Weather during the Global Flood

[gluadys]

Two important notes you may not be taking into account:

1.) What measurements exist that tell us exactly how much water within it's various forms existed way back when the Genesis flood took place?

The same measurements we take today, for as far as we know, the total amount of water does not change. It is recycled through the hydrological cycle without increase or decrease.

2.) Even if there were not by sceintific standards a possible natural way for the flood occur, the Biblical account plainly states it was certainly no natural occurance, but supernatural.

Miracles override science. Science shows us what could happen or what could not happen as long as we suppose God used only the natural processes he created. If God chose to use miracles instead, anything is possible.

However, many creationists insist there is scientific evidence for the flood. IOW, they insist that in some respects the flood was brought about by natural means and had consequences which can be studied by science. In fact, all the evidence falsifies this claim.

Natural disasters don't work in that fashion. As someone else stated, God works through the laws He alone has set for nature. That does not mean He is bound to them, not can he work past them.

And the evidence shows that if God worked through the laws he set for nature to bring about the flood, it could not have been a global flood.

However, the scientific problem with the flood goes beyond its cause. The cause could be a miracle, and then we don't have to worry about explaining it scienctifically. But there are other aspects that are not so easily explained.

1. The bible does not hint of any miraculous ending to the flood. It says the waters abated slowly, not by some miracle. But if the waters were not removed by a miracle, where did they go? They are not on earth now, so how did they leave, if not by a miracle?

2. Floods generally leave evidence that they happened in the form of flood plains. Thick layers of sediment are layed down. In the 18th and 19th century Christian geologists searched diligently for the sediment laid down by the Deluge. They never found any geological formation that could be linked to a global flood, and by 1835 a prominent defender of flood geology, the Rev. Adam Sedgwick, conceded that the flood could not be global, given the geological evidence. Why did the flood leave not only any of its waters behind, but all evidence of its occurrence? Did God remove the silt and sediments as well as the waters?

3. Given the massive death toll of both humans and animals, not to mention plants, during the flood, why do we not have a layer of fossils that date to the flood and appear to have been drowned? Is this another form of evidence that God removed miraculously?

4. Many civilizations, notably the Chinese and the Egyptian but also others, seemed to have lived through the flood without noticing it. There was no disruption of normal activities, no reduction of population, no recording the event. Did God miraculously repopulate these nations instantaneously? Did he miraculously give them memories that did not include the flood? (And why would he do that if the flood was intended to teach a lesson?) It is not charcteristic of civilizations to be unaffected by significant floods. Just look at New Orleans or tsunami affected South Asia. Think not only of so much destruction it will take ten years to rebuild, but also of all the TV and newspaper coverage there has been, not to mention all the fiction and poetry that will be written about these events in the coming years. Why would a global flood leave no such evidence at all?

5. How was the plant and animal life restored? When a population is significantly reduced, its capacity for genetic variation is also reduced until new mutations generate new possibilities for variation. These times of reduced capacity for variation can be traced in the genetic pattern of the species. If the flood actually occurred as described in the bible, every single species should have such a genetic bottleneck recorded in its genome, and all dated to the same period of time. This is not the case. Why not?

Those are five areas in which God would have to miraculously erase evidence of the flood in order to make the earth and its inhabitants conform to what we observe today. And for what purpose would God erase the evidence of the flood?

God Himself created the waters. Why is it imposossible to consider they were removed...or they were usued to sustain an entirely new set of climates that had never been seen before the flood occured?

If they were used to sustain a new set of climates, the water would still be here. It isn't. They could not be removed naturally, so you are left with a post-flood miracle of taking away the excess water. A miracle which the bible does not reference and which science is not equipped to detect. See above for the additional miracles that would be necessary to obliterate evidence that the flood happened.

Remember, within the Genesis account from Creation to the flood there had never been a sort of hard rain even mentioned. Why do you think the people of Noah's day would have laughed at him when he built a boat on dry land?

We don't know that a hard rain never occurred before the flood. It may be such rains were not mentioned because they were usual at certain seasons, like monsoons in India, not because they did not happen.

And? What in Scripture states they were formed and not created as it is written within the Genesis account?

What makes you think that forming and creating are different things? See Genesis 2:7. It says God formed man. Does that mean God did not create him?

How is this related to the occurance of an unnatural global flood which is fully supported by the Scriptures within their literary context within both the Old and New Testaments?

Indeed it is supported within their literary context of biblical myth, and reference to same.

Also, how and why do you claim "4 billion years" when, as there's no reliable source to back up that number?

You don't think the natural laws of physics which God created are a reliable source?

Are you stating then that the creation of the world and a global flood in Genesis are any more unbelievable than the a virgin concieving and bearing a son who happens to be God Himself, Second Person of the Holy Trinity who created the world?

