Evidence for a World-Wide Flood

[Mr.Waffles]

It's been said many times on these forums how the Biblical account of a world wide flood is "not accurate". As if the sovereign of the universe would have been "dishonest" in relaying this information, as we are able to read of it in the pages of genesis. What has taken me even more aback are the arguments that science confirms no such event exists, despite how there is plenty of evidence that supports this event as having been real. I came across an excellent site where such evidence is discussed at length and outlined in depth with plenty of sources and citations.

The only conclusions I can make is either we have not been diligent enough in our research or we have been spending too much time absorbing information from scientific proponents who are bias and downright dishonest in how the evidence is handled and interpreted.

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Summarizing the article quick...

Two Vastly Different World Views, with Vastly Different Conclusions:​

Let's not kid ourselves. What this is all about is whether or not the Old Testament book of Genesis (along with the rest of the Old Testament, and the New Testament) is an accurate account of what happened around 4600 years ago with regard to a worldwide flood, and about 6000 years ago, with regard to Creation itself.​

Was virtually all of the sedimentary strata laid down by a single Worldwide Deluge in a short amount of time, or is the evolutionary scenario of slow change, acting over eons of T-I-M-E, and the associated Geological Time Chart (with its millions and millions of years) a more accurate account of Earth history?​

It's also about God's future judgment of mankind. That's because Jesus Christ, Himself, related the Great Flood of Noah's day to His own return to earth to reign over it and the people in it. See Luke 17:20-27, 19:11-27; John 5:22-23, 12:32, and Rev. 22:12.​

Let's Look at the Evidence:
The following are 18 Evidences of either massive flooding and erosion, extremely rapid layering of strata, or direct evidence of a Worldwide Flood. Such evidences are found in numerous places on virtually every Continent.​

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Interesting how we are quick to make the Bible move over in adopting certain scientific trends proposed by those pushing a creation-less world view, while yet again the state of the scientific evidence eloquently demonstrates the veracity of Biblical claims.

 

[ebia]

It's been said many times on these forums how the Biblical account of a world wide flood is false and "not accurate".

Not 'false and "not accurate"' but parabolic. Parables are true; they aren't trying to be factually precise.

Since you've started off wrong, and the rest of the post is built on that wrong foundation, nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Not 'false and "not accurate"' but parabolic. Parables are true; they aren't trying to be factually precise.

Since you've started off wrong, and the rest of the post is built on that wrong foundation, nothing more needs to be said.

Oh, so because you disagree with my wording, you wish to appeal to a convenient waiving off of the evidence? I don't think so, and I am sure you know it doesn't work like that. Also considering how the main argument is NOT whether or not the Flood is a "parable", but whether or not it was local or global. Do you believe Sodom and Gamorah was a parable as well? It is not that my argument is based on a wrong foundation, it is that yours is such, taking actual Biblical events as parables.

P.S. My wording is perfectly warranted, seeing how many assume the Biblical account of the flood, for some ill conceived reason, cannot be reconciled with the evidence, and is hence "inaccurate".

 

[ebia]

Oh, so because you disagree with my wording, you wish to appeal to a convenient waiving off of the evidence? I don't think so, and I am sure you know it doesn't work like that. Also considering how the main argument is NOT whether or not the Flood is a "parable", but whether or not it was local or global. Do you believe Sodom and Gamorah was a parable as well? It is not that my argument is based on a wrong foundation, it is that yours is such, taking actual Biblical events as parables.

P.S. My wording is perfectly warranted, seeing how many assume the Biblical account of the flood, for some ill conceived reason, cannot be reconciled with the evidence, and is hence "inaccurate".

Would you call Nathan's parable in 2 Samuel 12 "false and inaccurate"? Was Nathan lying to King David?

 

[miamited]

hi waffles,

Well, I'll just jump in here to offer some support. I am also in agreement with what you believe as the beginning of all things and the scope of the floodwaters in the days of Noah. 2 Peter 3:16.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Would you call Nathan's parable in 2 Samuel 12 "false and inaccurate"? Was Nathan lying to King David?

