No global flood.

[OldWiseGuy]

Given the weather context here the most obvious reading is that it is a wind rather than a spirit, besides wouldn't the Spirit of the Lord, be called 'the Spirit of the Lord' or 'the Spirit of Elohim'? Even if it was some other type of spirit it would be described as 'a spirit of soemthingorother' or even a spirit from the Lord? Gen 1:3 And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Note as well how it is the Spirit of the Lord who is the subject and performs the action of hovering over the waters. In Gen 8 the wind is the object of the verb, made to blow by God. Gen 8:1 And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided.

I don't see how the ocean floor could drop a couple of kilometers without causing massive tsunami. The earth's crust does not move gently and water is very good at sloshing about when it moves. But the story does not describe a shift in the ocean floor at all. It describes rain and artesian springs opening up as the cause of the flood and it ending when the wind blew and the rain stopped.

No matter how hard a wind blew it would not cause the waters to abate and return to their place. That's why I think the wind was a signal that the flooding was over, not a direct cause in any significant way (or maybe it was a fresh wind that blew the smell of rotting critters away from Noah). Here are verses in question:

1And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;


2The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

3And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

God made a wind to "pass" over the earth, not "blow" as he did over the Red Sea. Then verses 2 and 3 describe the actually end of the flood.

The exact meaning of "the fountains of the great deep" is still vague. I believe it means the ocean waters and basins that contain them, not some other water hidden in the rocks somewhere. I believe the "breaking up" was the raising of the seafloor itself, not a sudden tectonic upheaval at the edges of the plates. Because the water came rather slowly (it took forty days for the flood water to reach the ark and lift it up) I believe the destructiveness (erosion and subsequent deposition) of the flood would not mimic usual flood models.

Regarding the height of the floodwater. Although it says the waters prevailed 15 cubits above the (tallest) peak this does not imply that the standing waters had to reach that height. Using the flood as a type of baptism the waters would only have to submerge the entire earth for a moment, and then only barely, as the "fifteen cubits" would indicate. A huge powerful cresting surge would accomplish this, especially if two or more met at the tallest peak. The word "prevail" indicates powerful activity, not the passivity of standing water. Also the story seems to indicate that as soon as the flood crested it began to abate. This would give credibility to the baptising nature of the flood. As soon as complete immersion was accomplished the baptismal process is complete. At the moment the highest peak was submerged the baptism was over and the waters began to recede, and the earth came up out of the waters purified. (I think you have to add the spiritual purpose/pattern/type to the story to fully understand it.)

owg

 

[mindlight]

Hmmm. So the consensus between mindlight and juvie seems to be, "Noah's Flood was so unique and extraordinary that we'll never be able to positively identify the deposits it made, but trust us, they exist."
Is that a fair summary of your views?

Yes the event like the creation itself was totally unique and cannot be explained by analogy to uniformitarian trends today. There are elements of it which are completely unprecedented e.g the opening of the deep and the sheer quantity of rain. It was also a direct act of Gods will so purely naturalistic explanations are going to drown trying to explain it! Jesus affirms there was a flood and that it was a judgment that caught a world by surprise. Indeed given the reduction in lifespan that followed it it seems the world was fundamentally and irreparably damaged by it - such that it became more inhospitable to human life.

Its the best explanation for global consistencies in the geological layers and the formation of so many complete fossils.

The naturalistic methodology simply does not work with the flood as it does not work with creation either.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes the event like the creation itself was totally unique and cannot be explained by analogy to uniformitarian trends today.

Or any other, for that matter. Invoking non-scriptural miracles to solve every difficulty is bad science and worse theology.

Jesus affirms there was a flood and that it was a judgment that caught a world by surprise.

There was a flood, a big one in the middle east. But it's not what creationists demand. However, it fits Genesis nicely, and also has the virtue of not requiring all sorts of magic like deserts and forests popping into existence before being buried, all in a single year.

Its the best explanation for global consistencies in the geological layers and the formation of so many complete fossils.

Perhaps you can explain those deserts and forests, then?

The naturalistic methodology simply does not work with the flood as it does not work with creation either.

It works fine with the flood as God did it. Not so well with the imaginary one the creationists invented.

 

[Assyrian]

No matter how hard a wind blew it would not cause the waters to abate

It wouldn't for a global flood, but it could easily for a local one. Which is a pretty good indication the sort of flood we are looking at here.

and return to their place.

It is worth pointing out, I don't think it actually says return to their place. That assumes Noah arrived back at the point he started. The waters abated from where he ended up. Not relevant for a Mesopotamian flood, but a Black Sea flood could still be covering his original starting point.

