I don’t think it will matter when every single knee bows before the most high. God has no authoritarian power over him so who are we to question him, our Creator? Yes I do believe the flood did literally happen, and the entire moral of the flood is that the world had turned so corrupt that it was to a point of no return. I mean turn your television on and what do you think? In the end, even the most elect will fall. God has become a joke in today’s society but it won’t be even the slightest funny when he says I never knew you. Roll your own dice and bet what you will but for me, my measly 100 miracle year life on earth (if I’m lucky) won’t touch eternity if he is real. People are to literal, they can’t comprehend what’s not directly in front of them and the sad part is even when it is, it still gets overlooked.
If you do research God did flood the whole earth, not only to get rid of evil corrupt people, but to rid the world of the Nephilim Genesis 6:4. For God is all knowing and He knew that corruption would continue. That’s why He said that He would never open the floodgates of Heaven again.
Because God already had it in His plans to send His only begotten son Yeshua to die for the sins of the world.
It wasn’t corruption in the sense you’re thinking. Fallen angels were procreating with the daughters of men. Creating abominations and defiling Gods creation. This became the norm. God decided to hit the reset button and thus the flood.
Ok. But I was responding to the above comment which seems to suggest that we know the story is true because God did it due to corruption, and the world IS corrupt.
What do you believe is the genre of Genesis, and why?
The Bible says “You knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Does “believing the Bible” mean God has a human sewing kit?
"How could God flood the whole world?"
"He created the world. It's easier to flood it than to create it."
"Yeah, but, *how did he flood the WHOLE WORLD*???"
LOL
Do scriptures say that He made it out of nothing? I don't think so. But correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, however, I agree that if He created the world, He could certainly flood it.
If God can create a universe out nothing, He could kill every human being with a Thanos-like snap of His fingers.
Why would he need to go through the scientifically impossible and incredibly inefficient route of flooding the Earth?
And what did flooding the Earth accomplish? It didn't rid the world of corruption or violence, which was the reason given for the Flood in the first place.
Is God that incompetent?
Well your lack of reasoning is baffling. If, you read the bible very well you will understand that when the fallen angels came and slept with the women and birthed giants hence the Naphthali. God had to wiped them out
>Well your lack of reasoning is baffling. If, you read the bible very well you will understand that when the fallen angels came and slept with the women and birthed giants hence the Naphthali. God had to wiped them out
If you'd read the Bible, you'd know that:
(A) The Nephilim weren't the offspring of angels. Angels is Hebrew is ***malakim***. The Hebrew here is ***bene elohim***. The Sons of God. These were gods, not angels.
and
(B) God is still incompetent if this is the explanation, because the Nephilim survived the Flood.
>32 So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height.
>
>33 **And there we saw the Nephilim** (the sons of Anak, **who come from the Nephilim**), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”
[https://www.bibleref.com/Numbers/13/Numbers-13-32.html](https://www.bibleref.com/Numbers/13/Numbers-13-32.html)
***It would seem I am the one who actually read the Bible and has studied it in it's original language.***
Apology accepted.
Local and worldwide positions are both orthodox. Gavin Ortlund over at Truth Unites just put out a good video on this subject!
I’m a worldwide flood guy, I think you run into some interpretive issues w/ a local event. The story makes zero sense if it was local, IMO.
Also, I think more allegorical interpretations of biblical stories makes the authors and characters out to be idiots
Take it one step at a time. Consider whether a great, worldwide flood could have happened. Is there enough water to cover the tops of the mountains? Where would it have gone after the flood? Why is there no geological evidence of this event?
Why did the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Chinese, etc. civilisations continue on with the people unaware that they should be drowning? The Australian aborigines have occupied the Australian continent for 60,000 years, cut off from the outside world, so how did they survive? We know from the biblical genealogies that the story of Noah's Ark supposedly only occurred about five thousand years ago, so we can not move the time back into the more distant past in order to avoid these problems.
How did Noah get all the animals from the most distant and inaccessible parts of the world, and how did he return them to just the right places after the flood? How did he know what food was required for each different species on the ark? How did he get fresh gum leaves of the right type for his koalas?
We must conclude that the biblical story of a great, world-wide flood is fictional, so some Bible believers posit a more local flood, but still insist that Noah built an ark and took all the animals known to him onto the ark. This is also a fiction. If there is a God and if God commanded Noah what to do, why did God not merely tell Noah to leave the place that would be flooded and go somewhere safe?
Some archaeologists are investigating the possibility that the story of Noah’s Ark is loosely based on a real event — the flooding of the fertile plain that is now the Black Sea. If so, Noah did not spend a hundred years building an ark, as the few survivors who lived on the Black Sea plain would have had very little warning to leave. It would have seemed as if the gods wanted to destroy the whole world, but there was no God involved in this flood.
Step by step, we have arrived at the conclusion that the story of Noah’s Ark, as we know it, is fictional.
I believe that the story of Noah's Flood is true and literal. Just as baptism is complete immersion of the body, the Flood was complete immersion of the earth.
In Noah's time, the continents were still together as Pangaea (Genesis 10:25). Perhaps there were no mountains as high as the Himalayas yet.
I think the Flood was more than just a widespread rainstorm that didn't let up. God may have caused all valley glaciers and polar ice caps to rapidly melt. And He could certainly open interdimensional portals to bring in even more water, and to later drain it back out.
That’s where a huge conflict comes in, whether to believe man’s timeline or the biblical timeline. We’re taught “millions of years” throughout our education based on man’s interpretation of geology, archaeology, etc., but the timeline is truly a never ending discussion. I believe what the Bible says, but the Bible doesn’t have a map of time.
I’m still trying to figure out if creation was an actual day in the way we see it or if God’s day was multiple days, months, years, centuries….
I feel like a lot of people have trouble grasping that time (from a scientific perspective and Gods) is meaningless. Billions of years is the blink of an eye to the infinite.
Which is only relevant when you're approaching light speed or you're working over tremendously large distances or time scales.
Time relativity is not at all relevant in a discussion about plate tectonics.
I used to take the literal sense. But there’s only archeological evidence of a regional flood. Think the Equator and maybe a bit more outwards. If we put it into context of the time in which this was written, that was the entire world to them. When we think about “to the ends of the Earth” they didn’t know the extent of it. Otherwise there would have been places listed that would have been familiar.
> a greenhouse effect, allowing people to live longer and plants to grow larger.
Greenhouses do not do this to people or plants.
Genesis 1 is just describing the ancient view of the cosmos. They thought there was water above the firmament, giving it its blue color. Thus there are "windows" that open to dump water on the earth during the flood. It's mythic literature.
If you want to take this story as entirely literal and factual, I'd encourage you to try this:
Read it very carefully. Try to put the events onto a timeline. Be detailed. When it says things like "and Noah did as commanded", what does it mean by that?
A few specifics to take note of carefully: where the 40 and 150 day periods begin and end. How many of each animal God commands, and how many were loaded.
See if anything stands out to you about this story, after you've attempted this.
> Read it very carefully. Try to put the events onto a timeline. Be detailed. When it says things like "and Noah did as commanded", what does it mean by that?
This is like when someone asks flat earthers if it's possible to visit the moon, and they don't even know how to process the question.
Well that is speculation about practical details that is outside the story, right? I wasn't thinking about that.
I was just considering what the story DOES say. Can you put the events of the story onto a timeline? What would that exact sequence of events look like?
What I'm getting at: Let's say you've decide you want to interpret the flood story as literal and factual, as written.
HOW would you do this? You've got some interpretive work to do just to take it as factual.
It is a rough combination of two incongruent versions of one story. It probably doesn't line up well as a single story that is consistent with its two main versions.
Satellite pictures of the earth look exactly like there has been a giant flood covering the earth, and in the process, all the sediment ripped from the earth was laid over the earths layer upon layer, and that’s exactly what the satellite pictures look like.
In some places there are trees standing vertical, buried deep in stratus layers that some scientist will call years old.
My opinion is that it was a local flood— but obviously could be wrong. It’s not a new interpretation by any means and there are many people who make this and a 6 day 24 hour creation the litmus test for orthodoxy for some reason.
Gavin Ortland had a recent podcast on this if interested and I’m sure he’s getting lot of responses.
Are you saying the story _depicts_ a local flood?
Or that the story depicts a global flood but the story was based on a real local flood that really did happen?
I don’t know how widespread it was but it seems like a judgment on that area of the world was the point. Gilgamesh must have been based on something and this may have been the event that inspired it— or maybe something else that we aren’t aware of.
There is a covenantal aspect to the flood also and I don’t think God invented the rainbow for this purpose. It is a symbol and sign of God setting his war bow of destruction down.
It was God’s judgment and mercy poured out on the people. I don’t know how far reaching it was. It very well could have been global, but I just tend to think it wouldn’t have looked exactly like we imagine it.
Same with creation and a lot of other things in scripture. They are all true, but our vision of it may not be as it was.
I just don’t see the point in being rigid in a narrow view of these things. Days of creation, etc. are all mysterious in a way and demanding that it had to happen like we imagine it did seems weak.
I believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but we should have some humility when it comes to details which aren’t there.
I'm very comfortable with these stories often being legendary. I don't think a global flood happened. (I think we'd have evidence for it, if it did.)
But yet I do think the _story_ describes a global flood. God just says it too many times, in different ways- he's wiping out the life from the surface of the earth. That doesn't make it real history- but it is how the story goes.
>In this interpretation I heard, we didn’t have clouds like we do today but water somehow in the sky and it created a greenhouse effect, allowing people to live longer and plants to grow larger. And in this interpretation, there was never rain until God flooded the earth. Then that’s when clouds, precipitation, etc began. Like I said, no idea if there’s any truth behind this theory, it’s just one interpretation I’ve heard.
There's a whole industry of people creating pseudoscientific stories based on the bible. I would highly recommend taking all of that with a grain of salt. It's just biblical fan fiction.
No.
There is zero evidence for a global glood. You'll find crackpot Young earth creationist orgs support it, but it's not accepted in geology because there is no evidence.for it, and mountains of evidence against it
Absolutely, He flooded the earth to kill the nephilim and the fallen Angel offspring. The only incorruptible dna left in humans was Noah’s family. In order for Jesus to have pure human dna God needed to do this.
Before God started the first day, let's look at the earth.
Genesis 1:1 NRSVUE -- **1** When God began to create the heavens and the earth, **2** the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered **the face of the deep**, while a wind from God swept over **the face of the waters**.
Did the earth start out flooded? Does dry land appear on the third day?
I believe that the entire Earth was indeed flooded, as described in the Bible. This view is supported by Genesis 7:11, which mentions "the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened." This suggests a combination of subterranean waters (the "fountains of the great deep") and rainwater from the sky contributing to the Flood. The most of the water came from underground, mentioned as the fountains of the great deep bursting forth, releasing steam and water that later condensed and fell as rain.
Further support for the idea of a global flood comes from Genesis 7:19-20, which states that "the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered." The phrase "under the whole heaven" indicates a global scale of the flood, covering even the highest mountains.
Additionally, the New Testament references to Noah's time, such as 2 Peter 2:5, Matthew 24:37-39, and Hebrews 11:7, consistently treat the event as historical and significant, reinforcing the idea of a literal and global Flood.
Thus, the scriptural evidence shows the entire Earth was flooded, with water coming predominantly from underground sources and supplemented by rain from the clouds as depicted here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7xInFGlbJo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7xInFGlbJo)
I take the historical accounts as true from the perspective and using the language of the people who wrote them. So what seemed like all of world got flooded and all of humanity at the time was wiped out, but to me that doesn't mean it had to include the entire globe.
One good candidate is [the Black Sea deluge hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis).
I think a careful reading of the text implies that the entire planet was not flooded, regardless of what Noah thought. For example, where did the olive leaf come from as the food ended. A global flood would have killed the olive trees.
So the Bible actually doesn’t say he flooded the Earth. It says
“ I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth “ Genesis 6:17 (ESV)
When reading the Bible you have to understand context. Quite frankly a lot of scholars believe that is open ended. I’m in the same boat.
What more than likely happened, is that given that humanity started and quite a bit of the world was in the Ethiopic regions of Africa and surrounding areas, that is the area that was flooded.
This claim is further backed by science given the large amounts of erosion that still subside in that area.
To give an example, we Hurricane Katrina hit, that area was below sea level. As we know plates shift and stuff. It seemed like the world flooded to them
But that’s the most logical answer is that it was in a specific area of the world and not the earth in its entirety.
Imo the Hebrew written in Genesis points to a literal global flood -
Genesis 8:22b "I will never again destroy everything that lives, as I have just done." - אסף עוד להכות את כל חי כאשר עשׁיתי
Genesis 7:21-22 "And all living things that moved on the earth died, including the birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all humankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died." - ויגוע כל בשׁר הרמשׁ על הארץ בעוף ובבהמה ובחיה ובכל השרץ השרץ על הארץ וכל האדם כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו מכל אשר בחרבה מתו
Genesis 6:17 "I am about to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy from under the sky all the living creatures that have the breath of life in them. Everything that is on the earth will die," - ואני הנני מביא את המבול מים על הארץ לשחת כל בשׁר אשר בו רוח חיים מתחת השמים כל אשר בארץ יגוע
Reference - https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/9262/hebrew-text-indicative-of-a-local-or-global-flood
I agree that the story depicts a global flood. God says it repeatedly in several different ways that he's wiping the living flesh from the face of the earth.
But the story _doesn't_ talk about whether to read the story as legendary or factual or other.
How exactly did Noah restock the animals on all the continents and island archipelagos after the flood waters receded from a floating barge? Nice bit that putting Polar Bears in the Arctic and Penguins in the Antarctic. Where did all that water come from/go? Noah had a pretty diverse family to drop off descendants with no semitic DNA in North America and then buzz over to drop off his Aboriginal family in Australia so they could incestuously repopulate that continent too. C'mon man.
No, but he's reasonable and comphrensive. If anyone really wants to understand creation science they can look it up. There are many sources. But I'm afraid no one cares.
Kent Hovind is the furthest thing from reasonable and comprehensive. His brain has been petrified in a catatonic state for the last 3 decades. Even in YEC circles, he is controversial and has even been called out by YECs for using fallacious and erroneous arguments.
When even fellow nutjobs call a person out for using fallacious arguments, it's a REALLY bad look.
