Right Divider
Body part
Why do you think that he's stupid for believing what the Bible says?
-
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
Right Divider
Body part
That is shear nonsense.
I thought that the universe was still expanding, but there's a point made on https://kgov.com/stretch that honestly makes more sense in my mind, and that's that God created the universe at it's current size, and then pulled the light from the stars like he caused the plants to grow, stretching it through space to reach earth, and the "expansion" these scientists claim they're seeing is simply a byproduct of that event.
Right Divider
Body part
No, it does NOT say that. It says that is STARTS with those assumptions (which are quite reasonable).
Again, what is the problem with Dr. Brown's starting assumptions?
Right Divider
Body part
Why do you believe that more theories will arise?
I believe that more is not better in this regard. One really good theory is better and the HPT is that theory.
Sure. You act as if I'm saying Dr. Brown's view has no biblical or scientific support. It does. But so does a canopy, despite your insistence otherwise. It would be better for the two camps to acknowledge we have little data to go on and both sides take a "we'll see" attitude while placing or bets on what is the correct view. I've already taken that attitude, but your side fights like you know for sure. Dr. Brown has been wrong on some side issues before and it's just not that big a deal.
This is based on a thick canopy.
This is what I'm talking about your side being dogmatic in light of very little data. It would be wiser to say you don't think the evidence supports a canopy, not that there is no evidence for a canopy at all. And that you doubt the phrase "windows of heaven" refers to a canopy, not that that phrase rules out a canopy interpretation entirely.
Seriously? "Windows of heaven" could not possibly, in any way, not even a teensy tiny little bit, be referring to a canopy? I think you are taking your scientific bias and writing it into a rather vague biblical phrase.
There are quite a few anomalies of the pre flood world. Higher air pressure and a different mix of gases could explain some of them. Do you know of any pre flood anomalies?
As a main source of flood water this is correct. But it does seem to explain some anomalies when considered as a lesser roll in the flood.
@1Mind1Spirit Flat Earth discussion goes here ---> Controversial Theories
I opened that section for that kind of discussion.
I opened that section for that kind of discussion.
This is what I'm talking about your side being dogmatic in light of very little data. It would be wiser to say you don't think the evidence supports a canopy, not that there is no evidence for a canopy at all. And that you doubt the phrase "windows of heaven" refers to a canopy, not that that phrase rules out a canopy interpretation entirely.
Because the atmosphere isn't exactly a window. That phrase was used as an analogy, a type of figure of speech, to refer to something else. Maybe it just meant the rain came down from above after it shot out of the earth, or maybe it was referring to a canopy that came down as water from above... it doesn't explain.
Large organisms. More carbon locked in plants than our atmosphere can support. Longer radio carbon dates from pre flood biological material. Long life of pre flood organisms. I think there are more, perhaps you can think of others.
Higher air pressure and the necessary different mix of gases could contribute to the explanation of everything I mentioned.
Only as the main contributer of the flood water. You can say you doubt there was canopy, but I don't think you can rule it out.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Which, from our vantage point of the earth, looks exactly like we are the center of the universe, right? What I mean is, the sun 'rises' in the east and 'sets' in the west, and we always thought the sun rose and set, but now we know that the earth rotates on its axis, so it "looks like" the sun rises and sets, even though it's basically stationary and we're spinning. But it looks the same either way.
If there is no unique position in the universe, then it would appear from every point that it's expanding equally away from it in all directions, no matter where you are, but, we're only here. So what if it really only looks like it's expanding outward everywhere equally from here? We're only here. We're nowhere else, so we can't test this hypothesis that it looks to be expanding outward in all directions equally, in any other place in the universe, all we can do is extrapolate and guess.
Could be that from every vantage point in the universe, especially the farther away from earth that you get, the universe is seen expanding outward from the earth. We're just nowhere other than earth to confirm or deny this. Extrapolation, guessing is what we have.
idk. Interesting thought.
Right Divider
Body part
The "canopy theory" is based on interpreting the firmament dividing the waters as a SINGLE firmament. This means that the water above the firmament is also above the sun, moon and stars. I'm sorry, but that idea is crazy.
Unless you have some other "canopy theory" that I'm not aware of.
No, I base the idea on the phrase "windows of heaven", not on dividing the firmament.
Right Divider
Body part
That's a pretty thin "theory". Care to elaborate?
What's there to elaborate on? There are anomalies, a canopy that explains some aspects of them, and the phrase "windows off heaven". That's it.
God didn't need to describe what it was or that he even mention it separately, but He could have just lumped it in with creating the firmament of the heavens.
This doesn't change any major part of HPT at all. In fact I'd say it doesn't change HPT even in a minor way, if one considers the book is arguing against a canopy as a main source of water for the flood.
