The Flood in Noah's day

[Bookends]

Yes, but it is extremely long. http://www.kenbehrens.com/Ancient%20Technology.pdf Staring p. 84 of the file, but you will need to read most of it, to get the terms straight. I really can't do it justice here, more than I have said.

Thanks, I'll bookmark for later reading. But I'd find this in the first paragraph in which kinda sets the tone for me on how legit/truthful facts it may or may not contain, "Or the human footprint covered by a dinosaur track in Texas", this claim has already be proven false my most archeologists. See Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks) and "John D. Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, now admits the claim is not well supported by the evidence, that the alleged human tracks may, in fact, be dinosaurian, and that the tracks near Glen Rose do not support the claim that humans and non-avian dinosaurs coexisted.[SUP][4][/SUP] John Morris and other young-Earth creationists continue to believe that humans and non-avian dinosaurs lived at the same time, a notion that is contrary to the standard view of the geological time scale. This view is the basis for displays at the Creation Evidence Museum in nearby Glen Rose. However, in a rebuttal, biologist Massimo Pigliucci has noted that geologists in the 1980s "clearly demonstrated that no human being left those prints," but rather "they were in fact metatarsal dinosaur tracks, together with a few pure and simple fakes." --->Dinosaur Valley State Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[4enlightment]

The entire event lasted circa one year, according to scripture.

The water sources came from the earth and its immediate atmosphere, and then returned to it.

The only area that needed to be flooded was the local plain area where mankind existed. Remember, mankind was disobedient to God and did not populate the globe as commanded - the place-names in Genesis confirm this.

It was only AFTER the flood that we see places-names extending beyond one localized area...

If I've known that a flood is going to be coming in a certain area that I'm living in; I would pack up everything and even the animals and move to a safe place like how the Habiru (A word that they use to call a tribe without a nation, like the word Gypsy) tribes had moved to Egypt to stay away from being consumed by the famine. I don't believe that God will have a man to build an Ark (And which it took many of days to build and which that many of days you can travel around the world with a flat tire) and float around in the middle of this flooded area with animals while there's surrounding area that aren't flooded.

 

[Bookends]

the flood was global...unless you subscribe to this scenario...

View attachment 56641

You wouldn't reject the principle of this picture while reading the account of Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea.

 

[oldhermit]

The only area that needed to be flooded was the local plain area where mankind existed. Remember, mankind was disobedient to God and did not populate the globe as commanded - the place-names in Genesis confirm this.

First of all, you are assuming that the population of man was limited to a particular region. Secondly. The flood occurred 1600 years after creation. Thirdly, you are making an assumption that mankind did not populate the globe as commanded. You cannot get this idea out of scripture which means that you are assuming this without evidence. 1600 years certainly ample time for global expansion.

The instance of a regional flood is contrary to what God said he would do and what scripture records that he did. If you insist upon a regional flood, you will as a matter of consequence have to insist that scripture is untrue since it is impossible for both to be true.

6:13 “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth (NOT THE REGION) is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth." NOT THE REGION... 17“Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
7:4 “For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made. The target of destruction is not just man. It is EVERY LIVING THING."
19 "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark."

 

[oldhermit]

Not even the laws of physics will support a regional flood of this magnitude.

 

[Bowman]

First of all, you are assuming that the population of man was limited to a particular region.

Scripture states that mankind was localized to one area by the place-names that Genesis mentions.

The only 'assumption' here is that scripture speaks the truth.

Secondly. The flood occurred 1600 years after creation.

According to what reference point?

Thirdly, you are making an assumption that mankind did not populate the globe as commanded.

If mankind did, then Genesis would have mentioned global place-names....of which, it never does before the flood.

You cannot get this idea out of scripture which means that you are assuming this without evidence.

1600 years certainly ample time for global expansion.

Scripture disagrees, for the simple reason that mankind was too busy murdering each other and collecting in one local area...

The instance of a regional flood is contrary to what God said he would do and what scripture records that he did. If you insist upon a regional flood, you will as a matter of consequence have to insist that scripture is untrue since it is impossible for both to be true.

A local flood fits with both scripture and geology.

6:13 “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth (NOT THE REGION) is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth." NOT THE REGION... 17“Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

There are numerous examples of where 'kol erets' refers to local land and not the entire earth.

We need to remember that Biblical Hebrew only contained circa 3K words not including proper names....thus, double and triple duty was the norm for word usage.

Hence, this is where YEC's get caught in the word 'yaum' thinking that it means only a 24 hr day...

