BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Topic started by: Cloudwalker on October 10, 2025, 05:15:10 PM
-
A friend of mine posted this. I thought the people here might find it interesting. Feel free to move it if there is a better location for it. I'll admit I contemplated putting it in "Controversial".
Cloudwalker
GRAND CANYON PROVES THE GENESIS FLOOD
Geologists from around the world descend upon the Grand Canyon to see the layers of rocks. Only a few places on earth reveal such a sequence of rock layers, and here is what has been discovered.
1. All of the horizontal layers contain marine fossils such as corals and clams. Marine fossils are found on every continent in the world.
2. There is a layer formation that has been found across the United States called the Coconino Sandstone or “the bathtub ring” in other states it’s also referred to as Cedar Hills Sandstone, Duncan Sandstone, and the Glorietta Sandstone.
3. The Tapeats Sandstone, one of the lowest layers of the Grand Canyon, appears to form a single sandstone body that blankets across North America, extending from California on the west northward to Montana, covering much of North Dakota, and across the Midwest to New England. The same formation in southern Israel is called the Nabatean Sandstone of Petra.
4. The Redwall limestone in the Grand Canyon is grey limestone stained red from the iron oxide in the above layer. This same limestone can be found in much of North America, England, and in the Himalaya Mountains.
During the Genesis Flood, there was catastrophic flooding across the earth. These tidal waves and tsunamis killed marine creatures and poured onto the land. Subsequently, tsunamis laid down more layers of fossils containing sediments.
The Flood continued for months. The Grand Canyon reveals the violent worldwide flood that once was; it is a monument to the Genesis Flood.
-
Here is fine for now, but can move it if necessary. I'll get us started on the "might be necessary".
There are a couple of serious challenges with a global flood narrative. Here's one:
If waters covered the tallest mountain (Everest), that puts the floodwaters at ~8.85km high. That elevation would kill everything on the boat within the ~370 days spent on it.
A related one would be to point out how that volume of water would impact the earths orbit, mass, rotation, etc.
A related one would be to point out how much that volume of water actually is, how much would need to fall every day to cover the earth to above Everest, how that would essentially turn earth into an ocean planet (there's nowhere for this much water to go).
And so, things like "The Grand Canyon Proves the Flood" kind of never get off the ground.
-
The Flood continued for months. The Grand Canyon reveals the violent worldwide flood that once was; it is a monument to the Genesis Flood.
This is a resource for utilizing the structure of the Grand Canyon to support the flood:
-
Why do I need the Grand Canyon? We walk by faith not by sight.
-
Why do I need the Grand Canyon? We walk by faith not by sight.
Agreed 100%. The points gathered in this video help with a base of refuting scientific evidence, to raise when speaking with those who speak against the flood. Even when those who speak against a "world-wide" flood, are brethren (unfortunately).
-
Fighting the wrong fight.
-
Why do I need the Grand Canyon? We walk by faith not by sight.
Agreed 100%. The points gathered in this video help with a base of refuting scientific evidence, to raise when speaking with those who speak against the flood. Even when those who speak against a "world-wide" flood, are brethren (unfortunately).
Unfortunately, I am one of those brethren. Those creationists looking for naturalistic mechanisms to justify their eisegesis of Scripture do not favour to the faith. If you want to accept the Biblical narrative simply as that without trying to melt the earth in the process, I have zero issues with that.
Is Genesis History? is well produced but it's still wrong.
-
Our inability to understand is not a proof that the Bible is wrong.
-
Is Genesis History? is well produced but it's still wrong.
Does that include the story of Abraham and his covenant with God? That's part of Genesis. With regard to the Flood, Jesus referenced it as a historical fact--even comparing the circumstances of the event to those of His future coming.
-
Fighting the wrong fight.
Why has iron sharpening iron, become a fight... just asking.
-
It is nonetheless interesting that flood myths can be found all over the world.
-
It is nonetheless interesting that flood myths can be found all over the world.
When most of humanity has lived next to water bodies, floods are an inevitable event.
-
It is nonetheless interesting that flood myths can be found all over the world.
When most of humanity has lived next to water bodies, floods are an inevitable event.
Just for the fun of it, allow me to argue for a global flood.
Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
Alright, this is still in the Garden, a supernatural place, A&E living in the presence of God, no death. After A&E rebelled they landed on a different kind of Earth, the natural Earth as we know it, a hostile Earth where death rules as a necessity. The assumption is that there still was no rain.
