Beliefs Regarding The Flood

[JackH]

Sure.

One example would be polystrate fossils, such as tree trunks, which extend through more than one geological stratum and these are found worldwide. Here are a couple of pictures:

View attachment 122581 View attachment 122582

Another example would be these types of rock strata formations which are found worldwide where such bending was caused in such a swirling type fashion as flood waters and sediments were settling:

View attachment 122583

Stuff like that.

Of course, again, global flood deniers will attribute such worldwide phenomena to separate localized floods which when viewed together only give the appearance of a single global flood.

From the Wikipedia article on polystrate fossils:

"According to scientists, polystrate fossils are fossils which were buried in a geologically short time span either by one large depositional event or by several smaller ones. Geologists see no need to invoke a global flood to explain upright fossils. This position of geologists is supported by numerous documented examples, a few of which are discussed in the below paragraphs, of buried upright tree trunks that have been observed buried in the Holocene volcanic deposits of Mount St. Helens, Skamania County, Washington, and Mount Pinatubo, Philippines; the deltaic and fluvial sediments of the Mississippi River Delta; and in glacial deposits within the midwestern United States. These buried upright trees demonstrate that conventional geologic processes are capable of burying and preserving trees in an upright position such that in time, they will become fossilized.[2][22]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

 

[Tintin]

The Bible talks about a flood in Noah's day and then it talks about a flood in the Christian time frame later on when we read: "And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

Daniel speaks of this later flood also: "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

Revelation mentions this same Christian era flood: "And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth."

Matthew mentions it a little more fully: "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

But how can it be that 2 Peter says that there was a flood way back then, but will only be a fire in the future to destroy the earth ("But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reservedunto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."), when we just read in Daniel that the end will be with a flood?

The answer is that we are not looking at physical phenomenon in this future language but parable words which are talking of spiritual judgment of the congregations at the time in question. 'Fire' is Bible word which refers to spiritual judgment that falls on the congregations such that they are in the unsaved condition. Indeed, when fire falls on Sodom and Gomorrah, only a very few escape, namely Lot and family. Lot and family are pictures of the believers who are still in the Lord. Jesus said it would be the same as with Lot in the end time scenario. Jesus also gave reference to Noah's flood as being like this time as well. The flood is a picture of the destruction spiritually of the those in the congregations, whilst once again, very few escape, Namely Noah and his family (a picture of believers). Notice in Revelation, the flood comes out of the dragon's mouth. Does this mean there will be a physical dragon? Of course not, which even all these physical-minded contributors found in this forum would probably agree. There is no Smaug. But there is Satan, and Satan takes his seat in the temple, particularly in the spiritual sense in that the congregations are in the unsaved condition. The true believers enter into the ark of the Lord's protection though, the ark being a picture of God's eternal covenant with his own.

The flood mentioned is over the "whole earth", but Dan58 was good to point out that the term 'earth' can mean land or country as well. That is why some Bible passages refer to the flood as being a thing of Egypt. Egypt is spiritually the city where our lord was crucified, in other words Jerusalem. Everything that has God's spiritual life dies, meaning the congregations become devoid of Christ. Fortunately, the Lord leaves a small remnant of his own alive: "Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah."

You are so confused in your thinking, I don't know where to begin.

 

[Tintin]

Good gravy! If God gave Noah prior notice to build the ark (120 years to be exact), then you better bet your bottom dollar that it wasn't a local flood in any sense of the word. In 120 years, Noah and his family could've travelled the world (as we know it today) and back again a number of times. But prior to the Great Flood, the earth was one land mass and so they could've travelled much more easily. God giving Noah 120 years notice is one of the many details that doesn't allow for the reading of a local flood. As for the people of Noah's day being primitive? Seriously? Don't give me that crap. There's very good reason to believe they were more intelligent than people today. Your worldview shines through immediately. Get back to the Word.

 

[SolidGround]

How long does it take for people to migrate?
What were migration rates during the 1st millennium AD, and use them a comparison (we'll leave out the 2nd due to transportation technology).
Are we positive that the pre-flood era did not have transportation technology?

If you look at the stats, and take the timeline literally, there is no excuse to assume a localized Flood.
We're not talking about a few hundred years here. And we're not talking about a couple million people.
We are talking about whole races of mankind that will never be seen again.
And a multitude of species of animal, wiped off the earth. God kept 2 of every taxonomic family, or maybe of every genus at best, but not of every species. This is where we see adaptation come to play, in the reduction of genetic code into groups. Evolution is always destructive of DNA, not a creator of new DNA.

