Is the great biblical flood real or not?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mar 4, 2018
17
0
0
The world wide flood deposited those layers in the Grand Canyon.
The layers in the Grand Canyon have been shown to be millions of years old, layerd in millions of years. Radiometric dating has been pretty consistant in confirming this.

But the main point is that it's safe to say that the writer of the flood account wasn't worried about science or the details of if the flood was the whole earth. The point was to say that after Adam, there was another covenant made with man, through Noah.
 
Mar 4, 2018
17
0
0
Your beginning point is wrong! You are beginning with the doctrine of man: what a certain church believes - in this case - Catholic!
The Book of Genesis is an ancient document, written in a culture very different than ours. If we want to understand it, it helps (I would say is necessary) to research the culture, the ways that culture tended to write, and what message the author intended to convey.

Reading Genesis as if it were an eye witness account with an emphsis on details and science is a 21st century culture way of going about it and doesn't give the text credit for what it is.

If you notice, my first post mentioned that the Catholic Church doesn't take a dogmatic view on the flood one way or another.
 
Mar 4, 2018
17
0
0
Well, technically, they were not saved through water, but from water.
I was thinking of 1 Peter 3:

[FONT=arial !important]19[/FONT]​
In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
[FONT=arial !important]20[/FONT]​
who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
[FONT=arial !important]21[/FONT]​
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,699
13,384
113
The layers in the Grand Canyon have been shown to be millions of years old, layerd in millions of years. Radiometric dating has been pretty consistant in confirming this.

But the main point is that it's safe to say that the writer of the flood account wasn't worried about science or the details of if the flood was the whole earth. The point was to say that after Adam, there was another covenant made with man, through Noah.
I would encourage you to find a resource called "Radioactive Isotopes and the Age of the Earth". It's a scientific assessment of radiometric dating methods done by a group of Christian creationists. Basically, they found that radiometric dating is surprisingly imprecise, requires significant beginning assumptions, and is vulnerable to subjective "reinterpretation". There are a couple of summary videos on YouTube, and a book.
 
Mar 4, 2018
17
0
0
Thanks for the info. I'll look it up. I also know that radiometric dating is only one source of evidence that converges with other types of evidence, like the kinds of fossils found in different layers, among others.
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
4,279
1,415
113
There is a multinational science based Christian organization called Christian Ministries International and has the web site creation.com. On it they have files proving the Genesis account as a factual narrative. They use archaeological digs and geological evidence. For the flood proof is in the Grand Canyon and the "little grand canyon created after Mt. St. Hellens blew its top.

Looking into the grand canyon layers can be seen. These layers must have been deposited at one time. The evidence of this is no erosion for any of the layers. The canyon created after the river going by Mt. St. Hellens was dug within a day after the water started overflowing the dam. That canyon whose history is known has similar layers. Thus helping to prove the layers were created at the same time. The world wide flood deposited those layers in the Grand Canyon.
Probably a great website - but there is no need to "prove" the Genesis account as a factual narrative. Archaeology and other studies may and do support that Genesis is a factual narrative, but the proof is that the Word of God is inspired.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
The layers in the Grand Canyon have been shown to be millions of years old, layerd in millions of years. Radiometric dating has been pretty consistant in confirming this.

But the main point is that it's safe to say that the writer of the flood account wasn't worried about science or the details of if the flood was the whole earth. The point was to say that after Adam, there was another covenant made with man, through Noah.
Totally false. They were laid down at one point in time. The evidence for this is there is absolutely no erosion between the layers. They are all flat lines. Same as the "little grand canyon" created after Mt. St. Helens blew its top. It blocked the river and when the water crested the dam it created the canyon. The layers exposed look exactly like the layers in the Grand Canyon. I guess you believe in big bang evolution theory instead of "In the begining God created the heavens and the earth"

There are 2 paradigms.
Big Bang evolution
In the begining God created the heavens and the earth

Christians trying to make both a reality are foolish.

Some facts.
Radiometric dating is not reliable. Especially going back more than a few thousands of years. At that point it becomes counting atoms. Secondly there are archaeologists that send in samples for dating and they throw away what the know is erroneous since they rely on pottery for dating. In one example they sent a sample from the front and back of a mammal and the results were thousands of years apart. It has also been found that it varies greatly which isotope they use to date the item. With all of these issues that are part of the public record it seems that this evidence is ignored. Why?
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,315
16,302
113
69
Tennessee
The layers in the Grand Canyon have been shown to be millions of years old, layerd in millions of years. Radiometric dating has been pretty consistant in confirming this.