Imagine an asteroid with the size that killed the dinosaurs slammed into one of the oceans, Google AI -
The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was approximately 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) in diameter. This massive impactor, which struck Earth about 66 million years ago near the Yucatán Peninsula, created the Chicxulub crater and triggered a mass extinction event that wiped out 75% of life on the planet.
Details of the Impact Event:
Size:
The asteroid was estimated to be around 10 to 15 kilometers wide.
Impact Energy:
The collision released an immense amount of energy, equivalent to billions of nuclear bombs.
Consequences:
The impact caused superheated winds, a massive tsunami, global wildfires, and injected large amounts of dust and gases into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and disrupting the climate.
Would explain a global flood ?
-
It is nonetheless interesting that flood myths can be found all over the world.
When most of humanity has lived next to water bodies, floods are an inevitable event.
Just for the fun of it, allow me to argue for a global flood.
Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
Alright, this is still in the Garden, a supernatural place, A&E living in the presence of God, no death. After A&E rebelled they landed on a different kind of Earth, the natural Earth as we know it, a hostile Earth where death rules as a necessity. The assumption is that there still was no rain.
Imagine an asteroid with the size that killed the dinosaurs slammed into one of the oceans, Google AI -
The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was approximately 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) in diameter. This massive impactor, which struck Earth about 66 million years ago near the Yucatán Peninsula, created the Chicxulub crater and triggered a mass extinction event that wiped out 75% of life on the planet.
Details of the Impact Event:
Size:
The asteroid was estimated to be around 10 to 15 kilometers wide.
Impact Energy:
The collision released an immense amount of energy, equivalent to billions of nuclear bombs.
Consequences:
The impact caused superheated winds, a massive tsunami, global wildfires, and injected large amounts of dust and gases into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and disrupting the climate.
Would explain a global flood ?
Not according to the details provided in Genesis.
-
When most of humanity has lived next to water bodies, floods are an inevitable event.
That's true, but the universal flood stories have more similarities than just that. They all also feature a god unleashing the flood as a punishment, with a lone survivor who was spared because they were a better person than the others. It is enough to at least give one pause for thought.
-
When most of humanity has lived next to water bodies, floods are an inevitable event.
That's true, but the universal flood stories have more similarities than just that. They all also feature a god unleashing the flood as a punishment, with a lone survivor who was spared because they were a better person than the others. It is enough to at least give one pause for thought.
I don't think the question is "Did a flood happen?" but when Genesis 7:20 speaks of the mountains being covered, does that mean actually all of the mountains, or just the known mountains of a region? In other words, was the flood local or global? If we're rooting for a global flood, we need to divine intervention away:
1. The animals making it to Noah
2. Survival on a boat at an elevation is nearly 9KM for ~370 days. This includes food, waste disposal, etc.
3. Maintaining the earth's mass, stability, orbit, etc.
4. Generating the sheer volume of water
5. Protecting the surface of the planet as the rain fell, given the sheer volume of rain fall necessary
6. Disappearing all the extra water (to be clear, between 3 - 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water)
At which point we also have to give up 'X is evidence for Y', given we're maintaining that Y is substantially supernatural. Even just considering that 3 - 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water falling as rain over 40 days and 40 nights would be catastrophic to the planet's surface. It would destroy all that nice Grand Canyon 'evidence'.
-
When most of humanity has lived next to water bodies, floods are an inevitable event.
That's true, but the universal flood stories have more similarities than just that. They all also feature a god unleashing the flood as a punishment, with a lone survivor who was spared because they were a better person than the others. It is enough to at least give one pause for thought.
I don't think the question is "Did a flood happen?" but when Genesis 7:20 speaks of the mountains being covered, does that mean actually all of the mountains, or just the known mountains of a region? In other words, was the flood local or global? If we're rooting for a global flood, we need to divine intervention away:
1. The animals making it to Noah
2. Survival on a boat at an elevation is nearly 9KM for ~370 days. This includes food, waste disposal, etc.
3. Maintaining the earth's mass, stability, orbit, etc.
4. Generating the sheer volume of water
5. Protecting the surface of the planet as the rain fell, given the sheer volume of rain fall necessary
6. Disappearing all the extra water (to be clear, between 3 - 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water)
At which point we also have to give up 'X is evidence for Y', given we're maintaining that Y is substantially supernatural. Even just considering that 3 - 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water falling as rain over 40 days and 40 nights would be catastrophic to the planet's surface. It would destroy all that nice Grand Canyon 'evidence'.