 

[valiant]

How long does it take for people to migrate?
What were migration rates during the 1st millennium AD, and use them a comparison (we'll leave out the 2nd due to transportation technology).
Are we positive that the pre-flood era did not have transportation technology?

If you look at the stats, and take the timeline literally, there is no excuse to assume a localized Flood.
We're not talking about a few hundred years here. And we're not talking about a couple million people.
We are talking about whole races of mankind that will never be seen again.
And a multitude of species of animal, wiped off the earth. God kept 2 of every taxonomic family, or maybe of every genus at best, but not of every species. This is where we see adaptation come to play, in the reduction of genetic code into groups. Evolution is always destructive of DNA, not a creator of new DNA.

what you mean is that you are hazarding a great number of unsupported guesses and suppositions in order to support your own position?

 

[valiant]

Good gravy! If God gave Noah prior notice to build the ark (120 years to be exact), then you better bet your bottom dollar that it wasn't a local flood in any sense of the word. In 120 years, Noah and his family could've travelled the world (as we know it today) and back again a number of times. But prior to the Great Flood, the earth was one land mass and so they could've travelled much more easily. God giving Noah 120 years notice is one of the many details that doesn't allow for the reading of a local flood. As for the people of Noah's day being primitive? Seriously? Don't give me that crap. There's very good reason to believe they were more intelligent than people today. Your worldview shines through immediately. Get back to the Word.

it seems to me that your prejudices shine through even more clearly

you are not going to the word. you are going to your own presuppositions.

by the way being primitive does not mean being unintelligent.

 

[valiant]

Ussher added Bible genealogy numbers, etc, to count 4,000 years from Adam to Christ.
How is that 'fictitious'? Ussher deliberately wrote fiction..........or made mistakes?
Is it 'fictitious' because many nonchristians don't believe it?
But most of all, then, what Is the genuine Bible timeline?
It would be a big help to post it.

It is fictitious because he jumped to conclusions which were invalid, and were very naive.

No one knows the actual Bible timeline. God did not see fit to supply it. He was not interested in supplying irrelevant (for His purpose) extraneous information. It is modern man who has the fetish of wanting to date everything and put it chronologically.

What we do know is that ancient men used genealogies as a way of substantiating those who followed after, and did so leaving many gaps in the genealogies.

As to the lengths of time stated they are clearly 'artificial'. This is evidenced by the number that end in 0 and 5, and by other evidence which I have previously mentioned..

Finally the ancient use of numbers and our lack of knowledge about the necessary meaning of number words in the earliest times must make any use of such numbers open to being questioned. It is indeed doubtful if people used numbers pre-flood. Thus use of numbers was established between 3500-2000 BC

 

[JackH]

. But prior to the Great Flood, the earth was one land mass and so they could've travelled much more easily.

That is absurd, in so many ways, that the earth was one land mass.

 

[Budman]

That is absurd, in so many ways, that the earth was one land mass.

Look up Pangaea.

 

[flob]

It is fictitious because he jumped to conclusions which were invalid, and were very naive.

And...........not worth mentioning here?

No one knows the actual Bible timeline. God did not see fit to supply it. He was not interested in supplying irrelevant (for His purpose) extraneous information. It is modern man who has the fetish of wanting to date everything and put it chronologically.

God is very chronological. I'm not into genealogies. He is. In addition, assuming the years are true, it's not hard to calculate rather far. I only ran into obscurity with the Persian kings around the time of Esther---in trying to go back from today to Adam.

What we do know is that ancient men used genealogies as a way of substantiating those who followed after, and did so leaving many gaps in the genealogies.

Some gaps, as in Matthew's, are deliberate. Even Scriptural, which I won't quote yet because you may know of them.
But that doesn't ruin counting, because there are other persons, and genealogies, to go by there. (Such as Luke's.)

As to the lengths of time stated they are clearly 'artificial'. This is evidenced by the number that end in 0 and 5, and by other evidence which I have previously mentioned.

Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as a general number. Numbers are definite by definition. If you feel some numbers are inaccurate, then they still only are off, apparently, by only +/- 5. In any case, I should recognize that it's your characterization of inaccuracy, or artificiality. Not the Bible's, either implicitly or explicitly.

Finally the ancient use of numbers and our lack of knowledge about the necessary meaning of number words in the earliest times must make any use of such numbers open to being questioned. It is indeed doubtful if people used numbers pre-flood. Thus use of numbers was established between 3500-2000 BC

Well, Noah was preflood when he and God counted to two. Or by twos. The notion of people being stupid, or stupider, the more ancient, is that: a notion.

 

[fredjames]

The Great Flood. Do you believe it was:

1. Local

2. Worldwide

3. An Allegorical Story

Simply curious. Nothing more.