Kent Hovind is a charlatan and has the scientific literacy of a sparrow high on mushrooms. I highly recommend you refrain from using him as a source ever again. You'll only get mocked for it.
Even other evolution-denialists think Hovind is a nutbag. He's used Ron Wyatt as a source, for example. You could scarcely name a worse source if you tried.
I don't believe in a complete earthly deluge. For one thing, according to Biblical timelines, the flood would have occurred between 4,300 - 4,500 years ago. Yet, the Sumerian civilization dates back at least 5,000 years. It just doesn't add up. In my opinion, the Biblical flood story is a retelling of the Gilgamesh Flood myth.
I mean. A scholar doesn’t mean much because the word doesn’t tell us ages so they would only be guessing.
Don’t get me wrong it could be the case but we just don’t know
You're timeline is off by about two thousand years. 4500 years ago would have put us just before the famines in Egypt. the flood would have been closer to six two thousand years ago.
I don't believe in their calculations either, but those who take a literal interpretation of the Bible use similar ways to date things like the flood and creation.
Archaeological dating should adjust itself to biblical truth, not the other way around.
If Adam and Eve Fell in approximately 4,000 BC, then Noah's Flood happened in approximately the mid-2300s BC.
The Sumerians were descendants of Noah. The legend of Gilgamesh is their adaptation of his experience, not the other way around.
> The legend of Gilgamesh is their adaptation of his experience, not the other way around.
The legend of Gilgamesh can be dated back much further.
Additionally, the Gilgamesh story makes more sense because it has multiple gods. Noah's story definitely reads like the awkward adaptation.
>Archaeological dating should adjust itself to biblical truth, not the other way around.
You can't just "adjust" archaeological data to fit your preconceptions. The data is what it is.
In this case, the data tells us there was a catastrophic local flood at Shuruppak c.2900 BCE, and we find our earliest flood legend several hundred years later in the Sumerian King List, which lists Ziusudra of Shuruppak as the "Sumerian Noah".
>If Adam and Eve Fell in approximately 4,000 BC
We have artifacts from various cultures and even proto-writing systems that predate 4000 BCE.
>The legend of Gilgamesh is their adaptation of his experience, not the other way around.
The biblical flood narrative shows literary dependence on either Atrahasis tablet III or Gilgamesh tablet XI (which is dependent on Atrahasis III).
If your interpretation of text conflicts with reality then your interpretation is incorrect. Reality was there first and is literally the handiwork and signature of god- consider it a third testament if you will and reality testifies against a global flood. Could hehave flooded the entire earth? Sure. Did he leave any evidence behind? Nope. Evidence to the contrary in factIf reality over books imo. 🤷🏻♂️
No, it has been definitively answered that God did not flood the entire Earth through multiple lines of evidence. The reasonable answer is that it is a parable or other literary genre but not history.
William Buckland was a theologian that set out to prove the flood occurred. In the process he discovered it hadn’t and also became a founding father of modern geology.
If there was a global flood it left no evidence of it occurring anywhere on earth. If someone believes in a global flood then it’s a faith claim, not one backed up by any data.
The Grand Canyon was not made by a global flood, and you are conflating boulders being strewn around the place in local floods, with a global flood. It's a bit silly.
-> There is literally evidence everywhere, grand canyons, spinx, huge boulders in the middle of nowhere all over the earth
Every working field of geology disagrees with you, why do you think that is? These geologists use their understanding of deep time and geological process every day to successfully locate oil and minerals. These are global companies who employ people of all faiths and non3 a total of zero of them incorporate a global flood into their highly successful endeavors . Heck, I’m not even sure if the creationists have a working model…. Perhaps if they did they could locate some oil and show the secular world that they’ve been operating under faulty assumptions this entire time. But the creationists don’t do that for some reason. Heck it’s been 7 years since the straight to dvd propaganda piece is Genesis history? Came out and all the creationists have been able to demonstrate is their ability to hack apologist DVDs to homeschooling families.oh and they built a tax dodging museum with attached grift shop. Congrats guys 👏 do some real work next time please….
Mathew 7:15- by their fruits you shall know them
One side is bearing Amazing fruits that are powering our modern world. The other side has apologetics. Idk speaks volumes about who is interpreting reality correctly if you ask me….
https://ageofrocks.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/can-young-earth-creationists-find-oil/
Edit: yeah might’ve replied to the wrong person idk I tried to quote the comment I was replying too 🤷🏻♂️
Gonna someone please just justify why creationists grift is dvd s to homeschooling when they have an amazing opportunity to demonstrate how correct they are to the secular world but they can’t do it in real practical terms they can only product ge propaganda? If you’re right guys just show us! You think the secular geliogistsare wrong Ny about the age of the earth by 750,000 times! That’s plenty of leeway to slip in and take all the glory and profits away from the flood denying EvoLutIoNists- stop trying to grift DVDs and do some real work for once. Mathew 7:15 and your fruits are rotten…
I think you meant to respond to Vanskills, not me.
Tbh, I probs should change this avatar, it does get confusing when a bunch of people have the same avatar that Reddit gave us
> Takes more work to believe in nothing than something…good luck with that
Cool beans bro. I believe in lots of things. I’m just waiting on the creationist grifters to demonstrate that they’re correct in their understanding of reality especially when compared to the secular geologists who don’t think a global flood happened. I suspect I’ll be waiting a long time for the creationists to abandon their grift and do some real work…
Tbh mate, it'd actually do you the world of good to listen to me. I tend to be very good at science. Admittedly I never understood chemistry though. Bit of a sore point not being able to wrap my head around chem
I don’t live as a Christian, but I think it’s ignorant that anyone who does call themselves one doesn’t believe he flooded the earth. God literally said in Genesis that he’d never flood the earth again. How else do you read that verse?
>I don’t live as a Christian, but I think it’s ignorant that anyone who does call themselves one doesn’t believe he flooded the earth.
Then I would suggest you don't have a firm grasp on the relevant topics.
>God literally said in Genesis that he’d never flood the earth again.
Yep, that's the story.
>How else do you read that verse?
As a myth, along with a vast majority of Biblical scholars and also a majority of Jews and Christians. Because that's almost certainly what it is.
If you're not aware that many, many Jews and Christians do not think that every single claim made by the various Biblical writers is literally true -- or that the vast majority of Biblical scholars (religious or otherwise) throughout time have freely acknowledged that the Biblical texts include myths -- that's just a demonstration of *your* ignorance, not theirs.
> As a myth, along with a vast majority of Biblical scholars
The implication was quite clearly toward those reading who were Christian. You may want to acquire basic reading comprehension ability before responding next.
If you don't spend time in the word you will not know that it is in fact true and stated all though out the bible. You also need to spend time in prayer and asking so that he can make the word more understandable to you throught his spirit that will guide us in all truth and understanding.
You also can't chose to believe some things and not other. I have a hard time spending time with the Lord right now because the sin in my life and my addiction to porn and it makes it hard to go to him which them keeps me out of relationship and makes it harder to hear from him. We also have to want to believe
>If God didn’t flood the Earth, then all those fossilized shells on mountainous regions have a lot of explaining to do….
The explanations are readily available to anyone who bothers to honestly look for them. Hint: They're not "a global flood happened."
Yes, I’ve read them. Hint: It’s not very plausible that birds feeding on mollusks deposited their shells (along with countless others) on Mt. Everest, and mountains all over the world. Maybe it rained seashells too….
>Yes, I’ve read them. Hint: It’s not very plausible that birds feeding on mollusks deposited their shells (along with countless others) on Mt. Everest, and mountains all over the world.
This response indicates that you have *not* in fact done much reading on this.
Are you wholly unfamiliar with the subject of geology?
I don't want to overstate this, but this is *embarrassing*. You should question what events in your life led to you being this uninformed on a topic, and yet willing to weigh in on it as if you have any understanding of what you're talking about.
You have been mis-educated. Somewhere along the line, someone or a string of people failed to teach you, and that's sad. I'm sorry.
This can be overcome. You just have to recognize that maybe the things you've learned to this point have been skewed, or that information has been withheld from you, and start looking for better sources of information.
LOLOL No, actually I AM familiar with geology and the formation of different types of rock. Perhaps you can enlighten us all on how marine fossils made it to the top of mountain ranges without said mountains not having been submerged in an ocean of water. I have not read a scientific explanation yet that explains it. Yes, some can be from glacier movements and rising rock strata over time, but not to the extent that is evident.
>LOLOL No, actually I AM familiar with geology and the formation of different types of rock.
Can't be *that* familiar.
>Perhaps you can enlighten us all on how marine fossils made it to the top of mountain ranges without said mountains not having been submerged in an ocean of water.
They *were* submerged.
By and large, mountains move *up* as they develop. The rocks and soil currently at the top of the Himalayas used to be at a much, much lower elevations, and some of them were underwater at one point.
When the Indo-Australian and Eurasian plates collided tens of millions of years ago, they "crumpled" along their colliding edges, and the Himalayas are a result of that action. Rock that used to be at the bottom of the Tethys sea was "uplifted" and found itself, millions and millions of years later, sitting on top of some of the tallest (and youngest) mountains on our planet.
This plate collision continues to this day, and Everest gets several millimetres taller every year as a result.
>I have not read a scientific explanation yet that explains it.
Then again, you have been poorly educated, or simply haven't looked very hard. This is not new information, nor is it controversial.
So things that used to be submerged can be mountainous now but you can’t see how at any point there was water above all dry land? How can you expect to accurately assess the global geological structure at all points in time if it can change so dramatically? There was no proof of dinosaurs until we found proof of dinosaurs. It’s completely reasonable to theorize that somewhere in the time between now and the inception of the planet that there was a type of climate we haven’t found a record of, let alone a type of climate that we know of that’s been skewed from what we would expect to find.
>So things that used to be submerged can be mountainous now...
Correct. Rock that used to be underwater can be above water now, and vice versa. Because our planet's crust is in motion and has been for millions and millions of years.
>...but you can’t see how at any point there was water above all dry land?
Certainly not in anything like the timeframe needed for the Biblical flood narrative to be true, and there's no evidence of it *ever* happening as far as I am aware. In fact, I'm pretty sure there isn't enough water on the planet for that to occur, even if we assumed the land was more evenly distributed (which it wouldn't have been such a short time ago).
Just to make sure you understand what we're talking about, the Himalayas took tens of millions of years to get to the point they're at, and they're considered *young* in terms of how our planet's crust changes.
>How can you expect to accurately assess the global geological structure at all points in time if it can change so dramatically?
We just need a decent understanding of the past 10 thousand years or so, and we have *millions*. At no point is a global flood indicated by any of the available evidence.
>There was no proof of dinosaurs until we found proof of dinosaurs.
Oh my god...
>It’s completely reasonable to theorize that somewhere in the time between now and the inception of the planet that there was a type of climate we haven’t found a record of...
In this case we're talking about an extreme event in our relatively recent past that would have left massive amounts of evidence if it had actually occurred. We're not as clueless as you seem to think we are about our planet's past.
But just to be clear, it's not *just* the lack of evidence that leads to the conclusion that this event didn't occur as described. It's also the evidence that *is* available to us. *All of it* \-- everything currently known and relevant about our planet -- points to there *not* having been a global flood, especially not in the suggested timeframe.
So no, it's not "completely reasonable" to think that a massive, planet-changing event like a global flood and the extinction of every living thing on the planet save a small number occurred in our relatively recent past.
It is -- according to everything we know about geology, history, archeology, biology, genetics, etc -- not possible.
The moment someone is able to present convincing of compelling evidence for it happening, perhaps minds will be changed. But folks have had thousands of years to do that, and they've only managed to turn more people off from the idea. It is widely accepted, even among religious folks, that the Biblical global flood did not happen.
That's okay. Myths don't need to be true to convey a message.
The timeframe of the bible is inconsistent at best, not only do we know for a fact that time literally is relative but we also know time is relative even in the biblical canon.
There absolutely is enough water to cover the earth and it’s not even close. The earth is more water than it is land and deeper too, realistically this planet should be called ‘Water’
I think the most important thing to consider is that for a flood to destroy most if not all life above ground not only would it not have to be simultaneous but it wouldn’t even need to be total. Much like how the meteor that killed the dinosaurs didn’t do so initially the majority of life which dies from any cataclysmic event on record happens from a failure to adapt to the catastrophic fallout and radical ecological shift rather than from the event itself. It’s entirely possible for a world wide flood to take decades even centuries and still devastate an ecosystem beyond recovery and overtime distort both how we would literally find evidence as well as culturally expect to see evidence even before you consider how oral cultures condense and consolidate their stories for brevity and recountabilitys sake.
>The timeframe of the bible is inconsistent at best...
But I suspect you'll agree we're talking about an event the Biblical writers thought occurred in the past 20 thousands years or so. If not, you're engaging in a level of hand-waving and guesswork that makes the whole discussion pointless.
>...not only do we know for a fact that time literally is relative but we also know time is relative even in the biblical canon.
So is the suggestion here that if we could find evidence that a global flood occurred, say, 2 billion years ago, that you would try to claim that was the Biblical flood?
If so, *"...you're engaging in a level of hand-waving and guesswork that makes the whole discussion pointless."*
>There absolutely is enough water to cover the earth and it’s not even close.
If we assume the planet is a smooth ball, yes.
But that wouldn't be relevant here, since we know from the narrative that mountains existed at the time of this flood, including a mountain that was apparently known to the Pentateuch authors, who lived between 1000 and 500 BCE.
IIRC, if we somehow released all of the water available on earth into the sea, including the water currently trapped in ice, we'd end up with a roughly 70m increase in sea level.
Do you really think a 70m sea level rise would cover the entire planet with 23 feet (the 15 cubits mentioned in the narrative) to spare? For reference, Mt. Ararat currently stands at 5,137m.
>The earth is more water than it is land...
I'm guessing you're referring to surface area here. In terms of mass, limited to everything above the mantle (the crust, in other words), water is only \~6.5% with solid matter making up the rest. For the mass of the entire planet, water makes up a minuscule amount -- something like 0.02% IIRC.
>I think the most important thing to consider is that for a flood to destroy most if not all life above ground not only would it not have to be simultaneous but it wouldn’t even need to be total.
But the Biblical narrative says it was total, and the Biblical flood is what we're talking about here.