But the main point is that it's safe to say that the writer of the flood account wasn't worried about science or the details of if the flood was the whole earth. The point was to say that after Adam, there was another covenant made with man, through Noah.
The Grand Canyon could not have possibly been created naturally in millions of years, not even in billions of years. It was most likely created in a catastrophic event lasting a few seconds or minutes in duration.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
Probably a great website - but there is no need to "prove" the Genesis account as a factual narrative. Archaeology and other studies may and do support that Genesis is a factual narrative, but the proof is that the Word of God is inspired.
The reason is to give scientific evidence of the complete factual narrative of Genesis. It shoots down big bang evolution for violating 5 seperate scientific laws. In most states big bang evolution is taught as fact by law in schools. This creates a fallout problem in the church. If the fact that big bang evolutions violating 5 scientific laws is not taught in Sunday school then after they get to college and are hit by professors claiming big bang evolution is factual most drop out of church believing God doesn't exist.

This is something that needs to be addressed in churches.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,315
16,302
113
69
Tennessee
The reason is to give scientific evidence of the complete factual narrative of Genesis. It shoots down big bang evolution for violating 5 seperate scientific laws. In most states big bang evolution is taught as fact by law in schools. This creates a fallout problem in the church. If the fact that big bang evolutions violating 5 scientific laws is not taught in Sunday school then after they get to college and are hit by professors claiming big bang evolution is factual most drop out of church believing God doesn't exist.

This is something that needs to be addressed in churches.
The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory is how was the matter created in the first place that was subsequently condensed to such a state that it then exploded? You can't take a bunch of nothing and create a bunch of something. God certainly can but is impossible to happen otherwise. Even if there were a big bang only God could created the matter that exploded.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
2 peter 3: 3 Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, [SUP]4 [/SUP]and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” [SUP]5 [/SUP]For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, [SUP]6 [/SUP]by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. [SUP]7 [/SUP]But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Radiometric dating is based on the belief all things continue as they were since the beginning. It is ONLY trustworthy if the flood did not happen. and atmospheric conditions continue as they were then and stayed the same up till today, since any change in atmosphere would change the rate of decay.

I believe we are seeing 2 Peter fulfilled today. as scoffers are denying the flood.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
The Book of Genesis is an ancient document, written in a culture very different than ours. If we want to understand it, it helps (I would say is necessary) to research the culture, the ways that culture tended to write, and what message the author intended to convey.

Reading Genesis as if it were an eye witness account with an emphsis on details and science is a 21st century culture way of going about it and doesn't give the text credit for what it is.

If you notice, my first post mentioned that the Catholic Church doesn't take a dogmatic view on the flood one way or another.
Hebrew scholars say that Genesis is written in a narrative style thus is supposed to be considered factual by the writers. Also keep in mind that the starting point for atheism is attacking the first book of the Bible. Do that successfully and the rest follow. The Catholic Church is one of the most religiously conservative denominations. That by definition means they take the Bible more literally than many protestant denominations. For example the Lord's Supper. They believe that the elements literally turn into the blood and flesh of Jesus. That shoots down your assertion about the Catholic view of Genesis.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
The Book of Genesis is an ancient document, written in a culture very different than ours. If we want to understand it, it helps (I would say is necessary) to research the culture, the ways that culture tended to write, and what message the author intended to convey.

Reading Genesis as if it were an eye witness account with an emphsis on details and science is a 21st century culture way of going about it and doesn't give the text credit for what it is.

If you notice, my first post mentioned that the Catholic Church doesn't take a dogmatic view on the flood one way or another.
Hebrew scholars say that Genesis is written in a narrative style thus is supposed to be considered factual by the writers. Also keep in mind that the starting point for atheism is attacking the first book of the Bible. Do that successfully and the rest follow. The Catholic Church is one of the most religiously conservative denominations. That by definition means they take the Bible more literally than many protestant denominations. For example the Lord's Supper. They believe that the elements literally turn into the blood and flesh of Jesus. That shoots down your assertion about the Catholic view of Genesis. I get regular emails from a Messianic Jew who discusses everything in the Bible from the perspective of the Jewish history with a working knowledge of all of the Biblical languages. He points out that the New Testament is written in Koine Greek not ancient Greek. When Jews use a language they bring in the phraseology of Hebrew and make it a somewhat different language. Yiddish is a modern example of this. It is a modified German. Here is his credentials. I go by what he says about the Biblical times!

