The Flood of Noah's Day

[BPPLEE]

Missler writes (in 2004):

There is no question that tangible evidence indicates there was once a flood over the entire earth. Many competent books have chronicled the numerous fossils of sea animals found at extremely high altitudes all over the world, as well as fossils of land animals in arid areas below sea level.

Which was well known not to demonstrate the things he claims already by 2004 (and by 1984). It's just the same global flood "evidence" claim utterly contradicted by the rocks themselves.

That was not posted for your benefit. See post #22

 

[jayem]

God knew that sinful mankind had fallen far below his moral standards, but allowing them to exercise free will, God did not get to know what man would do.
Why does it not make sense that God would be disappointed and grieved at what developed with the human family?

The bible has several passages confirming God's omniscience regarding the present and the future. Here's Isaiah 46:9-10:

Remember all that happened long ago,
for I am God, and there is none other;
I am God and there is no one like me.
From the beginning, I reveal the end,
from ancient times to what is yet to be;
I say, 'My purpose stands,
I shall accomplish all that I please' (REB)

My question is why would a supreme being--who is aware of everything, past, present, and future--realize that mankind is wicked, and regrets his creation? So he decides to drown the entire planet in a flood. Except for one righteous man, his family, and 2 (or 7) of every species of land animal, bird, and insect. And what's even more incomprehensible is that modern Homo sapiens--with his technology and advanced weaponry--is far more dangerous than anyone in the 6th-5th century BC could ever conceive. And we are still here.

 

[Zaha Torte]

The bible has several passages confirming God's omniscience regarding the present and the future. Here's Isaiah 46:9-10:

Remember all that happened long ago,
for I am God, and there is none other;
I am God and there is no one like me.
From the beginning, I reveal the end,
from ancient times to what is yet to be;
I say, 'My purpose stands,
I shall accomplish all that I please' (REB)

My question is why would a supreme being--who is aware of everything, past, present, and future--realize that mankind is wicked, and regrets his creation? So he decides to drown the entire planet in a flood. Except for one righteous man, his family, and 2 (or 7) of every species of land animal, bird, and insect. And what's even more incomprehensible is that modern Homo sapiens--with his technology and advanced weaponry--is far more dangerous than anyone in the 6th-5th century BC could ever conceive. And we are still here.

God is not only omniscient - but He is also perfectly Lawful - according to His nature and character.

This is why He does not Judge us before our Time - or to punish us before we commit sin - He is perfect.

God did not bring the Flood waters because Man was dangerous - but because they were ripened in sin.

So much so that it was be unjust to allow future generations of Man to enter into such a sinful world.

He wiped the Earth clean and had Man restart because He is just and merciful - not only to the currently living - but to the future living.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do the rocks claim?

No global flood. Age of Earth 4.5 Gyr. For more details check a reputable geology text.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That was not posted for your benefit. See post #22

Cool. Is that why you posted some bad geology on a public forum?

 

[Zaha Torte]

No global flood. Age of Earth 4.5 Gyr. For more details check a reputable geology text.

How do the rocks claim that there was no global Flood event?

The Bible makes no claim about the age of the Earth.

 

[BPPLEE]

Cool. Is that why you posted some bad geology on a public forum?

It was another point of view. Missler was not a geologist he was a rocket scientist

 

[Hans Blaster]

It was another point of view. Missler was not a geologist he was a rocket scientist

Then why are you presenting his views on a thread settled by geological evidence?

 

[Hans Blaster]

How do the rocks claim that there was no global Flood event?

For more details check a reputable geology text.

The Bible makes no claim about the age of the Earth.

Did I say anything about any bibles? (No.)

 

[BPPLEE]

Then why are you presenting his views on a thread settled by geological evidence?

Because the person I was responding to may have enjoyed reading it. Everyone may not consider it "settled'

 

[Zaha Torte]

For more details check a reputable geology text.

So you don't know, but you claimed to know?

Did I say anything about any bibles? (No.)

The thread is about the global Flood event recorded in the Bible.

If your claim about the age of the Earth was not a reference to the Biblical narrative, then it was completely irrelevant to this discussion - since no one was talking about the age of the Earth.

Your comment only makes sense here if it was an attempted rebuttal of the Biblical narrative.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you don't know, but you claimed to know?

I have limited knowlege of geology as I never took a class. It is interesting, but it is full of details that I would not want to get wrong. If you want a concise demonstration of what the rocks say about the general history of the Earth or about the non-existence of global floods there are resources out there that can be found. I do not know them off the top of my head, nor could I type a 1000-word essay on the topic with out a great deal of research work.