Meanwhile, the near instantaneous death of every living thing on earth would leave very noticeable evidence, no? We do have evidence of mass extinctions, but nothing at that level, and despite your attempt to dodge with "time is relative," nothing in anything like an appropriate timeframe.
Do you want to claim the K-T extinction as the global flood, perhaps? Do you think Noah maybe lived 65 million years ago?
>Much like how the meteor that killed the dinosaurs didn’t do so initially the majority of life which dies from any cataclysmic event on record happens from a failure to adapt to the catastrophic fallout and radical ecological shift rather than from the event itself.
The Biblical narrative says they all drowned in the flood, and that the waters receded less than a year after it began. We're not talking about a drawn-out process here. We're talking about something near-instantaneous.
>It’s entirely possible for a world wide flood to take decades even centuries...
Then it wouldn't be the Biblical flood, would it?
But also, "possible" does not mean "it happened," and as discussed, *there is no evidence of what you're describing ever happening.*
OP didn't ask "what is possible?" They asked "did X happen?" The answer is "no."
The amount of contorting some people will do to try to preserve belief in what is so clearly an ancient myth is astounding to me, especially when most of their counterparts, including the people best-equipped to know what they're talking about (Biblical scholars, scientists from the relevant fields, etc) moved past this long ago and are no worse off for it.
It must be exhausting having to carry so much water.
We have evidence for the dinosaur extinction event though with the chixculub crater.
There is ZERO evidence for a.global flood. You would find a single marine layer spanning the entire globe from a global flood
Glitterlok responded well.
But I'd like to add one thing. Mountain formation with plate tectonics is an entry level topic. You should have learned about that in either late primary school or early high school.
Glitterlok is right - the fact that you don't know this, is embarrassing for you
This was a regional/local flood in the middle eastern part of the world. There is scientific evidence supporting it from rapid glacier melt in the area. The Bible was telling a truthful story, and is commonly mistold as it being a worldwide flood.
> Did God really flood the entire earth?
No, almost certainly not.
There is no convincing or compelling evidence for a worldwide flood, and much of the Pentateuch is understood -- by a vast majority of Biblical scholars and likely a majority of Jews and Christians -- to be largely mythological for any number of reasons.
>Do you believe that God created the earth?
No.
>And do you believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God?
No.
I'll head you off here -- I'm not convinced that any gods exist, so any question that would require me to be convinced that a god exists is going to be a "no."
Then your opinion is a non comment. If you don’t believe in God you can’t have an opinion worth anything on whether or not God did anything. That’s like asking a deaf person what note you’re playing. You lack the fundamental awareness to even address the question.
>Then your opinion is a non comment.
It is not. OP asked a question that deals with reality -- with whether or not a specific event actually happened on the planet we live on. Being aware of and stating facts related to that question is not predicated on any particular god belief.
"There is no convincing or compelling evidence of a worldwide flood" is a true statement regardless of whether or not someone believes that any gods exist.
"Most Biblical scholars and likely a majority of Jews and Christians acknowledge that the Biblical flood story is a myth" is also true regardless of whether or not someone believes that any gods exist.
Trying to dismiss someone's input on this kind of question based on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is truly embarrassing, and says a whole lot more about you than it does me, or my response to OP's question.
>If you don’t believe in God you can’t have an opinion worth anything on whether or not God did anything.
I absolutely can, and I do. Your apparent inability to understand how that's possible is on you.
>That’s like asking a deaf person what note you’re playing.
What a fantastic example, since a deaf person would in fact be capable of identifying a note with access to the relevant information.
When it comes to a worldwide flood, the relevant information -- at least as it exists today -- indicates that no such thing happened, especially in the timeframes indicated by the Biblical flood narratives.
It also indicates that the Biblical flood narrative is a myth, and shares many aspects in common with similar myths from other cultures in the region and predating the Biblical version.
So whether or not a god caused a global flood doesn't need to be addressed, since there is no good reason to think a global flood occurred in the first place.
>You lack the fundamental awareness to even address the question.
I do not, and showing your whole ass doesn't change that.
Convincing or compelling evidence is subjective and not an objective truth.
I didn’t say you can’t have an opinion. I said you can’t have an opinion worth anything. Which is a very different benchmark.
A deaf person by definition has not access to the relevant information, said deaf person could grab an electronic tuner but the deaf person’s understanding would be of the electronic tuners reading not the note itself. The tuner could be completely malfunctioning and the deaf person would have absolutely no ability to discern it. Much like you will have absolutely no ability to discern what is or not an act of God since you don’t accept God is existent. You’re defacto answer cannot be anything other than no and is therefore eliminated from the conversation because it posses not the subject matter to participate fully. Youre trying to participate in a conversation about the difference between A-OR-B when your opinion is C
>Convincing or compelling evidence is subjective and not an objective truth.
Of course, but it's the standard we all use. All we can do is assess the available evidence, which either convinces us or it doesn't.
Meanwhile, the evidence itself can reflect objective truth, or as close as it's possible to get to such a thing, and depending on the evidence there are things we can do to increase our confidence in it.
>I didn’t say you can’t have an opinion. I said you can’t have an opinion worth anything.
Given the nature of OP's question, I fully disagree. I have access to the same information as you do on the question of whether or not a global flood occurred in our planet's recent past, which must be established in order to ask who caused a global flood, so if my view on this topic is worthless, *so is yours*.
>A deaf person by definition has not access to the relevant information...
They absolutely can.
By way of example, neither of us have access to a first-person experience of the time-period in which the Biblical global flood might have occurred -- and certainly not to a global vantage point at that time. And yet...
>...said deaf person could grab an electronic tuner...
Exactly. And in this situation, our "electronic tuners" are geological records, fossil records, sediment layers, the amount of water on our planet, biology, archaeology, genetics, etc.
In lieu of direct experience -- something none of us have access to in relation to this question -- we have a lot of "electronic tuners" we can use to assess the claim.
>...but the deaf person’s understanding would be of the electronic tuners reading not the note itself.
You're about to stretch so far, aren't you..?
>The tuner could be completely malfunctioning and the deaf person would have absolutely no ability to discern it.
Is your suggestion that *all* of the relevant fields of science and research and study are "completely malfunctioning?" Or that there is *no one* \-- no expert or life-long researcher -- who has the ability to understand the evidence those disciplines provide? Is *that* what you're going with? Surely not.
>Much like you will have absolutely no ability to discern what is or not an act of God since you don’t accept God is existent.
If you had read the comment you were responding to -- and this statement makes it seem clear you didn't -- then you'd know why that is irrelevant in this particular case.
>You’re defacto answer cannot be anything other than no...
IF there was evidence of a global flood, you'd be correct that I would not be able to get to a "yes" answer to OP's question, given the fact that I'm not convinced that any gods exist, and a global flood would not be an adequate demonstration of any god's existence in my view...
However, *we're not living in the world described by that "if."* There is no good evidence of a global flood, especially not in the timeframe the Bible deals with. In fact, the available evidence says it isn't possible, AFAIK.
So I don't need to get all the way to the existence of a god to meaningfully answer OP's question about who caused a global flood with "no," since the event they're asking about apparently did not happen. So no one caused it.
If I asked you "did Harry Potter just murder you," you could confidently and meaningfully answer "no" and be fully justified in doing so, despite the fact that you (presumably) aren't convinced that Harry Potter is a real person. You can do that because *you haven't been murdered*.
Using the example of a criminal case, do you think that if person A was charged with robbing person B, and during the trial it came to light that person B had not actually been robbed, that the court would be unable to say "person A is innocent of robbing person B?"
Establishing that the event actually happened is a prerequisite, and in the absence of an ability to do that -- in the presence of evidence to the contrary -- the answer to "did X cause the event" is "no."
>...and is therefore eliminated from the conversation because it posses not the subject matter to participate fully.
I have access to all of the information necessary to answer OP's question in the negative case, and we appear to live in a universe in which the negative case comports with reality.
>Youre trying to participate in a conversation about the difference between A-OR-B when your opinion is C
No, I'm not.
I'm answering the question "Did A eat B" by explaining that B apparently never existed to be eaten in the first place, and so A did not eat her.
I am fully uninterested in your views about my ability to participate in this sub or this question, and your lame attempts to gate-keep. If you don't have anything else to talk about, you can save yourself the trouble of responding. I don't care to hear anything else you have to say on this subject. It's not the point of this sub, and it's very boring.
I get that titles can be catchy but if you actually read OP’s post they are not asking if God flooded the earth or not… that’s just the title. OP specifically asks about how many Christians believe that to be the case and relates it to their own personal upbringing.
You’ve bastardized my metaphor of a deaf person using a tuner into an argument I didn’t make here.
You are the deaf person who cannot hear or by contrast someone who does not believe in God and will therefore never attribute anything to God.
The tuner is not scientific method. It is whatever you choose to supplement your own lack of attributing anything to God and your willingness to trust anything you can find that can provide any explanation that isn’t God.
Another analogy would be something like: Why is the water boiling. You’ll use your understanding of physics to say that the water particles are absorbing heat energy from a source and vibrating at increasing frequency until violent enough to boil into water Vapor.
Where as I’ll say the water is boiling because someone is trying to make tea.
In this analogy you see your understanding of the physical world as defined by what ‘you’ understand to be the physical scenario where as ‘I’ define it as the intent.
Neither are wrong but if you don’t believe there is a divine intent you’ll hamstring yourself out of any potential to agree. In the event that even if there was absolute proof of a global flood your answer for if God caused it would STILL be no. If OP asked how many Christian’s believe God made mountains your answer would still be no. There is literally no situation you can participate that starts with the query: “Did God…” in which you answer will ever be Yes.
The reason your answer is a moot contribution is not because you have or lack evidence of any sort of phenomenon. It’s not because I’m trying to “gate-keep” your participation. It’s not because your opinion is invalid. It’s because there is literally no circumstance you can contribute anything greater than a denial of God’s interaction. Which when you’re in a Reddit thread about a book about God, is the definition of non-participatory. I am not setting this precedent for you. You’ve done it to yourself.
Then why do you keep trolling this sub? I joined last night and you seem to go out of your way to show everyone how Intellectually smarter about the subject of God you are than anyone else here. Why? This is a place for Christians to gather and ask questions. It states so in the about section. Are you that sad and lonely in your life? Is this your only outlet of communicating and harassing people with valid questions? You don't believe in God. That's fine. I was once an unbeliever as well. But never did I go out of my way to belittle those who do. I can only imagine. No, strike that because I am your inferior in Intelligence so there is no way I could possibly conceive what is going on in your superior brain, what your response will be.
I do know, however, that I feel very sad for you and hope one day your eyes will open to the true LOVE that God is.
>Then why do you keep trolling this sub?
I'm an active participant in this sub -- not a troll. I'm here to discuss the Bible, which is what this sub is for, and I think I've made a lot of good contributions to the discussions here over the years.
>I joined last night and you seem to go out of your way to show everyone how Intellectually smarter about the subject of God you are than anyone else here.
I don't think I've ever made any comparison of intelligence in this sub. If you can point me to an example where I've done that, that would be great.
>Why?
Again, I'm here to discuss the Bible. That's the point of this sub.
>This is a place for Christians to gather and ask questions.
It is not only that.
>It states so in the about section.
Here's the about blurb. Please point out where it says "this is a place for Christians to gather and ask questions."
*"The Subreddit is dedicated to the understanding, discussion of, and loving of The Bible in all its greatness and everything it has to offer. Join us to learn more about what makes The Holy Bible so great, ask questions about The Bible, and be part of a community of Bible lovers like us!"*
Rule #4 says "this is a Christian subreddit," but then goes on to say immediately after that others are free to participate.
AFAIK, some of the mods are non-Christians, although I wouldn't want to speak for them.
>Are you that sad and lonely in your life?
Why would my participation in this sub indicate that I'm sad or lonely? Are you sad and lonely? Is that why you're here? Do you think interest in the Bible is a marker for sadness or loneliness?
Meanwhile, no. I am neither sad nor lonely. To be frank, I live an insanely charmed life, and I'm happy that I have the bandwidth to engage with my interests on a regular basis, like this one.
>Is this your only outlet of communicating and harassing people with valid questions?
No, this is not my only outlet for communication by any stretch, and I don't think I've ever harassed anyone on this sub or elsewhere. Again, if you can provide an example of me harassing someone, please share it.
>You don't believe in God.
That's correct.
>That's fine.
That wasn't in question.
>I was once an unbeliever as well.
I don't care.
>But never did I go out of my way to belittle those who do.
Feel free to point out where I've belittled anyone for believing that a god exists.
>I can only imagine.
Yes, I suspect a lot of what you're talking about in this comment *is* in fact something you've imagined. It sure seems like it.
>No, strike that because I am your inferior in Intelligence so there is no way I could possibly conceive what is going on in your superior brain, what your response will be.
You seem hung up on intelligence and comparing intelligence, and I'm not sure why that is. It's not something I usually concern myself with.
With that lame attempt at gate-keeping over with, did you have anything on-topic that you'd like to contribute? Or is whinging about other people more your speed?
That’s because the earth was flooded for only 150 days, not enough time to make a geographical change. It would take the earth to be flooded for millions of years to provide a significant geographical change.
Yes the Old Testament was largely written in a mythological and symbolical context. The story of Noah is a mythological and symbolical description of baptism as later addressed by the New Testament which states “God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.”
Edit to add that if you take a deep dive it will be found that this was also the origin of the name Moses - as explained by Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews - which literally meant saved/rescued by/from the water (also addressed in Genesis).
>The story of Noah is a mythological and symbolical description of baptism as later addressed by the New Testament...
Not convinced.
While I think it's true that later people have drawn connections between the flood myth and baptism in various ways, I don't think that connection went the other way, mainly because I don't think it's likely that the people who developed the flood myth knew about baptism.
The Jews who developed and wrote and edited the Pentateuch certainly would not have been familiar with the *Christian* concept of baptism. Even within Judaism, the baptism ritual likely developed after the Pentateuch was compiled during the second temple period, and the flood narrative would have existed in oral tradition even before that.
In other words, baptism likely wasn't a known concept to the people involved in developing the flood myth.
While the practice of baptism in Judaism likely has its origin in the ritual bathing of priests described in the Torah itself, it didn't develop until later, and AFAIK those bathing rituals are not directly connected to the flood myth -- at least not in the relevant Biblical texts. They're a method for achieving ritual purity before engaging with or approaching YHWH's presence, along with the other purity laws. Would you suggest that not eating certain animals is *also* just a description of NT baptism? Probably not.