That's why I think the wind was a signal that the flooding was over, not a direct cause in any significant way (or maybe it was a fresh wind that blew the smell of rotting critters away from Noah).

I thought the rainbow was the sign the flood was over.

Here are verses in question:

1And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;


2The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

3And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

God made a wind to "pass" over the earth, not "blow" as he did over the Red Sea. Then verses 2 and 3 describe the actually end of the flood.

The exact meaning of "the fountains of the great deep" is still vague. I believe it means the ocean waters and basins that contain them, not some other water hidden in the rocks somewhere. I believe the "breaking up" was the raising of the seafloor itself, not a sudden tectonic upheaval at the edges of the plates.

It is difficult language but I don't think there is any reason to read fountains of the deep bursting as the the sea floor rising. Breaking or bursting can be used to refer to something simply being broken like a branch, or it can mean a container bursting and the contents flooding out, a burst wineskin, or a city wall being broken and people flooding through. But not ground rising.

I think there are some very close parallels that tell us what the phrase means. It is true depths often refer to the depths of the sea, but they are also used deep underground springs. Deut 8:7 For the LORD thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills. Or as the ESV puts it, of fountains and springs, flowing out in the valleys and hills (Incidentally, not the same word for fountains here as in Genesis)

We find even closer language in two Psalms describing the Exodus and God providing water in the wilderness.

Psalm 74:13 You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters.
14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.
15 You split (Genesis: burst) open springs (Genesis: fountains) and brooks; you dried up ever-flowing streams.

Psalm 78:13 He divided (Genesis: burst) the sea and let them pass through it, and made the waters stand like a heap.
14 In the daytime he led them with a cloud, and all the night with a fiery light.
15 He split (Genesis: burst) rocks in the wilderness and gave them drink abundantly as from the deep (Genesis: deep. The AV says great deep for both).
16 He made streams come out of the rock and caused waters to flow down like rivers.

Because the water came rather slowly (it took forty days for the flood water to reach the ark and lift it up) I believe the destructiveness (erosion and subsequent deposition) of the flood would not mimic usual flood models.

Actually the language of the flood account suggest very violent waters as you point out in the next paragraph.

Regarding the height of the floodwater. Although it says the waters prevailed 15 cubits above the (tallest) peak this does not imply that the standing waters had to reach that height. Using the flood as a type of baptism the waters would only have to submerge the entire earth for a moment, and then only barely, as the "fifteen cubits" would indicate. A huge powerful cresting surge would accomplish this, especially if two or more met at the tallest peak. The word "prevail" indicates powerful activity, not the passivity of standing water. Also the story seems to indicate that as soon as the flood crested it began to abate. This would give credibility to the baptising nature of the flood. As soon complete immersion was accomplished the baptismal process is complete. At the moment the highest peak was submerged the baptism was over and the waters began to recede, and the earth came up out of the waters purified. (I think you have to add the spiritual purpose/pattern/type to the story to fully understand it.) owg

I agree with that. I think it is describing 15 cubit high waves that swept over the hills rather than dropping a plumb line over the side in calm water. Interestingly the 15 cubits high is half the height of the ark which suggests measuring the height of the waves relative to the ark.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It wouldn't for a global flood, but it could easily for a local one. Which is a pretty good indication the sort of flood we are looking at here.

It is worth pointing out, I don't think it actually says return to their place. That assumes Noah arrived back at the point he started. The waters abated from where he ended up. Not relevant for a Mesopotamian flood, but a Black Sea flood could still be covering his original starting point.

I thought the rainbow was the sign the flood was over.

It is difficult language but I don't think there is any reason to read fountains of the deep bursting as the the sea floor rising. Breaking or bursting can be used to refer to something simply being broken like a branch, or it can mean a container bursting and the contents flooding out, a burst wineskin, or a city wall being broken and people flooding through. But not ground rising.

I think there are some very close parallels that tell us what the phrase means. It is true depths often refer to the depths of the sea, but they are also used deep underground springs. Deut 8:7 For the LORD thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills. Or as the ESV puts it, of fountains and springs, flowing out in the valleys and hills (Incidentally, not the same word for fountains here as in Genesis)

We find even closer language in two Psalms describing the Exodus and God providing water in the wilderness.

Psalm 74:13 You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters.
14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.
15 You split (Genesis: burst) open springs (Genesis: fountains) and brooks; you dried up ever-flowing streams.