About the canopy - it had water as a part of it at least. More information is needed to figure out the exact material makeup and structure. It would also require a different gas mixture of the air which we all already agree with.
Right Divider
Body part
I don't think that there are "anomalies" that are not explained by the flood itself (and all of the events surrounding it).
God divided the waters with a firmament (i.e., the crust of the earth). God also created the "firmament of the heavens". That's what the Bible says.
The source of the flood water was the combination of water under the crust and the water above the crust.
The water under the crust was super-critical and therefore exploded violently when the crust cracked. That is the water that rained down on the earth. That water I also believe is what is referred to as "the windows of heaven".
Remember that God called firmament that divided the water, Heaven.
The pre-flood atmosphere was probably very different even without a "water canopy".
It really does not. Yes, you can interpret some passages to say that there was, but they don't actually say that unless you interpret it that way. That's called confirmation bias, by the way.
There is PLENTY of data to go on.
It doesn't help when one side ignores it.
There's a lot we don't have to take a "wait and see" approach to, because it's clear, cut, and dried.
Could the HPT be wrong? There's certainly a possibility, but the theory fits the evidence extremely well, so pardon me if I doubt that it will be disproven (which is a pretty high barrier to clear).
So what?
No, it's really not, unless you consider 4 inches "thick."
Again, there's plenty of data and evidence to support the HPT. There's very little in the way of support for VCT.
Other scripture rules out the VCT, not the phrase. That's what I was trying to say.
Only when you specifically interpret it that way.
Otherwise, it's just a figure of speech that means that there was heavy rain, which makes sense considering of the fountains of the great deep.
Except that I'm simply using scripture as a reference:
First, the fountains of the great deep broke forth, then the windows of heaven were opened. It's not much of a stretch to think that the fountains breaking forth have something to do with the windows of heaven being opened. It's a bit more of a stretch to think that they were two separate events.
The problem the VCT faces is that in order for you to have a canopy in which the "windows of heaven were opened," first you have to have a canopy, which VCT proponents assert is the firmament of Day 2. Yet Scripture clearly indicates that the firmament of Day 2 is NOT above the earth, but is rather the earth's crust, and so you no longer have seas, and a firmament in the sky with waters above it, but instead, you have subterranean chambers, and seas. with a second firmament of the heavens being the sky, and no water above it.
Do you see the problem yet with VCT?
You don't have a canopy to begin with if the firmament called heaven is the crust of the earth.
And even more so, it cannot be both.
Such as?
I know of very few anomalies, because the theory I hold to explains most of what we see today.
And has plenty of anomalies of its own, very few of which exist under the HPT.
Neither is a canopy.
Yes, we agree on that point.
That's what the HPT says.
Which just doesn't jive with other scriptures.
Creatures tend to grow bigger when they live longer, especially reptiles, such as dinosaurs.
Plants... as in modern living plants? or fossilized/coalified/oilified? The earth was a paradise for both flora and fauna before the flood
Compared to what?
Could be explained by this:
How about the anomalies in which scripture is involved?
Again, the pressure would be enough to boil everything living.
Yes, you can, because scripture doesn't support it, the evidence doesn't support it, and you have to specifically interpret what there IS in order to arrive at the VCT.
As opposed to the entire Bible, the geological, historical, cultural, evidences, and physics, that support the HPT.
The firmament of the heavens is the sky (and space, because apparently I need to mention that too). The crux of the matter lies in determining what the firmament of day 2 is.
If it's something in the sky, then the Bible would likely refer to it in such manner.
And if it's the crust of the earth, then the Bible would likely refer to it as such.
So what do we see, in terms of scriptural support for the two?
We see that overwhelmingly, the VCT has very few passages that could be interpreted to support it, let alone that indicate that the firmament of day 2 is the sky, while the HPT has plenty of passages that refer to something akin to the crust of the earth, if not explicitly.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...8xbmhUOGJ0bWdMWTJac3hwZnc&usp=drive_web#gid=0
The problem is that both cannot be true, simply because there's only one firmament with waters above and below it. Either it's the crust of the earth OR it's the sky. If it's the crust of the earth, there's no canopy, because the VCT theory relies on the firmament being the sky and not the crust. And if it's the sky, then there's no subterranean chambers, because they would just be the seas on top of the crust.
The geological evidence supports the claim that it's the crust. There is no geological evidence that it's the sky.
Supra.
Supra.
Wrong. As stated above, we are not exactly in the center. Close to it, but not exactly, and it's because we're NOT that we can tell that we're close to it.
See the following links which answers these ideas.