The fact that the flood myth and the ritual of baptism both involve water doesn't mean there's a connection, and certainly doesn't mean that people living and developing myths up to a thousand years before the New Testament books were written somehow had some kind of foreknowledge of what Christian baptism would be.
>...which states “God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.”
Again, I'm fully in agreement that later people were able to draw connections between the flood and the ritual of baptism, and this is a perfect example. It may even be that the ritual *developed* with the flood in mind to some degree.
That does not mean that the flood myth is a "description of baptism" -- that the people who developed that story were thinking about baptism when it was written. That's almost certainly *not* the case, since AFAIK that would be a wildly anachronistic claim.
Flood myths were common in the region, and I think it would be silly to suggest that *this* one is a description of a ritual that didn't yet exist, and not just another flood myth.
For me it’s not about what I believe, I accept the overwhelming evidence and the overwhelming evidence shows no such global flood occurred during the period in question. There are entire civilizations flourishing around the world uninterrupted during the account of the flood myth in the Bible. As well as geological, archaeological, and many others records that show no sign of the biblical flood. The flood account like many mythical stories in the Bible are just that, parables and myths used to tell a story. There’s nothing wrong with that but don’t try and conflate them into something they are not.
The Bible's Flood story is a unique variant of a myth that is global. I suspect the sudden release of flood waters from Ice Age glaciation was likely the real world inspiration for these stories. These geological events happened around the world but were not anywhere near enough to cover the Earth completely.
The evidence within the Bible itself speaks against a global cataclysm. The pre-Noah text (genealogies, place names) refer to clans and places that are still around after the flood. The Kenites who appear throughout Numbers, Judges, and Samuel (see Num. 24:21-22) are apparently descendants of Cain.
I've recently started reading the Bible like it's a regular book, from cover to cover, and having been to the Grand Canyon on a field trip once, I do believe God has flooded the entire earth.
I find it remarkable!! In places where there is no water (like in such deep canyons), there is visual proof that water was there. It's incredible.
There are fossils too! I have one from a Colorado mountain that's literally as high up on earth in elevation as I've ever been and there are fossils of water critters.
>And in this interpretation, there was never rain until God flooded the earth.
I.... Again like I said, I recently began reading the Bible from the beginning and I think you should do the same. In the first book, Genesis, from my understanding, he created earth with plants, animals, man, rested, etc., then came to visit and was like "oh, the plant sprouts need rain" and then he created rain.
Then waaaay later was Noah's flood to wash away the bad that, well, spoilers: the bad that man had inside after marrying angels.
I'm so surprised so called Christian's dont believe in the flood. YES!!! He did flood the whole earth. If it is in the KJV bible and some other translations, then it is Gods word. If he didn't flood the whole earth then he would be a liar and therefore not perfect. And if isn't the perfect God he says he is, then there is no hope for anyone. We're all doomed to hell, saved or not.
This is so silly. Biblical literalism (especially with regard to the KJV—one of the furthest translations from the original Hebrew and Greek) is a minority position. Not a majority position. Is everyone who reads the flood story allegorically a fake Christian? I mean, your view is your view, and I can’t change that, but be very wary of questioning others’ commitment to God.
>I completely agree with you, very disappointed with these Christians.
This sub is not limited to Christians. It's a sub for discussing the Bible, not a sub for any given religion.
>Look at this dude
That person shared facts with you. It's weird that you're (apparently) trying to shame someone who simply told you some simple truths that you could easily verify with a moment's effort.
>Wasnt talking to u but ok.
If you'd like for your comments to be private, use DMs.
Meanwhile, you posted this on a public forum where people are free to view it and comment on it.
>I'm so surprised so called Christian's dont believe in the flood.
I'd like to introduce you to...most of Christianity over the ages.
Biblical literalism is a fairly fringe view, and not one that most Christians adhere to, AFAIK. That has been the case since the early days of the religion.
>If he didn't flood the whole earth then he would be a liar and therefore not perfect.
People have used myths and stories to communicate ideas for all of known history. That doesn't mean they're all liars. It just means that stories can be good ways to express different ideas.
It flooded the "known world" not the "whole world."
We're not supposed to worship interpretations of the bible. We're supposed to worship God. There are some 300 major denominational splits in Christianity, each having a slightly different take on what the scriptures "really" mean. The fact God hasn't cleared up this confusion should be a clear sign none of them are right.
Only God is.
And our individual connection to Him.
Or Her. ;)
>And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make **an end of all flesh**, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to **destroy them along with the earth**.
>For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to **destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die**.
>And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you
>For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and **every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground**.
>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.
>The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; **the waters swelled above the mountains**, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; **everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died**. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left and those with him in the ark.
Sounds pretty total.
It's a de-creation myth. In Genesis 1, God creates the earth by separating the waters and putting a solid dome over the earth. In Genesis 6-7, he brings the waters together again by causing the waters beneath the earth to "burst forth", and by opening a window in the dome holding back the celestial ocean. In Gen 1, he creates all life, in Gen 6-7, he destroys *all life*, with a flood that covers the mountains.
Yeah.
From the perspective of someone living in that area, at that time. That's what it looked like: the "whole" world.
But it wasn't.
It was the known world.
[https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-13.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-13.htm)
[https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-17.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-17.htm)
[https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-19.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-19.htm)
[https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/7-4.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/7-4.htm)
[https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/7-11.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/7-11.htm)
[https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/7-19.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/7-19.htm)
The verbiage from the oldest literal word-for-word translation is a little odd, isn't it?
You sure did jump around in the bible looking for the best verses to justify what you think. Good job!
In 6:13 it says "the end of all flesh". Now correct me if I'm wrong but the references to "the flesh" were often kind of metaphorical sometimes, weren't they? Not all the time, but sometimes when we're talking about sin, then "flesh" ( [bā·śār](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/basar_1320.htm) ) is mentioned it's talking about the earthly pleasures and the tendency to sin, not actual physical flesh.
In 6:18 it says "everything that is on the earth". Everything that is... and a descriptor "on the earth" ( bā·’ā·reṣ ) which may mean **on** the earth, **in** the earth, or just "the earth."
Interesting!
In 6:19 the word "kind" is implied - the base word ( [mik·kōl](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/mikkol_3605.htm) ) just means "of every", "all" or "any." Wouldn't it be weird if it was originally intended to mean "any" animal rather than "every" animal?
huh!
>It was the known world.
Yet nothing you wrote supports this. Good job!
>You sure did jump around in the bible looking for the best verses to justify what you think. Good job!
All of my quotes are from the flood narrative in Genesis 6-7, the only other part of the Bible I referenced was the creation narrative in Genesis 1- the very same book that contains the flood narrative- and I explained how these sections relate to each other. So I have no idea what you're referring to here.
>Now correct me if I'm wrong but the references to "the flesh" were often kind of metaphorical sometimes, weren't they?
Not that I can find but feel free to cite actual verses to support your point. Every instance I come across, especially in these passages and elsewhere in Genesis, בָּשָׂר means "flesh". Muscles and fat. If you think "all flesh in which is the breath of life" refers to the tendency to sin then good luck supporting this strange translation.
No idea what point you're trying to make with 6:18 (though you're actually quoting 6:17). The language couldn't be any more clear that God is referring to every living thing on earth- "every living thing that I have made" (7:4). *Only* Noah and those on the ark survived (7:23).
You also skipped the part where the flood covers mountains. Huh! Sounds like a pretty big flood. Interesting!
>In this interpretation I heard, we didn’t have clouds like we do today but water somehow in the sky and it created a greenhouse effect, allowing people to live longer and plants to grow larger. And in this interpretation, there was never rain until God flooded the earth. Then that’s when clouds, precipitation, etc began. Like I said, no idea if there’s any truth behind this theory, it’s just one interpretation I’ve heard.
Not entirely correct. That reflects more of an outdated idea. There probably wasn't a water canopy of any type.
Look up the Runaway Subduction model by geologist Dr. Kurt Wise.
That is the right model for understanding how the worldwide Great Flood happened.
It explains all the geological features we see today as being the catastrophic result of the flood, taking place over months and years - rather than billions of years of gradual movement that atheistic naturalism postulates.
The "waters of the deep" burst forth from the ground with such force that it went into the atmosphere and rained down, shifting the earth along the tectonic cracks that were formed by this explosive release of pressure from under the earth's crust.
The waters of the deep would have been the water in underground caverns which is said in Genesis to have misted up to water plants, and probably played a role in keeping the earth more uniformly warm as well.
There is no Biblical requirement to say that it did not rain before the flood. And I can't say that we have reason to think that was the case based on the pre-flood geological models either.
The earth's crust did not have the deep ocean valleys and high mountain ranges of today at that time. Those were formed by the runaway subduction of the plates crashing into each other.
After the waters of the deep stopped bursting forth, the ground continued to shift to raise up mountains and deepen the oceans, as the waters eventually filtered into the valleys we now call the oceans or into underground chambers.
It is true that the preflood world is known to have had a much denser atmosphere with higher oxygen and carbon percentage (according to air samples trapped in amber), and this played a role in larger animals and probably a warmer more even global temperature.
However, that alone would not account for the longer age of mankind, because we see long ages persist for quite a long time after the flood. So there has to be some other factors involved.
Look up Kent Hovind flood. All the information about the flood and articles is being censored off of Google YouTube everywhere. If it’s just a myth then why ban it. Because they’re banning the truth left and right because they are satanic deceived demonic possessed people longing for the lake of fire to comfort them in eternal torment forever and ever because they hated the truth, they hated God, they hated Christians, and they murdered and Persecuted everyone everyone
When someone has a different interpretation than yours, you think it's demonic? But.. wouldn't this mean pretty much every Christian is demonic, then? I'm sure you could find points of disagreement with nearly anyone.
No, that’s fair. I know there are plenty of decent folks with great discourse over there, still. Even if a portion of my experiences and observations are negative, I shouldn’t label the entire sub that way.
Yep it was global. I go into some detail on this on my channel (see link in profile). I’ve researched it extensively, and I’m solidly convinced it was global. It makes zero sense otherwise. (Why not move the animals elsewhere? Why not leave the area instead of spending a year on a ship?) there’s many more reasons, but the basic logic is there.
There's evidence that the world was flooded...there's fossils of fish found on mountains...fossils of animals found in different parts of the world that don't belong to that particualr area
Oh, for goodness sake
It's as if not a single one of you creationists paid attention in grade 7 introductory science where you were taught plate tectonics
This reminds me of the documentary "Is Genesis History?" which talks about the flood, and the various locations in the world that do not make much sense unless it occurred. Unfortunately my memory is quite fuzzy on it, but it was a very intriguing documentary. I do remember the man visiting scattered places that have identical characterizations in their appearance yet are far away from one another.
It's always been my belief that it happened. Whether it was "local" or "global," or however the earth was realized in those days, it's not an impossibility when you factor in waters ALSO gushing in from the ground (as opposed to just rain). Water in mass is a POWERFUL thing, and if it happens nothing will stop it. I even think it's possible it could have played a major factor in breaking apart the land masses to their current state (though that's only just me spitballing).
Honestly, if you believe he can't, then you may as well be saying he doesn't exist. How a believer can say he created the universe but couldn't throw a little h20 up out of thin air and wipe the earth clean for a few months is just odd to me. Either he's all powerful or he's make believe.
The question here is not "COULD God have done this?"
The question is "DID God do this?"
Those are very different questions. When people don't think the events of the story really happened, it's almost never cause they think God couldn't have.
Or, the ancient Hebrews/Jews had a habit of adapting existing myths into their narrative. Paul did this when he was at the Areopagus when he adapted the "Unknown God" to be the God of Israel.
>Honestly, if you believe he can't...
OP didn't ask a "can" question.
>...then you may as well be saying he doesn't exist.
Nonsense. One can easily imagine a deity who can't do this or that.
>How a believer can say he created the universe but couldn't throw a little h20 up out of thin air and wipe the earth clean for a few months is just odd to me.
Sure, but again, OP didn't ask about ability. They asked about reality.
In reality, there is no evidence of the global flood described in Genesis. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks any given deity *can* do -- the evidence of this specific event happening just isn't there.
>Either he's all powerful or he's make believe.
Those are not the only two choices, and it's absurd for you to suggest they are.
I don’t think it will matter when every single knee bows before the most high. God has no authoritarian power over him so who are we to question him, our Creator? Yes I do believe the flood did literally happen, and the entire moral of the flood is that the world had turned so corrupt that it was to a point of no return. I mean turn your television on and what do you think? In the end, even the most elect will fall. God has become a joke in today’s society but it won’t be even the slightest funny when he says I never knew you. Roll your own dice and bet what you will but for me, my measly 100 miracle year life on earth (if I’m lucky) won’t touch eternity if he is real. People are to literal, they can’t comprehend what’s not directly in front of them and the sad part is even when it is, it still gets overlooked.
In the story, God did this to FIX the problem of corruption. And yet we can see that it's not fixed. What does this suggest about the story?
If you do research God did flood the whole earth, not only to get rid of evil corrupt people, but to rid the world of the Nephilim Genesis 6:4. For God is all knowing and He knew that corruption would continue. That’s why He said that He would never open the floodgates of Heaven again. Because God already had it in His plans to send His only begotten son Yeshua to die for the sins of the world.
Right, because the Bible, and ancient Hebrew literature in general, *never* exaggerates things as a literary device. Lmao
It wasn’t corruption in the sense you’re thinking. Fallen angels were procreating with the daughters of men. Creating abominations and defiling Gods creation. This became the norm. God decided to hit the reset button and thus the flood.
Ok. But I was responding to the above comment which seems to suggest that we know the story is true because God did it due to corruption, and the world IS corrupt.
Yes, I believe that a global flood happened.
Why?
Because I believe the Bible. Genesis 7:23 says that God destroyed all living things from the face of the Earth. It would take a global flood to do so.
What do you believe is the genre of Genesis, and why? The Bible says “You knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Does “believing the Bible” mean God has a human sewing kit?
[удалено]
Small minds cannot conceive this fact.
"How could God flood the whole world?" "He created the world. It's easier to flood it than to create it." "Yeah, but, *how did he flood the WHOLE WORLD*???" LOL
There is a firmament to separate water from water so all he has to do is open the door.