Psalm 78:13 He divided (Genesis: burst) the sea and let them pass through it, and made the waters stand like a heap.
14 In the daytime he led them with a cloud, and all the night with a fiery light.
15 He split (Genesis: burst) rocks in the wilderness and gave them drink abundantly as from the deep (Genesis: deep. The AV says great deep for both).
16 He made streams come out of the rock and caused waters to flow down like rivers.

Actually the language of the flood account suggest very violent waters as you point out in the next paragraph.

I agree with that. I think it is describing 15 cubit high waves that swept over the hills rather than dropping a plumb line over the side in calm water. Interestingly the 15 cubits high is half the height of the ark which suggests measuring the height of the waves relative to the ark.

Just covering the mountains of Ararat indicate a huge flood, much larger than a local one.

The account states that the waters "returned". I take this to mean they returned to the place from which they came. I cannot envision the flood water returning to a secret underground cistern separate from the seabeds. I believe it just ran back into the sea, the ocean floor having returned to it's former level.

The rainbow was the sign that God wouldn't again bring such a flood upon the earth, and occurred after the flood was over.

Note that "the fountains of the great deep were broken up", and, "the windows of heaven were opened" occur in the same sentence. A very poetic way of describing the source of the water. If you apply literal translation to one part you must also apply it to the other. I think it was a poetic way of saying that the water would come from the seas and from the sky, which is the only place that much water could come from.

I think the "fifteen cubits upward" merely reveals that the tallest peak was barely covered. I think that peak was far from the ark's position over the mts of Ararat. I don't think the ark had fifteen cubits of freeboard either. I think it was so heavy and floated so low that waves could actually submerge it for at least a moment. This would fulfill the baptism type that I believe would have happened to it during the flood. This type of baptism would later be repeated in the Red Sea crossing where I believe the Israelites were at least just below the normal surface level of the sea while crossing, thus fulfilling the ritual type of baptism.

Confining the flood to a small, local area requires that the whole flood story, beginning in Genesis 6, be rewritten to reflect that.

owg

 

[Assyrian]

Just covering the mountains of Ararat indicate a huge flood, much larger than a local one.

Do we know the hills of Ararat where Noah ended up (Gen 8:4) are the hills the waters prevailed over in Gen 7:19?

The account states that the waters "returned". I take this to mean they returned to the place from which they came.

The AV does say 'returned' but modern translations usually say 'receeded'

As Strongs says

H7725 שׁוּב shûb shoob
​

A primitive root; to turn back (hence, away) transitively or intransitively, literally or figuratively (not necessarily with the idea of return to the starting point); generally to retreat; often adverbially again
​

I cannot envision the flood water returning to a secret underground cistern separate from the seabeds. I believe it just ran back into the sea, the ocean floor having returned to it's former level.

Again, there is nothing in the story of rising and lowering ocean floors. The account give naturalistic explanations of how God sent the flood and took it away again, torrential rain and fountains springing up brought the flood, their ceasing and a wind blowing took the water away.

The rainbow was the sign that God wouldn't again bring such a flood upon the earth, and occurred after the flood was over.

And it is the only sign God mentions in the account.

Note that "the fountains of the great deep were broken up", and, "the windows of heaven were opened" occur in the same sentence. A very poetic way of describing the source of the water. If you apply literal translation to one part you must also apply it to the other. I think it was a poetic way of saying that the water would come from the seas and from the sky, which is the only place that much water could come from.

So when John the Baptist said, Matt 3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire", the baptisms in water, fire and the Holy Spirit had to be either all literal or all metaphorical? No I think people mixed metaphor and literal much more freely than that. Your real problem is that both phrases reflect an ANE cosmology with a solid heavens and the earth set on pillars over the watery deep. But as it is there is no hint of it as a description of sea flood moving, whether poetic or literal. It does decribe a source of floodwater and one commonly associated with torrential rain.

I think the "fifteen cubits upward" merely reveals that the tallest peak was barely covered. I think that peak was far from the ark's position over the mts of Ararat. I don't think the ark had fifteen cubits of freeboard either. I think it was so heavy and floated so low that waves could actually submerge it for at least a moment. This would fulfill the baptism type that I believe would have happened to it during the flood. This type of baptism would later be repeated in the Red Sea crossing where I believe the Israelites were at least just below the normal surface level of the sea while crossing, thus fulfilling the ritual type of baptism.

Except of course the Israelites crossed over completely dry. It is enough that both sets of people went through the waters and were saved. You can look for too much detail in allegorical pictures.