The thread is about the global Flood event recorded in the Bible.

And I was answering your question about what the rocks say. It was not a question about what the bible says.

If your claim about the age of the Earth was not a reference to the Biblical narrative, then it was completely irrelevant to this discussion - since no one was talking about the age of the Earth.

Nope. It was an answer to your specific question about rocks. Clearly your interpretation of a religious text implies something else, but neither you, nor your scripture is a rock.

You comment only makes sense here if it was an attempted rebuttal of the Biblical narrative.

The rocks rebut the biblical narrative as a literal, global flood event.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I have limited knowlege of geology as I never took a class. It is interesting, but it is full of details that I would not want to get wrong. If you want a concise demonstration of what the rocks say about the general history of the Earth or about the non-existence of global floods there are resources out there that can be found. I do not know them off the top of my head, nor could I type a 1000-word essay on the topic with out a great deal of research work.

No one asked you to do any such thing.

You did make a claim about the rocks though - what they have said - and all I would want to know is what led you to conclude that the rocks have claimed that there was no global Flood event.

I mean - just imagine if I had made a similar claim about evidence supporting a global Flood event - you wouldn't ask me for evidence supporting that claim or how I came to believe it?

You would be content with me saying, "My knowledge is limited on this subject. You should go and seek out resources yourself. I can't be bothered supporting my claim or offering any explanation for why I said what I said."

I have come to believe that you would claim that I was full of it.

And I was answering your question about what the rocks say. It was not a question about what the bible says.

I never asked a question about the age of the Earth.

Why did you feel the need to make a claim about it?

I cannot think of any reason why you would do so outside of you making a claim against the Earth being young as many have come to believe that the Bible supports.

Nope. It was an answer to your specific question about rocks.

Not even a little. It was completely irrelevant.

Clearly your interpretation of a religious text implies something else, but neither you, nor your scripture is a rock.

My interpretation implies what about what? Something that no one was talking about?

The rocks rebut the biblical narrative as a literal, global flood event.

You yourself have said that you are not educated enough on this subject to make such a claim - so why are you?

 

[Hans Blaster]

No one asked you to do any such thing.

A full answer to the question "what do the rocks say" would be long and detailed. I am not qualified to give it.

You did make a claim about the rocks though - what they have said - and all I would want to know is what led you to conclude that the rocks have claimed that there was no global Flood event.

Awareness of basic geological history. It isn't exactly hiding. It takes effort to reject established scientific fact.

I mean - just imagine if I had made a similar claim about evidence supporting a global Flood event - you wouldn't ask me for evidence supporting that claim or how I came to believe it?

I mean, come on. We are talking about common knowledge, like that the Earth is a spheroid that orbits a star.

You would be content with me saying, "My knowledge is limited on this subject. You should go and seek out resources yourself. I can't be bothered supporting my claim or offering any explanation for why I said what I said."

I have come to believe that you would claim that I was full of it.

And you would be.

I never asked a question about the age of the Earth.

Why did you feel the need to make a claim about it?

You asked what the rocks say. I gave the basics. Those were things

I cannot think of any reason why you would do so outside of you making a claim against the Earth being young as many have come to believe that the Bible supports.

I care not what your bible says.

Not even a little. It was completely irrelevant.

I care not even a little. It is irrelevant.

My interpretation implies what about what? Something that no one was talking about?

You yourself have said that you are not educated enough on this subject to make such a claim - so why are you?

It is basic knowledge. Something you should have learned before finishing HS.

 

[CoreyD]

The bible has several passages confirming God's omniscience regarding the present and the future. Here's Isaiah 46:9-10:

Remember all that happened long ago,
for I am God, and there is none other;
I am God and there is no one like me.
From the beginning, I reveal the end,
from ancient times to what is yet to be;
I say, 'My purpose stands,
I shall accomplish all that I please' (REB)

My question is why would a supreme being--who is aware of everything, past, present, and future--realize that mankind is wicked, and regrets his creation?

The Bible has several passages confirming that God's foreknowledge is selective.
Here is on of them:
Genesis 22:12

“Do not lay a hand on the boy or do anything to him,” said the angel, “for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your only son from me.”​

Here is another:
Genesis 18:21

I will go down to see if their actions fully justify the outcry that has reached Me. If not, I will find out.”​

There are a few more... Psalm 14:2; Jeremiah 17:10

Have you given consideration to these, in my previous response?
If you did indeed consider this, then your question was answered.
God did not choose to know in advance how man would turn out, and what they would or would not do. God allowed them to exercise their freedom of choice. Deuteronomy 30:19, 20

So he decides to drown the entire planet in a flood. Except for one righteous man, his family, and 2 (or 7) of every species of land animal, bird, and insect.

