Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

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.
See more
See less

A failed attack on the Biblical flood

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A failed attack on the Biblical flood

    One enemy of the Biblical account of the Noahic flood tells us that, "Another problem for the global flood interpretation" is that, supposedly, according to it, "Planet Earth became a desert after the flood!" Instead of accepting the Biblical account of the Noahic flood, the author prefers to try to promote a contra-Biblical account, wherein he claims that God brought the flood waters upon only some undefined geographic region he refers to as "the Mesopotamian plain", "the Mesopotamian flood plain", and "the Mesopotamian area".

    He writes:



    Read the following verses and see if you can see why the word "earth" does not refer to the entire planet:
    • Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NASB)
    • After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NIV)
    • Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NASB)
    • By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NIV)
    • and in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. (Genesis 8:14, NASB)
    • By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry. (Genesis 8:14, NIV)


    If one were to interpret these verses from a global perspective, one would have to conclude that the entire earth became a desert after the flood. Obviously this interpretation is false, so the translations must be bad. In these verses, the dryness of the earth is obviously referring to the local land area of the flood and not the entire planet earth.


    Nobody who accepts the Biblical flood account claims that the drying up of the flood waters, as per Genesis, caused the earth to become a desert. But, here is an image the author presents in illustrating his attack against a straw man he has created (rather than against what believers of the Genesis flood account actually believe):



    Since he claims that the words, "the earth was completely dry", necessitate that the Biblical, "global" flood account imply a postdiluvian desert planet (no seas, oceans, lakes, rivers, etc.), then, unless he's a rank hypocrite, he'll not complain when it is pointed out that those same words--"the earth was completely dry"--must, then, mean that whatever "local" region he favors as being "the earth", in that passage, should have been left a desert upon the drying up of the flood waters.

    Consider:
    • "the earth was completely dry"
    • "[the Mesopotamian area] was completely dry"


    Perhaps our Bible-opposing author would like to tell us, then, that, round about the time Noah and Co. were disemb-arking, this unspecified area he calls "the Mesopotamian area" had become a desert, because "the Mesopotamian area was completely dry"! Were he to (alongside the above image) also supply an image depicting the boundaries of whatever geographic region he calls "the Mesopotamian area", it seems we should expect to find him to have completely colored in that postdiluvian, "local land area of the flood", with the same, brown color with which he has colored in the seafloors surrounding the continents in the above image. We should expect to see, in such a depiction, absolutely no blue, since there should (according to his own, poor, anti-Biblical thinking) be no lake(s), river(s), pond(s), nor any other water feature(s) needing to be indicated.

    I remember once when a lake not far from where I live flooded. What did it flood? It did not flood itself. Rather, its water level rose, and so it flooded some of the land surrounding it. That's what gets flooded in a flood: land. In a flood, rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water do not get flooded--they do not flood themselves; rather, they flood the land. Needless to say, the lake near me, after it was done flooding, and after it subsided, was still there, pretty much just as it had been before. It's still there, to this day, and there's never been any desert there, at least so long as I've been alive.
    All my ancestors are human.
    PS: All your ancestors are human.
    PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

  • #2
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    One enemy of the Biblical account of the Noahic flood tells us that, "Another problem for the global flood interpretation" is that, supposedly, according to it, "Planet Earth became a desert after the flood!" Instead of accepting the Biblical account of the Noahic flood, the author prefers to try to promote a contra-Biblical account, wherein he claims that God brought the flood waters upon only some undefined geographic region he refers to as "the Mesopotamian plain", "the Mesopotamian flood plain", and "the Mesopotamian area".

    He writes:



    Read the following verses and see if you can see why the word "earth" does not refer to the entire planet:
    • Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NASB)
    • After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NIV)
    • Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NASB)
    • By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NIV)
    • and in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. (Genesis 8:14, NASB)
    • By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry. (Genesis 8:14, NIV)


    If one were to interpret these verses from a global perspective, one would have to conclude that the entire earth became a desert after the flood. Obviously this interpretation is false, so the translations must be bad. In these verses, the dryness of the earth is obviously referring to the local land area of the flood and not the entire planet earth.


