Global Flood?

[juvenissun]

Then where did it come from? Why did it leave the oceans?

This is only a scientific model based on the Scripture:

It came from the place beneath the current ocean.

 

[bdfoster]

This is only a scientific model based on the Scripture:

It came from the place beneath the current ocean.

Then what keeps it from going back to whee it came from? If there is a place beneath the current ocean, then the current oceans must be gravitationally unstable. What provided the energy to lift that water past the current sea level, to flood the continents? Draining off the continents wouldn't defy gravity, but why doesn't the water return to the lowest place if there is a place beneath the current ocean?

 

[Yekcidmij]

You need to evaluate the big IF first. If it has less than 50% to be correct, then do not use that if.

Have you even read my posts? And I'm not sure what this mess about 50% means.

 

[marktheblake]

but why doesn't the water return to the lowest place if there is a place beneath the current ocean?

it is in the lowest place now.

You are making assumptions that you know what the world was like pre-flood, and you are imposing aspects of the long ages world view onto the situation. If you want to argue with the Noahs Flood text, lets just discuss the text, is that OK?

If that is a No, then you cant use the text itself as an argument so your question is invalid.

Assuming thats a yes then. I propose to you a possibility, and as this is not explained in the text, we are entitled to do so.

Pre-Flood, the world was mostly land, if there were oceans they were not deep, if there were mountains they were not high.

The waters came from under the ground and rain and flooded entire earth as high as the highest mountain. (as per text).

For the water to recede, it has to go somewhere, so you are right. The earths crust collapses, water pours in, forming the oceans. Ridges rise up forming mountains, or higher mountains.

Is any of the above invalidated by the text?
if your answer is no, there is no internal contradiction.

 

[juvenissun]

Then what keeps it from going back to whee it came from? If there is a place beneath the current ocean, then the current oceans must be gravitationally unstable. What provided the energy to lift that water past the current sea level, to flood the continents? Draining off the continents wouldn't defy gravity, but why doesn't the water return to the lowest place if there is a place beneath the current ocean?

Very good. The water did "return". That is where the current oceans are. The current oceanic basins were formed after the flood.

 

[juvenissun]

Have you even read my posts? And I'm not sure what this mess about 50% means.

How many evidences do you have that support Cainites are descendants of Cain?
Name?
Wondering people?

 

[juvenissun]

it is in the lowest place now.

You are making assumptions that you know what the world was like pre-flood, and you are imposing aspects of the long ages world view onto the situation. If you want to argue with the Noahs Flood text, lets just discuss the text, is that OK?

If that is a No, then you cant use the text itself as an argument so your question is invalid.

Assuming thats a yes then. I propose to you a possibility, and as this is not explained in the text, we are entitled to do so.

Pre-Flood, the world was mostly land, if there were oceans they were not deep, if there were mountains they were not high.

The waters came from under the ground and rain and flooded entire earth as high as the highest mountain. (as per text).

For the water to recede, it has to go somewhere, so you are right. The earths crust collapses, water pours in, forming the oceans. Ridges rise up forming mountains, or higher mountains.

Is any of the above invalidated by the text?
if your answer is no, there is no internal contradiction.

 

[Orogeny]

For the water to recede, it has to go somewhere, so you are right. The earths crust collapses, water pours in, forming the oceans. Ridges rise up forming mountains, or higher mountains.

Into what void does the earth's crust collapse? Are you suggesting an empty space within the interior of the planet? Does this make sense to you?

Mountains made of limestone: Where did they come from? Where did the limestone come from?

Is any of the above invalidated by the text?
if your answer is no, there is no internal contradiction.

There may be no internal contradiction, but there is a massive contradiction to what we observe in nature. Since nature must be direct evidence of God's work, it should be held in higher regard than a book written by men, however divinely inspired.

 

[gluadys]

If you want to argue with the Noahs Flood text, lets just discuss the text, is that OK?

That's ok if you want to treat the text simply as a story with no relevance for history.

If you want to treat the text as reliable history, you can't just discuss the text. You have to consult the real world in which the history occurred.

I propose to you a possibility, and as this is not explained in the text, we are entitled to do so.

Pre-Flood, the world was mostly land, if there were oceans they were not deep, if there were mountains they were not high.

The waters came from under the ground and rain and flooded entire earth as high as the highest mountain. (as per text).