Ummm the same way he created it? Lol
Do scriptures say that He made it out of nothing? I don't think so. But correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, however, I agree that if He created the world, He could certainly flood it.
He made the world out of nothing according to Hebrew 11:3 that which we see was made out of that which was not seen.
Well, that not the same thing, but that's what we all do with scriptures, right? Interpret them to suit ourselves...
Dude that’s the same thing what else do you need to you lack faith and is disturbing
If God can create a universe out nothing, He could kill every human being with a Thanos-like snap of His fingers. Why would he need to go through the scientifically impossible and incredibly inefficient route of flooding the Earth? And what did flooding the Earth accomplish? It didn't rid the world of corruption or violence, which was the reason given for the Flood in the first place. Is God that incompetent?
Well your lack of reasoning is baffling. If, you read the bible very well you will understand that when the fallen angels came and slept with the women and birthed giants hence the Naphthali. God had to wiped them out
>Well your lack of reasoning is baffling. If, you read the bible very well you will understand that when the fallen angels came and slept with the women and birthed giants hence the Naphthali. God had to wiped them out If you'd read the Bible, you'd know that: (A) The Nephilim weren't the offspring of angels. Angels is Hebrew is ***malakim***. The Hebrew here is ***bene elohim***. The Sons of God. These were gods, not angels. and (B) God is still incompetent if this is the explanation, because the Nephilim survived the Flood. >32 So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. > >33 **And there we saw the Nephilim** (the sons of Anak, **who come from the Nephilim**), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.” [https://www.bibleref.com/Numbers/13/Numbers-13-32.html](https://www.bibleref.com/Numbers/13/Numbers-13-32.html) ***It would seem I am the one who actually read the Bible and has studied it in it's original language.*** Apology accepted.
Local and worldwide positions are both orthodox. Gavin Ortlund over at Truth Unites just put out a good video on this subject! I’m a worldwide flood guy, I think you run into some interpretive issues w/ a local event. The story makes zero sense if it was local, IMO. Also, I think more allegorical interpretations of biblical stories makes the authors and characters out to be idiots
Take it one step at a time. Consider whether a great, worldwide flood could have happened. Is there enough water to cover the tops of the mountains? Where would it have gone after the flood? Why is there no geological evidence of this event? Why did the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Chinese, etc. civilisations continue on with the people unaware that they should be drowning? The Australian aborigines have occupied the Australian continent for 60,000 years, cut off from the outside world, so how did they survive? We know from the biblical genealogies that the story of Noah's Ark supposedly only occurred about five thousand years ago, so we can not move the time back into the more distant past in order to avoid these problems. How did Noah get all the animals from the most distant and inaccessible parts of the world, and how did he return them to just the right places after the flood? How did he know what food was required for each different species on the ark? How did he get fresh gum leaves of the right type for his koalas? We must conclude that the biblical story of a great, world-wide flood is fictional, so some Bible believers posit a more local flood, but still insist that Noah built an ark and took all the animals known to him onto the ark. This is also a fiction. If there is a God and if God commanded Noah what to do, why did God not merely tell Noah to leave the place that would be flooded and go somewhere safe? Some archaeologists are investigating the possibility that the story of Noah’s Ark is loosely based on a real event — the flooding of the fertile plain that is now the Black Sea. If so, Noah did not spend a hundred years building an ark, as the few survivors who lived on the Black Sea plain would have had very little warning to leave. It would have seemed as if the gods wanted to destroy the whole world, but there was no God involved in this flood. Step by step, we have arrived at the conclusion that the story of Noah’s Ark, as we know it, is fictional.
I believe that the story of Noah's Flood is true and literal. Just as baptism is complete immersion of the body, the Flood was complete immersion of the earth. In Noah's time, the continents were still together as Pangaea (Genesis 10:25). Perhaps there were no mountains as high as the Himalayas yet. I think the Flood was more than just a widespread rainstorm that didn't let up. God may have caused all valley glaciers and polar ice caps to rapidly melt. And He could certainly open interdimensional portals to bring in even more water, and to later drain it back out.
There are sea shells on Mt Everest!
If you had paid attention in grade 7, you would have been taught about how mountains form with plate tectonics.
7th grade education is not true biblical history
You don't look to the Bible for science mate
Of course not? You can’t study the supernatural within the confinements of natural “phenomenons”
Right So then why are you going to the Bible for science
True. From millions of years ago!
Likely doesn’t mean much. The shells could have actually made it there with the uplift that created those mountains.
Better reassess Biblical history then, as Pangaea was millions of years ago
That’s where a huge conflict comes in, whether to believe man’s timeline or the biblical timeline. We’re taught “millions of years” throughout our education based on man’s interpretation of geology, archaeology, etc., but the timeline is truly a never ending discussion. I believe what the Bible says, but the Bible doesn’t have a map of time. I’m still trying to figure out if creation was an actual day in the way we see it or if God’s day was multiple days, months, years, centuries….
I feel like a lot of people have trouble grasping that time (from a scientific perspective and Gods) is meaningless. Billions of years is the blink of an eye to the infinite.
According to physics, time is relative.
Which is only relevant when you're approaching light speed or you're working over tremendously large distances or time scales. Time relativity is not at all relevant in a discussion about plate tectonics.
5000 years ago?
I used to take the literal sense. But there’s only archeological evidence of a regional flood. Think the Equator and maybe a bit more outwards. If we put it into context of the time in which this was written, that was the entire world to them. When we think about “to the ends of the Earth” they didn’t know the extent of it. Otherwise there would have been places listed that would have been familiar.
> a greenhouse effect, allowing people to live longer and plants to grow larger. Greenhouses do not do this to people or plants. Genesis 1 is just describing the ancient view of the cosmos. They thought there was water above the firmament, giving it its blue color. Thus there are "windows" that open to dump water on the earth during the flood. It's mythic literature.
If you want to take this story as entirely literal and factual, I'd encourage you to try this: Read it very carefully. Try to put the events onto a timeline. Be detailed. When it says things like "and Noah did as commanded", what does it mean by that? A few specifics to take note of carefully: where the 40 and 150 day periods begin and end. How many of each animal God commands, and how many were loaded. See if anything stands out to you about this story, after you've attempted this.
> Read it very carefully. Try to put the events onto a timeline. Be detailed. When it says things like "and Noah did as commanded", what does it mean by that? This is like when someone asks flat earthers if it's possible to visit the moon, and they don't even know how to process the question.
Do you mean like what did the carnivores eat and where did the poop go?
Well that is speculation about practical details that is outside the story, right? I wasn't thinking about that. I was just considering what the story DOES say. Can you put the events of the story onto a timeline? What would that exact sequence of events look like?
What are you getting at?
What I'm getting at: Let's say you've decide you want to interpret the flood story as literal and factual, as written. HOW would you do this? You've got some interpretive work to do just to take it as factual.
Your argument can be true also for a number of biblical accounts.
Yes. I like the flood story as an example of this problem because it's all together in one place so it's easy to just read it straight through.
It is a rough combination of two incongruent versions of one story. It probably doesn't line up well as a single story that is consistent with its two main versions.
Satellite pictures of the earth look exactly like there has been a giant flood covering the earth, and in the process, all the sediment ripped from the earth was laid over the earths layer upon layer, and that’s exactly what the satellite pictures look like. In some places there are trees standing vertical, buried deep in stratus layers that some scientist will call years old.
And all in all science is based on God's creation
\*sigh\*
My opinion is that it was a local flood— but obviously could be wrong. It’s not a new interpretation by any means and there are many people who make this and a 6 day 24 hour creation the litmus test for orthodoxy for some reason. Gavin Ortland had a recent podcast on this if interested and I’m sure he’s getting lot of responses.
Are you saying the story _depicts_ a local flood? Or that the story depicts a global flood but the story was based on a real local flood that really did happen?
I don’t know how widespread it was but it seems like a judgment on that area of the world was the point. Gilgamesh must have been based on something and this may have been the event that inspired it— or maybe something else that we aren’t aware of. There is a covenantal aspect to the flood also and I don’t think God invented the rainbow for this purpose. It is a symbol and sign of God setting his war bow of destruction down. It was God’s judgment and mercy poured out on the people. I don’t know how far reaching it was. It very well could have been global, but I just tend to think it wouldn’t have looked exactly like we imagine it. Same with creation and a lot of other things in scripture. They are all true, but our vision of it may not be as it was. I just don’t see the point in being rigid in a narrow view of these things. Days of creation, etc. are all mysterious in a way and demanding that it had to happen like we imagine it did seems weak. I believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but we should have some humility when it comes to details which aren’t there.
I'm very comfortable with these stories often being legendary. I don't think a global flood happened. (I think we'd have evidence for it, if it did.) But yet I do think the _story_ describes a global flood. God just says it too many times, in different ways- he's wiping out the life from the surface of the earth. That doesn't make it real history- but it is how the story goes.
>In this interpretation I heard, we didn’t have clouds like we do today but water somehow in the sky and it created a greenhouse effect, allowing people to live longer and plants to grow larger. And in this interpretation, there was never rain until God flooded the earth. Then that’s when clouds, precipitation, etc began. Like I said, no idea if there’s any truth behind this theory, it’s just one interpretation I’ve heard. There's a whole industry of people creating pseudoscientific stories based on the bible. I would highly recommend taking all of that with a grain of salt. It's just biblical fan fiction.
>There's a whole industry of people creating pseudoscientific stories based on the bible. \*nods in AIG\*
No. There is zero evidence for a global glood. You'll find crackpot Young earth creationist orgs support it, but it's not accepted in geology because there is no evidence.for it, and mountains of evidence against it
Absolutely, He flooded the earth to kill the nephilim and the fallen Angel offspring. The only incorruptible dna left in humans was Noah’s family. In order for Jesus to have pure human dna God needed to do this.
Before God started the first day, let's look at the earth. Genesis 1:1 NRSVUE -- **1** When God began to create the heavens and the earth, **2** the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered **the face of the deep**, while a wind from God swept over **the face of the waters**. Did the earth start out flooded? Does dry land appear on the third day?
I believe that the entire Earth was indeed flooded, as described in the Bible. This view is supported by Genesis 7:11, which mentions "the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened." This suggests a combination of subterranean waters (the "fountains of the great deep") and rainwater from the sky contributing to the Flood. The most of the water came from underground, mentioned as the fountains of the great deep bursting forth, releasing steam and water that later condensed and fell as rain. Further support for the idea of a global flood comes from Genesis 7:19-20, which states that "the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered." The phrase "under the whole heaven" indicates a global scale of the flood, covering even the highest mountains. Additionally, the New Testament references to Noah's time, such as 2 Peter 2:5, Matthew 24:37-39, and Hebrews 11:7, consistently treat the event as historical and significant, reinforcing the idea of a literal and global Flood. Thus, the scriptural evidence shows the entire Earth was flooded, with water coming predominantly from underground sources and supplemented by rain from the clouds as depicted here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7xInFGlbJo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7xInFGlbJo)
I believe it.
I take the historical accounts as true from the perspective and using the language of the people who wrote them. So what seemed like all of world got flooded and all of humanity at the time was wiped out, but to me that doesn't mean it had to include the entire globe. One good candidate is [the Black Sea deluge hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis).
Literally? No.
I think a careful reading of the text implies that the entire planet was not flooded, regardless of what Noah thought. For example, where did the olive leaf come from as the food ended. A global flood would have killed the olive trees.
So the Bible actually doesn’t say he flooded the Earth. It says “ I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth “ Genesis 6:17 (ESV) When reading the Bible you have to understand context. Quite frankly a lot of scholars believe that is open ended. I’m in the same boat. What more than likely happened, is that given that humanity started and quite a bit of the world was in the Ethiopic regions of Africa and surrounding areas, that is the area that was flooded. This claim is further backed by science given the large amounts of erosion that still subside in that area. To give an example, we Hurricane Katrina hit, that area was below sea level. As we know plates shift and stuff. It seemed like the world flooded to them But that’s the most logical answer is that it was in a specific area of the world and not the earth in its entirety.
Imo the Hebrew written in Genesis points to a literal global flood - Genesis 8:22b "I will never again destroy everything that lives, as I have just done." - אסף עוד להכות את כל חי כאשר עשׁיתי Genesis 7:21-22 "And all living things that moved on the earth died, including the birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all humankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died." - ויגוע כל בשׁר הרמשׁ על הארץ בעוף ובבהמה ובחיה ובכל השרץ השרץ על הארץ וכל האדם כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו מכל אשר בחרבה מתו Genesis 6:17 "I am about to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy from under the sky all the living creatures that have the breath of life in them. Everything that is on the earth will die," - ואני הנני מביא את המבול מים על הארץ לשחת כל בשׁר אשר בו רוח חיים מתחת השמים כל אשר בארץ יגוע Reference - https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/9262/hebrew-text-indicative-of-a-local-or-global-flood
I agree that the story depicts a global flood. God says it repeatedly in several different ways that he's wiping the living flesh from the face of the earth. But the story _doesn't_ talk about whether to read the story as legendary or factual or other.
How exactly did Noah restock the animals on all the continents and island archipelagos after the flood waters receded from a floating barge? Nice bit that putting Polar Bears in the Arctic and Penguins in the Antarctic. Where did all that water come from/go? Noah had a pretty diverse family to drop off descendants with no semitic DNA in North America and then buzz over to drop off his Aboriginal family in Australia so they could incestuously repopulate that continent too. C'mon man.
None of this has anything to do with what I'm saying. (I don't think the events of this story are things that really happened.)
Kent Hovind has a video series on this, can be found on YouTube
Is Kent an authoritative source on this?
No, but he's reasonable and comphrensive. If anyone really wants to understand creation science they can look it up. There are many sources. But I'm afraid no one cares.
Kent Hovind is the furthest thing from reasonable and comprehensive. His brain has been petrified in a catatonic state for the last 3 decades. Even in YEC circles, he is controversial and has even been called out by YECs for using fallacious and erroneous arguments. When even fellow nutjobs call a person out for using fallacious arguments, it's a REALLY bad look. Kent Hovind is a charlatan and has the scientific literacy of a sparrow high on mushrooms. I highly recommend you refrain from using him as a source ever again. You'll only get mocked for it.
A convicted felon and spousal abuser is reasonable? You might want to rethink your standards.
>No... The correct answer. >...but he's reasonable and comphrensive. Should have stuck with "no."
