Noah-Lots of Water in the Oceans and Subterranean Oceans

[Jipsah]

But a popular negative position is that there was simply not enough water to cover the entire earth.

Rather a convincing case if you look at it.

Well, yes there was as scientists have discovered.

Well no, they haven't. OK, there's a lot of potential water down there, but it isn't water, it's ringwoodite. Yeah, it's probably possible to "squeeze" water out of ringwoodite, but good luck with that. Could God do it? Yeah, but there's no evidence that He did. He could also have just created more water, used it to flood however much of the world was flooded, and then converted it back into hydrogen and oxygen. The argument isn't that God could have done thus and so, of course He could have. it's about whether He actually did or not, and there's no evidence either for or against.

 

[Jipsah]

It is rather ironic that you're the one telling me to have some faith in God, while at the same time you deny the power of God to create the world in six days or cause a world wide flood.

I don't know of anyone who denies that God has the power to do those things; or course He does. We just don't see any evidence that that's what He did. My old crew and I could have written the first Windows OS, but we didn't. We were busy writing other stuff. There are a great many things that God could have done, but that He hasn't seen fit to do.

You tell me that I place my faith in "man's revision" of God's word

Which revision was that?

,And what version tells me man evolved from slime or that only part of the earth was flooded?

So you're OK with God having created humanity from mud, but He can't have included any slime in the process; too icky.

Nice try but that duck doesn't fly.

I don't recall any ducks being mentioned in Genesis.

quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus

 

[Diamond72]

I'm not sure how much bearing that would have on the question of whether the Great Flood was actually global or hot.

The question is literal or symbolic flood.

 

[HarleyER]

Rather a convincing case if you look at it.

Well no, they haven't. OK, there's a lot of potential water down there, but it isn't water, it's ringwoodite. Yeah, it's probably possible to "squeeze" water out of ringwoodite, but good luck with that. Could God do it? Yeah, but there's no evidence that He did. He could also have just created more water, used it to flood however much of the world was flooded, and then converted it back into hydrogen and oxygen. The argument isn't that God could have done thus and so, of course He could have. it's about whether He actually did or not, and there's no evidence either for or against.

Fair point. Even though it is possible that God could have used this method to flood the world, it is equally as possible that He did it by another method.

But I would disagree with your statement "it's about whether He actually did or not". If one is going to accept the Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God, then God did flood the world is clear from the Scriptures despite the nuances of liberal theologians.

 

[Jipsah]

If one is going to accept the Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God, then God did flood the world is clear from the Scriptures despite the nuances of liberal theologians.

It isn't atall clear to me that God did any such thing. If we're to take everything in Genesis as the objectiive truth, we end up with a very strange world indeed. Most cultures have deluge stories, and they all may well be true, at least from the viewpoints of those direcly affected. Did the entire world flood at once? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I don't really care all that much.

My faith isn't based on Genesis. or much of the Old Testament, being literally true. God Himself intervened in human history to give us the ultimate Truth. To me the OT is of purely academic interest; Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, the Creator of the Universe, came to set things to rights. Our goal is to accept anf follow what He said, and not what we've decoded the OT "means".

I have also noted that a lot of arrant rubbish has been produced by Christians with what I consider an unhealthy revereence for the Old Testament. They cook up stuff like a literal (24 hour) day creation, even though both Old and New Testaments note that God isn't bound by time as we are. Many would require that all Christians be bound by the traditions of the ancient Hebrews, although our ancestors (certainly mine, anyway) were explicitly omitted from those commandments. They come up with purely nonsensical balderdash like the Flat Earth Rube Goldberg universe that would prove that God wasn't even a particularly good engineer. In addition, many, if not most, of the historical heresies that have plagued the Church have come from people who based them on egregious misunderstandings of the OT, and raising it to the equaling or surpassing in importance the revelations of our Lord Christ Himself.

Bother "liberal theologians". That jgenerally means "a theologian with whom I disagree". I am a Christian, not a Jew. My faith derives solely from the New Testament, the Testament of Jesus Christ. Where the OT supports the beliefs of the Church, then I agree with it. When if does not, or when it is in fact observably wrong, then I pay it no heed.

 

[HarleyER]

It isn't atall clear to me that God did any such thing. If we're to take everything in Genesis as the objectiive truth, we end up with a very strange world indeed. Most cultures have deluge stories, and they all may well be true, at least from the viewpoints of those direcly affected. Did the entire world flood at once? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I don't really care all that much.

My faith isn't based on Genesis. or much of the Old Testament, being literally true. God Himself intervened in human history to give us the ultimate Truth. To me the OT is of purely academic interest; Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, the Creator of the Universe, came to set things to rights. Our goal is to accept anf follow what He said, and not what we've decoded the OT "means".

I have also noted that a lot of arrant rubbish has been produced by Christians with what I consider an unhealthy revereence for the Old Testament. They cook up stuff like a literal (24 hour) day creation, even though both Old and New Testaments note that God isn't bound by time as we are. Many would require that all Christians be bound by the traditions of the ancient Hebrews, although our ancestors (certainly mine, anyway) were explicitly omitted from those commandments. They come up with purely nonsensical balderdash like the Flat Earth Rube Goldberg universe that would prove that God wasn't even a particularly good engineer. In addition, many, if not most, of the historical heresies that have plagued the Church have come from people who based them on egregious misunderstandings of the OT, and raising it to the equaling or surpassing in importance the revelations of our Lord Christ Himself.

Bother "liberal theologians". That jgenerally means "a theologian with whom I disagree". I am a Christian, not a Jew. My faith derives solely from the New Testament, the Testament of Jesus Christ. Where the OT supports the beliefs of the Church, then I agree with it. When if does not, or when it is in fact observably wrong, then I pay it no heed.

It is rather hard to believe that Noah was a myth when our Lord Jesus referred to him as well as other Apostles. But then, many people these days pick and choose what they want to believe.

 

[Diamond72]

It is rather hard to believe that Noah was a myth

The DNA is complicated. The best we can do is to trace people back to Aaron because they have kept themselves pure over the years. The Bible tells us that there will be 144,000, 12,000 from each tribe that God has kept pure. We can trace them back to Jacob. (Revelation 7:4-8). These individuals are described as being sealed by God and kept pure.

There is a discussion on the genetic purity of the new york hasidic in the movie "A Stranger Among Us".

Genealogical Connection:​

1. Noah: According to the Bible, Noah is a descendant of Adam, and his story is central to the narrative of the Great Flood in the Book of Genesis.
2. Shem: One of Noah's sons, Shem, survived the flood with him and is considered the ancestor of several Semitic peoples.
3. Abraham: Several generations after Shem, we come to Abraham, who is a key patriarch in the Bible. He is often called the father of the Jewish people.
4. Isaac: Abraham's son, Isaac, continued the lineage.
5. Jacob (Israel): Isaac's son, Jacob, later named Israel, is the father of the twelve sons who became the progenitors of the twelve tribes of Israel.

• Endogamy: Hasidic Jews generally practice endogamy, meaning they marry within their community. This is done to maintain religious and cultural continuity.

Arranged Marriages:​

• Shidduch: The process of arranged marriages, known as a shidduch, is a common practice in Hasidic communities. This involves matchmaking facilitated by family members or professional matchmakers.
• Parental Involvement: Parents play a significant role in selecting potential partners for their children, often considering factors like family background, religious observance, and compatibility.
• Meeting and Consent: Despite the arranged aspect, the couple typically meets several times before the engagement to ensure mutual consent and compatibility. Both parties have the right to decline the match.