Since God did not "make it his business" to get to know what man would do, as I mentioned before, in the case of Adam, and in the case of the people living in Noah's day, God took action, in response to the newly developed situation... one involving the Nephilim - giants that were not mere men, and having a depraved influence in the earth. Genesis 6:4, 5

A global flood was God's decision, since evidently, that would allow God to start mankind off from a people - Noah, and his sons - that were untarnished by the depravity. God started with a new physical earth.
Genesis 6:21

And God looked upon the earth and saw that it was corrupt; for all living creatures on the earth had corrupted their ways.​

2 Peter 3:5, 6

And what's even more incomprehensible is that modern Homo sapiens--with his technology and advanced weaponry--is far more dangerous than anyone in the 6th-5th century BC could ever conceive. And we are still here.

True, mankind today is influenced by Satan and his demons. Revelation 12:9, and they have advanced tech.
However, there is a difference between today, and during the days of Noah.
There are no Nephilim, and the angels are not able to impregnate women.

Hence, mankind is influenced to do only what his mind conjures up, with help from Satan, but there are no super intelligent beings with minds super charged with evil.
That is a big difference.

Persons may think having advanced tech is more destructive than in the days of Noah, but that is to underestimate the mind of an angel bent on going in opposition to God, having offspring living as humans.
If you think of advanced robots that are totally rogue, you will get the sense of the difference.

The time for God to judge this wicked world, is near and coming quickly. Zephaniah 1:14; 2 Peter 3:7
He knows when the time is right. He also does not leave things to run amuck, but holds back the reigns, so to speak.
In other word, God is very much involved in making sure, things do not extend their bounds - Revelation 17:16-18; Ezekiel 38:1-23

 

[Zaha Torte]

A full answer to the question "what do the rocks say" would be long and detailed. I am not qualified to give it.

You don't remember even the bit that convinced you?

Awareness of basic geological history. It isn't exactly hiding. It takes effort to reject established scientific fact.

A fact that you cannot share.

I mean, come on. We are talking about common knowledge, like that the Earth is a spheroid that orbits a star.

I could say the same thing about God making the Earth and causing the Flood. It is common knowledge.

And you would be.

Now you know how I feel.

You asked what the rocks say. I gave the basics. Those were things

Within the context of the global Flood - not the history of rocks.

I care not what your bible says.

Therein lies one of your problems. You want to discredit the Biblical narrative without even knowing it.

Also - you care very much - which is why you brought up the age of the Earth unbidden.

I care not even a little. It is irrelevant.

Yes - the age of the Earth is completely irrelevant to your claim about the rocks and my question about your claim.

That is why I asked why you brought it up.

You have every right to disagree with the Bible.

Was that somehow a tough question?

You say random things and act like I am somehow at fault for asking why you did that?

It is basic knowledge. Something you should have learned before finishing HS.

Pluto was a planet, and all Native Americans got there by only the Siberian Land Bridge when I was in High School.

A lot of things that I was taught were true are no longer considered to be.

Why not just share what led you to believe it? No need to get defensive and bring up the Bible unprovoked.

 

[BT3241]

There is another reason given for the flood but its not in the bible its in the Book of Enoch which would fit in the bible right where it says -

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown..

You might also want to look at the King of OG who is described clearly in the bible whom Moses himself battled and destroyed.

It was decided that it would not be in the bible so the book has no authority and is not considered the word of God.Its your choice on whether you want to believe it or read it and it does not need to be there it does not add. I did read it and will only discuss it if a thread is made.

I am not going to post a link or tell you about it.Its your choice on whether you want to read it

 

[Zaha Torte]

There is another reason given for the flood but its not in the bible its in the Book of Enoch which would fit in the bible right where it says -

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown..

You might also want to look at the King of OG who is described clearly in the bible whom Moses himself battled and destroyed.

It was decided that it would not be in the bible so the book has no authority and is not considered the word of God.Its your choice on whether you want to believe it or read it and it does not need to be there it does not add. I did read it and will only discuss it if a thread is made.

I am not going to post a link or tell you about it.Its your choice on whether you want to read it

The sons of God were holy men - men of the covenant and holders of the Priesthood - who descended from Seth and those who followed him as opposed to Cain.

They would have retained more of the attributes of their father Adam - and would have been larger and longer lived than those who followed Cain.