Dr. Eli Lizorkin Eyzenberg
(Research Professor of Jewish and Christian Studies)
Discover the Hebrew Bible & The Jewish Background of the New Testament , Developer

A Few Words About Me:
Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg is an Israeli expert scholar in Early and Modern Church History. Dr. Lizorkin-Eyzenberg has received a fair amount of Jewish and Christian education, both religious and secular. Outside his expertise in the ancient languages – Biblical Hebrew, Koine Greek, Syriac and Old Church Slovanic, he has a command of three other modern languages – English, Russian and Hebrew.. One of his greatest passions is building bridges of trust, respect and understanding between Christians and Jews, overcoming centuries of difficult, but almost always joined history. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg strongly believes that both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament scriptures have much to teach both communities. He resides at Israel with his wife and children.

Education:
Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg holds an M.Div. degree in Christian Theology from the Reformed Theological Seminary (2000), and M.Phil. degree in Bible Interpretation (2008). He holds a Ph.D. in Ancient Cultures from Stellenbosch University (2011). Additional studies include doctoral and postdoctoral studies at the University of Pennsylvania, Leiden University, Princeton Theological Seminary and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Professional Experience:
Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg is a published author, an experienced lecturer and an educator. He is responsible for the developing of Biblical studies courses here at the Israel Institute of Biblical Studies. He has been teaching Biblical, Jewish and Christian studies at the Israel Theological Seminary, at the Haifa Theological Institute, in the Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary and in Spurgeon’s College which is located at the University of Wales. He has been a content developer and a teacher at the Israel Institute of Biblical Studies for many years.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
The Grand Canyon could not have possibly been created naturally in millions of years, not even in billions of years. It was most likely created in a catastrophic event lasting a few seconds or minutes in duration.
Totally agree since the layers show absolutely no erosion in the layers as would be the case if they were laid down at different times.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory is how was the matter created in the first place that was subsequently condensed to such a state that it then exploded? You can't take a bunch of nothing and create a bunch of something.
God certainly can
So, you basically answered yourself.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
So, you basically answered yourself.
The issue is two different paradigms.
Paradigm 1 is "In the begining God created the heavens and the earth."
Paradigm 2 is big bang evolution

Those trying to meld them together and being foolish.
Geology is evidence of Genesis.
The layers seen in the Grand Canyon without erosion between the layers covers a majority of North America.
Prima facia evidence of the flood.
An area of Northern America has a bowl shape with a ridge that was cut through creating the Grand Canyon when the flood waters receded.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,265
5,624
113
So, you basically answered yourself.
Yes God can but the Big Bang Theory is that it happened from nothing. No creator involved. I've never been able to believe that. Even before I met The Lord I couldn't believe that. It just doesn't seem logical.
 

Joseppi

Senior Member
Jan 4, 2018
887
7
18
The layers in the Grand Canyon have been shown to be millions of years old, layerd in millions of years.
Water sorted layers can’t be produced slowly over time because there exists no mechanism to sort with.
A no brainer.
And that proves how stupid modern heathen scientists think other heathens are.

Radiometric dating has been pretty consistant in confirming this.
All scientific dating methods are used without any double blind testing because none of them are trustworthy.

But the main point is that it's safe to say that the writer of the flood account wasn't worried about science or the details of if the flood was the whole earth.
God is the author of all scripture.
The point was to say that after Adam, there was another covenant made with man, through Noah.
An adamic covenant?
I don’t see where Adam covenanted with God.


I
 

Joseppi

Senior Member
Jan 4, 2018
887
7
18
The Book of Genesis is an ancient document, written in a culture very different than ours.
It reads in the straightforward manner of truthful, historical testimony.
If we want to understand it, it helps (I would say is necessary) to research the culture, the ways that culture tended to write, and what message the author intended to convey.
All things we can’t know and therefore, things that can’t help anyone understand.
So, why does someone pretend they know something about the past? Or, about how God created all things? Or, about God’s destruction of the whole earth by water as is plain to see everywhere.

The Lord’s written word is unto every generation.

Reading Genesis as if it were an eye witness account with an emphsis on details and science is a 21st century culture way of going about it and doesn't give the text credit for what it is.
Why do you suppose it is, that only the Bible presents the authoritative history of mankind?

There isn’t any other history of man, and heathen scientists can’t make up any believable story.
 
Last edited: