ark weren't "really" the only ones who remained alive. In such a case, the Bible becomes suspect.

How is it that the whole bible becomes suspect? It doesn't follow that if 1 story weren't literally true that ALL the stories aren't literally true. Even if the whole flood story were completely fabricated and false, it doesn't follow that David wasn't king of Israel or that Abraham had a son named Isaac.

In any case, the problem seems to me to be over how we are to understand the story.

 

[gluadys]

Ah, so all life on earth wasn't "really" extinguished, Noah and everyone on the ark weren't "really" the only ones who remained alive. In such a case, the Bible becomes suspect.

This is the basic thinking that lies behind the frequent charge that TEs reject scripture.

In the mind of HHC, the Bible becomes suspect if the whole earth (as we understand it) wasn't "really" extinguished and if Noah and those on the ark weren't "really" the only ones who remained alive.

He would reject the Bible if he were convinced these "realities" were not the case. So he assumes everyone who is not convinced of these "realities" has rejected the Bible.

'Tain't so.

Accepting that the text of scripture is accommodated to the knowledge base of its authors means the Bible is not suspect if it doesn't accord tightly with our view of reality. It is their view of reality that governs how the text is to be understood, not ours.

 

[Assyrian]

Either the flood was global or you are forced to assume life only existed in the local region and was somehow absent from the rest of the world, as scripture is crystal clear all life on earth was extinguished save for those on the ark. And did life really exist only locally?

Or the bible is describing all life being extinguished in that region. You see you are trying to understand a local flood interpretation while holding on to your global flood understanding of the text. It doesn't work that way. You can't use global flood assumption to undermine a local flood interpretation, which describe a local flood killing all life in that local region.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

I want to present two things, but reflect the same general idea, that I think indicate that a global flood is not in view in Genesis. The points here are that there are specific people/groups besides Noah and his family that survive the flood. The first is the Nephilim who we run across just prior to the rain (Gen 6) and who also are living in the land after the Exodus (Num 13). The second is the survival of descendents of Cain. We run into the Cainites in several places after the flood (Gen 15, Num 24, Judg 1, Judg 4, 1 Sam 15, 1 Sam 27, 1 Sam 30) who are seen wandering the Negev region just as Genesis 4 said the descendents of Cain would be wanderers. The survival of these 2 groups of people should be an indication that the flood was not global in the way we think of it. There were people other than Noah and his family who survived.

I think the best argument I have heard for a global flood is the fact that God promised Noah he would never flood the Earth again as he did. Therefore, if it was a regional flood, God is a liar. I think the flood would have had to be global then.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I think the best argument I have heard for a global flood is the fact that God promised Noah he would never flood the Earth again as he did. Therefore, if it was a regional flood, God is a liar. I think the flood would have had to be global then.

Wow, someone actually came back to my OP. I don't think that what you said in any way precludes just a regional flood. Why can't God just be saying that he will never destroy the land with a flood like that again? And you didn't address what my OP said, you just talked about something else.