No. Just saying that the evidence shows that the flood was not global. If you choose to believe that God used miracles to doctor the evidence so that it would not leave any record of a global flood, that is your choice. Note that I do believe in creation and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the agent of creation.

(ref: John 1) Are you saying it's more unbelievable than our Savior Jesus who put Himself under the Law and took the ultimate punishment in our stead on the cross so we could have the complete forgiveness of sins? And are you saying it's more unbelievable than Him rising from the dead? Or later being seen by 500 people at one time? (ref: 1 Corinthians 15)

Please note that science does not say that miracles never occur. Only that science does not study miracles, as it only studies what can and cannot occur naturally, in accordance with the laws of nature. In the case of the virgin birth, the resurrection, and many others recorded in scripture, there is no evidence that it happened, nor any evidence that it did not. In the case of the flood there is also no evidence that it happened and --this is the important point--there is overwhelming evidence that it did not. In short, if the flood was global, you not only have to rely on a miracle to make it happen in the first place, you also have to rely on a whole series of miracles by which God removed all evidence that it happened and planted evidence that it did not. Do you really want to go there?

To state an individual would read the Bible and passes occurances as fiction simply because it does not go understood or does not hold to human reason when there is nothing in the context of the passage which states it is such, is evidence once does not wish to take God at His word whether or not it does go completely understood.

Lack of understanding or unwillingness to take God at his word is not what we are dealing with here. If you think it is, you have been misinformed or guessed wrongly.

The passages which indicate they are true historical accouts, or prophecy, or similie, or metaphorical, etc. already have indicated themselves to be such.

Precisely. And those who understand the characteristics of literature unhesitatingly identify the flood story as ancient mythology. It does not bear the characteristics of a historical record.

I would think the sole reason why some have said some portions of the Bible are untrue and some not without the Bible indicating it is due to unbelief itself.

No one here has identified any part of the bible as untrue, so you can stop that line of argument immediately. After all, we are all Christians here, who look to the bible as the key text supporting our faith.

 

[shernren]

God Himself created the waters. Why is it imposossible to consider they were removed...or they were usued to sustain an entirely new set of climates that had never been seen before the flood occured? Remember, within the Genesis account from Creation to the flood there had never been a sort of hard rain even mentioned. Why do you think the people of Noah's day would have laughed at him when he built a boat on dry land?

Water has to go somewhere. When the water dries off your back after a bath it doesn't just disappear or something, you know. Every little drop of water that goes back into the atmosphere increases its pressure a little bit. It may not seem like much, but a few hundred feet of water going into the air is like putting you beneath a few hundred feet of water - that kind of pressure.

Also as creationists themselves have pointed out we don't know that there was no rain on the land. I can say that in Genesis, it was never mentioned either that God created bacteria or seaweed: does that mean they were not created by God? There are references to a fog of water over the Garden every morning and evening (as I recall), but that doesn't mean there wasn't rain.

I would urge you to consider the possibility that the Flood was geographically local, but human-ly global. In other words, the Flood may not have covered all the earth, but it did cover all earth that man had known of and settled up till that point. To give a concrete example, Australia wasn't a part of Noah's "world", and therefore just because Australia wasn't flooded doesn't mean a part of Noah's world wasn't flooded.

 

[ebia]

Attempting to prove the evidence of the flood is a side issue one could all too easily become lost within without even touching on why the matter of the global flood is important.

And that's the heart of the matter - the Genesis stories are true (that is, the messages to us that they need to convey are true) - whether or not the events actually took place as described. The theology of the flood story is just as strong if the story is mythology as it is if the story is fact. Arguably stronger.

On the other hand, if people choose to put up ideas as scientifically plausible when they are not, then their are (either intentionally or unintentionally misleading). The former amounts to lying. Either way, they should expect to be corrected.

 

[night2day]

...what would the weather have been like during the various phases of the flood, through the first 40 days, through the continued rising of the Waters, At the point of grounding, and then through the abating, the time of the sending of the birds, and then the disembarking?

Genesis 8:1 states that God caused a great wind to pass over the earth.

...What was the weather like?

My thinkin: during the 40 days and nights it had rained such as the world had never seen. Perhaps massive storms. The Scriptures do mention earthquakes taking place as the "waters rose burst the deep". At any rate, would have been rather humid and the air chilled.

This is opinion only, but I will say the sole continent scientists had labeled as "Pangaea" would have been either in the mist of dividing or had been divided into the seperated continants we know of today during the flood itself (which would have been the oppurtune time for it to do so. The Ark and those in it would have been spared the massive upheavel.) That sort of cataclysmic event would have changed the climate on a world-wide scale. Some animals, when they exited the Ark where it landed, may have soon died out due to being unable to sustain themselves in the new climate.

At any rate the earth went through great climate changes in such a short amount of time. Hense, it would be difficult to state just what the phases of the weather were without considering each landmass found itself dealing with its distinct own.