Yes, you are 'right', based on the muslim doctrine, 'claiming' close to ours, 'claims' that happened not 'worldwide'. i know there is a 'contradiction' about such happen 'incident'.

What does the HOLY BIBLE, the 'Word of GOD' say, and in 'faith', we must 'believe' and 'stand' and that is 'abiding', is of 'Grace and Truth' of GOD through CHRIST and the HOLY SPIRIT, to Christians?

 

[valiant]

And...........not worth mentioning here?

not really

God is very chronological. I'm not into genealogies. He is.

But not because He is so interested in chronology. Much of Scripture reveals the opposite. It is because He is interested in PEOPLE.

In addition, assuming the years are true, it's not hard to calculate rather far. I only ran into obscurity with the Persian kings around the time of Esther---in trying to go back from today to Adam.

LOL the Persian kings are relatively modern

Some gaps, as in Matthew's, are deliberate. Even Scriptural, which I won't quote yet because you may know of them.

Perfectly correct. And the same applies in Genesis for the same reason. To fit into a pattern..

But that doesn't ruin counting, because there are other persons, and genealogies, to go by there. (Such as Luke's.)

where do you think Luke got his chronology from?

Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as a general number. Numbers are definite by definition

.

That is simply not true. You clearly know nothing about the use of numbers in ancient times. You think in modern terms
Very few of the ancient could count very far. Large numbers were used in a general fashion. there are many instances of this in Scripture, including the use of 'a thousand'..

If you feel some numbers are inaccurate, then they still only are off, apparently, by only +/- 5.

Not inaccurate. Simply not indicating what we indicate by them. If God was so bothered about numbers, why didn't He give exact numbers? Why was Lamech 777? Why was Adam 70 short of 1000? Why was Enoch 365? Because God had lessons to teach by them.

In any case, I should recognize that it's your characterization of inaccuracy, or artificiality. Not the Bible's, either implicitly or explicitly.

Not mine at all. They simply ARE inaccurate if they were being used in the way we would use them.

Well, Noah was preflood when he and God counted to two. Or by twos. The notion of people being stupid, or stupider, the more ancient, is that: a notion.

Yes that we would expect. Counting to three is common in all ages and among all races. It is beyond that that it became more difficult. The truth is that most people had no need for counting. So they didn't bother. That is how they showed that they were not stupid. Even when number systems are in place learning to count is an arduous and lengthy process. It takes youngsters years to learn to count even with expert tuition and schooling. Most youngsters in those days had no tuition and schooling. They were out digging and looking after sheep.

Before you get too arrogant I suggest that you read up about ancients and the use of numbers. And I mean ancients, 2000 years before Moses.

 

[Budman]

it seems to me that your prejudices shine through even more clearly

you are not going to the word. you are going to your own presuppositions.

No, that is what you do. The Bible makes it clear the Flood was global, but you have a nasty habit of adding to Scripture.

"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: And in whose nostrils was the breath of life, and all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: And only Noah remained alive, and they that were with him in the Ark." (Genesis 7:21-23)

Everything that was on any dry land anywhere on earth died. Everything on earth that had the breath of life, died.

Not just on "a continent where men lived." (You, adding to Scripture).

All means all. Every means every.

Genesis 7 also says, "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."

Not just "under the entire heavens on one Continent where men lived." (You, adding to Scripture again).

Entire means entire.

And why bother to build an Ark so big to house seven pairs of every clean animal, and two pairs of every unclean animal on earth, if all of those animals survived in abundance elsewhere?

God said in Genesis 6:13 that He was going to destroy all flesh along "with the earth."


Now you can spin it all you want, and you can add to Scripture as you do, but the Bible is abundantly clear; the the Flood was global.

 

[valiant]

No, that is what you do. The Bible makes it clear the Flood was global, but you have a nasty habit of adding to Scripture.

you would say that wouldn't you? You have no answer so you turn to insults.

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth (or area of land) , both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (or area of land), and every man: And in whose nostrils was the breath of life, and all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth (or area of land): And only Noah remained alive, and they that were with him in the Ark." (Genesis 7:21-23)

Everything that was on any dry land anywhere on earth (or the area of land) died. Everything on earth (or the area of land) that had the breath of life, died.

Not just on "a continent where men lived." (You, adding to Scripture).

No it is YOU who is adding to Scripture. You are making it say 'whole earth' in our terms when whoever wrote the account had no conception of such an earth. He was speaking of erets, the land on which men lived, the land known to men.

All means all. Every means every.

well actually it doesn't always. but I will allow it here for your sake

Genesis 7 also says, "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."

yes, under the entire heavens known to Noah. As far as he knew the heavens were ABOVE him and as far as he could see all ways the mountains were no longer to be seen.