And hence the birth of hydroplane theory and catastrophic plate tectonics. The latter is championed by most of the major creationist orgs. Unfortunately the amount of heat would turn the earth into a glowing ball of plasma. I believe AiG ran the numbers and natural processes of heat diffusion could account for 0.04%. The rest would have to be some sort of exotic physics.
-
Had to get onto a computer to address some of this, as the forum is decidely unfriendly to phones.
GRAND CANYON PROVES THE GENESIS FLOOD
Geologists from around the world descend upon the Grand Canyon to see the layers of rocks. Only a few places on earth reveal such a sequence of rock layers, and here is what has been discovered.
1. All of the horizontal layers contain marine fossils such as corals and clams. Marine fossils are found on every continent in the world.
Incorrect. The Coconino Sandstone is eolian, i.e. wind transported and deposited sands like dunes. There are rare trace fossils of land-based invertebrates. Marine fossils are found on all continents because of tectonic action. The Western inland Seaway covered the interior of North America prior to the Laramide orogeny which uplifted the Rockies, among others. It was a warm shallow sea, hence the presence of marine fossils that are now inland (and may be at high elevations) from the modern oceans.
2. There is a layer formation that has been found across the United States called the Coconino Sandstone or “the bathtub ring” in other states it’s also referred to as Cedar Hills Sandstone, Duncan Sandstone, and the Glorietta Sandstone.
Just mentioned this above. These are subaerially deposited sediments, not water deposited.
3. The Tapeats Sandstone, one of the lowest layers of the Grand Canyon, appears to form a single sandstone body that blankets across North America, extending from California on the west northward to Montana, covering much of North Dakota, and across the Midwest to New England. The same formation in southern Israel is called the Nabatean Sandstone of Petra.
This is not really a particular argument against current geology understanding.
4. The Redwall limestone in the Grand Canyon is grey limestone stained red from the iron oxide in the above layer. This same limestone can be found in much of North America, England, and in the Himalaya Mountains.
Limestones will not form in high energy environments.
During the Genesis Flood, there was catastrophic flooding across the earth. These tidal waves and tsunamis killed marine creatures and poured onto the land. Subsequently, tsunamis laid down more layers of fossils containing sediments.
There is no consistent, correlative evidence of such an event. There is even a rock type called tsunamite which is evidence of tsunamis, but it's not in the Grand Canyon that I am aware of.
The Flood continued for months. The Grand Canyon reveals the violent worldwide flood that once was; it is a monument to the Genesis Flood.
The nice layered nature of the stratigraphic horizons is not revealing of a violent flood. A violent flood would have mixed sediments. Also, many creationists argue the Grand Canyon sediments were deposited during the Flood and anything from the Cenozoic and younger are post-Flood. So, in one year, you had to erode massive amounts of sediment, drop them out of suspension into a series of different types of sedimentary rocks (sandstone, siltstone/shale/mudstone, limestone, conglomerate), then dewater and consolidate the sediments into rocks (diagenesis), then have a modern river cut through these sediments to a depth of close to a mile. And the river is definitely not the result of floodwaters pouring off the continent. Meandering rivers are not that. A great example of what a powerful flood can do is the Scablands of Washington State.
-
Is Genesis History? is well produced but it's still wrong.
Does that include the story of Abraham and his covenant with God? That's part of Genesis. With regard to the Flood, Jesus referenced it as a historical fact--even comparing the circumstances of the event to those of His future coming.
If you are speaking to the "Is Genesis History" production, then no, it does not touch on things past Genesis 11. All major creationist organizations appear to limit their apologetics to the first 11 chapters.
Jesus referencing the Flood as historical fact is always a curious one to me. If we accept Jesus as fully human, and humbling himself as such, then I don't think that Jesus had the full knowledge of everything that he would as God. He grew up as a Jewish person and new the Torah and stories of Israel. It's not necessarily all hard fact, but it is truth of the interaction of God with his people.
We can find truths in fictional stories like Moby Dick or Lord of the Rings, but that does not mean they are factual accounts. But we have grown up with them and can point to these shared stories as containing vital elements of human nature.
-
I don't think the question is "Did a flood happen?" but when Genesis 7:20 speaks of the mountains being covered, does that mean actually all of the mountains, or just the known mountains of a region? In other words, was the flood local or global?
I'm not really worried about the details. It's enough that the bible says it happened and it seems to be a universal tale. It's the lesson that I'm concerned with, not the scientific proof.
-
Jesus referencing the Flood as historical fact is always a curious one to me. If we accept Jesus as fully human, and humbling himself as such, then I don't think that Jesus had the full knowledge of everything that he would as God.
I've only heard atheists utilize the argument that since Jesus is both human and divine, try to convince believers that what Jesus teaches, can't be trusted as truth.
-
I don't think that Jesus had the full knowledge of everything that he would as God.
That is...quite the argument. I thought this debate was settled at Nicea in the year 325.
-
Only for some.
There is something in Proverbs about dogs returning to vomit…
Open theists are the new Arians.
-
I don't think the question is "Did a flood happen?" but when Genesis 7:20 speaks of the mountains being covered, does that mean actually all of the mountains, or just the known mountains of a region? In other words, was the flood local or global?
I'm not really worried about the details. It's enough that the bible says it happened and it seems to be a universal tale. It's the lesson that I'm concerned with, not the scientific proof.
Sure, at that point I'd say we're picking, so there's no "I believe this on faith" and also "the Grand Canyon is evidence for..." If one wants to play, "The Grand Canyon is evidence", then that stops being "I believe this on faith" and it opens the door to all of the evidence. In that case, it's not good enough to argue 'X is evidence for Y'. One must also argue why 'A, B, C, D, E, F, G aren't evidence against Y'. That's assuming 'X is evidence for Y' isn't mistaken in the first place.
I'm also more concerned with the lesson.
-
And hence the birth of hydroplane theory and catastrophic plate tectonics. The latter is championed by most of the major creationist orgs. Unfortunately the amount of heat would turn the earth into a glowing ball of plasma. I believe AiG ran the numbers and natural processes of heat diffusion could account for 0.04%. The rest would have to be some sort of exotic physics.
Makes me think of the flat earthers who run experiments that always show the earth isn't flat, then decide they did it wrong to try again to decide they did it wrong to try again to decide...
-
If you are speaking to the "Is Genesis History" production, then no, it does not touch on things past Genesis 11. All major creationist organizations appear to limit their apologetics to the first 11 chapters.
Just checking, since you initially spoke of "Genesis" as wrong, without specifying any particular portion.
Jesus referencing the Flood as historical fact is always a curious one to me. If we accept Jesus as fully human, and humbling himself as such, then I don't think that Jesus had the full knowledge of everything that he would as God. He grew up as a Jewish person and new the Torah and stories of Israel. It's not necessarily all hard fact, but it is truth of the interaction of God with his people.
Jesus acknowledged the limitations of His humanity, stating that He only did what the Father empowered Him to do, that He did not know the precise time of His future return, and that He lacked the authority to determine who would sit on His right and left in the kingdom. However, Jesus was acutely aware of the details of His coming, as recorded in the Olivet Discourse, and expressly drew a parallel between the nature and circumstances of the Flood and those regarding His return. I don't believe He would have imparted this information to His Apostles if He didn't know what He was talking about.
We can find truths in fictional stories like Moby Dick or Lord of the Rings, but that does not mean they are factual accounts. But we have grown up with them and can point to these shared stories as containing vital elements of human nature.
There is a vast difference between incidental elements of truth found in works of fiction and the truth in the Bible.
-
I'm also more concerned with the lesson.
Then you've read the bible correctly.
-
Just checking, since you initially spoke of "Genesis" as wrong, without specifying any particular portion.
Yeah, I quoted the name of the documentary but forgot to enclose it in quotes.
Jesus acknowledged the limitations of His humanity, stating that He only did what the Father empowered Him to do, that He did not know the precise time of His future return, and that He lacked the authority to determine who would sit on His right and left in the kingdom. However, Jesus was acutely aware of the details of His coming, as recorded in the Olivet Discourse, and expressly drew a parallel between the nature and circumstances of the Flood and those regarding His return. I don't believe He would have imparted this information to His Apostles if He didn't know what He was talking about.
There is no physical evidence of a worldwide Flood as told in Genesis, despite the observations and work of literally thousands or geologists from many countries. There is some evidence toward a regional flood, but that is essentially a no-go when it comes to the major creationist organizations (again, my critiques are generally framed to the stories these groups put out). This either means God supernaturally covered it all up, therefore is completely untestable and zero reason for creationist organizations to consider themselves scientific, or it is an ancient story that is tellng us something about God and his relationship with humanity.
-
Or the geologists are not understanding what they are seeing
Science in general has a great deal of confirmation bias
-
This either means God supernaturally covered it all up
I would put it in a different way.
