Do you believe in a global flood?

[rusra02]

The whole idea is absurd. If the Bible is taken 'literally' (which is actually impossible since it contradicts itself if it is all literal) then the flood took place in c. 2350 BC. Vast quantities of volcanic lava were simultaneously spilled onto the earth's crust, making the oceans boil, and the atmosphere would have become poisonous with fumes. Noah etc. would have needed a spaceship, not an ark. And they would still be in space, waiting for the earth to cool enough to permit an Ice Age or three, to say nothing of waiting for the formation of soils to allow plants to grow to feed the animals in the spaceship.

The Bible speaks nothing of volcanic lava spilling onto the earth's crust and making the oceans boil. That is simply a baseless speculation.

 

[rusra02]

And still failing to explain where these waters came from, or where they went...

This has been explained frequently. But for your benefit, I'll repeat the explanation:

The Bible says the early inhabited earth was surrounded by a large amount of water.
During the second creative period, or “day,” when the earth’s atmospheric “expanse” was formed, there were waters “beneath the expanse” and waters “above the expanse.” (Genesis 1:6, 7) The waters “beneath” were those already on earth. The waters “above” were huge quantities of moisture suspended high above the earth, forming a “vast watery deep.” This water fell in the Flood, and is now part of earth's oceans. There is more than enough water in the oceans to cover the preflood earth.
Today there is about 1.4 billion cu km (326 million cu mi) of water on the earth. It covers more than 70 percent of the globe’s surface. The average depth of the oceans is 4 km (2.5 mi); average elevation of the land is only 0.8 km (0.5 mi) above sea level. If the earth’s surface was smoothed out, it would all be covered with water to a depth of 2,400 m (8,000 ft)

 

[tumbleweed41]

The Bible speaks nothing of volcanic lava spilling onto the earth's crust and making the oceans boil. That is simply a baseless speculation.

Read Job.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This has been explained frequently. But for your benefit, I'll repeat the explanation:

The Bible says the early inhabited earth was surrounded by a large amount of water.
During the second creative period, or “day,” when the earth’s atmospheric “expanse” was formed, there were waters “beneath the expanse” and waters “above the expanse.” (Genesis 1:6, 7) The waters “beneath” were those already on earth. The waters “above” were huge quantities of moisture suspended high above the earth, forming a “vast watery deep.” This water fell in the Flood, and is now part of earth's oceans. There is more than enough water in the oceans to cover the preflood earth.
Today there is about 1.4 billion cu km (326 million cu mi) of water on the earth. It covers more than 70 percent of the globe’s surface. The average depth of the oceans is 4 km (2.5 mi); average elevation of the land is only 0.8 km (0.5 mi) above sea level. If the earth’s surface was smoothed out, it would all be covered with water to a depth of 2,400 m (8,000 ft)

You are assuming that the Earth was "smooth" less than 10,000 years ago. Not only the land , but the sea floor. This assumption is countered by all geological and oceanographic evidence ever found.

 

[kejos]

The Bible speaks nothing of volcanic lava spilling onto the earth's crust and making the oceans boil. That is simply a baseless speculation.

The staff at Answers in Genesis, who have long experience of modifying YEC science to meet objections to their views, have decided that the only way to explain the presence of igneous and metamorphic rocks in and on the earth's crust is volcanic eruption during the flood. If any YECist has better explanation, let him/her now declare it.

 

[rusra02]

You are assuming that the Earth was "smooth" less than 10,000 years ago. Not only the land , but the sea floor. This assumption is countered by all geological and oceanographic evidence ever found.

No, I am not assuming the earth was smooth. I simply stated there is now on earth enough water to cover the entire earth to a depth of about 1.5 miles if the earth were flattened out. There is no way to know how high the mountains were before the flood changed the earth's crust. We know they must have been lower than the mountains on earth today, since Genesis 7:20,21 report "And the waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered. Up to fifteen cubits the waters overwhelmed them and the mountains became covered."
The water was sufficient to cover the mountains to a depth of about 22 or 23 feet.
This would allow for the 'tall mountains' to be several thousand feet above sea level before the Flood.

 

[rusra02]

The staff at Answers in Genesis, who have long experience of modifying YEC science to meet objections to their views, have decided that the only way to explain the presence of igneous and metamorphic rocks in and on the earth's crust is volcanic eruption during the flood. If any YECist has better explanation, let him/her now declare it.

