You made a fine effort.Eh, like I said I tried
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
A valid proposal, shot down instantly by the fact that the Bible (not to mention the laws of reason and logic) doesn't allow for it.
Appealing to the miraculous where the Bible doesn't specify that a miracle happened allows for any number of ridiculous ideas to be put forth as valid, because, after all, they don't have to make any sense, they just need to provide a basic explanation for what you're trying to explain. It's literally an "ad hoc" argument.
You should, because it's a completely untenable idea, even given miraculous intervention.
As addressed above:
Not an assumption.
It's a conclusion based on what the Bible says.
The Hebrew doesn't allow it.
Which are all clearly indicated in the text as miracles.
There are very few miracles mentioned in the text of Genesis 1-9, and what few there are have nothing to do with the actual flood itself.
We can ONLY assume what is mentioned in scripture. Adding miracles to scripture to support a theory where none are specified in scripture is not only adding to scripture, but just introducing ad hoc rescue devices, which is generally a sign of a poor theory to begin with.
Not what He said.
What He said was:
Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” - Genesis 9:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9:11&version=NKJV
Nothing about "letting it happen."
His covenant was that it WOULD NOT happen again.
The sign of the covenant was the rainbow in the sky.
The proof that it will never happen again is the lack of enough subterranean water.
You're forgetting the very thing you wish to allow as an explanation: Miracles.
Could God create more water that could flood the earth? Yes.
Will He?
NO! Because He made a covenant saying that He wouldn't.
It doesn't matter. If there was even 4 inches of water (nowhere near enough to flood it) above the atmosphere, ALL LIFE ON EARTH would LITERALLY BOIL from the heat.
There is no way for water to orbit in a sphere, as the water at the poles would simply fall out of orbit due to lack of momentum.
The pressure would rise due to the amount of heat being trapped by the water. As I stated above, the earth and all life on it would literally BOIL.
Actually, the reverse happened.
The pre-flood atmosphere would not have been as protective as our current one, since it's likely that God made man with enough resilience to radiation from the sun to be able to survive without any issues. However, due to man's fall, there would have potentially been the loss of that function, and while the Flood certainly wiped out all life on earth except for that which was in the waters and on the ark, it also, mercifully, I might add, put enough water into the atmosphere to protect us from the sun's rays even with the loss of function.
The forum is titled "The Global Flood and the Hydroplate Theory."
It's for discussions of the Global Flood, and particularly the HPT.
I know, I have the book. I have been referring to it for years. The section on radio carbon dating is excellent and I think some other ideas complete what he says in that part.
The windows of heaven were opened. That's pretty much it for scripture. And I think there are some forensic claims that are consistent with the idea of a canopy. Large organisms would benefit from a different mix of gases and higher pressures. A temperate worldwide climate is another.
Even so, if it turns out there was no canopy there was definitely something very different about the pre flood atmosphere.
I think "instantly" is a bit dramatic.
The pre flood atmosphere could very well have had other factors that counteracted the greenhouse effect. We just don't know what it was like.
And, please, you don't have to mention "nowhere near enough to flood it" when discussing this topic with me. We both agree on that already as I've tried to make clear... repeatedly. I think every single sentence I talk about the canopy I make it clear. It sure would be nice not to have to mention it every single time just to save typing.
According to the Biblical timeline, it took from about day 6 to the start of the flood. So about 2,200 years.
I went back a reread your post. I misread it the first time. I, for some reason, took it to mean you didn't necessarily think that the flood actually happened. That isn't what you said so I don't know why I would have thought that.
It wouldn't need to build up. If the water were contained under a layer of the Earth's surface then it would be under pressure due to the weight of the earth above it. So long as the Earth was stable, so would the pressure be. To start the flood, all God had to do was uncork the bottle sort of speak, or, perhaps more accurately, allow the bottle to be uncorked.
Right Divider
Body part
I doubt that God created the subterranean water super-critical. Any water would certainly be under some pressure, but not super heated, etc. According to the HPT, tidal pumping was the cause of that. It would take some time for the erosion of the crust ceiling and the mantle floor that lead to many other aspects of the floods results (vast amounts of limestone precursors, etc).
Right Divider
Body part
Even without the unbiblical and unscientific canopy, the pre-flood atmosphere was likely far different than today.
If the pressure had remained stable, it would not have breached the crust.
Derf
Well-known member
Ps 104 is thought by some to be speaking of the flood:
Psalms 104:6-8 (ESV) 6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. 8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.
The idea of a canopy is neither unbiblical nor unscientific. Biblically, the canopy could be what the windows of heaven refers to. There is room for different interpretations of that phrase. And scientifically, there should be answers for some of the anomalies we see from the preflood world. A canopy could answer some of those. And beyond that, the feasibility of a canopy, with the small amount of data we have, can not be ruled out.
These two replies now brings up the question of whether God created the firmament (the crust) in a manner that it would eventually break under the pressure and flood the earth by natural means.
Calvinists might say He did since they believe He already planned out future events to happen at appointed times.
Did it happen because God created it be flooded by natural means, or did God have to do something extra (beyond natural means) to make it happen?
This can get mind boggling!
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It would have been an earth capable of the Flood. It would still take divine providence to bring it about, whether through indirect means and permission, or through direct intervention, @Clete 's "cork" popping. This anyway is the theory we're working with, rather than God more miraculously intervening, creating fresh water ex nihilo to bring about the Flood, which isn't out of the question, but we're focused on the fountains of the very deep, and what that might signify.
But whether or not it was caused miraculously or "naturally" (meaning that God would have directed nature to bring the Flood about directly, but through indirect means of some sort), it's still not unreasonable to think that the evidence, residue or 'scars' from the Flood might still be here, and be very obvious.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Agreed. Water that's underneath say 10 km of rock, at about 3x the density of water, is easily at supercritical pressure, and plus there is still some natural supercritical water today under the seas. Black smokers
Super critical water is what we're supposing the fountains of the deep were.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
No I don't think so. Pressure is pressure, if you have pressurized gas cylinders they can just sit there indefinitely and all that stable pressure (omnidirectional force, iow a scalar quantity, meaning all outward vectors) will remain in the cylinder, but at any time if you drive a nail into the side of it, all that pressure fairly immediately releases, and if it causes enough structural compromise of the container to puncture it relative to its inner pressure then the whole thing could just fragment out in an explosion. That's what might have happened during the Flood, writ large.