    Nobody who accepts the Biblical flood account claims that the drying up of the flood waters, as per Genesis, caused the earth to become a desert. But, here is an image the author presents in illustrating his attack against a straw man he has created (rather than against what believers of the Genesis flood account actually believe):



    Since he claims that the words, "the earth was completely dry", necessitate that the Biblical, "global" flood account imply a postdiluvian desert planet (no seas, oceans, lakes, rivers, etc.), then, unless he's a rank hypocrite, he'll not complain when it is pointed out that those same words--"the earth was completely dry"--must, then, mean that whatever "local" region he favors as being "the earth", in that passage, should have been left a desert upon the drying up of the flood waters.

    Consider:
    • "the earth was completely dry"
    • "[the Mesopotamian area] was completely dry"


    Perhaps our Bible-opposing author would like to tell us, then, that, round about the time Noah and Co. were disemb-arking, this unspecified area he calls "the Mesopotamian area" had become a desert, because "the Mesopotamian area was completely dry"! Were he to (alongside the above image) also supply an image depicting the boundaries of whatever geographic region he calls "the Mesopotamian area", it seems we should expect to find him to have completely colored in that postdiluvian, "local land area of the flood", with the same, brown color with which he has colored in the seafloors surrounding the continents in the above image. We should expect to see, in such a depiction, absolutely no blue, since there should (according to his own, poor, anti-Biblical thinking) be no lake(s), river(s), pond(s), nor any other water feature(s) needing to be indicated.

    I remember once when a lake not far from where I live flooded. What did it flood? It did not flood itself. Rather, its water level rose, and so it flooded some of the land surrounding it. That's what gets flooded in a flood: land. In a flood, rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water do not get flooded--they do not flood themselves; rather, they flood the land. Needless to say, the lake near me, after it was done flooding, and after it subsided, was still there, pretty much just as it had been before. It's still there, to this day, and there's never been any desert there, at least so long as I've been alive.
    Something he seems to have failed to consider is that Genesis 1 describes exactly what "Earth" is, and it's different than "Seas".

    Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:9-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...10&version=NIV

    In other words, the Earth was covered in water, and then the Earth dried up. It says nothing about the Seas drying up.

    Comment


    • #3
      Anti-history types sure are inventive.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #4
        Scientist believe the early earth was totally covered with water. Never heard of the entire planet being a desert. As for Noah's flood archeologists have found evidence of communities/pottery under water in the Black Sea that they believe goes back to Noah's time.

        Also some archeologists have found evidence of flooding where the Ur of the Chaldeans was located know as Iraq today.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bradley D View Post
          Archeologists have found evidence of communities/pottery under water in the Black Sea that they believe goes back to Noah's time.
          It's unlikely that anything manmade survived the flood in any recognizable or discoverable form, apart from the ark.

          Also some archeologists have found evidence of flooding where the Ur of the Chaldeans was located know as Iraq today.
          There's flood evidence everywhere you put your feet.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            It's unlikely that anything manmade survived the flood in any recognizable or discoverable form, apart from the ark.



            There's flood evidence everywhere you put your feet.
            Actually, there are a surprising number of artifacts that survived the flood. In the book "Secrets of the Lost Races" Rene Noorbergen documents quite a number of what he calls ooparts--out of place artifacts.

            In 1967 in a silver mine in Gulman, Colorado human bones and a "well-formed" copper arrowhead 4 inches in length were found in a seam of silver evolutionists tell us was several million years old.

            In the June 1851 issue of Scientific American it documents that a metallic vase was dynamited out of solid rock on Meeting House Hill in Dorchester, Massachusetts in 1844. It was 4.5" tall, 6.5" in circumference at the base, and 2.5" in circumference at the top. In color it resembled zinc or a metallic alloy with a considerable amount of silver. It was covered with intricate chasing, carving, and inlaying done by a highly skilled artisan. Evolutionists say the stone it was in was several million years old.

