Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

The flood.

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
glorydaz said:
researcher said:
I'm sure there was a global flood. There were also unicorns, dragons, and satyrs back then too. lol

Isa 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
Isa 13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Ham was probably black
Shem was probably tan (middle eastern)
Japheth was white

And someone had Asian and Indian (American and Eastern) babies and repopulated the world with all of the races. lol

Sounds like the reasoning of the natural man.....but from some of your other posts, I don't think that's the case. God doesn't have feathers, either, but the flood is more than symbolic language. And, yes, adaptation to the environment and intermarriage can cause differences in skin color.

I used to believe the flood was worldwide. I didn't even question it, lol. The Bible said it, so, it must be.

Of course after learning about misinterpretation, Apostles speaking from their mind and not by revelation from the HS etc, I started wondering.

I believe the word most incorrectly interpreted in the Bible is the word "Earth." In both the Hebrew and Greek it can mean many things, such as: land, region, area, soil etc, etc. The Hebrew word used for "Earth" in the flood account, is interpreted as "Land" 1509 times. The Same word is interpreted as "Earth" only 712 times. Now, if you replace the word "Earth" with "Land" in the flood account, the reader comes away with a much different perspective. Of course, there are no original documents to proof-check, so it is all second (or 3rd, 4th etc) hand information.

As for "environment" changing people's skin color, I think we can look to the Africans who came (or were taken) to America, and to the Dutch Afrikaners who went to Africa. As far as I know, none of them have changed color in the last 400 years despite being in vastly different environs. Lol. And most certainly no one's facial features change because of environment (not to mention hair color, lol). Last time I checked, the majority of whites have white babies, blacks have black babies, Asians, Asian, etc, etc, etc. So, unless someone started bucking the norm back in those days, I'd have to ask where all those races came from, lol. Of course, the Bible is quite silent about Chinese people having white babies, white people having black babies etc, etc. Lol.
 
John said:
Amen...at one time they were convinced the world was flat, too.
Man is so proud of his own little bit of understanding....denying the power of his Creator and the Word He's given us

Some people still think that. :rolling

That prevailing thought was church centered. :confused As was an "earth centered heavens". And it was scientists who did the work to discover that it wasn't true at all, thus a spherical earth rotating a sun, . . . eventually the sun being on one lonely arm of a galaxy ~100,000 light years across, . . . then eventually being one of countless numbers of other galaxies. :shrug

Why MUST the story of the Noah flood be literal? Scientific discovery doesn't agree with the literal story, and evidence/logic/unbroken histories shows us.
 
That prevailing thought was church centered. :confused As was an "earth centered heavens". And it was scientists who did the work to discover that it wasn't true at all, thus a spherical earth rotating a sun, . . . eventually the sun being on one lonely arm of a galaxy ~100,000 light years across, . . . then eventually being one of countless numbers of other galaxies. :shrug

It was derived from a misinterpretation of scripture. For the record I love science :biggrin

Why MUST the story of the Noah flood be literal? Scientific discovery doesn't agree with the literal story, and evidence/logic/unbroken histories shows us.

It is a matter of our contrasting interpretations, the evidence can bend in favor of both positions.
 
3rd check on posts, thanks for your opinions and input.


Ottawan61350 and everyone else who gave the date of the flood do not do this, we will never know when these events occured, and secondly, this was around the time of abraham, (2300bc) so don't do this again. Physiscist, good thoughts, you say there is no way the animals would have come to the ark from all over the earth, your right, heres the catch, God himself made them go.


Thanks for your replies and input, and for making this a great thread.
 
John said:
That prevailing thought was church centered. :confused As was an "earth centered heavens". And it was scientists who did the work to discover that it wasn't true at all, thus a spherical earth rotating a sun, . . . eventually the sun being on one lonely arm of a galaxy ~100,000 light years across, . . . then eventually being one of countless numbers of other galaxies. :shrug

It was derived from a misinterpretation of scripture. For the record I love science :biggrin

[quote:1jf7e1uk]Why MUST the story of the Noah flood be literal? Scientific discovery doesn't agree with the literal story, and evidence/logic/unbroken histories shows us.

It is a matter of our contrasting interpretations, the evidence can bend in favor of both positions.[/quote:1jf7e1uk]

I suppose that would depend upon what evidence is being posed.
 
That doesn't mean there was no flood.

I know, I wasn't arguing that there wasn't. But I believe we should argue in truth, and arguing that point is dishonest. No need to lie to try and prove our claims.
 