I recall watching a program once in which it was hypothizised all God had to do was slightly tilt the earth a very minute amount for the globel flood and the earthquakes and the planet shifts to take place. God working through the laws of nature while also above them. When the Earth was rightened on it's axis, they all ceased.

While one may do with the hypothisis what they will, the end result was still the same. Noah and his family and the animals exiting out of the Ark into an entirely differnt world than when they first entered.

 

[night2day]

Water has to go somewhere. When the water dries off your back after a bath it doesn't just disappear or something, you know."

"...The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;the waters returned from off the earth continually..." (Genesis 8:2-3) That's what is said. There are no technical details given.

I do wonder: while there have been open musings by scientists at NASA that a planet like Mars (and a few others in our solar system) may have been entirely underwater at one time some of the same are so quick to deny it couldn't possibly have happened here on Earth. There have been statements made by some NASA scientists themselves the space program has moreso changed to look into the orgins of the universe. But that's another issue altogether.

Also as creationists themselves have pointed out we don't know that there was no rain on the land. I can say that in Genesis, it was never mentioned either that God created bacteria or seaweed: does that mean they were not created by God?

When the Bible states God spoke the world into existance and spoke all forms of life into being except for Adam and Eve who were designed special, how does that exclude any form of life?

There are references to a fog of water over the Garden every morning and evening (as I recall), but that doesn't mean there wasn't rain.

Genesis 2:5 mentions no rain within the garden. In fact, 7:14 first mentions any type of rain. While 6:17 mentions the flood.

Within an earlier post I mentioned this type of cataclysmic event would definately cause world-wide climate changes -- at least. Why take for granted the world's living conditions and weather would be the same before the Biblical flood as they would be after?

I would urge you to consider the possibility that the Flood was geographically local, but human-ly global. In other words, the Flood may not have covered all the earth, but it did cover all earth that man had known of and settled up till that point...

I cannot for that isn't what the literary context of the Scriptures state within either the Old or New Testament. And the Bible doesn't contridict itself. You would have to convince me via the Scriptures and them alone the Bible meant anything other than a globel flood.

Genesis 7:17-22
"And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."

Several things to consider...

1.) Verses preeding this one indicate just how large the Ark had been built. Above explains how the floodwaters picked up the massive Ark. They also go on to stress even mountains were covered. And, as before in previous verses...it remindeed there wasn't simply a select group of people who died. It was everything on earth save those who were in that Ark.
​

2.) Not only do the Scripturess state it rained for 40 days and nights...after it stopped raining the flooding remained for 150 days. Therefore, Noah, his family, and the animals were within the Ark because of the unreceeded waters for 190 days.

3.) Genesis 8:4-5

"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."

Tell me again how many floods have the earth experianced where even the tallest mountains have been covered for 150 days?! And it was another three months until the tops of the mountains were able to be seen. And another 40 days until Noah releases a raven to try and find dried land.

4.) The Bible keeps stressing all those who lived on the earth died in that flood. It also stated why. "The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

One would be hardpressed in finding the passages are stating it was local flooding.

Many people in news broadcasting were trying to state the horror and the flooding that occured due to the tsunami last December or the flooding and devestation from the storm-surges in the southeran states of the U.S. were of "Biblical propotions". Is it that they don't know what "Biblical propotions" really are? Or is it too terrifying to think about?
​

 

[ebia]

Some animals, when they exited the Ark where it landed, may have soon died out due to being unable to sustain themselves in the new climate.

Doesn't that make God sound rather incompetent?

I recall watching a program once in which it was hypothizised all God had to do was slightly tilt the earth a very minute amount for the globel flood and the earthquakes and the planet shifts to take place. God working through the laws of nature while also above them. When the Earth was rightened on it's axis, they all ceased.

Messing about with laws of angular momentem is more plausible than messing about by creating and uncreating water? And how does tipping the world create and then uncreate water anyway? Sounds like a bit of technobable to keep happy people that don't actually want to think it through to me.

While one may do with the hypothisis what they will, the end result was still the same. Noah and his family and the animals exiting out of the Ark into an entirely differnt world than when they first entered.

What puzzles me is, why did a couple of significant groups of them - the monotremes and marsupials - all leg it as fast as possible in a south westerly direction, and how did they jump the Timor Sea? I know Boomers have an impressive leap - I've seen it - but not that impressive.

 

[CaptainMercy]

All-or-nothing? I'd advise against using ultimatums as a means to witness.

I am sorry you would advise that way when the Bible is full of ultimatums.

Deu 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;

Jos 24:14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

2Ch 7:13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people;

2Ch 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

2Ch 7:15 Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place.

2Ch 7:16 For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

2Ch 7:17 And as for thee, if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe my statutes and my judgments;

2Ch 7:18 Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel.

2Ch 7:19 But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them;

2Ch 7:20 Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations.