            On June 9, 1891 a woman named Mrs. S.W. Culp of Morrisonville, Illinois found an intricate, solid gold chain inside a lump of coal. She had been shoveling coal into her stove when a large lump of coal broke in half exposing the chain. The middle of the chain uncoiled but each end remained solidly inside the resulting two lumps of coal. This story was reported by the Morrisonville Times newspaper. Once again the coal, Carboniferous coal, was estimated by evolutionists to be millions of years old.

            In 1844 in a Rutherford Mills, England stone quarry a manufactured solid gold thread was found inside a stone evolutionists tell us was 60 million years old. This artifact was investigated by people sent out by the London Times who verified the finding and that it was NOT a naturally occurring artifact.

            In 1851 in story written by the Springfield (Illinois) Republican a businessman by the name of Hiram Witt had been on a trip to California and brought back a chunk of auriferous quartz about the size of a man's fist. He was showing it to a friend of his when he dropped it. It split open when it hit the floor and revealed a perfectly formed cut-iron 6 penny nail inside the stone. The stone was, once again, estimated to be at least a million years of age by evolutionists.

            In 1845 Sir David Brewster reported to the British Association for the Advancement of Science that a nail of obvious human manufacture had been found in Northern Britain embedded half in and half out of a a solid block of granite. The nail, where exposed to the elements was badly corroded, but it was still readily recognizable for what it was. The stone was, once again said to be at least 60 million years old.

            A chunk of feldspar taken from a mine in Treasure City, Nevada was found to contain a 2" metal screw. This happened in 1865. The screw itself had oxidized away but it's shape was clearly visible inside the feldspar. It's head and the shape and contour of it's threads were clearly visible inside the stone.

            I could keep on going as I have listed only a small portion of the artifacts Noorbergen verified during years of research, but these are enough to verify that evidence of the civilization that preceeded the flood did survive the flood.

            One really interesting oopart found is that Solomon used electricity to light his stables.
            “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
            ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

            “One and God make a majority.”
            ― Frederick Douglass

            Comment


            • #7
              It's likely that some or even most off these reports — if true — describe stuff buried post-flood, although I wouldn't rule out altogether the possibility that pre-flood stuff was buried.

              It's just far more likely that a more low-key event would preserve stuff liked this in a spot that it might be found.
              Last edited by JudgeRightly; July 28th, 2019, 09:07 AM.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                It's likely that some or even most off these reports — if true — describe stuff buried post-glood, although I wouldn't rule out altogether the possibility that pre-flood stuff was buried.

                It's just far more likely that a more low-key event would preserve stuff liked this in a spot that it might be found.
                Just what kind of a low-key event would bury artifacts hundreds of feet underground or in material that became stone under pressure? I'd really appreciate it if you describe such a low-key event.
                “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                “One and God make a majority.”
                ― Frederick Douglass

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                  Something he seems to have failed to consider is that Genesis 1 describes exactly what "Earth" is, and it's different than "Seas".

                  Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:9-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...10&version=NIV

                  In other words, the Earth was covered in water, and then the Earth dried up. It says nothing about the Seas drying up.
                  You're absolutely right! Incidentally, noticing what is written in Genesis 1:9-10 is precisely what helped me to understand his error.

                  God flooded the earth, the dry land; He did not flood the seas. Only what God had flooded did God dry up. Of course, at the height of the flood, the levels of the seas would have become raised drastically, since the waters of the seas would, I take it, have become contiguous with, and of the same level with, all the flood waters covering the earth.
                  All my ancestors are human.
                  PS: All your ancestors are human.
                  PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                    It's unlikely that anything manmade survived the flood in any recognizable or discoverable form, apart from the ark.
                    Ah, so you don't subscribe to what Freemasons say?


                    In Masonic lore, the outer Pillars of the Temple are often referred to as the “Pillars of Enoch”. Enoch, being aware that Adam predicted “that the world was to be destroyed at one time by the force of fire, and at another time by the violence and quantity of water.” (Flavius Josephus Antiquities, 1.2:3) Therefore fearing the principles of the Liberal Arts and Sciences might be lost, his son Seth caused two pillars to be made, the one of brick, the other of stone, (various other documents refer to other materials being used) they inscribed their discoveries on them both, this was in case the pillar of brick should be destroyed by the flood, the pillar of stone might remain, and exhibit those discoveries to mankind. The story of the Pillars became enshrined in Masonic teachings through the second earliest Masonic MS.