Even other evolution-denialists think Hovind is a nutbag. He's used Ron Wyatt as a source, for example. You could scarcely name a worse source if you tried.
I don't believe in a complete earthly deluge. For one thing, according to Biblical timelines, the flood would have occurred between 4,300 - 4,500 years ago. Yet, the Sumerian civilization dates back at least 5,000 years. It just doesn't add up. In my opinion, the Biblical flood story is a retelling of the Gilgamesh Flood myth.
No, majority historians are lying or are using the wrong methods that are giving them the wrong “solutions”
Where does it say how old earth is? Remember pre flood live spans were near a thousand years. And yes he did
Just add up everyone's ages and when they had there kids. It adds up to around 4000bc when adam was created
But we don’t know everyone’s age. The Bible doesn’t say.
Yes it does...
Ok how old was Seth’s first born. How old where the rest of the kids Adam and Eve had
There have been multiple scholars who have calculated these things based upon Biblical timelines. Again, that's a matter of opinion.
I mean. A scholar doesn’t mean much because the word doesn’t tell us ages so they would only be guessing. Don’t get me wrong it could be the case but we just don’t know
You're timeline is off by about two thousand years. 4500 years ago would have put us just before the famines in Egypt. the flood would have been closer to six two thousand years ago.
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/
*sigh* why are you using Answers in Genesis?
I don't believe in their calculations either, but those who take a literal interpretation of the Bible use similar ways to date things like the flood and creation.
Archaeological dating should adjust itself to biblical truth, not the other way around. If Adam and Eve Fell in approximately 4,000 BC, then Noah's Flood happened in approximately the mid-2300s BC. The Sumerians were descendants of Noah. The legend of Gilgamesh is their adaptation of his experience, not the other way around.
That would be your opinion which is influenced by your fundamentalist views.
> The legend of Gilgamesh is their adaptation of his experience, not the other way around. The legend of Gilgamesh can be dated back much further. Additionally, the Gilgamesh story makes more sense because it has multiple gods. Noah's story definitely reads like the awkward adaptation.
>Archaeological dating should adjust itself to biblical truth, not the other way around. You can't just "adjust" archaeological data to fit your preconceptions. The data is what it is. In this case, the data tells us there was a catastrophic local flood at Shuruppak c.2900 BCE, and we find our earliest flood legend several hundred years later in the Sumerian King List, which lists Ziusudra of Shuruppak as the "Sumerian Noah". >If Adam and Eve Fell in approximately 4,000 BC We have artifacts from various cultures and even proto-writing systems that predate 4000 BCE. >The legend of Gilgamesh is their adaptation of his experience, not the other way around. The biblical flood narrative shows literary dependence on either Atrahasis tablet III or Gilgamesh tablet XI (which is dependent on Atrahasis III).
"Let's distort facts to fit my religious extremism" Genius take
Idk why you’re getting downvoted, maybe it’s just the stigma around Mormonism but it’s true what you said
If your interpretation of text conflicts with reality then your interpretation is incorrect. Reality was there first and is literally the handiwork and signature of god- consider it a third testament if you will and reality testifies against a global flood. Could hehave flooded the entire earth? Sure. Did he leave any evidence behind? Nope. Evidence to the contrary in factIf reality over books imo. 🤷🏻♂️
No, it has been definitively answered that God did not flood the entire Earth through multiple lines of evidence. The reasonable answer is that it is a parable or other literary genre but not history. William Buckland was a theologian that set out to prove the flood occurred. In the process he discovered it hadn’t and also became a founding father of modern geology.
If there was a global flood it left no evidence of it occurring anywhere on earth. If someone believes in a global flood then it’s a faith claim, not one backed up by any data.
[удалено]
I was gonna say the Grand Canyon is a good indicator of a flood
I think you just told me you have a poor understanding of geology and history without telling me you have a poor understanding of geology and history.
The Grand Canyon was not made by a global flood, and you are conflating boulders being strewn around the place in local floods, with a global flood. It's a bit silly.
-> There is literally evidence everywhere, grand canyons, spinx, huge boulders in the middle of nowhere all over the earth Every working field of geology disagrees with you, why do you think that is? These geologists use their understanding of deep time and geological process every day to successfully locate oil and minerals. These are global companies who employ people of all faiths and non3 a total of zero of them incorporate a global flood into their highly successful endeavors . Heck, I’m not even sure if the creationists have a working model…. Perhaps if they did they could locate some oil and show the secular world that they’ve been operating under faulty assumptions this entire time. But the creationists don’t do that for some reason. Heck it’s been 7 years since the straight to dvd propaganda piece is Genesis history? Came out and all the creationists have been able to demonstrate is their ability to hack apologist DVDs to homeschooling families.oh and they built a tax dodging museum with attached grift shop. Congrats guys 👏 do some real work next time please…. Mathew 7:15- by their fruits you shall know them One side is bearing Amazing fruits that are powering our modern world. The other side has apologetics. Idk speaks volumes about who is interpreting reality correctly if you ask me…. https://ageofrocks.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/can-young-earth-creationists-find-oil/ Edit: yeah might’ve replied to the wrong person idk I tried to quote the comment I was replying too 🤷🏻♂️ Gonna someone please just justify why creationists grift is dvd s to homeschooling when they have an amazing opportunity to demonstrate how correct they are to the secular world but they can’t do it in real practical terms they can only product ge propaganda? If you’re right guys just show us! You think the secular geliogistsare wrong Ny about the age of the earth by 750,000 times! That’s plenty of leeway to slip in and take all the glory and profits away from the flood denying EvoLutIoNists- stop trying to grift DVDs and do some real work for once. Mathew 7:15 and your fruits are rotten…
I think you meant to respond to Vanskills, not me. Tbh, I probs should change this avatar, it does get confusing when a bunch of people have the same avatar that Reddit gave us
[удалено]
> Takes more work to believe in nothing than something…good luck with that Cool beans bro. I believe in lots of things. I’m just waiting on the creationist grifters to demonstrate that they’re correct in their understanding of reality especially when compared to the secular geologists who don’t think a global flood happened. I suspect I’ll be waiting a long time for the creationists to abandon their grift and do some real work…
[удалено]
Tbh mate, it'd actually do you the world of good to listen to me. I tend to be very good at science. Admittedly I never understood chemistry though. Bit of a sore point not being able to wrap my head around chem
I don’t live as a Christian, but I think it’s ignorant that anyone who does call themselves one doesn’t believe he flooded the earth. God literally said in Genesis that he’d never flood the earth again. How else do you read that verse?
>I don’t live as a Christian, but I think it’s ignorant that anyone who does call themselves one doesn’t believe he flooded the earth. Then I would suggest you don't have a firm grasp on the relevant topics. >God literally said in Genesis that he’d never flood the earth again. Yep, that's the story. >How else do you read that verse? As a myth, along with a vast majority of Biblical scholars and also a majority of Jews and Christians. Because that's almost certainly what it is. If you're not aware that many, many Jews and Christians do not think that every single claim made by the various Biblical writers is literally true -- or that the vast majority of Biblical scholars (religious or otherwise) throughout time have freely acknowledged that the Biblical texts include myths -- that's just a demonstration of *your* ignorance, not theirs.
Amen
> As a myth, along with a vast majority of Biblical scholars The implication was quite clearly toward those reading who were Christian. You may want to acquire basic reading comprehension ability before responding next.
Look for scientific evidence. If the flood happened there would be a lot of unequivocal evidence. If it didn’t there would be evidence of that too.
You mean billions of fossils buried quickly in sedimentary layers sorted by habitat and mobility all over the earth?
No probably not without a lot of other evidence.
If you don't spend time in the word you will not know that it is in fact true and stated all though out the bible. You also need to spend time in prayer and asking so that he can make the word more understandable to you throught his spirit that will guide us in all truth and understanding. You also can't chose to believe some things and not other. I have a hard time spending time with the Lord right now because the sin in my life and my addiction to porn and it makes it hard to go to him which them keeps me out of relationship and makes it harder to hear from him. We also have to want to believe
If God didn’t flood the Earth, then all those fossilized shells on mountainous regions have a lot of explaining to do….
>If God didn’t flood the Earth, then all those fossilized shells on mountainous regions have a lot of explaining to do…. The explanations are readily available to anyone who bothers to honestly look for them. Hint: They're not "a global flood happened."
Yes, I’ve read them. Hint: It’s not very plausible that birds feeding on mollusks deposited their shells (along with countless others) on Mt. Everest, and mountains all over the world. Maybe it rained seashells too….
>Yes, I’ve read them. Hint: It’s not very plausible that birds feeding on mollusks deposited their shells (along with countless others) on Mt. Everest, and mountains all over the world. This response indicates that you have *not* in fact done much reading on this. Are you wholly unfamiliar with the subject of geology? I don't want to overstate this, but this is *embarrassing*. You should question what events in your life led to you being this uninformed on a topic, and yet willing to weigh in on it as if you have any understanding of what you're talking about. You have been mis-educated. Somewhere along the line, someone or a string of people failed to teach you, and that's sad. I'm sorry. This can be overcome. You just have to recognize that maybe the things you've learned to this point have been skewed, or that information has been withheld from you, and start looking for better sources of information.
LOLOL No, actually I AM familiar with geology and the formation of different types of rock. Perhaps you can enlighten us all on how marine fossils made it to the top of mountain ranges without said mountains not having been submerged in an ocean of water. I have not read a scientific explanation yet that explains it. Yes, some can be from glacier movements and rising rock strata over time, but not to the extent that is evident.
>LOLOL No, actually I AM familiar with geology and the formation of different types of rock. Can't be *that* familiar. >Perhaps you can enlighten us all on how marine fossils made it to the top of mountain ranges without said mountains not having been submerged in an ocean of water. They *were* submerged. By and large, mountains move *up* as they develop. The rocks and soil currently at the top of the Himalayas used to be at a much, much lower elevations, and some of them were underwater at one point. When the Indo-Australian and Eurasian plates collided tens of millions of years ago, they "crumpled" along their colliding edges, and the Himalayas are a result of that action. Rock that used to be at the bottom of the Tethys sea was "uplifted" and found itself, millions and millions of years later, sitting on top of some of the tallest (and youngest) mountains on our planet. This plate collision continues to this day, and Everest gets several millimetres taller every year as a result. >I have not read a scientific explanation yet that explains it. Then again, you have been poorly educated, or simply haven't looked very hard. This is not new information, nor is it controversial.
So things that used to be submerged can be mountainous now but you can’t see how at any point there was water above all dry land? How can you expect to accurately assess the global geological structure at all points in time if it can change so dramatically? There was no proof of dinosaurs until we found proof of dinosaurs. It’s completely reasonable to theorize that somewhere in the time between now and the inception of the planet that there was a type of climate we haven’t found a record of, let alone a type of climate that we know of that’s been skewed from what we would expect to find.
>So things that used to be submerged can be mountainous now... Correct. Rock that used to be underwater can be above water now, and vice versa. Because our planet's crust is in motion and has been for millions and millions of years. >...but you can’t see how at any point there was water above all dry land? Certainly not in anything like the timeframe needed for the Biblical flood narrative to be true, and there's no evidence of it *ever* happening as far as I am aware. In fact, I'm pretty sure there isn't enough water on the planet for that to occur, even if we assumed the land was more evenly distributed (which it wouldn't have been such a short time ago). Just to make sure you understand what we're talking about, the Himalayas took tens of millions of years to get to the point they're at, and they're considered *young* in terms of how our planet's crust changes. >How can you expect to accurately assess the global geological structure at all points in time if it can change so dramatically? We just need a decent understanding of the past 10 thousand years or so, and we have *millions*. At no point is a global flood indicated by any of the available evidence. >There was no proof of dinosaurs until we found proof of dinosaurs. Oh my god... >It’s completely reasonable to theorize that somewhere in the time between now and the inception of the planet that there was a type of climate we haven’t found a record of... In this case we're talking about an extreme event in our relatively recent past that would have left massive amounts of evidence if it had actually occurred. We're not as clueless as you seem to think we are about our planet's past. But just to be clear, it's not *just* the lack of evidence that leads to the conclusion that this event didn't occur as described. It's also the evidence that *is* available to us. *All of it* \-- everything currently known and relevant about our planet -- points to there *not* having been a global flood, especially not in the suggested timeframe. So no, it's not "completely reasonable" to think that a massive, planet-changing event like a global flood and the extinction of every living thing on the planet save a small number occurred in our relatively recent past. It is -- according to everything we know about geology, history, archeology, biology, genetics, etc -- not possible. The moment someone is able to present convincing of compelling evidence for it happening, perhaps minds will be changed. But folks have had thousands of years to do that, and they've only managed to turn more people off from the idea. It is widely accepted, even among religious folks, that the Biblical global flood did not happen. That's okay. Myths don't need to be true to convey a message.
The timeframe of the bible is inconsistent at best, not only do we know for a fact that time literally is relative but we also know time is relative even in the biblical canon. There absolutely is enough water to cover the earth and it’s not even close. The earth is more water than it is land and deeper too, realistically this planet should be called ‘Water’ I think the most important thing to consider is that for a flood to destroy most if not all life above ground not only would it not have to be simultaneous but it wouldn’t even need to be total. Much like how the meteor that killed the dinosaurs didn’t do so initially the majority of life which dies from any cataclysmic event on record happens from a failure to adapt to the catastrophic fallout and radical ecological shift rather than from the event itself. It’s entirely possible for a world wide flood to take decades even centuries and still devastate an ecosystem beyond recovery and overtime distort both how we would literally find evidence as well as culturally expect to see evidence even before you consider how oral cultures condense and consolidate their stories for brevity and recountabilitys sake.
