The flood.

[Caroline H]

As I said, it's off topic. This is about the flood

 

[John]

As for the technicalities of the flood, I'm not sure whether it was a global flood or a more localised flood. There seems to be evidence of a global catastrophe, but maybe it did not cover the tops of all the mountains, allowing small pockets of plants and animals to survive. I am not sure how else to explain the pockets of species found in certain parts of the world that are not found anywhere else. How could they all have come off the ark? Would they really migrate half-way around the world from the original resting point of the ark?
Another technicality. Did God put the animals to sleep on the ark? How did Noah keep order and feed them all if God did not give him a hand?

I do not doubt the account of the flood, but I do have questions about how it all happened.

Noah was charged with building the vessel to safeguard certain animals during this massive and complex worldwide disaster; not with distributing them afterwards. Once Noah released the animals on Mount Ararat, natural instincts and climatic conditions determined how the redistribution of the animal population took place. As subsequent generations of animals spread across the globe, territorial prowess or chance movements would send certain groups in certain directions. Those animals least suited for or least able to defend a territory would either be forced further from the landing site or face extermination. An immediate consequence of the worldwide flood was a brief but severe ice age which locked ocean water into vast ice fields. This lowered ocean levels and created a land bridge to Australia. A similar land bridge connected Asia to Alaska during this period of Earth history allowing free movement of man and animals between these continents. Land movements during the ice age or subsequent melting of the ice cut off the connection between Australia and Asia effectively isolating the unique animal life to Australia.

 

[izzy]

Noah was charged with building the vessel to safeguard certain animals during this massive and complex worldwide disaster; not with distributing them afterwards. Once Noah released the animals on Mount Ararat, natural instincts and climatic conditions determined how the redistribution of the animal population took place. As subsequent generations of animals spread across the globe, territorial prowess or chance movements would send certain groups in certain directions. Those animals least suited for or least able to defend a territory would either be forced further from the landing site or face extermination. An immediate consequence of the worldwide flood was a brief but severe ice age which locked ocean water into vast ice fields. This lowered ocean levels and created a land bridge to Australia. A similar land bridge connected Asia to Alaska during this period of Earth history allowing free movement of man and animals between these continents. Land movements during the ice age or subsequent melting of the ice cut off the connection between Australia and Asia effectively isolating the unique animal life to Australia.

Thanks John. I had heard bits and pieces of this theory before from other sources, but that was a good summary. There is certainly evidence of huge migration coming through Alaska and down into the Americas and, to my mind, the theory makes decent sense. I won't hold to it as if it were gospel, but it is comforting to know that there are scientifically plausible explanations for a global flood and the aftermath of it.

 

[Physicist]

In the late 19th and early 20th century, Christian followers of Samuel Rowbotham established the Zetetic Society that misinterpreted modern science and the Bible to conclude that the earth was flat. Young Earth Creationists commit the same errors in misinterpreting science and the Bible to conclude the earth is 6000 years old. Frankly, from a scientific point of view, this is as credible as the flat earth. Ice cores in Greenland, for example, go back 10,000 years. You will find no peer-reviewed science article to support such a crazy hypothesis.

Well, there are many scientists who believe that evolutionists are misinterpreting science to conclude that the earth is very old and that we all evolved.

Please ignore Creationist propaganda. This statement is quite untrue. Only a very few scientists, often outside their field of expertise, would claim that the earth is anything but billions of years old. Without exception, those handful that do make this claim, make it for religious reasons. While the Creationists like to imagine that there is a conspiracy of scientists against them, it doesn't work that way. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is accepted by the world's scientific community because it has withstood all the observational tests.

It is all in how you approach the subject, and honestly if your dating systems are faulty then your conclusions will be also. I wouldn't expect to find a peer-reviewed journal to discuss the young earth hypothesis with anything but contempt, considering that most any scientist who believes in it is discriminated against in his field. Just because the majority believe the earth is old doesn't mean it is true, it just means that a lot of people believe it.