The Bible doesn't teach the earth is only several thousand years old. Therefore, there is no need to explain the presence of such rocks as an effect of the global deluge. These rocks apparently existed for millions (or billions) of years, a fact the Bible supports by saying simply that it was in the beginning that God created the heavens and the earth, long before he began his creative work in preparing the earth for habitation.

 

[gnostic]

The Bible doesn't teach the earth is only several thousand years old. Therefore, there is no need to explain the presence of such rocks as an effect of the global deluge. These rocks apparently existed for millions (or billions) of years, a fact the Bible supports by saying simply that it was in the beginning that God created the heavens and the earth, long before he began his creative work in preparing the earth for habitation.

What is not supported historically, archaeologically, scientifically, is that vegetation, animals and humans only existed 6000 (give or take a couple hundred of years, which is the time that can be calculated from the bible. The existence of bones of the modern human fossils 30,000 years ago.

The Neolithic settlements of Jericho shown to be as old as 11,000 years old, that's 9000 BCE. This is 5000 years older than Adam's supposed creation. More permanent settlement existed about 1000 to 1500 years later.

And you have completely ignored this too. The bible is also wrong about sun, moon and stars being created only about 6000 years ago. Totally unsupported, astronomically and scientifically. You and your bible are completely ignoring that the sun is as old or even older than the earth.

 

[kejos]

The Bible doesn't teach the earth is only several thousand years old.

According to published YECists, it does. The world was created in 4004 BC. On a Monday in September, iiirc. 9 a.m.

 

[DeitySlayer]

The waters “above” were huge quantities of moisture suspended high above the earth, forming a “vast watery deep.”

Which contradicts almost all laws of physics. A water body of such that depth cannot suspend itself above the Earth in a 'shell' without resorting to some weird magical explanation. Don't say 'clouds'; because clouds collapse after reaching a certain density, which is far lower than a liquid water shell would be.

 

[gnostic]

I have heard (or more precisely, "read") nonsense hypothesis (by a creationist here, either last year or the year before; I think it was YEC's claim, but I don't remember who) that the Earth had never receive rains until the Noah's flood. So for 1656 years after the creation, absolutely no rains.

What absolute rubbish.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This has been explained frequently. But for your benefit, I'll repeat the explanation:

The Bible says the early inhabited earth was surrounded by a large amount of water.
During the second creative period, or “day,” when the earth’s atmospheric “expanse” was formed, there were waters “beneath the expanse” and waters “above the expanse.” (Genesis 1:6, 7) The waters “beneath” were those already on earth. The waters “above” were huge quantities of moisture suspended high above the earth, forming a “vast watery deep.” This water fell in the Flood, and is now part of earth's oceans. There is more than enough water in the oceans to cover the preflood earth.
Today there is about 1.4 billion cu km (326 million cu mi) of water on the earth. It covers more than 70 percent of the globe’s surface. The average depth of the oceans is 4 km (2.5 mi); average elevation of the land is only 0.8 km (0.5 mi) above sea level. If the earth’s surface was smoothed out, it would all be covered with water to a depth of 2,400 m (8,000 ft)

You are assuming that the Earth was "smooth" less than 10,000 years ago. Not only the land , but the sea floor. This assumption is countered by all geological and oceanographic evidence ever found.

No, I am not assuming the earth was smooth. I simply stated there is now on earth enough water to cover the entire earth to a depth of about 1.5 miles if the earth were flattened out. There is no way to know how high the mountains were before the flood changed the earth's crust. We know they must have been lower than the mountains on earth today, since Genesis 7:20,21 report "And the waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered. Up to fifteen cubits the waters overwhelmed them and the mountains became covered."
The water was sufficient to cover the mountains to a depth of about 22 or 23 feet.
This would allow for the 'tall mountains' to be several thousand feet above sea level before the Flood.

Again, your assumption, based on your Biblical literalism, is countered by all geological and oceanographic evidence ever found.

 

[Octavia156]

Right back at you.

It wasn't a global flood then. There was still all the area of the present continents for the animals and humans to run off to. There would be no need for Noah and his little Ark. And if we're talking Bible literalism here, with the Creation, etc. the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans would have to exist to that depth for the survival of deep-sea species such as colossal squid, sperm whales, and bottom feeders. Shallow water bodies would not have provided the 'right' environment for them.

Who said anything about biblical literalism!?
I'm talking about a Great Flood. I'm not talking about the stories that surround it. What ark? What animals!? I don't believe that 'God told Noah to do diddly squat'

What i know is
1. there was a tribe of Noah that existed in Sumarian scripture.
2. There was a flood about 10,000yrs ago.

