Flood, literal or not?

[Beastt]

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

tohuw, Hebrew 8414, Strong’s
tohuw, to'-hoo; from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figurative a worthless thing; adverbial in vain :- confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

bohuw, Hebrew 922, Strong’s
bohuw, bo'-hoo; from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin :- emptiness, void.

You can play word-substitution games and attempt to re-define what the Bible was supposed to say all day long and it does nothing but deny what the Bible does say. And when one looks to depictions of the world, based on the original Hebrew, drawn by those to whom Hebrew was the native tongue, we do not find a realistic depiction of the Earth. We find instead, what the Bible states and what ancient men imagined the world to be like.

This is the Earth as described in the original Hebrew text of the Bible. Compare the image to the description provided in the KJV; (Genesis 1:1-16). They're consistent. But while the original Hebrew scripture and the image are consistent with each other, they are not consistent with reality.

You know I am a GAP. That means we are what they call ruin-reconstructionist. In the beginning 12,975 years ago, the earth was in a state of ruin.

Archaeologists have demonstrated that there was no "beginning" 12,975 years ago.

There had been something here before. If you want to study the world that was here before then that would be OEC. Or old age creationism. The geological ages were developed by christians who were OEC. That means a lot of science is based on creationism.

This is simply untrue. All real science is based on evidence. The Bible is not evidence. It is an unverified claim. Anything based on unverified documents cannot, by definition, be science.

The "big bang" theory is for example a Hebrew Creation theory that got picked up and used by science because some of the evidence that they have point to that theory.

Can you provide credible support for such an assertion? I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would love to see it.

The YEC theory began 6,000 years ago. The YEC theory covers the last 6,000 years of earth history.

It is perhaps more accurate to state that it is a denial of the last 6,000 years of Earth's history.

The GAP theory trys to join and bridge the gap between the OEC and the YEC creation theorys.

Once again beginning with the conclusion that the Bible must be accurate. And therein lies the end of any science. Science cannot begin with any unevidenced conclusions.

They are all peices of the puzzle and you can not go throwing away the puzzle peices and still expect to put the puzzle together and see the big picture.

I would ask that you read this yourself and take it to heart. When you conclude, without credibility, that the Bible must be accurate, and then proceed on that premise, you will never arrive at truth. The Bible is demonstrably other than correct. Therefore, no correct conclusions can be built upon the conclusion that the Bible represents truth.

If you disregard them, then your not going to understand as much as you would otherwise be able to understand.

Just as when you disregard the fact that the Bible makes claims which are inconsistent with reality. That which is inconsistent with reality is fiction.

 

[Beastt]

What's the problem --- can't reproduce it in a lab, so it's wrong?

It goes much deeper than that. It can't even be reproduced logically. The Bible suggests a configuration of Earth which simply doesn't and hasn't ever existed. We are not the center of the universe. The Earth is not stationary. The sun does not travel around the Earth. The Earth did not exist before the sun. Plants were not growing on Earth before the existence of the sun. Earth was not covered in liquid water before the existence of the sun.

The Bible fails on all of these points and many more.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the Earth as described in the original Hebrew text of the Bible.

No it's not --- it's A.J. Mattill, Jr.'s rendition.

From: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mattill01.html

15 - The Reason and Conscience Method. Mattill says that he has combined the best of the historical-critical method with this method - where he uses his own reason and conscience as a guide. As such, it is simply back to the old Casper Milquetoast god who never lifts a hand against sinners (with the possible exception of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot); who can do no miracles, and may not even exist.

And thus does Mattill's apostasy come full circle. What we have here from Mattill is not a journey of careful consideration, but one of confusion, bitterness, and ignorance -- and it is all the more insulting that Mattill thinks that this tract of barely 40 pages is worth even the paper it is printed on.

 

[Beastt]

I suppose you have three choices:

1. The flood was physically real - thereby leaving evidence.

And of course, the evidence is inconsistent with a global flood.

2. The flood is a parable and did not happen.

Parables have a point. Since the flood story starts with an event which never occurred and ends with God's promise that it will never "again" happen, there is no point and it is therefore, not a parable.

3. Its a miracle........doesn't need evidence since some might not have been left, thus it cannot be argued in scientific terms as this is purely faith based reasoning.

Which is the only place anyone can turn with any hope to take the Bible's claims as other than fallacy.

Clearly, the flood was not physical since there is no evidence of a global flood. There are; however, multiple instances of localized floods.

But if what the Bible references is a local flood the whole story falls apart. One can't wipe out all life on Earth with a local flood. The story is likely based on a local flood and the myths which arose among many cultures of the time. But that makes the flood story in the Bible mythology much like many other writings in the Bible which are mythological, yet presented as fact.