But the data systems are not faulty unless all of science is faulty. If that were true, then this computer I am using would not work. From your comments, you seem to not understand how scientific peer review works. Any scientist who could show flaws in Darwin's Theory would become famous, not infamous. In fact, some already have established their credentials by suggesting modifications to the Theory, such as punctuated equilibrium. Professor Dawkins, who Creationists hate, gained scientific fame by noting that natural selection operates not at the species level, as Darwin thought, but at the gene level.

[quote:24te0tvh]
That doesn't bother me or make me think I'm wrong, why should it? Evolutionists always like to bring up the "flat earth" thing as if that has anything to do with creationism. Back then there were many more people than just Christians who thought the earth was flat, and technology was developing in pockets and was not wide spread to the public. Today, there is so much information available to all parts of the globe, and people have the opportunity to view the same evidence as everyone else. If a large group of scientists believe through their research that the carbon dating system is wrong, and that the geological evidence points towards a young earth with a global flood, what has that to do with the people who thought the earth was flat? They had little evidence to go by, we have mounds of evidence to go by. It is two completely different eras, and that argument simply attacks the scientists rather than the science, just like calling them "fundamentalists" does.

[/quote:24te0tvh]

No large group of scientists think that radioactive dating is wrong (carbon dating is only one technique of many). Our basic understanding of nuclear physics, verified by thousands of measurements, would have to be wrong. Similarly, thousands of geological research studies contradict a global flood a few thousand years ago. This is not a matter of dispute among experts like the extent of global warming. The best experts from all over the world in these fields have determined that a geologically recent universal flood did not happen. They don't reach this conclusion because of ideology. They reach this conclusion because the actual data shows this.

You are correct that fundamentalist Muslims can find quotes in the Q'uran to justify their acts of terrorism. But however justified, they remain acts of terrorism. Similarly,one can be a moderate Christian or a fundamentalist Christian that follows the Bible literally. However, if you choose the latter course, then you are a hypocrite if you reject some of the Biblical commands in the OT. For example, Leviticus 20:9 says that children that swear at their parents should be killed. Would you do that to your kids? Other verses prescribe that a raped woman has to marry the rapist if he pays a fine to the father, that maimed individuals have to be ostracized from the congregation as do illegitimate children. Modern Christians understand that these verses worked for the primitive culture at the time they were written but don't apply today. The same standard applies to the tales in Genesis. They should be understood as poetical, not literal, stories.

No, those laws were given to Israel for specific reasons, not to the world. They were civil laws, and to say that a fundamentalist is a hypocrite if he doesn't hold to the civil laws of Israel simply because they are in the Bible shows a lack of understanding of OT.
[/quote][/quote]

I'll be brief here because we are getting off topic. If we accept your hypothesis that these laws only applied to ancient Israel, then

1) We have to throw out the ten commandments as well
2) Jesus lied (Matthew 5:17-19)

Regards,

Physicist

 

[Physicist]

Re: The flood. Do your own experiment

Here is a simple experiment that you can do in your own backyard to demonstrate that the flood tale in Genesis if mythological. Take a water hose and spray water in to the air. Shine a flashlight onto the water spray. A rainbow will appear. This is because rainbows are caused by the refraction of light by water droplets. However, according to Genesis, 9:13, rainbows first appeared after the Flood as a sign of the covenant.

The Fundamentalist has to either:

A) Reinterpret the clear words of the text. I call this the Bill Clinton defense (trying to re-define the meaning of the word 'is'.)

B) Arbitrarily assume that water and/or light had different properties before the Flood. This comes back to the previous observation that we get light from galaxies that are millions of light-years away and it behaves the same as light from that flashlight. Water frozen thousands of years ago at the bottom of glaciers behaves like the water from that hose once its melted. A fellow physicist notes that, if any arbitrary assumption of our choice is allowed, then he could rightfully claim that his cat invented the entire Universe last Thursday.