2Ch 7:21 And this house, which is high, shall be an astonishment to every one that passeth by it; so that he shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and unto this house?

2Ch 7:22 And it shall be answered, Because they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath he brought all this evil upon them.

A few examples for you here! There is only two ways, the right way (Jesus) which leads to life eternal, and the way (Satan) which leads to eternal damnation. The ultimatum in this is you choose but if you choose wrong then you will be damned forever to the lake of fire! No ifs, ands, and buts about it!

 

[ebia]

I am sorry you would advise that way when the Bible is full of ultimatums.

God might have the authority to say, "agree with me or burn", although none of those quotes actually say that. You certainly don't.

 

[night2day]

And that's the heart of the matter - the Genesis stories are true (that is, the messages to us that they need to convey are true) - whether or not the events actually took place as described. The theology of the flood story is just as strong if the story is mythology as it is if the story is fact. Arguably stronger.

Before commenting, I will note the word "true" seems to have taken on a differnt meaning within the post-modern era. Instead of an older dictionary definition of "consistent with fact or reality" the word seems to be now defined as "consiting of heart of the matter" and little else. I have known others to who have used it. But as one who adhears to the older definition...I can't find the two compatible.

I disagree the theological meaning does not change on whether or not one the event actually occured. There remains the steadfast issue on where within the Scriptures' literary context does it state God did not actually destroy the earth with a massive global flood because of the sin and wickedness which plagued it at that time? When there is no indication given what is written in no metaphor, parable, or myth, what is one stating about the Scriptures themselves? Or about the Author who Himself gave no indication it was a myth, but rather it did in fact happen as an event in human history. One which charged Noah and his family to began the growth of the human race once more?

For that matter, what does it state on the reality and seriousness of sin and how much we God's mercy He has shown us through the Savior? When this world ends upon Christ's return something much worse than a global flood awaits those who do not have Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, by grace through faith. The Judgement will be final as well as eternal.

On the other hand, if people choose to put up ideas as scientifically plausible when they are not, then their are (either intentionally or unintentionally misleading). The former amounts to lying. Either way, they should expect to be corrected.

The same could be said of those who also hold up their own ideas, theries, and hypothisies as undeniable facts and won't dare allow a mere wisper of anything which may question those theories.

Science is not and never was an exact art. It's also a human made and human form of study. But, like I said, it's not an exact art. For all the knowledge science has gathered or thinks it has gathered, there's even much more that it hasn't. Any honest scientist would admit that.

The one thing I noticed when someone presents evidence: One party may attempt to interpret it all they wish. Another party attempt to interpret it completely differnt. Yet, evidence, for what it's worth, is only one peice of the puzzle. And many times instead of examining the evidence for study, some have their pre-defined own conclusions and attempt to force the evidence to fit into those pre-defined conclusions. Only to be caught unawares when more unveiling of the puzzle comes to light.

I've noticed many times those who don't accept the global flood as an actual historic event which happened in human history, do the same for the 24 hr. - 6 day creation at the very beginning. In fact, Genesis itself seems to go discounted up until when it speaks of Abram and Sarai. But I haven't heard of a reason why. And nothing in the literary context indicates why it would be.

 

[ebia]

Before commenting, I will note the word "true" seems to have taken on a differnt meaning within the post-modern era. Instead of an older dictionary definition of "consistent with fact or reality" the word seems to be now defined as "consiting of heart of the matter" and little else. I have known others to who have used it. But as one who adhears to the older definition...I can't find the two compatible.

The problem is that "true"="fact" is actually a very modern idea. The idea that myths are true without being factual is the ancient perspective.

I disagree the theological meaning does not change on whether or not one the event actually occured. There remains the steadfast issue on where within the Scriptures' literary context does it state God did not actually destroy the earth with a massive global flood because of the sin and wickedness which plagued it at that time? When there is no indication given what is written in no metaphor, parable, or myth, what is one stating about the Scriptures themselves?

That God can communicate to us however he pleases and is not limited to a 20th Century, overly rational, perspective.

Or about the Author who Himself gave no indication it was a myth,

Oh, but he did. It doesn't need to say "This is myth" in big letters.

For that matter, what does it state on the reality and seriousness of sin and how much we God's mercy He has shown us through the Savior? When this world ends upon Christ's return something much worse than a global flood awaits those who do not have Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, by grace through faith. The Judgement will be final as well as eternal.

That message is not dependent on the story being factual.

The same could be said of those who also hold up their own ideas, theries, and hypothisies as undeniable facts and won't dare allow a mere wisper of anything which may question those theories.

No one is doing that. If you can demonstrate those theories are wrong, good on you. No-one is denying you the right to try, but don't expect us to roll over at the first half-baked, inconsistent, flawed, argument.

