Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
You need to evaluate the big IF first. If it has less than 50% to be correct, then do not use that if.
but why doesn't the water return to the lowest place if there is a 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?
Have you even read my posts? And I'm not sure what this mess about 50% means.
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.
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?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.
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.Is any of the above invalidated by the text?
if your answer is no, there is no internal contradiction.
If you want to argue with the Noahs Flood text, lets just discuss the text, is that OK?
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.
How many evidences do you have that support Cainites are descendants of Cain?
Name?
Wondering people?
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 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.
Very good. The water did "return". That is where the current oceans are. The current oceanic basins were formed after the flood.
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.
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.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 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: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.
Noah's flood did not cover the entire planet, not even close, and Noah's family were not the only people to survive.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Please quote the verse? I am not sure what your reference is there.Mountains made of limestone: Where did they come from? Where did the limestone come from?
There may be no internal contradiction, but there is a massive contradiction to what we observe in nature.
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.That's ok if you want to treat the text simply as a story
If the water is simply flowing to its lowest point, why does God need to send a wind to make it subside?
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.
I just put it forward as a possibility, not being dogmatic about it. There may well be others.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
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.But to assume that the Biblical authors shared our modern concept of a globe is a very naive assumption.
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)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?