See also:
RSR: Stretch Cosmology | KGOV.com
kgov.com
Since I've been repeatedly clear, over and over, redundantly, again and again, that I support and promote HPT. I've even been evangelizing it for many many years...
Why do you bring up the "firmament" when I said "firmament of the heavens"? They are two different things if you weren't aware. Here is a book about it called "In The Beginning" by Dr Walter Brown.
It's no different than you interpreting it to mean rain falling after water was pushed into the air.
That's not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is selecting and/or looking for information that confirms what a person wants to think and ignoring contrary information. I'm doing neither of those things. I don't even care if it turns out there was no canopy. If you think I am simply confirming my bias, please tell me what information I'm ignoring. I know you want to say I'm ignoring Gen 6-10, but I'm not since I evangelize Dr Brown's theory on those passages. I'm not ignoring the heat problem although I don't have an answer for that. What am I ignoring?
I've taken all the data into account. To call it PLENTY of data is a bit optimistic in the context of a canopy.
No, there are still unanswered questions. I'll get to one in just a bit about man's general age of death.
Since I support and promote HPT where do you get this idea we are talking about disproving it?
But yes, Dr brown has been wrong on some smaller issues. That the water came down and froze the tundra (and the woolly mammoths) is one. He said if oil and/or coal was found under the tundra he would say that was wrong. It's looking like there is oil there, so when he is sufficiently convinced it's there it won't change the overall theory at all.
I'm not sure this is accurate. And please don't quote the book since I'm very familiar with what it says on this topic. What data did Dr Brown use to make this conclusion?
I know that's why I support it.
Hey, you said you understood I reject VCT and you wouldn't bring it up as what I'm defending.
Supra.
Now what other scripture rules out a canopy? Don't bring up Gen 6-10 since we booth agree what that is saying.
Otherwise, it's just a figure of speech that means that there was heavy rain, which makes sense considering the canopy came down.
So am I.
Of course they were not 2 separate events. The fountains of the deep breaking out is also what brought down the canopy. How could the fountains of the great deep not rip through it on the way out? One event.
I thought you said you understood I reject VCT? That I agree the firmament on day 2 is the crust of the earth? Did you forget?
Of the anomalies I mentioned, HPT delves less into solid support and more into speculation. Even Dr Brown gives indications of that in the book. It's good scientific practice and he's a good scientist.
Supra
That's why it's a figure of speech. The windows of heaven could be either, but I'm betting it involves a canopy.
What other scriptures does a canopy not jive with? Don't forget I reject VCT.
But it's not just long lived organisms that keep growing throughout their life.
The plants buried in the sediments, coalified et al. I don't think you understand the anomaly.
Compared to radio carbon dates after the flood. I'm already well read with what the book says.
Nope. Noah should have died early like Shem, and we don't know how long Ham and Japheth lived. We don't know exactly how Shem died either, and it's one data point. Even Dr Brown would not say the Shem evidence was relatively strong. This doesn't mean I reject the radiation theory, I'm sure that's included (or even a major factor), but there are probably other factors, including changes from a fallen canopy, that also contributed.
You act as if reality outside of scripture, especially reality consistent with scripture, doesn't count.
Pressure isn't what would cause the tempurature rise. It would be infrared wave lengths reflected back onto earth. I wouldn't be so sure the earth got as hot as you are assuming since the science of a canopy is not well understood.
Who are you talking to? Someone who supports VCT?
Really? "Jesus wept" supports HPT? But not a canopy? How so? I think you a dabbling in a bit of rhetoric with that line. The bible supports a canopy just as well.
What geological evidence is there against a canopy (don't forget, not VCT)?
What historical evidence is there against a canopy (don't forget, not VCT)?
What cultural evidence is there against a canopy (don't forget, not VCT)?
I agree there are still unanswered questions in physics about a canopy, but there is also little known about how a canopy would work with which to apply physics. Thus, wait and see.
No, as you seem to have forgotten, it isn't.
Supra
Right. As you've forgotten, I agree with HPT's day 2 interpretation.
Last edited:
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil grew to be enormous. So large that it stop the river that flowed out from Eden and split into the four head waters that watered the whole Earth. There was, therefore, a great drought and people went up stream to investigate the lack of water flow from the rivers. Finding Eden unguarded, they figured out that it was The Tree that was the issue and so cut it down and when the Tree came down, the fountains of the great deep broke forth and God said (in so many words) "You're thirsty? I'll give you something to drink!" as the bible says that "all that drink water, were comforted in the depths of the Earth". And so they and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil went down to Hell at the beginning of Noah's flood.
Recorded in Ezekiel 31
Last edited by a moderator:
Right Divider
Body part
My point was that the "windows of heaven" is not some water originating from above the sky.