The Genesis account claims that they left their commission and decided to mingle with women who were not of the covenant - and their children were large - like how Man used to be in the beginning.

The "sons of God" were not angels - but mortal men - yet they stood apart from the other tribes of men that had followed after the pattern of Cain into apostasy and ruin - until they decided to follow the ways of Cain as well.

Their children were not "Nephilim" or anything more or less than mortal Man.

 

[BT3241]

Read the book or we can;t talk about it.

Both Peter and Jude reference the punishment the Angels received in the Book of Enoch in their letter.
Enoch is also one of two people thought to of gone directly to heaven - Enoch and Elijah.It says he walks with God and is no more in Genesis he was a son of Cain.
Actually there was two Enoch s in Genesis I mix them up some times not sure if i did here.

Its actually an amazing story breath taking at some points and really makes you think about things but as I said it is not part of the bible it does not have to be believed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You don't remember even the bit that convinced you?

Convinced me of what? That the Earth is old? It was just one of the facts in the books I read, lessons I was taught, and TV shows I watched as a child. There was no "bit" or "a ha" moment. It was just the facts, jack. No consideration of any "young Earth" alternative ever came into it. It was such that when I learned of "young Earth" people (like with creationists) I was a bit astonished that anyone believed such a thing. It was far more disturbing in adulthood to learn that a large fraction of people believed such things contrary to evidence.

A fact that you cannot share.

It's not "a fact", but a long collection of data and analyses. The more "detail" I present, the more details you are likely to reject. There are geology people here on this site and if they want to get into you about geology and how it shows the Earth is old and never flooded completely, I would welcome it. I will stick to the things I know well enough to argue clearly even with the fact resistant.

I could say the same thing about God making the Earth and causing the Flood. It is common knowledge.

A common belief, not knowledge.

Now you know how I feel.

Within the context of the global Flood - not the history of rocks.

Not history "of rocks" but history "in rocks". The history of the Earth that the rocks *tell*. One of those complex stories is that there was never an epoch of rapid global flooding. Another is that some are very, very old. (Most are quite old by human civilization standards as few rocks are less than 100,000 years and most of those are from volcanoes.)

Therein lies one of your problems. You want to discredit the Biblical narrative without even knowing it.

Also - you care very much - which is why you brought up the age of the Earth unbidden.

For starters, please don't tell me what my wants or cares or motivations are directly to me. (Or do that to anyone.) You also assume I don't know the biblical narrative of "the flood" as if it wasn't just two pages of text and a story I'd heard or read dozens of times. Nothing about knowing it makes me think it was true, quite the opposite.

I neither want nor desire nor need to "discredit the bible". It doesn't mean enough to me to want to discredit it. The topic is the story of Noah and his flood. That story does not match geologic history and that it doesn't match what happened does not need to discredit the bible.

Yes - the age of the Earth is completely irrelevant to your claim about the rocks and my question about your claim.

That is why I asked why you brought it up.

Most people who claim that "the flood" is demonstrated by the rocks also claim the rocks are much younger than they are. The age of the Earth is a much simpler fact told by the rocks and one I could actually discuss with reasonable knowledge.

You have every right to disagree with the Bible.

Was that somehow a tough question?

You say random things and act like I am somehow at fault for asking why you did that?

My disagreements with the bible have nothing to do with the Noah story. I never took that one seriously anyway. Both my objections and me are not the topic anyway.

Pluto was a planet, and all Native Americans got there by only the Siberian Land Bridge when I was in High School.

Sigh. I thought this was because when you went to HS there was just one lone lighter object that far out in the disk of the Solar system, but then I checked your bio and see that by the time you graduated from HS there would have been several known. Knowing that there are other similar objects doesn't change the orbit of Pluto or what it is made of or how it formed. All it changes is what bin it gets put in when looking for comparison objects. Having "friends" in the large Kuiper belt objects makes it easier to understand the dwarf planet Pluto than when it was just a lone weirdo at the edge of the gas giants.

Native Americans got to North America from Siberia to Alaska whether they traveled south after that by boat or on land. This hasn't fundamentally changed.

A lot of things that I was taught were true are no longer considered to be.

You should know that this comes off as a public declaration of a poor understanding of science and how it works. The age of the Earth was worked out in the mid-20th century and hasn't changed since it was worked out. The non-existence of a global flood (particularly when humans were around) has been recognized for about 200 years and hasn't changed.

Why not just share what led you to believe it? No need to get defensive and bring up the Bible unprovoked.

I already did. Basic learning as a child. The time when all of us should have learned the age of the Earth and related basic facts.