Science is not and never was an exact art. It's also a human made and human form of study. But, like I said, it's not an exact art. For all the knowledge science has gathered or thinks it has gathered, there's even much more that it hasn't. Any honest scientist would admit that.

I don't see anyone denying that.

The one thing I noticed when someone presents evidence: One party may attempt to interpret it all they wish. Another party attempt to interpret it completely differnt. Yet, evidence, for what it's worth, is only one peice of the puzzle. And many times instead of examining the evidence for study, some have their pre-defined own conclusions and attempt to force the evidence to fit into those pre-defined conclusions.

eg creation science.

Science takes evidence, and tries to form conclusions from it. It then makes predictions from those conclusions, and then looks to see if further evidence shows those predictions to be correct.

Creation science takes conclusions - eg at that God created the world in 6 days approximately 6000 years ago, that a global flood took place a little while later, etc, and then looks for evidence that confirms those conclusions.

I've noticed many times those who don't accept the global flood as an actual historic event which happened in human history, do the same for the 24 hr. - 6 day creation at the very beginning. In fact, Genesis itself seems to go discounted up until when it speaks of Abram and Sarai.

Not discounted at all. Whether not the stories are factual, the theological message is still there and still vital. If you think the most important messages in Genesis are the historical ones, then you are the one discounting what is important. I don't need God to teach me about History, I do need him to teach me about Theology and Love.

 

[shernren]

"...The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;the waters returned from off the earth continually..." (Genesis 8:2-3) That's what is said. There are no technical details given.

Now let's assume the "reservoirs of the deep" broke open. What are they filled with now? They aren't filled with their original water, which seems to be undetectable (since there isn't enough water on the earth now to flood the whole earth), and they aren't filled with rock, because that's a whole lot of volume to fill up with rock in the first place. So, where is that water? Still unanswered.

Ditto the "windows of the heaven". If there was enough water in the skies to flood the earth, the pressure alone would have killed Noah.

Genesis 2:5 mentions no rain within the garden. In fact, 7:14 first mentions any type of rain. While 6:17 mentions the flood.

Within an earlier post I mentioned this type of cataclysmic event would definately cause world-wide climate changes -- at least. Why take for granted the world's living conditions and weather would be the same before the Biblical flood as they would be after?

Genesis 2:5 only says that before God formed man there hadn't yet been any rain on the Garden of Eden. It doesn't predict anything about what would have happened after God created man.

I cannot for that isn't what the literary context of the Scriptures state within either the Old or New Testament. And the Bible doesn't contridict itself. You would have to convince me via the Scriptures and them alone the Bible meant anything other than a globel flood.

I think this site does a lot better than I ever could: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Read through it and tell me what you think. Personally I find it very compelling. On an aside, do try and disprove transubstantiation to me from Scripture alone. Transubstantiation: the doctrine that the elements of the Holy Communion are actually transformed in substance into Jesus' body and blood, as supported by literal readings of Jesus' words in John and the accounts of the Last Supper.

Dear blessedvalley: all your Scripture quotes reference the covenant or testament between the Jews and God. In other words all those "ultimatums" were not threats against non-believers to force them to come into the fold, but threats against believers to force them to stay in the fold. Every single one of them. A better model for evangelism especially to Gentiles is to use Paul's methods as documented in Acts. He never fired quick ultimatums and hellfire sermons. Instead he stayed among the people he ministered to for a long time, becoming one of them, and preached the supremacy of Jesus instead of how hot hell's flames are. When the town clerk quieted the Ephesian riot he was able to say that Paul had neither desecrated their temple nor slandered their god. How many of us today would be able to witness with both his tact and his effectiveness?

Before commenting, I will note the word "true" seems to have taken on a differnt meaning within the post-modern era. Instead of an older dictionary definition of "consistent with fact or reality" the word seems to be now defined as "consiting of heart of the matter" and little else. I have known others to who have used it. But as one who adhears to the older definition...I can't find the two compatible.

I disagree the theological meaning does not change on whether or not one the event actually occured. There remains the steadfast issue on where within the Scriptures' literary context does it state God did not actually destroy the earth with a massive global flood because of the sin and wickedness which plagued it at that time? When there is no indication given what is written in no metaphor, parable, or myth, what is one stating about the Scriptures themselves? Or about the Author who Himself gave no indication it was a myth, but rather it did in fact happen as an event in human history. One which charged Noah and his family to began the growth of the human race once more?

For that matter, what does it state on the reality and seriousness of sin and how much we God's mercy He has shown us through the Savior? When this world ends upon Christ's return something much worse than a global flood awaits those who do not have Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, by grace through faith. The Judgement will be final as well as eternal.

Your definition of "consistent with fact and reality" is actually a relic of the modernist Enlightenment, which is something modern Christians have to contend with when stepping into the sandals (maybe not shoes ) of the Jews as they wrote. And that is why I believe that the flood was local, but global in the sense of completely wiping out humanity at that time. It makes consistent theology. Whether or not all the earth was flooded, all the people of the earth besides Noah and crew were killed, and what is important is not God's relationship with the earth but God's relationship with the people of the earth.