 

[oldhermit]

Scripture states that mankind was localized to one area by the place-names that Genesis mentions.

Show me where!

According to what reference point?

The genealogical record is well preserved In Genesis throughout the book. All you have to do is the research in the text itself.

If mankind did, then Genesis would have mentioned global place-names....of which, it never does before the flood.

Why on earth would you make such an ridiculous assumption as this and then try to hang the regional flood theory on it?

Scripture disagrees, for the simple reason that mankind was too busy murdering each other and collecting in one local area...

This argument is beyond ridiculous.

A local flood fits with both scripture and geology.

Your are ignoring the references I gave you in the text that describes in detail both the intent of God and the scope of the event itself.

I have been round and round with you before regarding your complete disregard for the grammatical structure of the text and your propensity for bringing you own ideas into the text and then trying to reconstruct the grammar in such a way that you feel will create a synthesis between your theories and the plain language of the text. Why is it so difficult for you to simply believe what scripture says?

 

[SweetSavour]

Epic of Gilgamesh spinoff...

 

[Huckleberry]

To understand the Flood, one must understand the Earth prior to it. The world is mostly covered in water now, but it was not always so. Most of the world's water used to be underground and above the atmosphere. There was a lot lot lot more land area then. Also, the Earth was not tilted on its axis as itis now. There were not four seasons in a year such as we experience.


The world was created with one main river that sprang from the ground at or near the highest point on Earth, the land called Eden. This main river flowed into the Garden,where it separated into four headwaters. It didn't rain in the world; everything was watered by the rivers and a mist that came out of the ground. The waters eventually went back into the Earth, and were circulated back to where they sprang forth from the ground in Eden; most of the world's water was underground at any given moment.


There was a great amount of water vapor above the atmosphere. This “canopy”, as it is generally referred to, diffused sunlight and filtered out the sun's harmful radiation. It probably compressed the atmosphere making it more oxygen rich by volume. In this world-wide “high pressure system” it was perpetually springtime. There were no storms or high winds. The canopy made the world conducive to the great size and longevity of its occupants. Real nice place to live compared to the flooded out wreck that was to come.


The Earth's crust was not then separated into “plates” like it is now. It was basically a solid shell floating on a subterranean ocean. There were no earthquakes or volcanoes. No floods, tornadoes, or typhoons.


There was a planet called Phaëton which orbited the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. It was destroyed. The cause of its destruction is unknown, but the effects are evident all over the solar system: The asteroid belt; the outer planets' rings; the devastated surfaces of bodies such as Mercury and our own moon; and the countless comets which orbit the sun. And the Great Flood.


Earth took a direct hit. The canopy was penetrated, and a giant piece, or pieces, of Phaëton landed and broke up the crust like a piece of shattering glass. The world was hit so hard that its orbit was affected. The axis was severely tilted, and began to wobbled as aspinning top would if hit with a rock. The Earth quaked and erupted on an unimaginable scale. Water was shooting out of the gound all over the place up into the stratosphere. The atmospereic temperature dropped quickly and significantly.The disrupted canopy began to condense and fall to Earth as a torrential downpour for the next forty days. The poles were covered in ice quickly and completely, and the ice extended far towards the middle latitudes.


So then the world was completely covered in water, much of it frozen, and the crust was broken up and had big empty pockets beneath it where the water was. Naturally, the crust collapsed into those pockets and water filled the basins. As the basins collapsed, the crusts along their perimeters was pushed up to form the mountain ranges of the world. There's something else beneath the crust: magma. The newly broken up and collapsed crust was then in closer proximity to the mantle and volcanoes began erupting around the world.


The world underwent a cataclysmic upheaval the likes of which we cannot fully phathom. Evenafter the flood waters had gone down, the world was dramaticallychanging. During the period right after the Flood, the newly formed continents were not completely separated from each other. The aforementioned polar icecaps were quickly starting to melt, and asthey did, the waters came up again, and over a period of, say , acouple of hundred years, the continents were largely isolated from each other. Highly diverse and unique synergystic ecosystems began to develop around the world. The survivors of these events must have been awe struck, to say the least, at what happened to the world, and they made sure to teach their children about what happened, and why.

 

[Starcrash]

The place-names, alone, mentioned in Genesis, leading up to the flood show that humanity was localized to the Mesopotamian plain. Thus, the flood would only have needed to be local in order to serve its purpose...