Our free will is our greatest and most precious gift, because it gives our lives meaning. And God wants us to use our free will, and would never to anything to impede that in any way. As a result, He gives us the option of believing in anything, including nothing at all. Want to believe in a worldwide flood because the bible says so? Great. Want to be intrigued by worldwide myths of a great flood, that all have a sole survivor chosen because they deserved it? Got it. But if you want to believe that it never happened, scientists are there to back you up also. Only in this way can we make the freest choice possible.
-
Or the geologists are not understanding what they are seeing
If we are, it is not what the creationists are saying. I'd never say we have it all figured out, but 1. the earth is ancient - this is indisputable. The biologists are almost certainly correct in the assessment of evolutionary theory. This is even in less dispute.
Science in general has a great deal of confirmation bias
Says a lawyer. ;)
-
This either means God supernaturally covered it all up
I would put it in a different way.
Our free will is our greatest and most precious gift, because it gives our lives meaning. And God wants us to use our free will, and would never to anything to impede that in any way. As a result, He gives us the option of believing in anything, including nothing at all. Want to believe in a worldwide flood because the bible says so? Great. Want to be intrigued by worldwide myths of a great flood, that all have a sole survivor chosen because they deserved it? Got it. But if you want to believe that it never happened, scientists are there to back you up also. Only in this way can we make the freest choice possible.
I know of your opinion here as you have stated it elsewhere before.
I don't have a problem with people believing in these things. My issue is with certain groups of YEC'ers lying to people, committing fallacy after fallacy, and in the worst case, making it a salvation issue.
-
Or the geologists are not understanding what they are seeing
If we are, it is not what the creationists are saying. I'd never say we have it all figured out, but 1. the earth is ancient - this is indisputable. The biologists are almost certainly correct in the assessment of evolutionary theory. This is even in less dispute.
Science in general has a great deal of confirmation bias
Says a lawyer. ;)
The earth is certainly ancient
Evolutionary biologist are worse than alchemists.
-
But the NT believer is admonished to understand the "willful ignorance" involved in denial of the flood - and the notion that Jesus cited the event as fact out of His ignorance is, in fact, a denial of the faith.
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" 2Pt:3
Science be damned.
EDIT: Also, Genesis does not assign a day to "In the beginning," when God created the heavens and Earth, which could, realistically, be vast eons before the Spirit of God moved upon the already existing waters of a void and formless Earth on day one. Etc, Etc...
-
Are we 'damning' the same science that's suggesting the earth was a water world some few billion years ago?
-
Or the geologists are not understanding what they are seeing
If we are, it is not what the creationists are saying. I'd never say we have it all figured out, but 1. the earth is ancient - this is indisputable. The biologists are almost certainly correct in the assessment of evolutionary theory. This is even in less dispute.
Science in general has a great deal of confirmation bias
Says a lawyer. ;)
The earth is certainly ancient
Evolutionary biologist are worse than alchemists.
Dr. Todd Wood, a creationist biologist would strongly disagree with you on the latter. You don't have to believe in evolutionary theory, but the evidence is there to support it. Facts don't care about your feelings or vibes. Dr. Wood is working on his own competing theory, but he honest enough to recognize that the present synthesis is powerful and predictive. It's probably the best supported scientific theory at the moment.
-
Are we 'damning' the same science that's suggesting the earth was a water world some few billion years ago?
Not sure about waterworld, but there is a hypothesis about Snowball Earth around 700 Ma ago. It's still debated as far as I can tell.
-
But the NT believer is admonished to understand the "willful ignorance" involved in denial of the flood - and the notion that Jesus cited the event as fact out of His ignorance is, in fact, a denial of the faith.
If that damns me, then so be it. If God somehow hid the evidence (which appears to be the case if the Flood happened), then I'm not sure why one should be treated as faithless. Anyone saying there is evidence for a global flood are actively lying to you, or listened to someone who is extremely ignorant about geology or has had someone actively lying to them (eg: Ham, Hovind, Snelling).
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" 2Pt:3
Peter also grew up with the Torah and all that it entails.
Science be damned.
I would have been dead at 2 years old without medical advances. Unless its just certain branches of science are damnable.
I'm not attempting to argue the supremacy of science, as that is silly. I am arguing against lying about it to comport it to the Biblical narrative. (I am not leveling this at you, personally).
EDIT: Also, Genesis does not assign a day to "In the beginning," when God created the heavens and Earth, which could, realistically, be vast eons before the Spirit of God moved upon the already existing waters of a void and formless Earth on day one. Etc, Etc...