 

[night2day]

Doesn't that make God sound rather incompetent?

Nope. Not at all. There have been other instances where animals have strayed or been brought to areas which cannot support them and their needs and they simply die off. God gives life and He takes life.

Messing about with laws of angular momentem is more plausible than messing about by creating and uncreating water? And how does tipping the world create and then uncreate water anyway?

Perhaps look up how the air masses, jet streams, the strutcures of the atmoshere from the trophoshere to the thermoshpere, as well as how solor rays and radiation are directly affected by the earth's rotation as well as it's axis.

Sounds like a bit of technobable to keep happy people that don't actually want to think it through to me.

You wish a full detail? Since I'm not the one who proposed the hypothosis but pointed out one was merely made I'm not the person to ask. Besides, proving anything other than going by what the Scriptures state within their literary context is, as I earlier commenting, a side issue.

Still, it' was noted it was off-handedly discouted without considering just what would be effected without a thought.

The Earth really is fragile world. People within the westeran world especially tend to forget that until they must face dire natural disaster's which are faced on a yearly basis by other parts of the world.

 

[ebia]

Nope. Not at all. There have been other instances where animals have strayed or been brought to areas which cannot support them and their needs and they simply die off. God gives life and He takes life.

Specifically saving animals only for them to die off immediately after the event you saved them from looks pretty ill-thought through to me. And that's one of the problems I have with this kind of half-baked, ad-hoc "theory"; it screws up the theology in order to try and make the implausible look plausible.

Perhaps look up how the air masses, jet streams, the strutcures of the atmoshere from the trophoshere to the thermoshpere, as well as how solor rays and radiation are directly affected by the earth's rotation as well as it's axis.

You can play around with that stuff all you like - it isn't going to turn the water that exists on the earth into enough water to cover everything.

You wish a full detail? Since I'm not the one who proposed the hypothosis but pointed out one was merely made I'm not the person to ask.

You're the person who suggested it here, so you are the person who is going to have to back it up or withdraw it.

Besides, proving anything other than going by what the Scriptures state within their literary context is, as I earlier commenting, a side issue.

So why are you bothering - it makes you look less convincing to anyone with a smattering of science and the ability to think logically, not more.

Still, it' was noted it was off-handedly discouted without considering just what would be effected without a thought.

It was discounted, because it is easy to discount. I gave it all the thought it required.

The Earth really is fragile world. People within the westeran world especially tend to forget that until they must face dire natural disaster's which are faced on a yearly basis by other parts of the world.

I am fully aware that this is a fragile world. I live in an area that has just suffered (and hopefully come to an end of, God willing) 10 years of drought. But that doesn't make an awful lot of water appear from no-where, hang around for a few months, and then disappear again, all without leaving a trace.

 

[night2day]

God might have the authority to say, "agree with me or burn", although none of those quotes actually say that. You certainly don't.

Christians are called to be wittnesses. From what I read of the quotes, they were spoken from one who was repeating what God had already said to a people who who professed to agree to do what God had said.

There's a big differance between wittnessing to people who profess to be Christians and wittnessing to non-Christians which shouldn't go unnoted. A professed Christian, by stating they are a professed Christian, are claiming by default to hold to at least basic Christian teachings. An nonbeliever is not claiming such a thing.

Speaking or pointing out what God has already said is not the same as saying one's own peice. How does one tell the differance? Go back to the Scriptures themselves.

As stated, Christians are called to be wittnesses. The Bible points to just Who we're wittnesses of.

As for the other: John 3:16-18...

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
​

 

[ebia]

Speaking or pointing out what God has already said is not the same as saying one's own peice.

It is when what you are insisting on is your interpretation.

 

[Rusticus]

....."And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth." And God said, "This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

​

So, where is the word "GLOBAL"?

 

[night2day]

The same measurements we take today, for as far as we know, the total amount of water does not change. It is recycled through the hydrological cycle without increase or decrease.

Yet, there is nothing to compare the readings of today. Since the measurment before the flood, or even sometime after in "yester-year" was unknown, there's little to support what changes took place between then and now.

Miracles override science. Science shows us what could happen or what could not happen as long as we suppose God used only the natural processes he created. If God chose to use miracles instead, anything is possible.

Granted.

However, many creationists insist there is scientific evidence for the flood. IOW, they insist that in some respects the flood was brought about by natural means...

When I think of scientific evidence for the flood, I am referring to "what has been left behind" for study. Evidence that may taken either/or by whoever. But still evidence that something indeed happened.

I can't speak for those who state God brought about a flood by mere natural means. While there may have been a natural order involved, it was still done by supernatural means.

And the evidence shows that if God worked through the laws he set for nature to bring about the flood, it could not have been a global flood.