 

[Beastt]

No it's not --- it's A.J. Mattill, Jr.'s rendition.

From: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mattill01.html

15 - The Reason and Conscience Method. Mattill says that he has combined the best of the historical-critical method with this method - where he uses his own reason and conscience as a guide. As such, it is simply back to the old Casper Milquetoast god who never lifts a hand against sinners (with the possible exception of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot); who can do no miracles, and may not even exist.

And thus does Mattill's apostasy come full circle. What we have here from Mattill is not a journey of careful consideration, but one of confusion, bitterness, and ignorance -- and it is all the more insulting that Mattill thinks that this tract of barely 40 pages is worth even the paper it is printed on.

You're completely ignoring the consistency between the image and the claims of Genesis one. You're also ignoring other such depictions which exist; all based upon the biblical scripture.

Again...

And again...

These images depict, word for word, what the Bible describes. The Bible does not describe what we know to be the configuration of the Earth and solar system.

 

[AV1611VET]

And of course, the evidence is inconsistent with a global flood.

Right --- like I read on here some time ago that "scientists" say Dallas and [I think] Iowa or Nebraska were under water at some time.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Need Someone to help you look?

That's the beauty of physical evidence - you can find it on your own.

Right --- like I read on here some time ago that "scientists" say Dallas and [I think] Iowa or Nebraska were under water at some time.

They were - in the Cretaceous. That's 65 million years BC.

 

[AV1611VET]

These images depict, word for word, what the Bible describes.

No --- not my Bible --- yours might.

The Bible does not describe what we know to be the configuration of the Earth and solar system.

Not with words like "SHEOL" anyway.

Almost anyone can draw goofy pictures. You're lucky I can't. I'd draw it as it really was, then have you explain it.

 

[Beastt]

Right --- like I read on here some time ago that "scientists" say Dallas and [I think] Iowa or Nebraska were under water at some time.

Which has what to do with what? Many places have been under water which are now above water. So what? I've seen my father's garden land under water during a flood and I've seen it above water both before and after the flood. What is your point?

A local flood does not equal a global flood. The dynamics aren't even comparable. A local flood allows for evaporation and run off. A global flood does not.

Global Flood

Verses local flood.

 

[Beastt]

No --- not my Bible --- yours might.

Not with words like "SHEOL" anyway.

Almost anyone can draw goofy pictures. You're lucky I can't. I'd draw it as it really was, then have you explain it.

I must admit that were I attempting to support your position, it would be more convenient to ignore the similarities than to address them.

None the less, the images depict the flat, stationary Earth, just as suggested in (Joshua 10:12-13, Habakkuk 3:11, Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 104:5 and Job 9:6 - stationary Earth) and (Job 28:24, Daniel 4:10-11 and Isaiah 40:22 - Flat Earth)

It shows the water "above" the firmament. It depicts the sun, moon and stars "in the firmament" just as claimed in Genesis 1:14 and Genesis 1:15.

Psalm 24:2, "the world and all that is in it belong to the Lord; the earth and all who live on it are his. He built it on the deep waters beneath the earth and laid its foundations in the ocean depths,"

It's all there in the Bible and in the depictions based on the scripture. But it's not there in reality.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepticism/universe.html

 

[AV1611VET]

A local flood does not equal a global flood. The dynamics aren't even comparable. A local flood allows for evaporation and run off. A global flood does not.

You want to compare dynamics? Your pictures only show how a "scientist" can't explain where the water went.

Instead of asking where it went, try asking Who took it?

Genesis 1:7 is the key to one possible explanation of what happened to the water --- my signature is another --- (although they both say the same thing).

 

[AV1611VET]

I must admit that were I attempting to support your position, it would be more convenient to ignore the similarities than to address them.

None the less, the images depict the flat, stationary Earth, just as suggested in (Joshua 10:12-13, Habakkuk 3:11, Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 104:5 and Job 9:6 - stationary Earth) and (Job 28:24, Daniel 4:10-11 and Isaiah 40:22 - Flat Earth)

It shows the water "above" the firmament. It depicts the sun, moon and stars "in the firmament" just as claimed in Genesis 1:14 and Genesis 1:15.

This is why they have courses on Hermeneutics.

 

[Beastt]

You want to compare dynamics? Your pictures only show how a "scientist" can't explain where the water went.

Instead of asking where it went, try asking Who took it?

Genesis 1:7 is the key to one possible explanation of what happened to the water --- my signature is another --- (although they both say the same thing).