Confining the flood to a small, local area requires that the whole flood story, beginning in Genesis 6, be rewritten to reflect that.

owg

Don't confuse local with small. Actually, what impresses me most about the flood story is that it has the intensity of an eyewitness account. When the writer describes everything under the whole heaven covered with water, it is describing what could be seen from the ark, roaring waves from horizon to horizon, as far as the eye could see. The account is not describing a global flood because the writer had no concept of the earth being a globe, and made no attemt to describe what went on in a wider world he knew nothing about and had never seen.

 

[juvenissun]

Perhaps you can explain those deserts and forests, then?

You continuously hold on this question as a meaningless argument. Yes, it is hard to imagine (no high IQ needed) that (local) desert and forest conditions might coexist with a global flood. But how do you know they did not come to exist before or after the Flood? The presence of sand dunes and coal beds (anywhere, in any sequence) does NOT eliminate the possibility of a global flood.

Joh 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

The simplest and the most obvious evidence of the Global Flood is that we (still) have way too much liquid water on the surface of the earth. More water than any celestial body anywhere in this universe.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian asks how a year long flood can have forests and deserts in the middle of the sediment from said flood)

You continuously hold on this question as a meaningless argument.

These are stacked one on top of another between what creationists describe as flood sediments. Both of them are on top of "flood sediments", they are separated by "flood sediments" and they are covered by "flood sediments." So, if these are all indeed "flood sediments", both the desert and the forest had to have appeared within the flood year, between loads of "flood sediment." How does that happen?

Yes, it is hard to imagine (no high IQ needed) that (local) desert and forest conditions might coexist with a global flood.

But how such things could pop up within a single year is not so easy to explain.

But how do you know they did not come to exist before or after the Flood?

See above. They are in the middle of "flood sediments." Hence, if the Global flood is a fact, they had to have developed on one layer of sediment from the flood, only to be later buried by another. How does a mature forest appear in less than a year? How does a desert do that?

The presence of sand dunes and coal beds (anywhere, in any sequence) does NOT eliminate the possibility of a global flood.

Unless you can explain how they appeared in such a short time, it's an overwhelming problem.

 

[laptoppop]

Well then, the video explained how the distinctive separation of strata indicate they were laid down one at a time. If they were laid down together in a flood, there would be some blurring of the lines. So please explain how a flood could have given sedimentary deposits the distinctive division we see.

Interestingly -- I did a similar experiment to the video with my son in my yard with a 10 gallon aquarium. We mixed up various different things from chalk to dirt etc. and poured them in with some violence in terms of the currents. What we saw was not what I expected. We continued the mixing of the water and slurry even as some layers were laid down. What we found was a fascinating mixture of layers -- with tight boundaries between them. They were not sorted out in a single deposition sequence, but had varied presentations of fine layers and medium layers and coarse layers.

And actually -- hydrodeposition of layers is not new, and is required by virtually all theories of deposition. We differ on the extent and number of floods. I would contend that the mass of material moved and deposited to form continent size deposits requires a global event, not a local one.

The mechanisms of hydrodeposition are well known. The rates of sedimentation and the way the deposits are deposited vary depending on a large variety of factors, such as temperature, current, dissolved solids, etc. In a global flood one would expect such factors to be changing at various times over the event, adding to the layer variation.

There was a french scientist guy berthault, i believe, who showed how multiple layers are made at the same time. Google is your friend.

One interesting problem for the uniformitarian is the way that no layer goes on forever, but at some point blurs into the layers around it.... this is difficult when they are supposedly not made during similar time periods.

 

[canukian]

at one time the black sea was a tiny freshwater fresh water lake at its bottom. 10,000 years ago as the claciers of the last ice age finished melting rasing the oceans, the mediteranian sea breached the bosporas and flooded that laked and made the black sea. that former lake is the birthplace of animal husbandry and agriculture. the biblical flood story almost certainly came from the sumerians

 

[shernren]

One interesting problem for the uniformitarian is the way that no layer goes on forever, but at some point blurs into the layers around it.... this is difficult when they are supposedly not made during similar time periods.

Never heard of this one before.

 

[Mallon]

Interestingly -- I did a similar experiment to the video with my son in my yard with a 10 gallon aquarium. We mixed up various different things from chalk to dirt etc. and poured them in with some violence in terms of the currents. What we saw was not what I expected. We continued the mixing of the water and slurry even as some layers were laid down. What we found was a fascinating mixture of layers -- with tight boundaries between them. They were not sorted out in a single deposition sequence, but had varied presentations of fine layers and medium layers and coarse layers.