LaCrum said:
That doesn't mean there was no flood.

I know, I wasn't arguing that there wasn't. But I believe we should argue in truth, and arguing that point is dishonest. No need to lie to try and prove our claims.

Hmmm.....I don't think a lie is necessary...but neither is proof. IMO

The Word of God is to be believed. Some won't believe no matter how much proof we bring.
People can't see evidence of God, either. We can argue til the cows come home and without faith no one will believe in God.... or in the flood or in the miracles or in our faith.
 
John said:
First, lets deal with the scientific issue. There is NO credible scientific evidence for a universal flood four thousand years ago and overwhelming evidence that it did not happen. You have to presume that all modern physics, geology, meteorology, archeology and biology are wrong to believe otherwise. While contemporary television shows may have episodes on the Flood (often preceded by stories about Bigfoot or UFOs), no peer reviewed scientific literature supports such a claim.

You are in fact wrong but we have a science forum to discuss that in or you can just look at some cliff face and see the many layers of rock deposited by the flood that you don't believe in.

No, the layers of rock support the the accepted scientific geological time-scale, as does the types of fossils found in each layer. You will not find, for example, trilobyte fossils with rabbit fossils. However, this discussion probably belongs in the science forum.

John said:
Next, the tale violates common sense. One family is supposed to gather all the world's animals together on one boat they built themselves? Anybody who understands the first things about the diversity of species, animal husbandry, the size of the earth, and marine engineering knows how absurd such an exercise would be.

Wrong again. The Bible says that God brought the animals to the ark.

Not in my Bible. Where in Genesis does it say that? However, even if that were the case, how could one family feed them and care for them? Nor would a wood ship of such a size be seaworthy and would take thousands of men to build. One really has to abandon all common sense to take the Noah Flood tale literally. Better to look for the poetic meaning.

John said:
Thirdly, we know where the tale originated. There is an earlier version in the Epic of Gilgamesh and historians have traced chronologically intermediate versions between the two tales.

SO what? there are hundreds of similar stories.

The Noah tale is dated by historians to around 1000 BC or later. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written a millenium earlier. We know that ancient storytellers would often borrow tales from other cultures. This is most likely what happened in this case. Gilgamesh got replaced by Noah and the size and grounding location of the vessel changed (it also got larger) as the tale evolved over the centuries.

John said:
Acceptance of the tale as literally true is purely an exercise in blind faith over fact.

Some faith is blind however when it comes to the flood i think it takes a great deal of mental gymnastics to postulate that there was not a flood of global proportions.

Some good reading on the subject: The Genesis flood by John C Whitcomb and Henry M Morris and In the Beginning by Dr Walt Brown.

Mr Morris probably made a great deal of money writing books that 'preach to the choir'. However, his hypotheses failed scientific review and his books contain obvious factual flaws and logical fallacies. Again, to accept the Flood as recent and universal, one has to reject the last one hundred years of scientific knowledge.
 
Ed the Ned said:
The Bible is not filled with half truths. If it was then it would afford man the oppotunity to create their faith around their own sinful desires. If the Bible said there was a flood, then there was one. If you refute the story based on mans understanding and scientific evidence, then you are claiming that God is a liar and that his Word is a lie. Why don't you face God today and say "God you have lied to me in your Word and it is totally useless to get anything out of your Word because I am not sure what are lies and what is truth." I am sure if you have committed yourself to Christ and God you will find this impossible to do. John made some interesting facts earlier in the thread, which should help some see the truth in the story.

The Bible is not a science book. The writers were not writing research articles to be published in Scientific American. When the Book of Job talks about YHWH shaking the 'pillars' of the earth, this is poetry, not science. IMHO, one can miss the deeper meaning meaning of the text if you try to turn poetry into factual narrative. Also, you are cutting yourself from the 'real' world that continues to amaze practicing scientists like myself.
 
wavy said:
I can't believe that people actually believe this stuff.

Wow, just...wowzers.


Finis,
Eric

All religions have tales that have to be essentially taken on blind faith or re-interpreted as poetical license. Islam, for example, has the mountain moving to Mohammed, and Hinduism has its re-incarnations stories. Christianity has its share with the Noah tale being a prime example. More liberal Christians understand its essentially 'fable' nature while Fundamentalists work futilely to reconcile it with modern scientific knowledge. I am always uncertain when answering those who espouse the Fundamentalist picture whether they really believe what they are saying or are simply pulling my leg. Poe recognized this problem in his famous Law.
 