Arks and olive branches? show me the evidence.

 

[gnostic]

1. Abraham was a Sumarian. Most of Genesis is a reshuffling of Sumerian Mythos, most of the names are borrowed.

Actually, Abraham would have lived in the time of Old Babylonian period, probably between 19th and 18th century BCE, when Sumerian as a spoken language had died out, though the Sumerian writing system persisted to at least 15th or 14th century BCE.

I doubt very much Abraham lived in the 3rd millennium BCE, even if he did exist. And Abraham didn't exist in any literature until the Torah were written (which includes the books of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus), probably in 10th century BCE or later still.

2. The Flood described on the tablets is one of historical description - they were written over 5000yrs ago, but they were telling of a then ancient time past.

The Sumerian writings have indeed existed 5000 years ago, however, there were no writing about the Flood 5000 years ago. The writing system was not developed enough for writing literature prior to 2500 BCE (4500 years ago). Oral tradition may have been more developed, but not the writing system. The Eridu Genesis (a name given by modern scholars to the Sumerian clay tablets that were found), which is the name of the oldest extant fragment that we have about the Flood is no older than 23rd or 22nd century BCE. The Sumerian poem of Gilgamesh (The Death of Gilgames) do mention this Ziusudra.

Here, this Flood hero was called Ziusudra. He was later known in Akkadian or Old Babylonian clay tablets as Atrahasis in the 18th century BCE. Clearly, the Akkadian Atrahasis was derived from the older Sumerian Ziusudra. This Ziusudra and Atrahasis were later called Utnapishtim, where he is better known in the Gilgamesh epic.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Octavia, can you please qualify your exact position on Genesis and the nature of the Flood. It will make this whole discussion a lot easier.

 

[gnostic]

Octavia, can you please qualify your exact position on Genesis and the nature of the Flood. It will make this whole discussion a lot easier.

She appeared to not believe in the Genesis version of Noah and the Flood, but believe in the Sumerian version of the Flood. The hero in the Sumerian Flood is Ziusudra.

However, she believe in Abraham, who also appeared in the Genesis, but she referred to the Sumerian version, except that as far as I can tell there are no Sumerian Abraham, as far as literary character is concern.

 

[Smoke]

Do you believe in a global flood?

Only as a last resort.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Let's put it simply this way. We'll assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a credible mechanism to trigger the Flood, and that the floodwaters now comprise the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, despite all geological evidence to the contrary. Now take the example of the deepsea angler fish. This is specifically adapted to the ocean depths, and will explode due to pressure difference if brought anywhere near the surface. It could not have survived prior to the Flood, because there would have been no place on the globe sufficiently deep for its survival. Unless you are going to hypothesize that all deepsea animals 'poofed' into existence after the Flood, it is not consistent with the extreme adaptations to pressure of deepsea organisms.

 

[kejos]

Let's put it simply this way. We'll assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a credible mechanism to trigger the Flood, and that the floodwaters now comprise the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, despite all geological evidence to the contrary. Now take the example of the deepsea angler fish. This is specifically adapted to the ocean depths, and will explode due to pressure difference if brought anywhere near the surface. It could not have survived prior to the Flood, because there would have been no place on the globe sufficiently deep for its survival. Unless you are going to hypothesize that all deepsea animals 'poofed' into existence after the Flood, it is not consistent with the extreme adaptations to pressure of deepsea organisms.

To a biologist, YEC is simply a joke that only the most ignorant or the most desperate of liars can entertain. But what YECists do not admit is that, long before Darwin, the earth was widely reckoned to be far older than 6000 years, on geological grounds as well as from natural history. The view that it was created in 4004 BC was considered out of date, and evolution widely discussed and considered probable around many dinner tables, from the days that Europeans brought back many strange fauna and flora from distant parts of the world, and noted geological formations (deep canyons, caves, stalagmites etc.) that could not have been formed over a mere 6000 years without very special divine intervention intended to deceive humanity.

There is evidently something deeply irritating to some people about the idea that an old earth and early Genesis are both in some way factual.

 

[rusra02]

Again, your assumption, based on your Biblical literalism, is countered by all geological and oceanographic evidence ever found.

A bold statement. I could counter: The geologic and oceanographic evidence for a global flood is overwhelming. Neither my statement nor your's proves anything.