This demonstrates wishful thinking. AmberGardner replied with bible citation demonstrating that it was intended to mean a "global flood". The context seems to suggest it... gathering up 2 of every kind of animal only makes sense if you're trying to prevent their extinction... a local flood would not likely take 7 months to clear up... and even if you granted that it only took 55 to 75 years to build the ark, wouldn't it have been much quicker and easier to just leave the region? Also, references in the New Testament indicate that "the second coming will be like the flood", destroying everyone but 7 people.

But whether or not it was global, what "purpose" exactly do you think it served? Wiping out violence? That's silly, because violence didn't disappear with the flood. How about angel genocide, wiping out all of the nephilim? Again, that wouldn't be cured with a flood because it could just as easily return afterwards (and if you believe in the Canaanites and Goliath, then the bible makes it clear that it did). So what was the purpose of a local flood?

 

[Starcrash]

To understand the Flood, one must understand the Earth prior to it...

Citations, please! Is this a case of reverse-engineering, where you assume that the bible must have been true and then try to fit the evidence to it, or is there evidence that any of this is actually true and your conclusion is based on that evidence?

 

[Starcrash]

A local flood fits with both scripture and geology.

This is, I assert, why you believe in a localized flood... because you're trying to make the flood narrative consistent with geology. But before we had the geological evidence, do you honestly believe that people thought that this passage referred to a localized flood?

 

[kenisyes]

Thanks, I'll bookmark for later reading. But I'd find this in the first paragraph in which kinda sets the tone for me on how legit/truthful facts it may or may not contain, "Or the human footprint covered by a dinosaur track in Texas", this claim has already be proven false my most archeologists. See Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks) and "John D. Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, now admits the claim is not well supported by the evidence, that the alleged human tracks may, in fact, be dinosaurian, and that the tracks near Glen Rose do not support the claim that humans and non-avian dinosaurs coexisted.[SUP][4][/SUP] John Morris and other young-Earth creationists continue to believe that humans and non-avian dinosaurs lived at the same time, a notion that is contrary to the standard view of the geological time scale. This view is the basis for displays at the Creation Evidence Museum in nearby Glen Rose. However, in a rebuttal, biologist Massimo Pigliucci has noted that geologists in the 1980s "clearly demonstrated that no human being left those prints," but rather "they were in fact metatarsal dinosaur tracks, together with a few pure and simple fakes." --->Dinosaur Valley State Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The way I learned it is there is indeed a dinosaur footprint over a human one. People who don't like it being there, went out and made a bunch of counterfeit ones. Now, no one knows which is the real one anymore, so they think they are all fake. When I was a kid there was only one, now there are many, and they are all supposed to be fake, that's why I think that's what happened. I mention this in the book, but it does not matter, as I don't base my conclusions on that evidence, but on the literary evidence of ancient times.

 

[kenisyes]

There was a planet called Phaëton which orbited the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. It was destroyed. The cause of its destruction is unknown, but the effects are evident all over the solar system: The asteroid belt; the outer planets' rings; the devastated surfaces of bodies such as Mercury and our own moon; and the countless comets which orbit the sun. And the Great Flood.

This is a variation on Velikovsky's "Worlds in collision" hypothesis. Velikovsky puts his at 1500BC during the exodus, and is easily disproved by the stability of the calendar during that period. There is no way to prove or disprove this that I am aware of. But how did you get the name Phaeton?

 

[Huckleberry]

This is a variation on Velikovsky's "Worlds in collision" hypothesis. Velikovsky puts his at 1500BC during the exodus, and is easily disproved by the stability of the calendar during that period. There is no way to prove or disprove this that I am aware of. But how did you get the name Phaeton?

I had this idea independently of any research I subsequently did,
but I cannot take credit for the naming of the destroyed planet.
Evidently many people much smarter than I have thought this through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaeton_(hypothetical_planet)

 

[oldhermit]

I had this idea independently of any research I subsequently did,
but I cannot take credit for the naming of the destroyed planet.
Evidently many people much smarter than I have thought this through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaeton_(hypothetical_planet)

This is not an indicator of academic intelligence but of a good imagination. There is more reliability in scripture regarding the causation of the flood than in the speculations of the scientific community about a planetary collision with an imaginary planet they cannot prove ever existed.

 

[Huckleberry]

This is not an indicator of academic intelligence but of a good imagination. There is more reliability in scripture regarding the causation of the flood than in the speculations of the scientific community about a planetary collision with an imaginary planet they cannot prove ever existed.

"They" don't have to prove it.
The evidence is all over the solar system.
Did God create The Asteroid Belt on Day Four?
No, a major planet was somehow utterly destroyed.