For the water to recede, it has to go somewhere, so you are right. The earths crust collapses, water pours in, forming the oceans. Ridges rise up forming mountains, or higher mountains.

Is any of the above invalidated by the text?
if your answer is no, there is no internal contradiction.

Sure, as long as we are sticking only to the text, there is no internal contradiction. If we want to treat the text in isolation, just as a story, we are entitled to dream up any ad hoc idea we want, just as Terry Pratchett dreamed up Discworld.

However, if we don't want to treat the text as an imaginary fantasy-world, then we need to look at how the ideas for explaining the text connect to what can happen and did happen in the actual, physical world.

There is absolutely no evidence that what you propose can happen or did happen in the actual, physical world. Not even if you throw in miracles to overcome the constraints of natural law.

 

[Yekcidmij]

How many evidences do you have that support Cainites are descendants of Cain?
Name?
Wondering people?

If this is your best response (ie, dismissal of/not addressing the points), then I guess I'm satisfied.

 

[bdfoster]

it is in the lowest place now.

You are making assumptions that you know what the world was like pre-flood, and you are imposing aspects of the long ages world view onto the situation.

I was just replying to juvenissun's post. I assume that because he said, "It came from the place beneath the current ocean.", he must think there IS a place beneath the current ocean.

It's true, I do make assumptions about the pre-flood world. But those assumptions are not worldview related. In fact we do have a very good idea of what the world was like pre-flood. That picture is constantly improving and has been for well over a century. To ignore that is to ignore the work of countless Christian and non-Christian scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying God's Creation and documenting evidence that records the history of the earth and universe. It is a huge stain on Christianity that some Christians refuse to step into the 19th century, and cling to science that was rightfully being abandoned as this country was being founded. Worldviews were indeed changing around the time of the "enlightenment". But opinions on the age of the earth were changing not because of worldview changes, but as new evidence accumulated that was not consistent with previous views. A worldview change was not required every time someone revised their opinion on the age of the earth. It's true that if the world/universe were radically different before the flood, then interpretations based on constancy of cause-and-effect would be in question. But can you think of a basis for such an assumption (radically different pre-flood world) other than your interpretation of the text which you are trying to prove? One would have to accept your interpretation of a global flood before arguing that science has it wrong about the pre-flood world.

If you want to argue with the Noahs Flood text, lets just discuss the text, is that OK?

If that is a No, then you cant use the text itself as an argument so your question is invalid.

Assuming thats a yes then. I propose to you a possibility, and as this is not explained in the text, we are entitled to do so.

Pre-Flood, the world was mostly land, if there were oceans they were not deep, if there were mountains they were not high.

The waters came from under the ground and rain and flooded entire earth as high as the highest mountain. (as per text).

For the water to recede, it has to go somewhere, so you are right. The earths crust collapses, water pours in, forming the oceans. Ridges rise up forming mountains, or higher mountains.

Is any of the above invalidated by the text?
if your answer is no, there is no internal contradiction.

Wait a minute. You can speculate on pre-flood conditions but I can't? Even though the term pre-flood assumes a global flood? Why was that again?Whatever.

Well the text does indicate that there were mountains and that they were high in the author's opinion. And earlier in Genesis the text indicates that there were oceans and they were deep again according to the author, so that is invalidated by the text. As for the statement, "The earths crust collapses, water pours in, forming the oceans. Ridges rise up forming mountains, or higher mountains.", that statement is not inconsistent with the text, but it certainly can't be inferred based on the text. Neither can it be supported from any extra-biblical evidence. Infact the extra-biblical evidence points in a different direction.

The text does not require a global flood. The "universal" language in the narrative was commonplace in that genre of ANE literature, and is used elsewhere in the Bible where it is obviously referring to local phenomena. We cannot avoid making assumptions in most complex reasoning. There is nothing wrong inherently with making assumptions. But to assume that the Biblical authors shared our modern concept of a globe is a very naive assumption.

 

[bdfoster]

Very good. The water did "return". That is where the current oceans are. The current oceanic basins were formed after the flood.