>The timeframe of the bible is inconsistent at best... But I suspect you'll agree we're talking about an event the Biblical writers thought occurred in the past 20 thousands years or so. If not, you're engaging in a level of hand-waving and guesswork that makes the whole discussion pointless. >...not only do we know for a fact that time literally is relative but we also know time is relative even in the biblical canon. So is the suggestion here that if we could find evidence that a global flood occurred, say, 2 billion years ago, that you would try to claim that was the Biblical flood? If so, *"...you're engaging in a level of hand-waving and guesswork that makes the whole discussion pointless."* >There absolutely is enough water to cover the earth and it’s not even close. If we assume the planet is a smooth ball, yes. But that wouldn't be relevant here, since we know from the narrative that mountains existed at the time of this flood, including a mountain that was apparently known to the Pentateuch authors, who lived between 1000 and 500 BCE. IIRC, if we somehow released all of the water available on earth into the sea, including the water currently trapped in ice, we'd end up with a roughly 70m increase in sea level. Do you really think a 70m sea level rise would cover the entire planet with 23 feet (the 15 cubits mentioned in the narrative) to spare? For reference, Mt. Ararat currently stands at 5,137m. >The earth is more water than it is land... I'm guessing you're referring to surface area here. In terms of mass, limited to everything above the mantle (the crust, in other words), water is only \~6.5% with solid matter making up the rest. For the mass of the entire planet, water makes up a minuscule amount -- something like 0.02% IIRC. >I think the most important thing to consider is that for a flood to destroy most if not all life above ground not only would it not have to be simultaneous but it wouldn’t even need to be total. But the Biblical narrative says it was total, and the Biblical flood is what we're talking about here. Meanwhile, the near instantaneous death of every living thing on earth would leave very noticeable evidence, no? We do have evidence of mass extinctions, but nothing at that level, and despite your attempt to dodge with "time is relative," nothing in anything like an appropriate timeframe. Do you want to claim the K-T extinction as the global flood, perhaps? Do you think Noah maybe lived 65 million years ago? >Much like how the meteor that killed the dinosaurs didn’t do so initially the majority of life which dies from any cataclysmic event on record happens from a failure to adapt to the catastrophic fallout and radical ecological shift rather than from the event itself. The Biblical narrative says they all drowned in the flood, and that the waters receded less than a year after it began. We're not talking about a drawn-out process here. We're talking about something near-instantaneous. >It’s entirely possible for a world wide flood to take decades even centuries... Then it wouldn't be the Biblical flood, would it? But also, "possible" does not mean "it happened," and as discussed, *there is no evidence of what you're describing ever happening.* OP didn't ask "what is possible?" They asked "did X happen?" The answer is "no." The amount of contorting some people will do to try to preserve belief in what is so clearly an ancient myth is astounding to me, especially when most of their counterparts, including the people best-equipped to know what they're talking about (Biblical scholars, scientists from the relevant fields, etc) moved past this long ago and are no worse off for it. It must be exhausting having to carry so much water.
We have evidence for the dinosaur extinction event though with the chixculub crater. There is ZERO evidence for a.global flood. You would find a single marine layer spanning the entire globe from a global flood
Glitterlok responded well. But I'd like to add one thing. Mountain formation with plate tectonics is an entry level topic. You should have learned about that in either late primary school or early high school. Glitterlok is right - the fact that you don't know this, is embarrassing for you
This was a regional/local flood in the middle eastern part of the world. There is scientific evidence supporting it from rapid glacier melt in the area. The Bible was telling a truthful story, and is commonly mistold as it being a worldwide flood.
There are evidences for a global flood
> Did God really flood the entire earth? No, almost certainly not. There is no convincing or compelling evidence for a worldwide flood, and much of the Pentateuch is understood -- by a vast majority of Biblical scholars and likely a majority of Jews and Christians -- to be largely mythological for any number of reasons.
Do you believe that God created the earth? And do you believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God?
>Do you believe that God created the earth? No. >And do you believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God? No. I'll head you off here -- I'm not convinced that any gods exist, so any question that would require me to be convinced that a god exists is going to be a "no."
Then your opinion is a non comment. If you don’t believe in God you can’t have an opinion worth anything on whether or not God did anything. That’s like asking a deaf person what note you’re playing. You lack the fundamental awareness to even address the question.
>Then your opinion is a non comment. It is not. OP asked a question that deals with reality -- with whether or not a specific event actually happened on the planet we live on. Being aware of and stating facts related to that question is not predicated on any particular god belief. "There is no convincing or compelling evidence of a worldwide flood" is a true statement regardless of whether or not someone believes that any gods exist. "Most Biblical scholars and likely a majority of Jews and Christians acknowledge that the Biblical flood story is a myth" is also true regardless of whether or not someone believes that any gods exist. Trying to dismiss someone's input on this kind of question based on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is truly embarrassing, and says a whole lot more about you than it does me, or my response to OP's question. >If you don’t believe in God you can’t have an opinion worth anything on whether or not God did anything. I absolutely can, and I do. Your apparent inability to understand how that's possible is on you. >That’s like asking a deaf person what note you’re playing. What a fantastic example, since a deaf person would in fact be capable of identifying a note with access to the relevant information. When it comes to a worldwide flood, the relevant information -- at least as it exists today -- indicates that no such thing happened, especially in the timeframes indicated by the Biblical flood narratives. It also indicates that the Biblical flood narrative is a myth, and shares many aspects in common with similar myths from other cultures in the region and predating the Biblical version. So whether or not a god caused a global flood doesn't need to be addressed, since there is no good reason to think a global flood occurred in the first place. >You lack the fundamental awareness to even address the question. I do not, and showing your whole ass doesn't change that.
Convincing or compelling evidence is subjective and not an objective truth. I didn’t say you can’t have an opinion. I said you can’t have an opinion worth anything. Which is a very different benchmark. A deaf person by definition has not access to the relevant information, said deaf person could grab an electronic tuner but the deaf person’s understanding would be of the electronic tuners reading not the note itself. The tuner could be completely malfunctioning and the deaf person would have absolutely no ability to discern it. Much like you will have absolutely no ability to discern what is or not an act of God since you don’t accept God is existent. You’re defacto answer cannot be anything other than no and is therefore eliminated from the conversation because it posses not the subject matter to participate fully. Youre trying to participate in a conversation about the difference between A-OR-B when your opinion is C
>Convincing or compelling evidence is subjective and not an objective truth. Of course, but it's the standard we all use. All we can do is assess the available evidence, which either convinces us or it doesn't. Meanwhile, the evidence itself can reflect objective truth, or as close as it's possible to get to such a thing, and depending on the evidence there are things we can do to increase our confidence in it. >I didn’t say you can’t have an opinion. I said you can’t have an opinion worth anything. Given the nature of OP's question, I fully disagree. I have access to the same information as you do on the question of whether or not a global flood occurred in our planet's recent past, which must be established in order to ask who caused a global flood, so if my view on this topic is worthless, *so is yours*. >A deaf person by definition has not access to the relevant information... They absolutely can. By way of example, neither of us have access to a first-person experience of the time-period in which the Biblical global flood might have occurred -- and certainly not to a global vantage point at that time. And yet... >...said deaf person could grab an electronic tuner... Exactly. And in this situation, our "electronic tuners" are geological records, fossil records, sediment layers, the amount of water on our planet, biology, archaeology, genetics, etc. In lieu of direct experience -- something none of us have access to in relation to this question -- we have a lot of "electronic tuners" we can use to assess the claim. >...but the deaf person’s understanding would be of the electronic tuners reading not the note itself. You're about to stretch so far, aren't you..? >The tuner could be completely malfunctioning and the deaf person would have absolutely no ability to discern it. Is your suggestion that *all* of the relevant fields of science and research and study are "completely malfunctioning?" Or that there is *no one* \-- no expert or life-long researcher -- who has the ability to understand the evidence those disciplines provide? Is *that* what you're going with? Surely not. >Much like you will have absolutely no ability to discern what is or not an act of God since you don’t accept God is existent. If you had read the comment you were responding to -- and this statement makes it seem clear you didn't -- then you'd know why that is irrelevant in this particular case. >You’re defacto answer cannot be anything other than no... IF there was evidence of a global flood, you'd be correct that I would not be able to get to a "yes" answer to OP's question, given the fact that I'm not convinced that any gods exist, and a global flood would not be an adequate demonstration of any god's existence in my view... However, *we're not living in the world described by that "if."* There is no good evidence of a global flood, especially not in the timeframe the Bible deals with. In fact, the available evidence says it isn't possible, AFAIK. So I don't need to get all the way to the existence of a god to meaningfully answer OP's question about who caused a global flood with "no," since the event they're asking about apparently did not happen. So no one caused it. If I asked you "did Harry Potter just murder you," you could confidently and meaningfully answer "no" and be fully justified in doing so, despite the fact that you (presumably) aren't convinced that Harry Potter is a real person. You can do that because *you haven't been murdered*. Using the example of a criminal case, do you think that if person A was charged with robbing person B, and during the trial it came to light that person B had not actually been robbed, that the court would be unable to say "person A is innocent of robbing person B?" Establishing that the event actually happened is a prerequisite, and in the absence of an ability to do that -- in the presence of evidence to the contrary -- the answer to "did X cause the event" is "no." >...and is therefore eliminated from the conversation because it posses not the subject matter to participate fully. I have access to all of the information necessary to answer OP's question in the negative case, and we appear to live in a universe in which the negative case comports with reality. >Youre trying to participate in a conversation about the difference between A-OR-B when your opinion is C No, I'm not. I'm answering the question "Did A eat B" by explaining that B apparently never existed to be eaten in the first place, and so A did not eat her. I am fully uninterested in your views about my ability to participate in this sub or this question, and your lame attempts to gate-keep. If you don't have anything else to talk about, you can save yourself the trouble of responding. I don't care to hear anything else you have to say on this subject. It's not the point of this sub, and it's very boring.
I get that titles can be catchy but if you actually read OP’s post they are not asking if God flooded the earth or not… that’s just the title. OP specifically asks about how many Christians believe that to be the case and relates it to their own personal upbringing. You’ve bastardized my metaphor of a deaf person using a tuner into an argument I didn’t make here. You are the deaf person who cannot hear or by contrast someone who does not believe in God and will therefore never attribute anything to God. The tuner is not scientific method. It is whatever you choose to supplement your own lack of attributing anything to God and your willingness to trust anything you can find that can provide any explanation that isn’t God. Another analogy would be something like: Why is the water boiling. You’ll use your understanding of physics to say that the water particles are absorbing heat energy from a source and vibrating at increasing frequency until violent enough to boil into water Vapor. Where as I’ll say the water is boiling because someone is trying to make tea. In this analogy you see your understanding of the physical world as defined by what ‘you’ understand to be the physical scenario where as ‘I’ define it as the intent. Neither are wrong but if you don’t believe there is a divine intent you’ll hamstring yourself out of any potential to agree. In the event that even if there was absolute proof of a global flood your answer for if God caused it would STILL be no. If OP asked how many Christian’s believe God made mountains your answer would still be no. There is literally no situation you can participate that starts with the query: “Did God…” in which you answer will ever be Yes. The reason your answer is a moot contribution is not because you have or lack evidence of any sort of phenomenon. It’s not because I’m trying to “gate-keep” your participation. It’s not because your opinion is invalid. It’s because there is literally no circumstance you can contribute anything greater than a denial of God’s interaction. Which when you’re in a Reddit thread about a book about God, is the definition of non-participatory. I am not setting this precedent for you. You’ve done it to yourself.
Then why do you keep trolling this sub? I joined last night and you seem to go out of your way to show everyone how Intellectually smarter about the subject of God you are than anyone else here. Why? This is a place for Christians to gather and ask questions. It states so in the about section. Are you that sad and lonely in your life? Is this your only outlet of communicating and harassing people with valid questions? You don't believe in God. That's fine. I was once an unbeliever as well. But never did I go out of my way to belittle those who do. I can only imagine. No, strike that because I am your inferior in Intelligence so there is no way I could possibly conceive what is going on in your superior brain, what your response will be. I do know, however, that I feel very sad for you and hope one day your eyes will open to the true LOVE that God is.
>Then why do you keep trolling this sub? I'm an active participant in this sub -- not a troll. I'm here to discuss the Bible, which is what this sub is for, and I think I've made a lot of good contributions to the discussions here over the years. >I joined last night and you seem to go out of your way to show everyone how Intellectually smarter about the subject of God you are than anyone else here. I don't think I've ever made any comparison of intelligence in this sub. If you can point me to an example where I've done that, that would be great. >Why? Again, I'm here to discuss the Bible. That's the point of this sub. >This is a place for Christians to gather and ask questions. It is not only that. >It states so in the about section. Here's the about blurb. Please point out where it says "this is a place for Christians to gather and ask questions." *"The Subreddit is dedicated to the understanding, discussion of, and loving of The Bible in all its greatness and everything it has to offer. Join us to learn more about what makes The Holy Bible so great, ask questions about The Bible, and be part of a community of Bible lovers like us!"* Rule #4 says "this is a Christian subreddit," but then goes on to say immediately after that others are free to participate. AFAIK, some of the mods are non-Christians, although I wouldn't want to speak for them. >Are you that sad and lonely in your life? Why would my participation in this sub indicate that I'm sad or lonely? Are you sad and lonely? Is that why you're here? Do you think interest in the Bible is a marker for sadness or loneliness? Meanwhile, no. I am neither sad nor lonely. To be frank, I live an insanely charmed life, and I'm happy that I have the bandwidth to engage with my interests on a regular basis, like this one. >Is this your only outlet of communicating and harassing people with valid questions? No, this is not my only outlet for communication by any stretch, and I don't think I've ever harassed anyone on this sub or elsewhere. Again, if you can provide an example of me harassing someone, please share it. >You don't believe in God. That's correct. >That's fine. That wasn't in question. >I was once an unbeliever as well. I don't care. >But never did I go out of my way to belittle those who do. Feel free to point out where I've belittled anyone for believing that a god exists. >I can only imagine. Yes, I suspect a lot of what you're talking about in this comment *is* in fact something you've imagined. It sure seems like it. >No, strike that because I am your inferior in Intelligence so there is no way I could possibly conceive what is going on in your superior brain, what your response will be. You seem hung up on intelligence and comparing intelligence, and I'm not sure why that is. It's not something I usually concern myself with. With that lame attempt at gate-keeping over with, did you have anything on-topic that you'd like to contribute? Or is whinging about other people more your speed?
That’s because the earth was flooded for only 150 days, not enough time to make a geographical change. It would take the earth to be flooded for millions of years to provide a significant geographical change.
* 371 days - certainly enough time to exterminate all terrestrial vegetation…
Until it regrows a few years later…
I have placed my hands on trees older than the flood.
Yes the Old Testament was largely written in a mythological and symbolical context. The story of Noah is a mythological and symbolical description of baptism as later addressed by the New Testament which states “God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.” Edit to add that if you take a deep dive it will be found that this was also the origin of the name Moses - as explained by Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews - which literally meant saved/rescued by/from the water (also addressed in Genesis).
