Dr Walt Brown.

[GOD Shines Forth!]

I don't expect any sceptic to have a change of mind because of this new information. It may help Christians to overcome doubts about the flood. Personally, I take God at His word. Our limited understanding does not mean that the Bible is incorrect. From time to time, science catches up to God.

Elohim, being the Creator, has pre-Fall knowledge of Earth. The unbelieving scientist has tainted, post-Fall evidence only. An Earth made subject to "the bondage of decay".

Faith connects us believers to Elohim's pre-Fall explanation of creation. I trust it too!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hi MQ,

All very good hypothesis. However, if there's a scientific explanation for what happened, then by definition, it wouldn't be a miracle now would it? If there's a scientific explanation for how Mary wound up carrying a child, yet not having had any sexual relations with a man, that wouldn't be a miracle either. I'm just not sure you're giving God the credit that He rightfully deserves. Just as the creation of this realm from nothing, according to the Scriptures, there's no scientific explanation for any of the 'how' the creation came to be, if there were, then it wouldn't be a miracle. There was no big bang and then space particles coalesced into all the heavenly bodies that we see. First of all the earth likely wouldn't have been the first heavenly body created as the Scriptures of God declare.

Me, I'm satisfied that God did it all. It was a miracle wrought by His mighty hand and there aren't any scientific or natural explanations for any of it. But, I believe God. I know that He did create this realm in which we live in 6 fairly normal days, as relates to the length of the days. I know that He did each of the tasks that He proclaims to have done within the time span of one rotation of the earth once it was created spinning on its axis.

I also know that He did it about 6,000 years ago as He explains to us through the genealogical records from Adam to Noah and then to Abraham and beyond. How do I 'know' that. Because I believe God. There is nothing that is impossible for God and there is no issue with which He need be deceitful or lie to us about. He did it. He explained the time span in which He did it, even repeating it twice to His people in the wilderness. Once we understand and believe that, the 6,000 year age of the creation is a pretty simple mathematical calculation.

However, it does require that we stand against the teachings of the great scientific minds of our time as regards the age of the creation. But surely anyone can see that they've got it all wrong in every piece. The scientific explanation starts off with the stars being older than the earth. That the earth coalesced at some point after the stars came to exist. The scientific explanation then goes on to tell us that all that is, was actually created from some previously existing matter, even though they've made up this fairy tale that it's some infinitely infinitesimal spec of some special matter. None of that fits with the account that God has given us through His people. The people that Paul writes to us were entrusted with the very oracles of God.

God raised up Israel for a couple of specific purposes. One was to record His revelation to us as to who He is and all that He has done that we might have the life that we live and all that is necessary to sustain it. The second was that they were to slaughter the Lamb of God to bring salvation even unto the ends of the earth. They were God's people raised up since the days of Abraham to do the things that they did.

God bless,
Ted

Even what is natural is God-made, therefore miracle. The fact these things happen WHEN they do, to me is more relevant than how.

I think I'm giving God more credit than those who look at 'miracle' with mere superstitious consideration (No, I don't mean you). For example, I have seen that the further back scientists look into the makeup of the universe, macro and micro, the more I see the work of God. Their notions are confused, some made up, some misunderstood, but the farther they go, the more can be seen either God's wisdom, or at the least, a merging of natural and metaphysical, science and philosophy.

When they said, "Big Bang", we were thinking, "Well, why not? Let there be light!" Einstein was saying time is relative. If so, why can't the inventor of time manipulate it to his good pleasure? Why can't he make Adam 25 actual years old on the day he made him? How do we calculate such things —by our concepts or by God's? How fast, judging by the amount of time it took (at the speed of time 6000 years ago), did the early universe actually move, expand? Yet light, the clock surfing that expansion —why could it not pass through several billions of years? What equations do we have disproving it happened within 6 days as counted 6000 years ago?

I'm not saying that is how it works. I'm just saying there is more to God than any of us knows. He does not need to work within any concepts we put out there for him, nor even within principles he set out by which his universe operates. They do not govern him.

When they say, 'calculations made on probability', I'm thinking, "Probability"??? Even plain logic says only one thing can happen. So how can anything else be probable? That is just our brains saying, "I don't know." God causes. It is self-contradictory to say chance can cause anything. They say, 'pops in and out of existence' with no predictability, and I'm thinking "coming into existence? Now who would be in charge of that?"

No, Ted. The list goes on and on. God causes all things including all details, and is WAY ahead of us on understanding it. I see his attribute of "Immanence" in the behavior of sub-particle energy/matter, so that it could even partially explain how his love permeates all fact. This point of view does not deny God of any glory concerning his works and deeds, compared to any other human point of view.