Maybe a bit off topic perhaps but where did the water come from that we see today from a non-flood viewpoint?
 
Rick W said:
Maybe a bit off topic perhaps but where did the water come from that we see today from a non-flood viewpoint?

Water is a fairly common molecule in the solar system, found, for example, in many comets, so the straight forward answer is that water was part of the original material of earth as it condensed from the dust clouds surrounding the early sun. Venus and Mercury were too hot to retain their water vapor while Mars had too weak gravity. The outer planets and their moons often contain water. The moon Europa is thought to have liquid water underneath a layer of ice.

Some of earth's water vapor is lost into space with replacement amounts coming from comet impact. The location of water on the earth has varied over time. In early earth, much of it was in the atmosphere or trapped in the rocks. At certain times (ice ages), a lot of it has been in a frozen state.
 
"water was part of the original material of earth as it condensed from the dust clouds"

OK, I looked but I can't find much at all to support that theory. There are other theories as well.
 
Rick W said:
"water was part of the original material of earth as it condensed from the dust clouds"

OK, I looked but I can't find much at all to support that theory. There are other theories as well.

There are some very good sites that show not all scientists say the flood could not have happened.
Here's one that's interesting...
Skeptics frequently point to the Great Flood of Genesis 6-8 as 'proof' that the bible cannot be historically reliable. "It couldn't have happened", they argue. "It doesn't make sense!"

It could have happened, and it makes perfect sense. Creation scientists studying this phenomenon have come up with answers to questions posed by skeptics, and even other scientists working on something completely different have inadvertently come across evidence that bolsters creationist's claims.

Christians attempting to conform to the world and compromise the Bible often say that Noah's Flood was probably merely a regional one. But this makes no sense. If one walked 3 miles an hour for ten hours a day, in ten days, you could walk three hundred miles, right into another valley. As the Institute for Creation Research puts it, "if it was only a regional flood that God was preparing, "Noah's Wagon" would have then been a better vehicle than a 450 foot long carefully constructed Ark." Also, the Genesis account of the Flood clearly rejects this possibility. Genesis 7:19-20 says that the water covered the highest mountain peaks of the earth by more than twenty-two feet. Genesis 7:23 says that every living thing on earth was wiped out. And the water covered the earth for 150 days. Clearly, this was not a regional flood.

More evidence for a global flood is the fact that the entire human and animal population perished. In the 1500-2500 years (depending on which time scale you use) between Adam and Noah, the human population would have exploded. With people living to be 900 years old, the population would have multiplied quickly. Using a conservative formula, it is reasonable to place that world population before the Flood at five to nine BILLION! For all these people to even fit on the earth, they had to have been spread out over the entire planet. A global flood would have been necessary to kill them all.

But if the whole world flooded, where did the water come from, and where did it go? For a possible answer as to the origin of the water, go to Genesis 1:6-8-- "And God said, 'Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water.' And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below. And God called the space sky. This happened on the second day."

Creation scientists speculate that the ‘waters above’ were actually a sort of ‘vapor canopy’ that covered ancient earth. There could have been enough water in the sky to flood the entire earth. But the sky was not the only source of water. Genesis 7 tells us that ‘the underground waters burst forth’. This would add to the collapsing vapor canopy to give enough water to flood the entire earth.

Also, the high mountains that we know today were not present in pre-Flood times. Psalm 104:5-9 says “You clothed the earth with floods of water, water that covered even the mountains. At the sound of your rebuke, the water fled; at the sound of your thunder it fled away. Mountains rose and valleys sank to the levels you decreed. Then you set a firm boundary for the seas, so they would never again cover the earth.†It is possible that the violent upheaval of the earth during the Flood do to the ‘underground waters’ bursting forth would have caused enough geological instability to rapidly create mountains. Also, this may have brought about the separation of continents. If the super continent ‘Pangea’ existed before the Flood, animals could easily have come to Noah from around the world. Genesis 10:25 possibly tells of the division of the continents: “Eber had two sons. The first was named Peleg- ‘division’- for during his lifetime the people of the world were divided into different language groups and dispersed.†This refers to the Tower of Babel, but also may refer to the breaking apart of the continents.