                    Neither do I. And, it puzzles me as to why Seth would have even bothered to cause the brick one to be made, in the first place, if he expected it was likely to be destroyed by the flood.

                    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                    There's flood evidence everywhere you put your feet.
                    Definitely no shortage of it, whatsoever!

                    Peculiar that you assume feet (plural), though. Then again, perhaps I'm the oddball, for automatically assuming everyone whose posts I read on internet forums has a wooden leg.
                    Last edited by 7djengo7; July 28th, 2019, 03:06 PM.
                    All my ancestors are human.
                    PS: All your ancestors are human.
                    PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
                      In the book "Secrets of the Lost Races" Rene Noorbergen documents quite a number of what he calls ooparts--out of place artifacts.
                      Just a couple of weeks ago, I finally chanced upon a copy of that book (for next to nothing) at a second-hand store. A few years ago, I read a small book (the exact title of which escapes me at the moment) by Dr. Donald Chittick on the sophistication of ancient man--which, of course, includes some discussion on the subject of ooparts--and the Noorbergen book was one of the sources he recommended in his bibliography. Such a fascinating subject, and so, I've been keeping my eyes peeled for cheap, used copies of most of the titles he lists. Man, I love obtaining books! (Though, I often wish I could actually devour them, and assimilate the info in them, as quickly and effortlessly as I can acquire them!)

                      And, I really like that there are other people out there interested in that sort of stuff at least as much as I am.
                      All my ancestors are human.
                      PS: All your ancestors are human.
                      PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
                        Just what kind of a low-key event would bury artifacts hundreds of feet underground or in material that became stone under pressure? I'd really appreciate it if you describe such a low-key event.
                        Those are the ones that I might be wrong about.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                          Just a couple of weeks ago, I finally chanced upon a copy of that book (for next to nothing) at a second-hand store. A few years ago, I read a small book (the exact title of which escapes me at the moment) by Dr. Donald Chittick on the sophistication of ancient man--which, of course, includes some discussion on the subject of ooparts--and the Noorbergen book was one of the sources he recommended in his bibliography. Such a fascinating subject, and so, I've been keeping my eyes peeled for cheap, used copies of most of the titles he lists. Man, I love obtaining books! (Though, I often wish I could actually devour them, and assimilate the info in them, as quickly and effortlessly as I can acquire them!)

                          And, I really like that there are other people out there interested in that sort of stuff at least as much as I am.
                          I got my first copy of it back in the 1970s after I heard Noorbergen speak for a couple of hours at a local church in the area I lived in back then. He was a fascinating speaker as he was extremely knowledgeable in many areas. He had copies of his book in the foyer of the church and I bought the book before I left. I loaned the book out in the 80s and it never came back so I bought another copy a couple of years ago from an online used book company, thriftbooks.com. You might search their inventory for the books/authors you're looking for as they have a very large inventory. The other book company you might look at is Powell's Books in Portland, Ore. Their building is 3 or 4 stories high and takes up an entire city block. When I lived in the Portland area I'd go there once in a while and spend hours browsing their shelves. I've browsed their inventory online a few times since I moved away from there and bought a few books from them that way.

                          Noorbergen has a couple of books out on the search for Noah's ark as he was involved in that for decades. He has also written books on Jeanne Dixon, Nastrodamus, and other prophets. He also wrote a book about the destruction of Christian values in the US titled Death Cry of an Eagle. It's a fascinating book.

                          I'll have to research Dr. Chittick as I've never heard of him before. If he covers the same areas as Noorbergen does his books will interest me quite a bit. So thanks for the heads up on that.
                          “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                          ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                          “One and God make a majority.”
                          ― Frederick Douglass

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            Those are the ones that I might be wrong about.
                            LOL. That's pretty funny.
                            “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                            ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                            “One and God make a majority.”
                            ― Frederick Douglass

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
                              LOL. That's pretty funny.
                              It's not intentional.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X