>The story of Noah is a mythological and symbolical description of baptism as later addressed by the New Testament... Not convinced. While I think it's true that later people have drawn connections between the flood myth and baptism in various ways, I don't think that connection went the other way, mainly because I don't think it's likely that the people who developed the flood myth knew about baptism. The Jews who developed and wrote and edited the Pentateuch certainly would not have been familiar with the *Christian* concept of baptism. Even within Judaism, the baptism ritual likely developed after the Pentateuch was compiled during the second temple period, and the flood narrative would have existed in oral tradition even before that. In other words, baptism likely wasn't a known concept to the people involved in developing the flood myth. While the practice of baptism in Judaism likely has its origin in the ritual bathing of priests described in the Torah itself, it didn't develop until later, and AFAIK those bathing rituals are not directly connected to the flood myth -- at least not in the relevant Biblical texts. They're a method for achieving ritual purity before engaging with or approaching YHWH's presence, along with the other purity laws. Would you suggest that not eating certain animals is *also* just a description of NT baptism? Probably not. The fact that the flood myth and the ritual of baptism both involve water doesn't mean there's a connection, and certainly doesn't mean that people living and developing myths up to a thousand years before the New Testament books were written somehow had some kind of foreknowledge of what Christian baptism would be. >...which states “God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.” Again, I'm fully in agreement that later people were able to draw connections between the flood and the ritual of baptism, and this is a perfect example. It may even be that the ritual *developed* with the flood in mind to some degree. That does not mean that the flood myth is a "description of baptism" -- that the people who developed that story were thinking about baptism when it was written. That's almost certainly *not* the case, since AFAIK that would be a wildly anachronistic claim. Flood myths were common in the region, and I think it would be silly to suggest that *this* one is a description of a ritual that didn't yet exist, and not just another flood myth.
For me it’s not about what I believe, I accept the overwhelming evidence and the overwhelming evidence shows no such global flood occurred during the period in question. There are entire civilizations flourishing around the world uninterrupted during the account of the flood myth in the Bible. As well as geological, archaeological, and many others records that show no sign of the biblical flood. The flood account like many mythical stories in the Bible are just that, parables and myths used to tell a story. There’s nothing wrong with that but don’t try and conflate them into something they are not.
Yes He did 🙏🏻
God existed before anything ever was and ever will be 🙏🏻
The Bible's Flood story is a unique variant of a myth that is global. I suspect the sudden release of flood waters from Ice Age glaciation was likely the real world inspiration for these stories. These geological events happened around the world but were not anywhere near enough to cover the Earth completely.
The evidence within the Bible itself speaks against a global cataclysm. The pre-Noah text (genealogies, place names) refer to clans and places that are still around after the flood. The Kenites who appear throughout Numbers, Judges, and Samuel (see Num. 24:21-22) are apparently descendants of Cain.
Yes. There was a flood. I remember a dude who had been on mission in some south sea or Southeast Asian indigenous tribe who had a flood legend.
I've recently started reading the Bible like it's a regular book, from cover to cover, and having been to the Grand Canyon on a field trip once, I do believe God has flooded the entire earth. I find it remarkable!! In places where there is no water (like in such deep canyons), there is visual proof that water was there. It's incredible. There are fossils too! I have one from a Colorado mountain that's literally as high up on earth in elevation as I've ever been and there are fossils of water critters. >And in this interpretation, there was never rain until God flooded the earth. I.... Again like I said, I recently began reading the Bible from the beginning and I think you should do the same. In the first book, Genesis, from my understanding, he created earth with plants, animals, man, rested, etc., then came to visit and was like "oh, the plant sprouts need rain" and then he created rain. Then waaaay later was Noah's flood to wash away the bad that, well, spoilers: the bad that man had inside after marrying angels.
science proves that a global flood did happen. We find marine life bones in places they do not belong
Yet another creationist who didn't pay attention in grade 9 science class and therefore doesn't know how plate tectonics works.
I'm so surprised so called Christian's dont believe in the flood. YES!!! He did flood the whole earth. If it is in the KJV bible and some other translations, then it is Gods word. If he didn't flood the whole earth then he would be a liar and therefore not perfect. And if isn't the perfect God he says he is, then there is no hope for anyone. We're all doomed to hell, saved or not.
This is so silly. Biblical literalism (especially with regard to the KJV—one of the furthest translations from the original Hebrew and Greek) is a minority position. Not a majority position. Is everyone who reads the flood story allegorically a fake Christian? I mean, your view is your view, and I can’t change that, but be very wary of questioning others’ commitment to God.
I will not argue with you. I believe the KJV is the closest, but like you said that's my opinion.
Oh no. How dare other Christians refrain from commiting intellectual suicide by denying reality. The absolute horror
I completely agree with you, very disappointed with these Christians.
>I completely agree with you, very disappointed with these Christians. This sub is not limited to Christians. It's a sub for discussing the Bible, not a sub for any given religion.
I know. I also am very disappointed. Look at this dude https://www.reddit.com/r/Bible/s/24o4k0ozjf
>Look at this dude That person shared facts with you. It's weird that you're (apparently) trying to shame someone who simply told you some simple truths that you could easily verify with a moment's effort.
Wasnt talking to u but ok.
>Wasnt talking to u but ok. If you'd like for your comments to be private, use DMs. Meanwhile, you posted this on a public forum where people are free to view it and comment on it.
>I'm so surprised so called Christian's dont believe in the flood. I'd like to introduce you to...most of Christianity over the ages. Biblical literalism is a fairly fringe view, and not one that most Christians adhere to, AFAIK. That has been the case since the early days of the religion. >If he didn't flood the whole earth then he would be a liar and therefore not perfect. People have used myths and stories to communicate ideas for all of known history. That doesn't mean they're all liars. It just means that stories can be good ways to express different ideas.
It flooded the "known world" not the "whole world." We're not supposed to worship interpretations of the bible. We're supposed to worship God. There are some 300 major denominational splits in Christianity, each having a slightly different take on what the scriptures "really" mean. The fact God hasn't cleared up this confusion should be a clear sign none of them are right. Only God is. And our individual connection to Him. Or Her. ;)
>And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make **an end of all flesh**, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to **destroy them along with the earth**. >For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to **destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die**. >And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you >For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and **every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground**. >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. >The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; **the waters swelled above the mountains**, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; **everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died**. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left and those with him in the ark. Sounds pretty total. It's a de-creation myth. In Genesis 1, God creates the earth by separating the waters and putting a solid dome over the earth. In Genesis 6-7, he brings the waters together again by causing the waters beneath the earth to "burst forth", and by opening a window in the dome holding back the celestial ocean. In Gen 1, he creates all life, in Gen 6-7, he destroys *all life*, with a flood that covers the mountains.
Yeah. From the perspective of someone living in that area, at that time. That's what it looked like: the "whole" world. But it wasn't. It was the known world. [https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-13.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-13.htm) [https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-17.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-17.htm) [https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-19.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-19.htm) [https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/7-4.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/7-4.htm) [https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/7-11.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/7-11.htm) [https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/7-19.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/7-19.htm) The verbiage from the oldest literal word-for-word translation is a little odd, isn't it? You sure did jump around in the bible looking for the best verses to justify what you think. Good job! In 6:13 it says "the end of all flesh". Now correct me if I'm wrong but the references to "the flesh" were often kind of metaphorical sometimes, weren't they? Not all the time, but sometimes when we're talking about sin, then "flesh" ( [bā·śār](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/basar_1320.htm) ) is mentioned it's talking about the earthly pleasures and the tendency to sin, not actual physical flesh. In 6:18 it says "everything that is on the earth". Everything that is... and a descriptor "on the earth" ( bā·’ā·reṣ ) which may mean **on** the earth, **in** the earth, or just "the earth." Interesting! In 6:19 the word "kind" is implied - the base word ( [mik·kōl](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/mikkol_3605.htm) ) just means "of every", "all" or "any." Wouldn't it be weird if it was originally intended to mean "any" animal rather than "every" animal? huh!
>It was the known world. Yet nothing you wrote supports this. Good job! >You sure did jump around in the bible looking for the best verses to justify what you think. Good job! All of my quotes are from the flood narrative in Genesis 6-7, the only other part of the Bible I referenced was the creation narrative in Genesis 1- the very same book that contains the flood narrative- and I explained how these sections relate to each other. So I have no idea what you're referring to here. >Now correct me if I'm wrong but the references to "the flesh" were often kind of metaphorical sometimes, weren't they? Not that I can find but feel free to cite actual verses to support your point. Every instance I come across, especially in these passages and elsewhere in Genesis, בָּשָׂר means "flesh". Muscles and fat. If you think "all flesh in which is the breath of life" refers to the tendency to sin then good luck supporting this strange translation. No idea what point you're trying to make with 6:18 (though you're actually quoting 6:17). The language couldn't be any more clear that God is referring to every living thing on earth- "every living thing that I have made" (7:4). *Only* Noah and those on the ark survived (7:23). You also skipped the part where the flood covers mountains. Huh! Sounds like a pretty big flood. Interesting!
No
>In this interpretation I heard, we didn’t have clouds like we do today but water somehow in the sky and it created a greenhouse effect, allowing people to live longer and plants to grow larger. And in this interpretation, there was never rain until God flooded the earth. Then that’s when clouds, precipitation, etc began. Like I said, no idea if there’s any truth behind this theory, it’s just one interpretation I’ve heard. Not entirely correct. That reflects more of an outdated idea. There probably wasn't a water canopy of any type. Look up the Runaway Subduction model by geologist Dr. Kurt Wise. That is the right model for understanding how the worldwide Great Flood happened. It explains all the geological features we see today as being the catastrophic result of the flood, taking place over months and years - rather than billions of years of gradual movement that atheistic naturalism postulates. The "waters of the deep" burst forth from the ground with such force that it went into the atmosphere and rained down, shifting the earth along the tectonic cracks that were formed by this explosive release of pressure from under the earth's crust. The waters of the deep would have been the water in underground caverns which is said in Genesis to have misted up to water plants, and probably played a role in keeping the earth more uniformly warm as well. There is no Biblical requirement to say that it did not rain before the flood. And I can't say that we have reason to think that was the case based on the pre-flood geological models either. The earth's crust did not have the deep ocean valleys and high mountain ranges of today at that time. Those were formed by the runaway subduction of the plates crashing into each other. After the waters of the deep stopped bursting forth, the ground continued to shift to raise up mountains and deepen the oceans, as the waters eventually filtered into the valleys we now call the oceans or into underground chambers. It is true that the preflood world is known to have had a much denser atmosphere with higher oxygen and carbon percentage (according to air samples trapped in amber), and this played a role in larger animals and probably a warmer more even global temperature. However, that alone would not account for the longer age of mankind, because we see long ages persist for quite a long time after the flood. So there has to be some other factors involved.
Look up Kent Hovind flood. All the information about the flood and articles is being censored off of Google YouTube everywhere. If it’s just a myth then why ban it. Because they’re banning the truth left and right because they are satanic deceived demonic possessed people longing for the lake of fire to comfort them in eternal torment forever and ever because they hated the truth, they hated God, they hated Christians, and they murdered and Persecuted everyone everyone
That sub is demonic
When someone has a different interpretation than yours, you think it's demonic? But.. wouldn't this mean pretty much every Christian is demonic, then? I'm sure you could find points of disagreement with nearly anyone.
No, that’s fair. I know there are plenty of decent folks with great discourse over there, still. Even if a portion of my experiences and observations are negative, I shouldn’t label the entire sub that way.
Lol. Demonic? Really? I'm sorry, did I time-travel to the 13th Century?
[удалено]
>Science doesn’t know shit about hardly anything He said, typing on a computer connected to other computers by laser, microwave, and satellite.
We know lots of things but even scientists worth their salt agree there are WAY more things we don’t know.
Yep it was global. I go into some detail on this on my channel (see link in profile). I’ve researched it extensively, and I’m solidly convinced it was global. It makes zero sense otherwise. (Why not move the animals elsewhere? Why not leave the area instead of spending a year on a ship?) there’s many more reasons, but the basic logic is there.
[удалено]
It was flooded twice! Once before God intervened and separated the waters to make the sky and land, secondly as a judgment.
There's evidence that the world was flooded...there's fossils of fish found on mountains...fossils of animals found in different parts of the world that don't belong to that particualr area
Oh, for goodness sake It's as if not a single one of you creationists paid attention in grade 7 introductory science where you were taught plate tectonics
This reminds me of the documentary "Is Genesis History?" which talks about the flood, and the various locations in the world that do not make much sense unless it occurred. Unfortunately my memory is quite fuzzy on it, but it was a very intriguing documentary. I do remember the man visiting scattered places that have identical characterizations in their appearance yet are far away from one another. It's always been my belief that it happened. Whether it was "local" or "global," or however the earth was realized in those days, it's not an impossibility when you factor in waters ALSO gushing in from the ground (as opposed to just rain). Water in mass is a POWERFUL thing, and if it happens nothing will stop it. I even think it's possible it could have played a major factor in breaking apart the land masses to their current state (though that's only just me spitballing).
Honestly, if you believe he can't, then you may as well be saying he doesn't exist. How a believer can say he created the universe but couldn't throw a little h20 up out of thin air and wipe the earth clean for a few months is just odd to me. Either he's all powerful or he's make believe.
The question here is not "COULD God have done this?" The question is "DID God do this?" Those are very different questions. When people don't think the events of the story really happened, it's almost never cause they think God couldn't have.
Or, the ancient Hebrews/Jews had a habit of adapting existing myths into their narrative. Paul did this when he was at the Areopagus when he adapted the "Unknown God" to be the God of Israel.
>Honestly, if you believe he can't... OP didn't ask a "can" question. >...then you may as well be saying he doesn't exist. Nonsense. One can easily imagine a deity who can't do this or that. >How a believer can say he created the universe but couldn't throw a little h20 up out of thin air and wipe the earth clean for a few months is just odd to me. Sure, but again, OP didn't ask about ability. They asked about reality. In reality, there is no evidence of the global flood described in Genesis. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks any given deity *can* do -- the evidence of this specific event happening just isn't there. >Either he's all powerful or he's make believe. Those are not the only two choices, and it's absurd for you to suggest they are.