There's a differnce between saying God worked through the laws of nature and that's all He did...and saying He supernaturally worked through the natural order of laws.

In Exodus, when God brings about the plaugues on Egypt when Pharoah refuses to release the Hebrews when looked at many of them follow a natural order. The rivers of blood drives the frogs into the cities of the people. When they died and decomposed the gnats swarmed on the populace. And so forth. Not all plagues worked in this manner, but many did. They also targeted chief Egyption deities. Thus, one sees God working supernaturally through Moses as the plagues follow a natural but very unnatural course in order to show His power over the gods and goddess of the Egyptions and called them to repentance.

Like with the Genesis flood when people had 100 yrs. of warning and time to repent, God didn't just "wipe out" Egyptions. He also was calling them back to Himself.

Where God's wrath is He also shows His mercy often times.

1. The bible does not hint of any miraculous ending to the flood. It says the waters abated slowly, not by some miracle. But if the waters were not removed by a miracle, where did they go? They are not on earth now, so how did they leave, if not by a miracle?

When the flood began "the gates of heaven opened". When the water began to recede, the passage reads "The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated."

2. Floods generally leave evidence that they happened in the form of flood plains. Thick layers of sediment are layed down...Why did the flood leave not only any of its waters behind, but all evidence of its occurrence? Did God remove the silt and sediments as well as the waters?

3. Given the massive death toll of both humans and animals, not to mention plants, during the flood, why do we not have a layer of fossils that date to the flood and appear to have been drowned? Is this another form of evidence that God removed miraculously?

Have you considered that sentiment would not be distributed equally? Or severe damage massive erosion or what earthquakes can do. Or what up the earth being uprooted inside out? And what if the flood was responsible for the actual dividing of the continants from the one? Or what of the content of the oceans? There's little way to compare a before/after. I highly doubt what's being considered is everything else that was connected to what such a flood would bring with it.

4. Many civilizations, notably the Chinese and the Egyptian but also others, seemed to have lived through the flood without noticing it.

And you're certain they all existed before the flood?

5. How was the plant and animal life restored?

a.) How do plants usually grow back? Would some be differnt due to possible differnt climates? Indeed.

b. Repersentatives of each kind of animal were on the Ark remember?

If the flood actually occurred as described in the bible, every single species should have such a genetic bottleneck recorded in its genome, and all dated to the same period of time. This is not the case. Why not?

See above.

And are the seekers of the answer known enough to know what they're looking for or was something bypassed simply because it's an unknown within their studies.

The should and should nots only go so far before humankind needs to admitit doesn't know everything and can't explain everything.

...for what purpose would God erase the evidence of the flood?

I don't see that He did erase the evidence. Only that you and I disagree. And evidence can be easily interpreted by anyone: rightly or wrongly.

What makes you think that forming and creating are different things? See Genesis 2:7. It says God formed man. Does that mean God did not create him?

God spoke the earth and everything else into existance. Adam was formed by God's hands from the dust. Eve was formed from Adam's rib.

The former God called into existance from nothing. Adam was formed from something-the dust; Eve-from Adam's rib and gave them life...again from nothing.

Look up the word [size=-1]ex niliho sometime.[/size]

Indeed it is supported within their literary context of biblical myth, and reference to same.

It has still gone unanswered where Genesis states this is all a myth.

In short, if the flood was global, you not only have to rely on a miracle to make it happen in the first place, you also have to rely on a whole series of miracles by which God removed all evidence that it happened and planted evidence that it did not. Do you really want to go there?

In other word's, a miracle is not is not enough. Evidence already in place is not enough. Conforming evidence to fit one's own pre-determined view would be.

Of those who I have spoken to over the years who do not believe there was a globel flood do accept evolution as more than just a hypothisis. And it is usually from this pre-determined viewpoint that they base the observations. Thus, anything that confronts their conclusions is tossed aside and ignored.

With a number in the science community who have all but forced the evolutionary theory on everyone else, and having infiltrated the church, it's hard to think this is actually a coincidence.

Lack of understanding or unwillingness to take God at his word is not what we are dealing with here...No one here has identified any part of the bible as untrue, so you can stop that line of argument immediately

Not so. Your actual words were: the Genesis stories are true (that is, the messages to us that they need to convey are true) - whether or not the events actually took place as described. That is not the same as stating the accounts are true since the accounts themselves are being denied they even happened. This tends to state "only what we want to learn from the story matters".

Genesis as well as the rest of the Scriptures is a testament that God indeed actively works throughout actual human history to bring about His purpose. His ultimate purpose was fulfilled in Christ Jesus when He died on the cross so we could have complete forgiveness of sins and eternal life by grace, through faith in Him. Jesus' resurrection proves that His victory over sin, death, and Hell for our sakes is complete.