OK. I originally asked because I was curious how you handle the "volume of water problem". Anyone holding a global flood position has to deal with the fact that there is not enough water on the earth to cover all of the mountains and fill the ocean basins at the same time, or having the water in the oceans magically leave their basins and then return. Having the ocean basins form after the flood avoids that problem but also trades it for another. Mountains of evidence that document and record the geologic structure and history of the ocean basins and their relationship to the continents has been accumulating in recent years. It used to be that Plate Tectonics, the framework within which the relevant data are interpreted, was the enemy of YEC, but now most global flood folks seem to embrace some form of catastrophic plate tectonics. Some like Snelling and Wise just call it Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT). Walt Brown has his "Hydroplate" theory. But the idea is that our current ocean basins and mountain ranges were formed during a short time during or shortly after the flood. The evidence geologists have produced in support of Plate Tectonics is valid but the movements occurred over a much shorter time interval. There are a number of problems with this. First, all of the opening of ocean basins and the raising of mountain ranges is accomplished by movement of masses of rock along faults. There are MILLIONS of individual faults that have been active at various times, and are responsible for the movements that build mountains and ocean basins. With any kind of CPT almost all of the displacements we see on just about all faults, active or inactive, have to have occurred in a short period. Of course tremendous frictional heat would be generated. We old earthers have time to dissipate it. But CPT folks have the flood year. If the heat can't dissipate you would expect widespread frictional melting along faults, which is actually not common in the geological record. But another beautiful thing about faults is that their movement can often be timed. Faults will cut some sediments and be overlain by others. Sometimes a fault will cut a distinctive ash layer. Movement along faults can "turn on" or "turn off" a sediment source. The detailed stratigraphic relationships that have been worked out for decades are not consistent with CPT or any kind of flood geology.

 

[shernren]

For the water to recede, it has to go somewhere, so you are right. The earths crust collapses, water pours in, forming the oceans. Ridges rise up forming mountains, or higher mountains.

Is any of the above invalidated by the text?
if your answer is no, there is no internal contradiction.

Oh yeah it is:

But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. (Gen 8:1, ESV)
​

If the water is simply flowing to its lowest point, why does God need to send a wind to make it subside?

 

[Verticordious]

Here's what Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, had to say about Noah's flood:

5. When God gave the signal, and it began to rain, the water poured down forty entire days, till it became fifteen cubits higher than the earth; which was the reason why there was no greater number preserved, since they had no place to fly to. When the rain ceased, the water did but just begin to abate after one hundred and fifty days, (that is, on the seventeenth day of the seventh month,) it then ceasing to subside for a little while. After this, the ark rested on the top of a certain mountain in Armenia; which, when Noah understood, he opened it; and seeing a small piece of land about it, he continued quiet, and conceived some cheerful hopes of deliverance. But a few days afterward, when the water was decreased to a greater degree, he sent out a raven, as desirous to learn whether any other part of the earth were left dry by the water, and whether he might go out of the ark with safety; but the raven, finding all the land still overflowed, returned to Noah again. And after seven days he sent out a dove, to know the state of the ground; which came back to him covered with mud, and bringing an olive branch: hereby Noah learned that the earth was become clear of the flood. So after he had staid seven more days, he sent the living creatures out of the ark; and both he and his family went out, when he also sacrificed to God, and feasted with his companions. However, the Armenians call this place, (GREEK) (16) The Place of Descent; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day.

- Flavius Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews: Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 5.

6. Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs." Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote."

- Flavius Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews: Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 6.

1. Now the sons of Noah were three, - Shem, Japhet, and Ham, born one hundred years before the Deluge. These first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood, and so were very loath to come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples. Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called Shinar. God also commanded them to send colonies abroad, for the thorough peopling of the earth, that they might not raise seditions among themselves, but might cultivate a great part of the earth, and enjoy its fruits after a plentiful manner. But they were so ill instructed that they did not obey God; for which reason they fell into calamities, and were made sensible, by experience, of what sin they had been guilty: for when they flourished with a numerous youth, God admonished them again to send out colonies; but they, imagining the prosperity they enjoyed was not derived from the favor of God, but supposing that their own power was the proper cause of the plentiful condition they were in, did not obey him. Nay, they added to this their disobedience to the Divine will, the suspicion that they were therefore ordered to send out separate colonies, that, being divided asunder, they might the more easily be Oppressed.

- Flavius Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews: Book 1, Chapter 4, Section 1.

Another interesting issue is the rate at which the water abated after the flood. YECs seem to interpret Gen 7:20 as saying the water rose 15 cubits (~25 ft) above the highest mountains. If this is true, then based upon the timeline given, it took at least 74 days for the water to recede those 25 feet in order to make the "mountains" visible again (Gen 8:5). 25 feet in 74 days is means the water receded at a rate of ~4.05 inches per day. That leaves 94 days until Noah looked and say that the land was dry in Gen 8:13. At the same rate of recession, that would calculate out to "mountains" that were 31.7 feet tall. The text clearly states the water receded steadily, so even if the mountains were only 1,000 feet tall, it would have taken 8 years for the water to receded as described.

Genesis 7:11 (NASB) [11] In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

Genesis 7:12 (NASB) [12] The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

Genesis 7:20 (NASB) [20] The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

Genesis 8:5 (NASB) [5] The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

Genesis 8:1-4 (NASB) [1] But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided. [2] Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained; [3] and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased. [4] In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.

Genesis 8:13 (NASB) [13] Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. Then Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the surface of the ground was dried up.

Another interesting bit of research I did was look into the characteristics of large modern day and compare them to a theoretical local and global flood. Here's what I found:

Great Flood of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Flood of 1927
1931 China floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noah's flood did not cover the entire planet, not even close, and Noah's family were not the only people to survive.

 

[juvenissun]

OK. I originally asked because I was curious how you handle the "volume of water problem". Anyone holding a global flood position has to deal with the fact that there is not enough water on the earth to cover all of the mountains and fill the ocean basins at the same time, or having the water in the oceans magically leave their basins and then return. Having the ocean basins form after the flood avoids that problem but also trades it for another. Mountains of evidence that document and record the geologic structure and history of the ocean basins and their relationship to the continents has been accumulating in recent years. It used to be that Plate Tectonics, the framework within which the relevant data are interpreted, was the enemy of YEC, but now most global flood folks seem to embrace some form of catastrophic plate tectonics. Some like Snelling and Wise just call it Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT). Walt Brown has his "Hydroplate" theory. But the idea is that our current ocean basins and mountain ranges were formed during a short time during or shortly after the flood. The evidence geologists have produced in support of Plate Tectonics is valid but the movements occurred over a much shorter time interval. There are a number of problems with this. First, all of the opening of ocean basins and the raising of mountain ranges is accomplished by movement of masses of rock along faults. There are MILLIONS of individual faults that have been active at various times, and are responsible for the movements that build mountains and ocean basins. With any kind of CPT almost all of the displacements we see on just about all faults, active or inactive, have to have occurred in a short period. Of course tremendous frictional heat would be generated. We old earthers have time to dissipate it. But CPT folks have the flood year. If the heat can't dissipate you would expect widespread frictional melting along faults, which is actually not common in the geological record. But another beautiful thing about faults is that their movement can often be timed. Faults will cut some sediments and be overlain by others. Sometimes a fault will cut a distinctive ash layer. Movement along faults can "turn on" or "turn off" a sediment source. The detailed stratigraphic relationships that have been worked out for decades are not consistent with CPT or any kind of flood geology.

Hi, Brent. Until now, I realized that you worked in the CGS. There are only fewer than a handful of geologists fooling around in CF. So, I feel very happy to see you come back. Hope you have good reason to hanging around here.

I guess there could be problem if the CPT only took place within the past 6000 years. For one thing, the talus deposits could be tremendous if it were true.

On the other hand, I really don't think the OE model need to insist a billions of years old earth. May be a few million years old earth would also work in an acceptable way. Of course, this is a thought goes along the geological point of view. There are, indeed, several other ways (semi-scientific) to explain the Global Flood without calling the idea of CPT.

One of them, in response to your fault argument, is that the CPT does not have to work the same way as the sluggish regular PT. If the whole crust, or the lithosphere, were disengaged from the mantle (like the decollement of an overthrust), then the movement could be very fast, and needs only a few major steep fault with short ramp. If you like to consider a similar process, may be the surge of a glacier is a proper one.

 

[juvenissun]

Oh yeah it is:

But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. (Gen 8:1, ESV)
​

If the water is simply flowing to its lowest point, why does God need to send a wind to make it subside?

It is indeed a very interesting detail.

Whatever made the water flow, it also push the air flow. Wind can never be strong enough to drive the whole body of water. But, if the water flow is accompanied by (not caused by) air flow, then the cause of both flows is very likely to be something of a global scale.

 

[Verticordious]

It is indeed a very interesting detail.

Whatever made the water flow, it also push the air flow. Wind can never be strong enough to drive the whole body of water. But, if the water flow is accompanied by (not caused by) air flow, then the cause of both flows is very likely to be something of a global scale.

The wind is not moving the body of water, it is drying it. Air can absorb small amounts of moisture, and the wind allows the air to make contact with the water, absorb some of the water, and then be replaced with more dry air which will absorb more water. Thus the wind makes it dry faster than it would if there was no wind by moving the water to a location that is drier. If the entire planet it was flooded, blowing wind across the water would be like filling a bucket of water on one end of a pool and then dumping it back in the other side.

 

[Verticordious]

It is indeed a very interesting detail.

Whatever made the water flow, it also push the air flow. Wind can never be strong enough to drive the whole body of water. But, if the water flow is accompanied by (not caused by) air flow, then the cause of both flows is very likely to be something of a global scale.

The wind is not moving the body of water, it is drying it. Air can absorb small amounts of moisture, and the wind allows the air to make contact with the water, absorb some of the water, and then be replaced with more dry air which will absorb more water. Thus the wind makes it dry faster than it would if there was no wind by moving the water to a location that is drier. If the entire planet it was flooded, blowing wind across the water would be like filling a bucket of water on one end of a pool and then dumping it back in the other side.

 

[marktheblake]

Into what void does the earth's crust collapse? Are you suggesting an empty space within the interior of the planet? Does this make sense to you?

Yes, We are discussing what the text says, which states, "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth"

If the water came from somewhere, then it is possible that it left a space where it came from.

Mountains made of limestone: Where did they come from? Where did the limestone come from?

Please quote the verse? I am not sure what your reference is there.

There may be no internal contradiction, but there is a massive contradiction to what we observe in nature.

That's ok if you want to treat the text simply as a story

Yes, that is what this thread and section of the forum is about - theological discussion about the text itself, if in doubt refer to the OP.

Now if you all are going to present your arguments that are contradictions in the text or that its not consistent, it becomes a dishonest form of discussion to always fall back to a defense using naturalism. If that is your argument then use it, why [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] foot around being concerned with the text. (if this was a formal debate such arguments would not be allowed).

If the water is simply flowing to its lowest point, why does God need to send a wind to make it subside?

That is a really good point - I have not heard that one before.

I have pondered this, God does not need to do anything, he could have spoken the earth dry in an instant, as well as destroying it. Why he chooses natural methods instead of the absolute miraculous - I don't know. But as usual in the OT there is a typology to be revealed. Perhaps some scholars have uncovered this.

Matthew Henry also makes a good point "Note, As the earth was not drowned in a day, so it was not dried in a day"

As the other guys said, a wind has a drying effect plus reading verses 1-3 instead of verse 1 in isolation suggests that the wind assisted with stopping the rain and the fountains of the deep.

 

[marktheblake]

And earlier in Genesis the text indicates that there were oceans and they were deep again according to the author, so that is invalidated by the text.

Quote the verse that invalidates this please?

As for the statement, "The earths crust collapses, water pours in, forming the oceans. Ridges rise up forming mountains, or higher mountains.", that statement is not inconsistent with the text, but it certainly can't be inferred based on the text

I just put it forward as a possibility, not being dogmatic about it. There may well be others.

But to assume that the Biblical authors shared our modern concept of a globe is a very naive assumption.

That may be true, but I assume that God does share our modern concept of a globe, so it doesn't matter what you think ancient man thought.

Another interesting issue is the rate at which the water abated after the flood. YECs seem to interpret Gen 7:20 as saying the water rose 15 cubits (~25 ft) above the highest mountains. If this is true, then based upon the timeline given, it took at least 74 days for the water to recede those 25 feet in order to make the "mountains" visible again (Gen 8:5)

To suggest that the water only had to recede 15 cubits for the mountains to be revealed is flawed.

We could probably assume that all mountains are not the same exact height, so the implied flood level was 15 cubits above the highest mountain, though I do agree that the bible often generalises.

For the highest mountain/s to be revealed to Noah, if the floodwaters receded 15 cubits, he definitely would not be able to see them,
The floodwaters would have to recede significantly more than that. He might be right next to one, but to see others they would have to be a long way away, so even another 15 cubits is a stretch.

Not withstanding that, you are also assuming that the mountains Noah could see were the highest mountains. Noah could only see the mountains he was close too, which may well be nowhere near as high as the highest.

I am not confident you can measure the rate the water receded at all.