IMO, the waters are the primordial chaos. The spirit hovering/fluttering over them seems a easy call back to the tropes of cosmic battle. This is Bronze age cosmology. It does not negate the transcendant truths.
-
The 2 Peter passage is referencing the Genesis vs 1-2 condition prior to the 7 days creation.
-
Food for thought: Look at Genesis 1 and see that God creates an "expanse" or a "firmament" with waters above and below it on the second day of creation.
Gen 1:6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Gen 1:7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.
Gen 1:10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good (ESV).
Fast-forward to Genesis 7 and see that when God flooded the earth, he opened the "windows of heaven," probably the "expanse":
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
If this theory of a dome over the earth from Adam to Noah is correct, the earth is a little like a greenhouse that enables humans to live long periods of time. Furthermore, God uses the great amount of water that he has stored above the "expanse" to flood the earth and ends the dome or expanse at the same time.
What do you think about this theory based on the Bible's own description?
-
Food for thought: Look at Genesis 1 and see that God creates an "expanse" or a "firmament" with waters above and below it on the second day of creation.
Gen 1:6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Gen 1:7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.
Gen 1:10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good (ESV).
Fast-forward to Genesis 7 and see that when God flooded the earth, he opened the "windows of heaven," probably the "expanse":
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
If this theory of a dome over the earth from Adam to Noah is correct, the earth is a little like a greenhouse that enables humans to live long periods of time. Furthermore, God uses the great amount of water that he has stored above the "expanse" to flood the earth and ends the dome or expanse at the same time.
What do you think about this theory based on the Bible's own description?
If you are referring to the Canopy Model, there is no real evidence of any such thing. This is quite an old idea that is no longer supported by any of the major creationist organizations.
-
What do you think about this theory based on the Bible's own description?
I think the (vapour) canopy model is bunk.
-
If I need science to “prove” something then I don’t need faith…. I need a back issue of Popular Mechanics and Mother Earth News.
Unbelievers do not have a science problem
They have a sin problem
-
When most of humanity has lived next to water bodies, floods are an inevitable event.
That's true, but the universal flood stories have more similarities than just that. They all also feature a god unleashing the flood as a punishment, with a lone survivor who was spared because they were a better person than the others. It is enough to at least give one pause for thought.
I don't think the question is "Did a flood happen?" but when Genesis 7:20 speaks of the mountains being covered, does that mean actually all of the mountains, or just the known mountains of a region? In other words, was the flood local or global? If we're rooting for a global flood, we need to divine intervention away:
1. The animals making it to Noah
2. Survival on a boat at an elevation is nearly 9KM for ~370 days. This includes food, waste disposal, etc.
Food could be tricky, although waste disposal may have been little more than shoveling it over the sides. If all around you is water it's not that hard.
3. Maintaining the earth's mass, stability, orbit, etc.
We're certainly talking about a lot of water but if it came from the earth then the overall mass wouldn't seem to shift all that much - would it be more than the difference between water vapor as clouds and water liquid on the ground?
4. Generating the sheer volume of water
5. Protecting the surface of the planet as the rain fell, given the sheer volume of rain fall necessary
6. Disappearing all the extra water (to be clear, between 3 - 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water)
At which point we also have to give up 'X is evidence for Y', given we're maintaining that Y is substantially supernatural. Even just considering that 3 - 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water falling as rain over 40 days and 40 nights would be catastrophic to the planet's surface. It would destroy all that nice Grand Canyon 'evidence'.
Gen 7:11 talks of not only rain but also the fountains of the deep opening, suggesting that water came from the skies and rose up from the ground. Otherwise you'd certainly have to be talking the kind of rain that would make the worst of today's storms look like a picnic.
Gen 8 talks of the waters receding. 4.5bn cubic km of water is a lot of water, but if we take the earth as a sphere with a radius of approximately 6,100km the volume (4/3 pi r3) that turns into 4/3 * 3.14 * 61003 = approx 950bn cubic km. So that water represents 0.5% of the volume of the earth.
This isn't evidence one way or the other, but the volume of water that sounds staggering on the face of it doesn't seem so large when compared to the volume of the earth, and the claim that some portion of it rose up from the earth and some portion of it receded into the earth.
-
People have actually looked at the food and waste disposal requirements of the ark scenario and the logisitics are physically impossible. Creationists of course specualte with all sorts of ideas completely unsupported by the Biblical text - the same people who tell everyone to read the Bible as plainly read.