 

[coffee4u]

Dr Brown is a Christian who has been researching creation and Noah's flood for decades. As you would expect, he is ridiculed by evolutionists and praised by his supporters. I found his book, "In the Beginning" fascinating reading. Some aspects of his theories I found hard to accept.

One of the difficulties relates to his flood theory. I agree that it was world-wide, but he also had an aspect of his theory that requires vast amounts of underground water. This is called "fountains of the deep" in the Bible. Some sceptics have claimed that there was just not enough water to cover the earth. Or is there? Recently, vast amounts of water have been discovered underground. It's been known for a long time that there is water stored in the earth's crust and in aquifers. According to Nature and phys.org,

"A staggering store of water is revealed in Earth’s crust (Nature). Scientists at the University of Saskatchewan used modeling techniques to estimate the amount of groundwater contained in pore spaces of sedimentary rock. Their surprising conclusion “estimated that the uppermost 10 kilometres of Earth’s crust holds nearly 44 million cubic kilometres of water.” Phys.org headlines the fact that such a volume “makes groundwater, not ice sheets, the largest reservoir on land.” It also doubles previous estimates of water stored in the earth’s crust."

I don't expect any sceptic to have a change of mind because of this new information. It may help Christians to overcome doubts about the flood. Personally, I take God at His word. Our limited understanding does not mean that the Bible is incorrect. From time to time, science catches up to God.

The underground water is a well known part of the flood. I am kind of surprised to find that is new to you Pete.

I believe a great quantity of water came from below and from the vapour canopy around. The world was after all made from and out of water.
2 Peter 3:5 "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water."

And yes the mountains were lower and valleys were shallower. The flood itself carved and reshaped the entire planet.
Psalm 104:8
they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The underground water is a well known part of the flood. I am kind of surprised to find that is new to you Pete.

I believe a great quantity of water came from below and from the vapour canopy around. The world was after all made from and out of water.
2 Peter 3:5 "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water."

And yes the mountains were lower and valleys were shallower. The flood itself carved and reshaped the entire planet.
Psalm 104:8
they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them.

It's not new to me. I was simply saying that many sceptics queried where the water for Noah's flood came from. Walt Brown predicted that there would be vast underground reservoirs. He has been proven correct.

My understanding for decades has been that the Grand Canyon was formed by water draining into the ocean and carving the canyon in a year or so. Secular science says that it took millions of years (or whatever the latest guess is). Walt Brown skewers the multiple floods producing the Canyon's layers theory. I won't go into it. You can download the .pdf of his book for free.

 

[miamited]

Hi MQ,

I think I'm giving God more credit than those who look at 'miracle' with mere superstitious consideration

Sure, I wouldn't deny that. There are certainly levels of 'giving credit to God'. Yes, even what is natural, at its beginning, is a miracle because all that has been made has been made from nothing but the command and the will and wisdom of God. But once it was created, it fell into following all the natural laws...unless God stepped in to suspend those laws for His purposes. Yes, the Red Sea's waves lapped at the shorelines along the wilderness day after day after day from the moment after it was created until today. But there was a moment that God stepped in and parted those mighty waters for His purpose to save His people. That was not natural and you will never find any scientific or natural explanation to explain that event.

Yes, we will never, certainly this side of eternity, know all there is to know about God.

What equations do we have disproving it happened within 6 days as counted 6000 years ago?

Apparently there are many, since so few people believe it. Even christians.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi Pete,

My understanding for decades has been that the Grand Canyon was formed by water draining into the ocean and carving the canyon in a year or so. Secular science says that it took millions of years (or whatever the latest guess is). Walt Brown skewers the multiple floods producing the Canyon's layers theory.

There's a rather good documentary concerning the Mount St Helen's eruption that actually shows that a canyon can be formed in a day. Not formed by water, but rather by volcanic processes. My understanding is that water or ice didn't have anything to do with the formation of the Grand Canyon. The Colorado River that runs through it is there because of its low elevation just as most rivers run through low areas after being fed by the myriad tributaries and streams to become rivers.

The problem, for me, with the idea that the Grand Canyon was formed by millions of years of water running through it is the simple question of why it would only apply to one river. Our country has dozens of great rivers that have surely run for as long as the Colorado, but they are still riding in the same slot lying reasonably level with the surrounding land mass. How is it that the Mississippi River hasn't cut through the sand and silt and rock and now runs hundreds of feet below the surrounding surface? As for great ice masses laying over the North American continent, that really doesn't fit with the timeline that God has given us for the existence of this realm. So again, I have my doubts as to the 'truth' of some of the scientific explanations regarding things that happened long in the past where we have no idea really what things were like. I've always rather imagined that the Grand Canyon was likely a part of the splitting and twisting and breaking up of the land masses during the great flood.