Did you get a fining-upwards sequence? That's what the laws of physics would predict.

And actually -- hydrodeposition of layers is not new, and is required by virtually all theories of deposition. We differ on the extent and number of floods. I would contend that the mass of material moved and deposited to form continent size deposits requires a global event, not a local one.

Why not a continent-sized event to account for continent-sized deposits?

One interesting problem for the uniformitarian is the way that no layer goes on forever, but at some point blurs into the layers around it.... this is difficult when they are supposedly not made during similar time periods.

Actual field geologists disagree.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except of course the Israelites crossed over completely dry. It is enough that both sets of people went through the waters and were saved. You can look for too much detail in allegorical pictures.

Recall that I said that the Israelites crossed beneath the normal level of the sea, thus fulfilling the baptism type. When the waters returned the Egyptians were drowned because they too were beneath the normal level of the waters. To be a complete type of immersion baptism they would have to have been 'under' the water, buried.

1 Corinthians 10


1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

owg

 

[Assyrian]

So really the Egyptians were the ones to show the real meaning of baptism, death and burial...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So really the Egyptians were the ones to show the real meaning of baptism, death and burial...

They got everything right except the resurrection part:

Hebrews 11:29
By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying (attempting) to do were drowned.

The Egyptians were the 'sin' that was ritually shed and left beneath the water in this figurative baptism. Israel was 'washed' clean of them.

I also added a scripture to my above post after this response by you. It makes my point.

owg

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

So really the Egyptians were the ones to show the real meaning of baptism, death and burial...

Nope Noah and Moses displayed baptism unto salvation and life...

1 Peter 3:21-22

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

 

[Assyrian]

My point is that you can read too much into a biblical allegory, especially when trying to read back from the allegorical interpretation to build up details about the OT passage it is drawn from. You can't claim that Hagar and Sarah were particularly tall because Paul said they were allegorically mountains, or that the passover lamb must have been particularly skilled at carpentry, for a sheep anyway. You simply can't say "This adds to the allegorical picture therefore it must have been so."

Now the water in the Red Sea must have been pretty deep normally, the Egyptians drowned in it, but you can't say it must have been deep to symbolize immersion, you can't even say it was that deep from the passages quoted. It says in Heb 11:29 By faith they passed through the Red sea. The same word translated passed through is used in Paul's vision of the man from Macedonia telling him Act 16:9 "Come over to Macedonia and help us." In 1Cor 10:1 'through the sea' uses the same preposition 'dia' as Matt 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath.

Even if they were below the normal sea level crossing the Red Sea, it does not mean the waves must have been higher than the ark because it makes such a nice symbolism. It simply does not follow.

 

[laptoppop]

Did you get a fining-upwards sequence? That's what the laws of physics would predict.

Actually no I didn't. I got layers with various patterns, not a single set of one pattern. I wasn't modeling a single settling event, but rather movement of material where settling would be occuring even as more material moved over it. I'd expect a single settling sequence in a non-turbulent environment to be different. What I got looked a lot like the type of deposits you see in the field.

Why not a continent-sized event to account for continent-sized deposits?

It appears to me (note.... this is NOT rigorous science!<grin>) that it takes an event larger than a particular deposit in order to create the deposit. For example, if you look at the deposits created from the Mt. St. Helens eruption they are much smaller than the overall event.

 

[juvenissun]

Did you get a fining-upwards sequence? That's what the laws of physics would predict.

Your question illustrated how a simple model could easily be used to dismiss a reality, which is never simple.

The fining upward graded bedding unit is made under an assumption that the dumped sediments are totally loose, deposited by free falling in water which has enough sorting depth and is given enough time to complete the process. I don't think these conditions could be met in most cases during a global flood. If laptoppop's sediments is abundant and the depositional environment (the tank) is shallow (it is actually a more realistic scenario during the global flood), then graded bedding is most likely not going to be made.

 

[Mallon]

Actually no I didn't. I got layers with various patterns, not a single set of one pattern. I wasn't modeling a single settling event, but rather movement of material where settling would be occuring even as more material moved over it. I'd expect a single settling sequence in a non-turbulent environment to be different. What I got looked a lot like the type of deposits you see in the field.

Were you able to produce any coal or chalk or fossil forest sequences?

It appears to me (note.... this is NOT rigorous science!<grin>) that it takes an event larger than a particular deposit in order to create the deposit. For example, if you look at the deposits created from the Mt. St. Helens eruption they are much smaller than the overall event.

What do you mean?