If the Flood occurred as it happened, it has left no telling trace. The YEC organizations should really just go with divine action, providence and protection, but that would mean that they can't cosplay as scientists anymore. It would also mean the end of the grift and monument building, and we can't have that.
-
Food could be tricky, although waste disposal may have been little more than shoveling it over the sides. If all around you is water it's not that hard.
Per Genesis 6:19ff, Noah was to bring "two of all living creatures, male and female... two of every kind of bird" along with their feed, then continuing in Genesis 7:22ff, "...seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate... one pair of every kind of unclean animal... seven pairs of every kind of bird".
The ark as described simply isn't big enough to house (1) all of these animals (we're talking millions of animals on a global account), or (2) their food. (3) Waste disposal isn't just hardened stool, but soft stool, urine, and potentially more. The difficulty isn't just getting this off the ship, which is already a difficult task given the ark is described as enclosed in Genesis 6:14, with the opening below the roof is only 1 cubit high. But also because of the byproducts of that waste -- the smell, gasses, fumes, etc. There is also the impact these would have on the structure of the ark.
A global flood belief has to be taken on faith, or else if science is going to get involved, it quickly becomes a local flood, not every animal, and so on.
We're certainly talking about a lot of water but if it came from the earth then the overall mass wouldn't seem to shift all that much - would it be more than the difference between water vapor as clouds and water liquid on the ground?
The problem is that "if".
Gen 7:11 talks of not only rain but also the fountains of the deep opening, suggesting that water came from the skies and rose up from the ground. Otherwise you'd certainly have to be talking the kind of rain that would make the worst of today's storms look like a picnic.
Gen 8 talks of the waters receding. 4.5bn cubic km of water is a lot of water, but if we take the earth as a sphere with a radius of approximately 6,100km the volume (4/3 pi r3) that turns into 4/3 * 3.14 * 61003 = approx 950bn cubic km. So that water represents 0.5% of the volume of the earth.
This isn't evidence one way or the other, but the volume of water that sounds staggering on the face of it doesn't seem so large when compared to the volume of the earth, and the claim that some portion of it rose up from the earth and some portion of it receded into the earth.
The problem here, is "where"?
-
People have actually looked at the food and waste disposal requirements of the ark scenario and the logisitics are physically impossible. Creationists of course specualte with all sorts of ideas completely unsupported by the Biblical text - the same people who tell everyone to read the Bible as plainly read.
If the Flood occurred as it happened, it has left no telling trace. The YEC organizations should really just go with divine action, providence and protection, but that would mean that they can't cosplay as scientists anymore. It would also mean the end of the grift and monument building, and we can't have that.
Food certainly raises a question, it's not a trivial undertaking to store enough food to feed that many animals for that length of time. I'm not sure about the logistics of waste disposal being such a big thing when it can just be shoveled over the side.
With the statement in Genesis that essentially says water emerged from the earth to submerge everything and then receded back into the earth it does seem that the YEC approach needs to either lean heavily on "God did it" as an argument (which isn't entirely unreasonable), or figure out what might have prompted that much water to emerge from the earth and then recede after a few months.
-
Food could be tricky, although waste disposal may have been little more than shoveling it over the sides. If all around you is water it's not that hard.
Per Genesis 6:19ff, Noah was to bring "two of all living creatures, male and female... two of every kind of bird" along with their feed, then continuing in Genesis 7:22ff, "...seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate... one pair of every kind of unclean animal... seven pairs of every kind of bird".
The ark as described simply isn't big enough to house (1) all of these animals (we're talking millions of animals on a global account), or (2) their food. (3) Waste disposal isn't just hardened stool, but soft stool, urine, and potentially more. The difficulty isn't just getting this off the ship, which is already a difficult task given the ark is described as enclosed in Genesis 6:14, with the opening below the roof is only 1 cubit high. But also because of the byproducts of that waste -- the smell, gasses, fumes, etc. There is also the impact these would have on the structure of the ark.
A global flood belief has to be taken on faith, or else if science is going to get involved, it quickly becomes a local flood, not every animal, and so on.
There are certainly questions that lack obvious answers relating to the number of animals and food, as you describe.
We're certainly talking about a lot of water but if it came from the earth then the overall mass wouldn't seem to shift all that much - would it be more than the difference between water vapor as clouds and water liquid on the ground?
The problem is that "if".
I'm not sure the "if" is such a problem - if it emerged from the earth as described in Genesis it explains issues of the kind of rainfall that would be required.
Gen 7:11 talks of not only rain but also the fountains of the deep opening, suggesting that water came from the skies and rose up from the ground. Otherwise you'd certainly have to be talking the kind of rain that would make the worst of today's storms look like a picnic.