Now that the question of where the water came from is cleared up, the next question is, where did it all go? This is actually quite simple, thanks to the work of a group of Japanese scientists at the Tokyo Institute of technology. The December 1999 edition of Discover magazine reported their incredible find. With no intention of helping creationism, they inadvertently discovered that the earth’s mantle is soaking up the world’s oceans at the rate of a billion tons of water a year! The soluble, permeable rock of the lower crust and upper mantle are soaking up the oceans like a sponge. If this trend of a billion tons of water a year has been continuing since the Flood, an amazing sum of 5 x 1012, or 5,000,000,000,000, or 5 TRILLION TONS of water have been absorbed in the last five thousand years. To put this into more understood terms, since a gallon of water weighs a couple, say four, pounds, in the last five thousand years, the earth has absorbed 5,000,000,000,000,000, or 5 QUADRILLION GALLONS of water! Of course the water from the Flood wouldn’t be here today!

More questions posed by skeptics like how all the animals fit on the Ark and how they were fed are also easily answered.

Not every species of animal was on the Ark to begin with. God brought to Noah each ‘kind’ of animal. The Biblical kind can relate loosely to the ‘family’ or ‘genus’ division in modern taxonomy. Thus, a single dog kind could be taken aboard, from which is descended the entire canus genus of today. Also, none of the fish species were brought onto the Ark, of course. As to the dinosaurs, which were also included on the Ark, several things can be pointed out.

It is probable that not as many species of dinosaur as scientists document today actually existed. One dinosaur, with two pages devoted to it in the Smithsonian Book of Dinosaurs, along with a color picture or it, a map of its habitat, and what it ate, is reconstructed from a single tooth! There are many dinosaurs today that are similar to this. Also, Noah of course didn’t need to bring a full-grown brontosaurus onto the Ark. He could have had babies, or even eggs. Dinosaurs would not have posed a problem.

The Ark itself was huge. It was 300 cubits long. A cubit is the measurement from the tips of your fingers to your elbow. By today’s standards, this would have been about 450 feet, which is still big enough for all the animals, people, and food needed with room to spare. But, because the lifespan of people was so long before the Flood, it is entirely possible that people were much, much taller. Skeletons measuring eleven feet long have been discovered. If this were the case, Noah’s cubit would be significantly longer than our cubit, making even more room for animals.

As to the question of what they ate, the answer is again simple. Many animals would have gone into hibernation and aestivation. Hibernation is generally thought by the public to be induced by cold temperatures, but it is also brought on just as much by a lack of food. High temperatures or lack of food brings about aestivation. Many of the animals on the Ark would have been in a state of unconsciousness or stupor, making them much easier to care for.

The evidence for a global flood is overwhelming. More than 250 cultures worldwide have Flood traditions that are similar to the Biblical account. This cannot be dismissed as coincidence. One famous one is the legend of Gilgamesh, who survived a great flood with his family by building a boat and filling it with animals. The Greek version of this legend is similar. Tribes around the world like the Mayans and Aborigines also have legends of a great flood.

Also supporting the Flood is geological evidence. Sedimentary rock is found all around the world, and is created by water. The last 3,000 feet of Mount Everest are made of sedimentary rock and crushed shells. Fossilized clams and other fossilized sea life have been found at the top of Mount Everest.

There is overwhelming evidence for the Flood, and the questions raised by other scientists are easily answered. The obvious conclusion: The Great Flood of Noah did happen, and was worldwide. The next step is simple too: the historical records of Genesis and the rest of the Bible are reliable and 100% accurate.

Bibliography: By Brendan Beale
http://www.freewebs.com/bibletruth/noahsflood.htm
 
faith doesnt often line up with the world thinks. Not long ago it was thought that the king beltashazaar was a fictional charachter,along with King David.

i'm curious if we never seen a living dinosaur what are basing on how they lived moved and so on and eat. Obviously some things like sharp teeth mean carnivore, but where and what range.
 
jasoncran said:
faith doesnt often line up with the world thinks. Not long ago it was thought that the king beltashazaar was a fictional charachter,along with King David.

i'm curious if we never seen a living dinosaur what are basing on how they lived moved and so on and eat. Obviously some things like sharp teeth mean carnivore, but where and what range.

It's just puny man trying to figure out a mighty God and His creation. :biglaugh
 
of course there's the thing about fossiliation, the calcium in the bones is no longer there just an imprint of the shape and densinty, ie i think its caco3.(limestone). I may be wrong.
 
If the flood was worldwide, where did all the water disappear to to bring sea level back to normal? (Or is there just more water vapour in the atmosphere than I realised?)
 
ProphetMark said:
If the flood was worldwide, where did all the water disappear to to bring sea level back to normal? (Or is there just more water vapour in the atmosphere than I realised?)

Land rose up and the water naturally went top the lowest point.
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top