Just my ruminations on the subject.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hi Pete,



There's a rather good documentary concerning the Mount St Helen's eruption that actually shows that a canyon can be formed in a day. Not formed by water, but rather by volcanic processes. My understanding is that water or ice didn't have anything to do with the formation of the Grand Canyon. The Colorado River that runs through it is there because of its low elevation just as most rivers run through low areas after being fed by the myriad tributaries and streams to become rivers.

The problem, for me, with the idea that the Grand Canyon was formed by millions of years of water running through it is the simple question of why it would only apply to one river. Our country has dozens of great rivers that have surely run for as long as the Colorado, but they are still riding in the same slot lying reasonably level with the surrounding land mass. How is it that the Mississippi River hasn't cut through the sand and silt and rock and now runs hundreds of feet below the surrounding surface? As for great ice masses laying over the North American continent, that really doesn't fit with the timeline that God has given us for the existence of this realm. So again, I have my doubts as to the 'truth' of some of the scientific explanations regarding things that happened long in the past where we have no idea really what things were like. I've always rather imagined that the Grand Canyon was likely a part of the splitting and twisting and breaking up of the land masses during the great flood.

Just my ruminations on the subject.

God bless,
Ted

I've had the great privilege of visiting the Grand Canyon. Someone called it "God's Cathedral". However it was formed, it is a natural wonder. You may like to read Walt Brown's explanation. The Grand Canyon consists of layers of sediment. You can simulate this with a bucket of dirt and sand. Mix it with a lot of water, make sure it's well mixed then leave it. It will settle in layers remarkably like the Grand Canyon. I've seen this done with glass containers which are then sealed. Choose the right colours and it can be quite effective.

I don't get too involved in these things. They are not relevant to the gospel. They may encourage some who doubt Genesis because they believe science.

 

[miamited]

I've had the great privilege of visiting the Grand Canyon. Someone called it "God's Cathedral". However it was formed, it is a natural wonder. You may like to read Walt Brown's explanation. The Grand Canyon consists of layers of sediment. You can simulate this with a bucket of dirt and sand. Mix it with a lot of water, make sure it's well mixed then leave it. It will settle in layers remarkably like the Grand Canyon. I've seen this done with glass containers which are then sealed. Choose the right colours and it can be quite effective.

I don't get too involved in these things. They are not relevant to the gospel. They may encourage some who doubt Genesis because they believe science.

Hi Pete,

I've also been to the Canyon, I agree that it's an awesome dig. However, I also know that just about anywhere you core the earth you will find the core to represent sedimentary layers. They just happen to be exposed on a cliff face. So, if the earth all over is fairly consistent in its construction by sedimentary layers, then when the earth split, and we don't really know at what point during the flood the split may have actually occurred, or that it was the flood which created it, we should expect the exposed surfaces, just like pretty much any cliff face, to have these layers. For all we really know, on the day that God created the earth and separated the waters from the land, that canyon could have been out there in the midwest of an as yet unnamed continent of land. The midwest is full of cliff faces that display the sedimentary make up of the earth's crust.

There's a place in the Scriptures where God says that He will confound the wisdom of the wise. Things like the Grand Canyon, if it was there from the beginning or created during the flood event, do just that. Just as the speed of light confounds wise men in their thinking of how old the stars MUST be in order for us to see their light. We find even in DNA that God has confounded the wisdom of the wise to believe that we evolved. That God didn't really stoop down and create the first man, Adam, from the dust of the ground and breathe into him the breath of life. Not al all, we evolved from some lower life form according to many DNA scientists.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Halbhh]

It's a fascinating subject (to me, anyway). One theory is that mountains were much lower prior to the flood. The pressure of the water collapsed the sea bed, forming massive depressions that drained the water away. There are places where you could drop Mount Everest and it would submerge completely. The Bible also refers to the "Fountains of the deep". It seems that huge amounts of water were released to add to the water vapour in the atmosphere. If mountains were of limited height, there would be enough to cover the whole earth.

Could be, sure. And even a key part that may support that has been figured out in mainsteam science:
New Evidence for Oceans of Water Deep in the Earth | BNL Newsroom

But, please, notice, that when militant atheists argue about the Flood, their goal seems (to them and us probably both) to be to disprove the Bible, but the real effect is to distract people away from reading the account by giving them the false impression that's what the account/story is: just only a physical event where we need to pin down the physical aspects....

So, when we argue with whoever atheist about the Flood, we usually would end up helping them lead people away from God.