Not just "under the entire heavens on one Continent where men lived." (You, adding to Scripture again).

actually 'continent' is a good translation of erets you should learn Hebrew,. the you MAY be able to comment on it after a few years of intense study.

Entire means entire.

just check it through the Scriptures lol. use esword.

And why bother to build an Ark so big to house seven pairs of every clean animal, and two pairs of every unclean animal on earth, if all of those animals survived in abundance elsewhere?

because he would need the seven clean animals immediately for sacrifice. and how was he to cross the oceans to obtain animals from elsewhere? and the ark wasn't really very large use your intelligence

God said in Genesis 6:13 that He was going to destroy all flesh along "with the earth."

yes all mankind and all creatures living on that erets (land). He didn't actually destroy the earth LOL

Now you can spin it all you want, and you can add to Scripture as you do, but the Bible is abundantly clear; the the Flood was global.

Nonsense. It is your dogmatism based on tradition that is speaking.

 

[JackH]

Look up Pangaea.

You look up Pangaea.

The continent Pangaea existed hundreds of millions of years ago.

How does that fit a YEC 6,000-year worldview and global flood around 4400 years ago?

 

[Agricola]

You look up Pangaea.

The continent Pangaea existed hundreds of millions of years ago.

How does that fit a YEC 6,000-year worldview and global flood around 4400 years ago?

I ithink you miss the point, you have Tintin saying that at time of Noah there was only one land mass, Valiant basically says that is nonsense, Budman points out the evolutionists agree that there was a single landmass, which of course makes Valiants argument invalid.

 

[SolidGround]

what you mean is that you are hazarding a great number of unsupported guesses and suppositions in order to support your own position?

You realize that all unrecorded history is "hazarding a great number of unsupported guesses".
Have you watched the dinosaur shows on Discovery channel? Have you ever wondered what the data is behind their stories and reconstructions? It's all massive imagination playing off of a few shreds of information.

What I am proposing is that people reconsider the actual data, and look at possible scenarios.
The explanation given in Scripture fits, because it is Truth. The explanation given by unbelievers does not fit, because it is just an excuse to cover up their unbelief.
Stop yoking yourself with unbelievers.
Good science doesn't use imagination to make theories. Imagination is for hypothesis only. If a "theory" cannot be tested, then it remains a hypothesis. If you are blind to the circular reasoning behind modern dating methods, it is due to unbelief, because Pressure Theory actually fits cleanly.

 

[Bowman]

I refer you to my previous post, We are clearly told in Genesis 6:17 that ALL LIFE would be wiped out, that is why Noah took 2 of everything in the ark, if it was only local because humans only populated that tiny area, then why the need to take every animal in existence on to the ark? You are going to need to come up with something spectacular to prove that no animal lived outside this localised flood area.

'Kal basar' (all flesh) is the same as 'kol erets' (all earth)...and pertains to the animals that were in the local area to be flooded.

 

[Budman]

You look up Pangaea.

The continent Pangaea existed hundreds of millions of years ago.

How does that fit a YEC 6,000-year worldview and global flood around 4400 years ago?

I actually believe there was one land mass, but it broke up soon after the Flood. However, what I don't believe, is that it existed millions of years ago.

 

[flob]

where do you think Luke got his chronology from?

From Mary.

You clearly know nothing about the use of numbers in ancient times. You think in modern terms
Very few of the ancient could count very far. Large numbers were used in a general fashion. there are many instances of this in Scripture, including the use of 'a thousand'..

To the contrary:
"...603,550..." Numbers 2:32

If God was so bothered about numbers, why didn't He give exact numbers? Why was Lamech 777? Why was Adam 70 short of 1000? Why was Enoch 365? Because God had lessons to teach by them.

?
What is inexact about 777?
What, precisely, is inexact about any number?
By 'inexact' do you mean not real? Or inaccurate?

They simply ARE inaccurate if they were being used in the way we would use them.

No, if someone today is 365 years old, they're 365 years old.
Do you feel that those life-spans were inaccurate since they're so longer than folks' today?

Even when number systems are in place learning to count is an arduous and lengthy process. It takes youngsters years to learn to count even with expert tuition and schooling. Most youngsters in those days had no tuition and schooling. They were out digging and looking after sheep. Before you get too arrogant I suggest that you read up about ancients and the use of numbers. And I mean ancients, 2000 years before Moses.

The oldest Bible author is Moses. Or Job.
2000 years before Moses, per times the Bible gives, is about 500 years after Adam. Which means Adam himself would have been alive. I get that you apparently reject all that...but I can't agree with you that 'ancients' could not count as high as Moses