Gen 8 talks of the waters receding. 4.5bn cubic km of water is a lot of water, but if we take the earth as a sphere with a radius of approximately 6,100km the volume (4/3 pi r3) that turns into 4/3 * 3.14 * 61003 = approx 950bn cubic km. So that water represents 0.5% of the volume of the earth.
This isn't evidence one way or the other, but the volume of water that sounds staggering on the face of it doesn't seem so large when compared to the volume of the earth, and the claim that some portion of it rose up from the earth and some portion of it receded into the earth.
The problem here, is "where"?
I remember reading an article a while back about some kind of very substantial water reserves found in (I think) the Earth's mantle. I forget the details, it was a fair while ago. When I read it I remember wondering if it was the kind of volume of water that might have been involved in something like a great flood.
Obviously none of this is proof one way or the other, merely a calculation that the quantity of water that would be required, although huge, isn't actually that large compared to the volume of the planet. The question of exactly where it went is a perfectly valid one, my calculation was more about demonstrating that it's not inconceivable that such a volume of water could be reabsorbed by the earth.
-
I think you have articles like https://ssec.si.edu/stemvisions-blog/there-ocean-below-your-feet in mind.
-
Fully respecting science, which does not see recognizable evidence of the flood, it does not and cannot demonstrate that the narrative is false, though aspects of it are deemed impossible or illogical by human standards.
"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." Joshua 10:13
-
What do you think about this theory based on the Bible's own description?
How come space ships haven't hit the dome?
-
"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." Joshua 10:13
Great story about this quote-
In 1981, Israeli fighter pilots destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactor in Iraq in a daring raid called "Operation Opera". On their way in, they flew very low to stay under the radar systems of so as not to be attacked or give anyone a warning and time to prepare. Their flight back was flown at a normal altitude and as fast as they could fly to avoid being caught. Since the attack took place at about 630 PM, the sun was setting as the Israeli pilots flew home. Because of their speed, the sun remained on the horizon for the entire flight back. The pilots independently mentioned the above quote.
-
I think you have articles like https://ssec.si.edu/stemvisions-blog/there-ocean-below-your-feet in mind.
I dropped the ball a bit here. An article something like that, although I don't remember if it was that one in particular.
-
A localized, catastrophic deluge wiping out the inhabitants of Southern Mesopotamia could account for the Bible's record of the Flood without conflicting with global paleo-environmental evidence. We should remember that the Flood occurred within 10 generations of Adam, when humanity and "the world" were very limited in scope. A legendary flood, found among diverse peoples around the globe, is a common thread, and compelling evidence that such an event actually occurred. It's logical that the memory of such a world-ending catastrophe, passed from generation to generation, would be ingrained in the human experience despite a singular group gradually splitting into many diverse nations. Variations in the narrative, due to stark differences in cultures, are a reasonable expectation.
-
A friend of mine posted this. I thought the people here might find it interesting. Feel free to move it if there is a better location for it. I'll admit I contemplated putting it in "Controversial".
Cloudwalker
GRAND CANYON PROVES THE GENESIS FLOOD
Geologists from around the world descend upon the Grand Canyon to see the layers of rocks. Only a few places on earth reveal such a sequence of rock layers, and here is what has been discovered.
1. All of the horizontal layers contain marine fossils such as corals and clams. Marine fossils are found on every continent in the world.
2. There is a layer formation that has been found across the United States called the Coconino Sandstone or “the bathtub ring” in other states it’s also referred to as Cedar Hills Sandstone, Duncan Sandstone, and the Glorietta Sandstone.
3. The Tapeats Sandstone, one of the lowest layers of the Grand Canyon, appears to form a single sandstone body that blankets across North America, extending from California on the west northward to Montana, covering much of North Dakota, and across the Midwest to New England. The same formation in southern Israel is called the Nabatean Sandstone of Petra.
4. The Redwall limestone in the Grand Canyon is grey limestone stained red from the iron oxide in the above layer. This same limestone can be found in much of North America, England, and in the Himalaya Mountains.
During the Genesis Flood, there was catastrophic flooding across the earth. These tidal waves and tsunamis killed marine creatures and poured onto the land. Subsequently, tsunamis laid down more layers of fossils containing sediments.
The Flood continued for months. The Grand Canyon reveals the violent worldwide flood that once was; it is a monument to the Genesis Flood.
Very good, and you can find the same layers through out the world.