Like I said, the problem is that you are taking Biblical events that are not parables (but actual events) and are trying to pass them off as such. It is very clear that Nathan actually used a "parable" to make his point, we know this because of the context. If you call the Noaic Flood a "parable", then you do not understand what a parable is. No one even argues about the Flood being a parable, as I have mentioned. The two schools of thought are generally if it had been global or local. The point of this thread was to present the evidence demonstrating how it was global, not just local.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

hi waffles,

Well, I'll just jump in here to offer some support. I am also in agreement with what you believe as the beginning of all things and the scope of the floodwaters in the days of Noah. 2 Peter 3:16.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

Thanks for the post, though I will highlight how my intention wasn't just to garner some affirmation, but to pass along real information concerning this global phenomenon.

 

[ebia]

Like I said, the problem is that you are taking Biblical events that are not parables (but actual events) and are trying to pass them off as such.

The issue is whether understanding a story as parabolic is to call it "false and inaccurate" and it's author a liar.

It is very clear that Nathan actually used a "parable" to make his point, we know this because of the context. If you call the Noaic Flood a "parable", then you do not understand what a parable is. No one even argues about the Flood being a parable, as I have mentioned.

they may or may not use the word 'parabolic' (some do, including Prof John Goldingay), but that's exactly what many people's understanding of the text amounts to.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

The issue is whether understanding a story as parabolic is to call it "false and inaccurate" and it's author a liar.

Only the Flood isn't a parable, but a real account of an event in earth's history. Thus those who disagree with the veracity of this Biblical claim view it as being inaccurate. This has nothing to do with parables or metaphors.

they may or may not use the word 'parabolic' (some do, including Prof John Goldingay), but that's exactly what many people's understanding of the text amounts to.

The Noaic Flood is not a parable. Is it easier to understand when I state it plainly? The entire context for your argument is incorrect.

 

[ebia]

Only the Flood isn't a parable, but a real account of an event in earth's history. Thus those who disagree with the veracity of this Biblical claim view it as being inaccurate. This has nothing to do with parables or metaphors.

you're evading the point. Whether the statement "the Noah story is parabolic" is correct or incorrect it is not equivalent to saying "the Noah story is false and inaccuate".

 

[miamited]

hi waffles,

I understand, but just wanted you to know that you are not alone among men in your understanding. The fight will be hard and the victories small and so encouragement and support can go a long way in keeping one's spirits up.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Mr.Waffles]

you're evading the point. Whether the statement "the Noah story is parabolic" is correct or incorrect it is not equivalent to saying "the Noah story is false and inaccuate".

What point am I evading? I never said it was. I understand a parable is not meant to be factually correct, but how many times have I stated that the Noaic flood is not a parable, thus a discussion of it's factual accuracy is directly applicable, which is why I presented the relevant evidence in the first place.

 

[ebia]

What point am I evading? I never said it was. I understand a parable is not meant to be factually correct, but how many times have I stated that the Noaic flood is not a parable, thus a discussion of it's factual accuracy is directly applicable, which is why I presented the relevant evidence in the first place.

Either you're evading or you don't understand what I would have thought is an easily grasped point.

Even if a text is factual, to describe it as parabolic might be wrong but it is NOT to call it inaccurate. My claim might be inaccurate, or it might not, but in am NOT calling the text inaccurate or false. I am calling it parabolic.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Either you're evading or you don't understand what I would have thought is an easily grasped point.

Even if a text is factual, to describe it as parabolic might be wrong but it is NOT to call it inaccurate. My claim might be inaccurate, or it might not, but in am NOT calling the text inaccurate or false. I am calling it parabolic.

It does not matter if you personally will not claim the account to be inaccurate. The whole point of why I said what I said is because of certain christian proponents (i.e. theistic evolutionists) who require the Flood to have either not occured or having been a "local" flood, and are thus dedicated to passing off the Biblical account as not real. It is thus ultimately implied that the Biblical flood is an inaccurate account of what took place at that time.

The reason for this confusion is because you are unaware of the context behind my statements. We are in the Origins thread after all.

 

[ebia]

It does not matter if you personally will not claim the account to be inaccurate.

I claim it's parabolic.

The whole point of why I said what I said is because of certain christian proponents (i.e. theistic evolutionists) who require the Flood to have either not occured or having been a "local" flood, and are thus dedicated to passing off the Biblical account as not real. It is thus ultimately implied that the Biblical flood is an inaccurate account of what took place at that time.

no, what is implied is that the text is parabolic or mythological. Neither of those forms is inaccurate.

A few may claim it's trying to be historically accurate but fails. Most would claim that it's not that kind of genre at all, but a myth, or a parabolic story, or a legend or ... None of those styles can be described as false or inaccurate.

Remember that a parable can describe a real event. Nathan's parable describes David's taking of Bethsheba, but it tells that event in a parabolic way.

 

[Orogeny]

Only the Flood isn't a parable, but a real account of an event in earth's history.

This is an assertion unbacked by natural evidence. You're pitting your own interpretation of the bible against the weight of the natural world- God's most vocal work- which indicates that there simply was no global flood. Now, there is some merit to the idea that the flood recounted in the bible was local, but the myth of a global flood has been disproved many times over.

The Noaic Flood is not a parable. Is it easier to understand when I state it plainly? The entire context for your argument is incorrect.

If Noah's flood happened, it left behind no evidence. The evidence that is available to us via the rock record speaks loudly for geologic processes as we understand them today occurring over the course of billions of years.

I don't understand why the biblical flood need be read as fact when it clearly disagrees with the evidences present in the rock record. The story is functional as a parable.

 

[Orogeny]

What point am I evading? I never said it was. I understand a parable is not meant to be factually correct, but how many times have I stated that the Noaic flood is not a parable, thus a discussion of it's factual accuracy is directly applicable, which is why I presented the relevant evidence in the first place.

You may state this until you are blue in the face, but you will not be correct until you present direct evidence of a global flood. Now, I realize that you posted a link in your OP, but upon browsing the link, there is nothing presented therein that hasn't been torn apart on various CF subforums. Now, if there's an argument that you find to be particularly robust, please outline it here, and I will be more than happy to discuss it with you.

 

[Oneway7]

In the book of Genesis the Frist Chapter the first verse it states"In the Beginning God Created the heavens and the earth" end of sentence. And the second verse states " The earth was without form and void in darknes was on the face of the of the deep. And the Spirit of GOD was hovering over the face of the waters."

Now, it is all created WHY is there water covering it? Was there a flood that is not spoken about or one We have not noticed in the word of God? I tend to believe there was a flood that did cover the earth and it was not the flood of Noah's time..What do you think?

 

[Mr.Waffles]

I don't understand why the biblical flood need be read as fact when it clearly disagrees with the evidences present in the rock record. The story is functional as a parable.

On no grounds whatsoever in any context does the text indicate this story to be a parable, unless you are ready to submit to me that the judgment of Sodom and Gomorah, the splitting of the Red Sea, and practically every other Old Testament event where God acts is a "parable". Such an opinion is void, seeing how such Old Testament events inherently carry no context for functioning as a parable but are presented as real events. For some reason, you wish to make this claim, in contradiction with every possible contextual indication, that it is a parable. As if God metaphorically made it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, and metaphorically flooded Earth up to the highest mountain peak, and metaphorically caused all the waters to cease and dry up - but placed it in the Old Testament as if He did it for real.

I do not understand this unfounded claim of there being "no evidence" when I present a source that clearly outlines plenty of evidence indicating just the opposite. I am not interested in selective opinions, but honest ones.