Someone actually did use your above phrase several years ago when I was "chatting" with her online, but applied it to Jesus' resurrection. To paraphrase using a readjustment to what you stated on Genesis it went something like this:

The Death & Resurrection of Jesus is true (that is, the messages to us that they need to convey are true) - whether or not the events actually took place as described.

Thinking back. She also stated the fact he was "spiritually resurrected" was all that mattered. Yet, this is a clear cut denial of the central teaching of Christianity. As St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:"And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins...If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

I recall someone commenting in the "all or nothing". However, the Bible is one whole. The Old Testament prophecies of the New testament and tells of the Savior to come, the New Testament tells of our Savior who came and looks forward to His return. There is no contridictions to be found because God is the Author. He doesn't create confusion.


​

 

[ebia]

I don't see that He did erase the evidence.

There is a massive amount of evidence that does not fit with a global flood, and no evidence in favour. I suppose you can sit there looking at a blue car and claim that it is evidence that all cars a black if you want, but it does require discarding all pretence of coherent thought.

 

[ebia]

It has still gone unanswered where Genesis states this is all a myth.

It doesn't have to state it explicitly - the parables do not state that they are parables, but it is implicit in the way they are presented. Fairytales don't say they are untrue, they just begin with "A long, long, time ago, in a land far, far away...".

Not so. Your actual words were: the Genesis stories are true (that is, the messages to us that they need to convey are true) - whether or not the events actually took place as described.

That was me.

That is not the same as stating the accounts are true since the accounts themselves are being denied they even happened. This tends to state "only what we want to learn from the story matters".

The accounts are not factual, but the passage is true - that is the important message that the passage was written to convey is true. Truth does not mean facts, however frequently you say it does.

Genesis as well as the rest of the Scriptures is a testament that God indeed actively works throughout actual human history to bring about His purpose. His ultimate purpose was fulfilled in Christ Jesus when He died on the cross so we could have complete forgiveness of sins and eternal life by grace, through faith in Him. Jesus' resurrection proves that His victory over sin, death, and Hell for our sakes is complete.

No-one here is denying any of that.

Someone actually did use your above phrase several years ago when I was "chatting" with her online, but applied it to Jesus' resurrection. To paraphrase using a readjustment to what you stated on Genesis it went something like this:

The Death & Resurrection of Jesus is true (that is, the messages to us that they need to convey are true) - whether or not the events actually took place as described.​

Thinking back. She also stated the fact he was "spiritually resurrected" was all that mattered. Yet, this is a clear cut denial of the central teaching of Christianity. As St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:"And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins...If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."​

So? You want me to defend something I never said nor hold to?

I recall someone commenting in the "all or nothing". However, the Bible is one whole.

It is a collection. It is one whole in the sense we put it all together as a special set of books, but it is not all of one type - to pretend it is, is absurd.

He doesn't create confusion.

I don't know about you, but I'm not confused. Well, not about this anyway. Or was that supposed to translate as "Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because God believes everything I do"?

 

[night2day]

Now let's assume the "reservoirs of the deep" broke open. What are they filled with now? ...Still unanswered. Ditto the "windows of the heaven".

And?

1.) Reservoirs? You honestly expecting some to survive a cataclysmic upheavel? We're not talking small earthquakes and a gush from the firehydrant.

2.) All of Scripture refers to 3 types of heaven.
a.) Sky/Upper Atmosphere
b.) Solar System
c.) God's realm/His presence

Going by the context b.) is left out. Which leaves....?

If there was enough water in the skies to flood the earth, the pressure alone would have killed Noah.

You're forgetting the "minor" fact God was protecting him and his family as well as the special cargo.

I think this site does a lot better than I ever could: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Read through it and tell me what you think. Personally I find it very compelling.

Some of the arguments for a local flood I've already heard a long time ago. Basically it's back to whether or not one takes the Genesis account as is written.

...do try and disprove transubstantiation to me from Scripture alone. Transubstantiation: the doctrine that the elements of the Holy Communion are actually transformed in substance into Jesus' body and blood, as supported by literal readings of Jesus' words in John and the accounts of the Last Supper.

Being Lutheran I believe Jesus words when He stated "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

However Transubstantiation not only teaches the body and blood are in the
bread and wine, it also teaches that, as you said, they become the body and blood. A sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The one sacrifice on the cross somehow wasn't enough.

Romans 3:20-26 reads:

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

6:10

"Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God."

However Jesus already died on the cross. All sins were completely paid for and forgiveness is already there for all those who believe in Jesus Christ by grace, through faith. There is no need to seek justification when we are already justified by faith in Christ.

Having said that, this makes Jesus' words no less true. The body and blood of Christ are under the bread and wine in communion. It's not a sacrifice, but a means of grace. Lutheran's term it as the Real Presence. A *.pdf file which goes more into this, as well as providing Scriptural support can be found here if interested.
​