 

[John]

Re: The flood. Do your own experiment

Here is a simple experiment that you can do in your own backyard to demonstrate that the flood tale in Genesis if mythological. Take a water hose and spray water in to the air. Shine a flashlight onto the water spray. A rainbow will appear. This is because rainbows are caused by the refraction of light by water droplets. However, according to Genesis, 9:13, rainbows first appeared after the Flood as a sign of the covenant.

The Fundamentalist has to either:

A) Reinterpret the clear words of the text. I call this the Bill Clinton defense (trying to re-define the meaning of the word 'is'.)

B) Arbitrarily assume that water and/or light had different properties before the Flood. This comes back to the previous observation that we get light from galaxies that are millions of light-years away and it behaves the same as light from that flashlight. Water frozen thousands of years ago at the bottom of glaciers behaves like the water from that hose once its melted. A fellow physicist notes that, if any arbitrary assumption of our choice is allowed, then he could rightfully claim that his cat invented the entire Universe last Thursday.

The Bible says it never rained before the flood, instead a mist came from the ground.

Here is an experiment for you: take a large glass fill it with water, sand, gravel and other grits and shake it up. Let it settle. You will have it settle in many layers. Sort of like what happened during the great deluge.

 

[Free]

Re: The flood. Do your own experiment

Here is a simple experiment that you can do in your own backyard to demonstrate that the flood tale in Genesis if mythological. Take a water hose and spray water in to the air. Shine a flashlight onto the water spray. A rainbow will appear. This is because rainbows are caused by the refraction of light by water droplets. However, according to Genesis, 9:13, rainbows first appeared after the Flood as a sign of the covenant.

The Fundamentalist has to either:

A) Reinterpret the clear words of the text. I call this the Bill Clinton defense (trying to re-define the meaning of the word 'is'.)

B) Arbitrarily assume that water and/or light had different properties before the Flood. This comes back to the previous observation that we get light from galaxies that are millions of light-years away and it behaves the same as light from that flashlight. Water frozen thousands of years ago at the bottom of glaciers behaves like the water from that hose once its melted. A fellow physicist notes that, if any arbitrary assumption of our choice is allowed, then he could rightfully claim that his cat invented the entire Universe last Thursday.

Or deny or show that there hadn't been rain up until that point, and hence, no rainbow to have ever been seen.

I think it is a matter of interpretation and that it isn't so much a drastic reinterpretation so as to redefine 'is'. (lol at "Bill Clinton defense.")

 

[Physicist]

Re: The flood. Do your own experiment

Here is a simple experiment that you can do in your own backyard to demonstrate that the flood tale in Genesis if mythological. Take a water hose and spray water in to the air. Shine a flashlight onto the water spray. A rainbow will appear. This is because rainbows are caused by the refraction of light by water droplets. However, according to Genesis, 9:13, rainbows first appeared after the Flood as a sign of the covenant.

The Fundamentalist has to either:

A) Reinterpret the clear words of the text. I call this the Bill Clinton defense (trying to re-define the meaning of the word 'is'.)

B) Arbitrarily assume that water and/or light had different properties before the Flood. This comes back to the previous observation that we get light from galaxies that are millions of light-years away and it behaves the same as light from that flashlight. Water frozen thousands of years ago at the bottom of glaciers behaves like the water from that hose once its melted. A fellow physicist notes that, if any arbitrary assumption of our choice is allowed, then he could rightfully claim that his cat invented the entire Universe last Thursday.

The Bible says it never rained before the flood, instead a mist came from the ground.

Here is an experiment for you: take a large glass fill it with water, sand, gravel and other grits and shake it up. Let it settle. You will have it settle in many layers. Sort of like what happened during the great deluge.

My experiment did not involve rain. The hypothetical mist would work quite well to form a rainbow. Of course, I might add that the idea that there was no rain 6000 years ago is total nonsense. According to the Bible, there were rivers. How do you keep rivers flowing for thousands of years if you have no rain? (Please don't give me an answer that violates conservation of energy or mass).