 

[oldhermit]

"They" don't have to prove it.
The evidence is all over the solar system.
Did God create The Asteroid Belt on Day Four?
No, a major planet was somehow utterly destroyed.

That is nothing but speculation based on the process of beginning with the present and attempting to work backward in time attempting to answer the question of causation. Most of the scientific community does nothing more than develop a sets of interlocking theories that seem to fit a set of accumulated facts whether observable or non observable. They then draw conclusions based on a set of non-provable theories. And they think we are unreasonable!!!

 

[Bowman]

Show me where!

In the text leading up to the flood...

The genealogical record is well preserved In Genesis throughout the book. All you have to do is the research in the text itself.

No where does scripture ever inform the reader that the genealogies should be summed.

Especially when there are provable gaps in them....come on...

Why on earth would you make such an ridiculous assumption as this and then try to hang the regional flood theory on it?

If the flood had been global, then global place-names would have been mentioned.

This argument is beyond ridiculous.

Scripture speaks for itself.

You seem to not like what it says...

Your are ignoring the references I gave you in the text that describes in detail both the intent of God and the scope of the event itself.

The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's # H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's # H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or"ground." Here are some examples of the Hebrew words kol erets:

The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)

And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)

Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a localarea from the context. In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area, instead of our entire planet.


Here are some more examples of where kol erets refers to a local area:

"Is not the whole [kol] land [erets] before you? Please separate from me: if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left." (Genesis 13:9)

And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth. (Genesis 41:57)

Then God said, "Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all [kol]the earth [erets], nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you. (Exodus 34:10)

'You shall then sound a ram's hornabroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets]. (Leviticus 25:9)

'Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption ofthe land. (Leviticus 25:24)

behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dryon all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken." (Judges 6:37, also 6:39-40)

And Jonathan smote the garrison ofthe Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, "Let the Hebrews hear." (1 Samuel 13:3)

For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured. (2Samuel 18:8)

So when they had gone about through the whole [kol] land [erets], they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. (2 Samuel 24:8)

And all [kol] the earth [erets]was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. (1 Kings 10:24)

Then the fame of David went outinto all [kol] the lands [erets]; and the LORD brought the fear of him on all the nations. (1 Chronicles 14:17)

And David said, "My sonSolomon is young and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for the LORD shall be exceedingly magnificent, famous and glorious throughout all [kol] lands [erets]. (1 Chronicles 22:5)

And they were bringing horses forSolomon from Egyptand from all [kol] countries [erets]. (2 Chronicles 9:28)


As can be seen above, in the majority of instances kol erets does not refer to the entire planet earth. In fact, of the 205 instance of kol erets in the Old Testament, it might refer to the entire planet just 40 times, and even some of those are questionable.

About half of those instances occur in the book of Psalms and Isaiah.

I have been round and round with you before regarding your complete disregard for the grammatical structure of the text and your propensity for bringing you own ideas into the text and then trying to reconstruct the grammar in such a way that you feel will create a synthesis between your theories and the plain language of the text. Why is it so difficult for you to simply believe what scripture says?

You must be confusing me with another...

 

[Bowman]

This demonstrates wishful thinking. AmberGardner replied with bible citation demonstrating that it was intended to mean a "global flood".

Where?

The context seems to suggest it... gathering up 2 of every kind of animal only makes sense if you're trying to prevent their extinction...

Or, for animal sacrifices...

a local flood would not likely take 7 months to clear up...

It was a whole year according to scripture, and yes, it would....

and even if you granted that it only took 55 to 75 years to build the ark, wouldn't it have been much quicker and easier to just leave the region?

Running away would not have served God's purpose.

Also, references in the New Testament indicate that "the second coming will be like the flood",

Not a flood.

destroying everyone but 7 people.

Eight people...not seven...

But whether or not it was global, what "purpose" exactly do you think it served? Wiping out violence? That's silly, because violence didn't disappear with the flood. How about angel genocide, wiping out all of the nephilim? Again, that wouldn't be cured with a flood because it could just as easily return afterwards (and if you believe in the Canaanites and Goliath, then the bible makes it clear that it did). So what was the purpose of a local flood?

The purpose of the flood was to eradicate reprobate humanity...and start anew.

Humanity ignored God's command to multiply and fill the earth prior to the flood....that is why only a local flood was necessary.

After the flood, God gave this very same command and look what happened...that's right, they multiplied and filled the earth as commanded.

Looks like it served its purpose to me...