Try asking yourself where the water came from, what effect that much water would have on the gravitation and orbit of the planet, what effect it would have on the Earth's climate to have 40-days and nights of complete global cloud cover, how a 500+ foot wooden vessel would stay afloat when it has been clearly demonstrated that wood is insufficiently rigid enough to build vessels more than 300-feet in length, how animals from all parts of the world all arrived in one place to board the Ark, how those animals then became diversely distributed back to their specific regions and climates, how they all survived in one climate aboard the Ark in an ammonia-saturated environment with only one window for ventilation, how 8-people managed to care for all of those animals and remove enough excrement to fill the Ark every single day for almost 6-months, how they managed to store enough food for all of the animals without it spoiling in an intensely humid environment, what they ate once they left the Ark and how they avoided starvation when all of the Earth's topsoil would be saturated with enough salt to create a layer over a foot deep over every square inch of the Earth. Nothing grows in soil so saturated with salt. How did they keep the carnivorous animals from eating any of the other animals once they debarked?

How did the whales, dolphins and fish survive? The Ark didn't have aquariums and certainly marine life wouldn't be able to survive such flooding and climate changes.

No matter how you look at the story, it's simply not possible. To assert that it is anything but an ancient myth which found its way into the Bible along with many other ancient myths is something you'll never be able to support with any level of credibility.

 

[FishFace]

Come to think if it, I'm not sure if it's even possible to build up a population from such small numbers. Doesn't a population become genetically inviable if it's too small? Two, being the minimum population, would clearly be under the limit if that is true.

 

[Beastt]

Come to think if it, I'm not sure if it's even possible to build up a population from such small numbers. Doesn't a population become genetically inviable if it's too small? Two, being the minimum population, would clearly be under the limit if that is true.

Another good point.

I've heard it suggested, though I don't know that it's 100% accurate, that the current world's population of elephant seals may be traceable to a population of as few as 8 - 10 individuals. As a result, the current population is incredibly fragile as it lacks sufficient genetic diversity to withstand even a mile epidemic.

Certainly it seems implausible to assert that the current world population of animals and plants are descendants of but two of each from as little as a few thousand years ago. Even the human population clearly demonstrates a genetic diversity inconsistent with a "seed" of only 8-people over a few thousand years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Try asking yourself where the water came from...

I already know where it came from.

...what effect that much water would have on the gravitation and orbit of the planet, what effect it would have on the Earth's climate to have 40-days and nights of complete global cloud cover, how a 500+ foot wooden vessel would stay afloat when it has been clearly demonstrated that wood is insufficiently rigid enough to build vessels more than 300-feet in length, how animals from all parts of the world all arrived in one place to board the Ark, how those animals then became diversely distributed back to their specific regions and climates, how they all survived in one climate aboard the Ark in an ammonia-saturated environment with only one window for ventilation, how 8-people managed to care for all of those animals and remove enough excrement to fill the Ark every single day for almost 6-months, how they managed to store enough food for all of the animals without it spoiling in an intensely humid environment, what they ate once they left the Ark and how they avoided starvation when all of the Earth's topsoil would be saturated with enough salt to create a layer over a foot deep over every square inch of the Earth. Nothing grows in soil so saturated with salt. How did they keep the carnivorous animals from eating any of the other animals once they debarked?

How did the whales, dolphins and fish survive? The Ark didn't have aquariums and certainly marine life wouldn't be able to survive such flooding and climate changes.

Are you sitting down? Here's my answer: God did it.

BUT --- don't just take my word for it:

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Sounds like a confession to premeditation to me.

No matter how you look at the story, it's simply not possible.

Not possible for us:

[bible]Matthew 19:26[/bible]

To assert that it is anything but an ancient myth which found its way into the Bible along with many other ancient myths is something you'll never be able to support with any level of credibility.

No problem --- the Support Team will be here soon.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You want to compare dynamics? Your pictures only show how a "scientist" can't explain where the water went.

Instead of asking where it went, try asking Who took it?

First things first: How about What water?

 

[FishFace]

Are you sitting down? Here's my answer: God did it.

BUT --- don't just take my word for it:

"Instead, take the word of some book written by some peasants a few thousand years ago."

Doesn't quite so glistening when put that way, unfortunately.

 

[Nathan Poe]

This is why they have courses on Hermeneutics.

And which Hermeneutics support your position?

 

[Nathan Poe]

No --- not my Bible --- yours might.

Sorry, AV, even the precious KJV spells it out.

Not with words like "SHEOL" anyway.

Those crazy Hebrews -- what did they know, anyway?