With regard to sediment layers, they can often be dated by years. Once they are compressed into sedimentary rocks, the record can extend for thousands of years. While the sediment layers may show varying patterns (ice ages may leave large boulders; periods of swamp, fine sediment) the fossil record is consistent. You won't find trilobyte fossils mixed with rabbit fossils, for instance.

 

[izzy]

Here is a simple experiment that you can do in your own backyard to demonstrate that the flood tale in Genesis if mythological. Take a water hose and spray water in to the air. Shine a flashlight onto the water spray. A rainbow will appear. This is because rainbows are caused by the refraction of light by water droplets. However, according to Genesis, 9:13, rainbows first appeared after the Flood as a sign of the covenant.

The Fundamentalist has to either:

A) Reinterpret the clear words of the text. I call this the Bill Clinton defense (trying to re-define the meaning of the word 'is'.)

B) Arbitrarily assume that water and/or light had different properties before the Flood. This comes back to the previous observation that we get light from galaxies that are millions of light-years away and it behaves the same as light from that flashlight. Water frozen thousands of years ago at the bottom of glaciers behaves like the water from that hose once its melted. A fellow physicist notes that, if any arbitrary assumption of our choice is allowed, then he could rightfully claim that his cat invented the entire Universe last Thursday.

Genesis 9:13 does not specifically say that rainbows appeared only after the flood. God merely used the rainbow as a sign of his covenant with Noah. This would not be the only time God used an existing thing as a special “new†sign of a covenant (e.g., bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper; circumcision for the covenant with Abraham, a practice that was already in place among other nations; a pillar of fire in the desert). It would certainly be difficult to envision a earth without a water cycle, so rainbows must have been seen before that point.

 

[Physicist]

Here is a simple experiment that you can do in your own backyard to demonstrate that the flood tale in Genesis if mythological. Take a water hose and spray water in to the air. Shine a flashlight onto the water spray. A rainbow will appear. This is because rainbows are caused by the refraction of light by water droplets. However, according to Genesis, 9:13, rainbows first appeared after the Flood as a sign of the covenant.

The Fundamentalist has to either:

A) Reinterpret the clear words of the text. I call this the Bill Clinton defense (trying to re-define the meaning of the word 'is'.)

B) Arbitrarily assume that water and/or light had different properties before the Flood. This comes back to the previous observation that we get light from galaxies that are millions of light-years away and it behaves the same as light from that flashlight. Water frozen thousands of years ago at the bottom of glaciers behaves like the water from that hose once its melted. A fellow physicist notes that, if any arbitrary assumption of our choice is allowed, then he could rightfully claim that his cat invented the entire Universe last Thursday.

Genesis 9:13 does not specifically say that rainbows appeared only after the flood. God merely used the rainbow as a sign of his covenant with Noah. This would not be the only time God used an existing thing as a special “new†sign of a covenant (e.g., bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper; circumcision for the covenant with Abraham, a practice that was already in place among other nations; a pillar of fire in the desert). It would certainly be difficult to envision a earth without a water cycle, so rainbows must have been seen before that point.

But the clear language of the text shows that this was to be something new. It would make little sense for God to choose as a token for his covenant some natural phenomena that Noah had seen all his life. With regard to your 'examples'

1. Circumcision was a new procedure for the Hebrews.It was something u[they[/u] did new to show their obedience to YHWH.
2. The transformation of bread and wine into Jesus' flesh and blood was certainly something new.
3. Pillars of fire in the Sinai are not natural phenomena

Here is the appropriate Genesis text (Chapter 9)

12And 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:

13I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

Note, particularly, verse 14. YHWH would hardly have to tell Noah where to look for rainbows if he had seen them all his life.

 

[Orion]

Note, particularly, verse 14. YHWH would hardly have to tell Noah where to look for rainbows if he had seen them all his life.

That is a particularly fine point, too, Physicist. Logical.

 

[izzy]

14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

Note, particularly, verse 14. YHWH would hardly have to tell Noah where to look for rainbows if he had seen them all his life.

You are quoting the King James version, but other versions might give a better picture overall of what the passage is saying.
"Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life." (Genesis 9:14-15, NIV).
"And it shall come about, 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 never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh." (Genesis 9:14-15, NASB).

I think saying that rainbows were not seen before the flood might be reading too much into it. The NIV, especially, does not seem to have that 'pointing to the clouds' part.
If you take the canopy theory, however, that suggests that there might have been a thin layer of water around the globe in the atmosphere that blocked out harmful radiation and helped keep the globe tropical, rainbows might have been more rare. Apparently, light filtering through an atmospheric water layer would have had more of a reddish tinge because the other wavelengths of light would have been somewhat blocked. A rainbow would have had trouble forming, then, because it is made up of all the wavelengths. I'm not sure how sound this theory is, but I'll throw it at you anyway.

2. The transformation of bread and wine into Jesus' flesh and blood was certainly something new.

Actually, it is really only the Catholic and Orthodox churches who believe in transubstantiation or the physical transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Most Protestants would say that what Jesus was trying to institute was a communal memorial, much like Passover, where Christians remember the price paid for their sins, the fact that their sins are covered by the blood of Christ, and that without partaking in Christ, there is no salvation. There is no mystical transformation in the actual bread and wine.

 

[Ottawan61350]

"stiptit"??

When did this "global flood" take place?

This happened before we had cable tv or even newspapers.
People weren't keeping records back then...fortunately, we have the Word of God.

The Flood Year was Noahs 600th year about 2347BC
Don't listen to the naysayers and false science. It happened.
God Bless, Ron

 

[mondar]

14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

Note, particularly, verse 14. YHWH would hardly have to tell Noah where to look for rainbows if he had seen them all his life.

You are quoting the King James version, but other versions might give a better picture overall of what the passage is saying.
"Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life." (Genesis 9:14-15, NIV).
"And it shall come about, 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 never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh." (Genesis 9:14-15, NASB).

I think saying that rainbows were not seen before the flood might be reading too much into it. The NIV, especially, does not seem to have that 'pointing to the clouds' part.
If you take the canopy theory, however, that suggests that there might have been a thin layer of water around the globe in the atmosphere that blocked out harmful radiation and helped keep the globe tropical, rainbows might have been more rare. Apparently, light filtering through an atmospheric water layer would have had more of a reddish tinge because the other wavelengths of light would have been somewhat blocked. A rainbow would have had trouble forming, then, because it is made up of all the wavelengths. I'm not sure how sound this theory is, but I'll throw it at you anyway.

[quote:2h4qsxgj]2. The transformation of bread and wine into Jesus' flesh and blood was certainly something new.

Actually, it is really only the Catholic and Orthodox churches who believe in transubstantiation or the physical transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Most Protestants would say that what Jesus was trying to institute was a communal memorial, much like Passover, where Christians remember the price paid for their sins, the fact that their sins are covered by the blood of Christ, and that without partaking in Christ, there is no salvation. There is no mystical transformation in the actual bread and wine.[/quote:2h4qsxgj]
Good post.

 

[Physicist]

The Flood Year was Noahs 600th year about 2347BC
Don't listen to the naysayers and false science. It happened.
God Bless, Ron

The Universal Flood only happened as a mythological tale. Such tales were common in ancient times and enrich our understanding of earlier civilizations. However, there was no real Hercules, Noah, or Beowolf. These are just tall tales told around the campfire, like more recent stories of Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan. IMO it is unwise to live in a fantasy world of demons, dragons, and mythical heroes. The real world is much more interesting.

 

[mondar]

The Flood Year was Noahs 600th year about 2347BC
Don't listen to the naysayers and false science. It happened.
God Bless, Ron

The Universal Flood only happened as a mythological tale. Such tales were common in ancient times and enrich our understanding of earlier civilizations. However, there was no real Hercules, Noah, or Beowolf. These are just tall tales told around the campfire, like more recent stories of Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan. IMO it is unwise to live in a fantasy world of demons, dragons, and mythical heroes. The real world is much more interesting.

Physicist, I know you cannot respond to every Christian on this board, but I want you to notice who you choose to responded to. You chose to respond to someone that believes the flood happened in 2347BC. Only an extremely small percentage of Christians believe that. Is this not "picking the low hanging fruit," so to speak? It might make you look good in making fun of the really bad posts, but if you really want to make Christians think, you will have to respond to the better arguments. Of course that will take more work. I am suggesting you pursue you conversation with Izzy and ignore the really bad posts. Truth is not found in "picking the low hanging fruit" but in taking on the best arguments.

 

[Drew]

The Flood Year was Noahs 600th year about 2347BC
Don't listen to the naysayers and false science. It happened.
God Bless, Ron

The Universal Flood only happened as a mythological tale. Such tales were common in ancient times and enrich our understanding of earlier civilizations. However, there was no real Hercules, Noah, or Beowolf. These are just tall tales told around the campfire, like more recent stories of Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan. IMO it is unwise to live in a fantasy world of demons, dragons, and mythical heroes. The real world is much more interesting.

Although mondar and I have our differences, I generally agree with his observations on this post of yours.

Your post above seems to trivialize and dismiss the account as something would only be believed by the simple-minded. And I do not think that's really fair. Let me be clear: I am very much inclined to not believe in a literal flood. And while you do not explcitly deny the power of myth in conveying important truths, your choice of Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyon suggests that you dismiss flood "myth" as having nothing important to say about God and humankind.

 

[Orion]

The Giza pyramids are dated older than that date [2347BC].

 

[Physicist]

The Flood Year was Noahs 600th year about 2347BC
Don't listen to the naysayers and false science. It happened.
God Bless, Ron

The Universal Flood only happened as a mythological tale. Such tales were common in ancient times and enrich our understanding of earlier civilizations. However, there was no real Hercules, Noah, or Beowolf. These are just tall tales told around the campfire, like more recent stories of Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan. IMO it is unwise to live in a fantasy world of demons, dragons, and mythical heroes. The real world is much more interesting.

Although mondar and I have our differences, I generally agree with his observations on this post of yours.

Your post above seems to trivialize and dismiss the account as something would only be believed by the simple-minded. And I do not think that's really fair. Let me be clear: I am very much inclined to not believe in a literal flood. And while you do not explcitly deny the power of myth in conveying important truths, your choice of Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyon suggests that you dismiss flood "myth" as having nothing important to say about God and humankind.

I certainly do not mean to dismiss the power of myth ( a traditional cultural defining tale, involving gods and/or heroes with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation). In fact, I think myths are essential to define a society. America has its myths from George Washington and the cherry tree to Abner Doubleday inventing baseball. The fact that these stories are not true does not mean they have no impact. I chose Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan to try and relate ancient stories to more modern ones. These more recent tales, while recognizably not true, do provide incite into the minds of cowboys and lumberjacks who recognized their fears and wishes in these fireside stories.

The Noah tale, while also recognizably fictional, must have had some special meaning to the tribes of Israel. Rather than suspending common sense by taking this story as literal history, I suggest that a better exercise would be to study why the tale had such a universal appeal.

 

[John]

This is the point when if i was talking to you guys in real life i would laugh and walk away. All this junk about a non literal flood is baloney. Next thing you know people will be saying that Jesus never literally died for our sins.

Want yet another reason to believe in a global flood: because all the damage it caused is testimony to Gods wrath upon the earth. Why did God not just miracle away all the evil doers back then? because a miracle would not leave any evidence..a flood would. Gods judgment was real folks and guess what..its coming again.