Because the illusion created is that Flood story picture/discussion/significant is only about the physical aspects of the Flood.

Which is the most trivial part of it, the part that allows atheists to then turn and make a false claim like "God committed genocide" (which scripture shows is false in 1rst Peter). Because after all, the victims of the flood were just ordinary people....?

All the energy and time spent discussing the least meaningful, least important thing, that practically doesn't matter at all.

Leaving most people that read those posts debating the Flood in the dark, unaware of what the scripture actually says in Genesis chapter 6.

How can that be OK?

It isn't.

It is not ok.

 

[Halbhh]

While God doesn't need there to be water inside the Earth in order to Flood the Earth, but could create it at will, all of this is a distraction. It's not at all the point of the scripture, that kind of mere physical detail. It's a deadly distraction to focus on it much.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hi MQ,



Sure, I wouldn't deny that. There are certainly levels of 'giving credit to God'. Yes, even what is natural, at its beginning, is a miracle because all that has been made has been made from nothing but the command and the will and wisdom of God. But once it was created, it fell into following all the natural laws...unless God stepped in to suspend those laws for His purposes. Yes, the Red Sea's waves lapped at the shorelines along the wilderness day after day after day from the moment after it was created until today. But there was a moment that God stepped in and parted those mighty waters for His purpose to save His people. That was not natural and you will never find any scientific or natural explanation to explain that event.

Yes, we will never, certainly this side of eternity, know all there is to know about God.



Apparently there are many, since so few people believe it. Even christians.

God bless,
Ted

My point being, that it makes no difference as to God's credit, between a natural occurrence and miracle —at least, not in the long run. It is all miracle. What goes flash-bang may be shiny and bright for a child; likewise, 'intervention' might be exciting for us mere humans, but God is not glorified by ignorant adulation any more than by informed worship.

To add a thought to the mix, intervention might well be the means by which 'the usual', 'the natural', is accomplished. To timeless God, is there really any difference between speaking a thing into existence and upholding its existence?

 

[miamited]

Good post! God can do the 'impossible'.

The deeper and important meaning in the account of course isn't how deep the water was where or other things people argue over to no gain (or worse, in an uncivil way), but the profound meaning in chapter 6, verses 5-11.

I wonder how many really listen to the words.

Hi @Halbhh

I'm assuming you meant 'understand'. Words don't really make sounds unless someone is speaking them. While one can certainly listen to silence, I've never been one to get much out of it. The words of the Scriptures are true in all that they convey to us. God's word is truth.

The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

I'm pretty sure that I have, for quite a while, understood God's understanding that man's heart is wicked. He makes that point in a couple of other places. I also understand that by the time of the flood, the entire civilization of man upon the earth was wicked. Probably a lot like it is today. We can't really know 'how' wicked, but since God promised to never wipe man off the face of the earth again (until the last days), the wickedness of man today could be much worse than it was just prior to the flood.

Yes, God's heart was deeply troubled, but there was a goal to be attained and God, despite man's wickedness in all things, continues to work out His purpose.

If you have something else from that, please share. I say that because I don't find those two verses to be as 'earth shattering' as you seem to be insinuating. They merely give us the reason 'why' God called the flood upon the earth in the first place.

God bless,
Ted

 

[chad kincham]

One of the difficulties relates to his flood theory. I agree that it was world-wide, but he also had an aspect of his theory that requires vast amounts of underground water. This is called "fountains of the deep" in the Bible. Some sceptics have claimed that there was just not enough water to cover the earth. Or is there? Recently, vast amounts of water have been discovered underground. It's been known for a long time that there is water stored in the earth's crust and in aquifers. According to Nature and phys.org,

The earth is 2/3 covered in water.

And you can’t go by how high the mountains are now, since scripture says God raised the mountains when he deepened the earth’s basins, for the flood waters to recede.

Psalm 104:

6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.

7 At Your rebuke they fled; at the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.

8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which You appointed for them.

9 You have set a boundary [for the waters] which they may not pass over, that they turn not again to deluge the earth. NIV

There’s one ocean trench that’s 30,000 feet deep, for example.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The earth is 2/3 covered in water.

And you can’t go by how high the mountains are now, since scripture says God raised the mountains when he deepened the earth’s basins, for the flood waters to recede.

Psalm 104:

6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.

7 At Your rebuke they fled; at the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.

8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which You appointed for them.

9 You have set a boundary [for the waters] which they may not pass over, that they turn not again to deluge the earth. NIV

There’s one ocean trench that’s 30,000 feet deep, for example.

Absolutely. Brown points that out. I read "The Genesis Flood" years ago that said the same thing. There is a at least one place that your could drop Everest into and it would not break the surface.