Noahs Flood and Pangea.

[Dallas]

Every one knows about pangea. If you don't it's all the continets put into one. So, last Sunday there was a Creationist at my Church. He showed us a little animation of how the effects of the great flood were so damaging. People like to sugar coat the Great Flood, but it was a bigger deal than what we portray it to be. So he went on to say how the ocean floors opened up, and caused some cracks. Could Noahs flood be the reason how we have the continets where they are now? I believe it can be the reason.

Oh let's just assume all of you are YEC please. Okay

[Kurieuo]

Every one knows about pangea. If you don't it's all the continets put into one. So, last Sunday there was a Creationist at my Church. He showed us a little animation of how the effects of the great flood were so damaging. People like to sugar coat the Great Flood, but it was a bigger deal than what we portray it to be. So he went on to say how the ocean floors opened up, and caused some cracks. Could Noahs flood be the reason how we have the continets where they are now? I believe it can be the reason.

Oh let's just assume all of you are YEC please. Okay

I think there is some confusion logically with the cause and causation here. That is, if the flood was caused by the ocean floors opening up and cracking (plate tectonics?), then wouldn't the root cause be plate tectonics which caused both the flood and continents (not the flood)?

[Dallas]

I think there is some confusion logically with the cause and causation here. That is, if the flood was caused by the ocean floors opening up and cracking (plate tectonics?), then wouldn't the root cause be plate tectonics which caused both the flood and continents (not the flood)?

In a meaningful sense yes. I know about plate tectonics, so, would the water pressure cause those to move. Or would it be a giant earthquake that caused basically the giant shift of the continets?

[RickD]

I think there is some confusion logically with the cause and causation here. That is, if the flood was caused by the ocean floors opening up and cracking (plate tectonics?), then wouldn't the root cause be plate tectonics which caused both the flood and continents (not the flood)?

In a meaningful sense yes. I know about plate tectonics, so, would the water pressure cause those to move. Or would it be a giant earthquake that caused basically the giant shift of the continets?

Or perhaps, many earthquakes, over a very long time?

[Dallas]

Or perhaps, many earthquakes, over a very long time?

How long is a very long time? 40-100 days? Or one or two thousand years? What have you?

[Ivellious]

The only problem is with the plate tectonics idea is that we know in those cracks is nothing but magma and rock...so I don't know where the water would have come from it it came from under the Earth's crust. Also, does this presume that the water receded back under the Earth's crust? Also kind of weird, considering that again, there is no water under there to our knowledge.

Of course, I'm not one who believes in a literal Noah's flood. Just doesn't make sense on so many levels.

[Dallas]

The only problem is with the plate tectonics idea is that we know in those cracks is nothing but magma and rock...so I don't know where the water would have come from it it came from under the Earth's crust. Also, does this presume that the water receded back under the Earth's crust? .

This is just speculation, but before the flood there was no rain it was mist. So this would lead me to think that a lot of the water would be evaporated. Yet again, this is just speculation.

And is it possible that a meteor hit where mexico is at? That might of helped. Who knows

[Ivellious]

The problem with evaporation is just that when water evaporates, it either stays in the air as water vapor or it becomes clouds...Again, it just seems hard to say that there was enough "new" water to flood the Earth and kill everything, but then it just evaporated (we'd have miles of clouds covering the entire Earth at that point).

I'm not saying it's wrong to believe that God may have just taken the water back or something (cuz obviously he can do that). I just think drawing relationships between certain events may be stretching it.

Also, plate tectonics is (I'm presuming) a point of contention among young-Earth creationists. It kind of violates the idea that Earth was made perfect as is. Just pointing that out.

[Seraph]

As far as I know, Pangaea allegedly broke apart long before humanity showed up.

Also, it wouldnt have been a dramatic instantaneous event, where there is a massive splitting of the continents. Plate techtonics move slower than your finger nails grow so it wouldve been a very long process. I think it wouldve looked more like rivers getting slightly bigger and filling in the cracks of the boundaries rather than a massive flood.

Plus, I think the flood was local.

[Kurieuo]

The only problem is with the plate tectonics idea is that we know in those cracks is nothing but magma and rock...so I don't know where the water would have come from it it came from under the Earth's crust. Also, does this presume that the water receded back under the Earth's crust? .

This is just speculation, but before the flood there was no rain it was mist. So this would lead me to think that a lot of the water would be evaporated. Yet again, this is just speculation.

And is it possible that a meteor hit where mexico is at? That might of helped. Who knows

Just wondering, how do you know there was a mist before the flood?

In Genesis 1 we have water covering the face of the earth in the beginning of earth's history, from which land then emerges which I believe largely due to plate techtonics. And then the creation psalm (Psalm 104:9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?) it says the water would never again cover the earth.

[jlay]

The problem with evaporation is just that when water evaporates, it either stays in the air as water vapor or it becomes clouds...Again, it just seems hard to say that there was enough "new" water to flood the Earth and kill everything, but then it just evaporated (we'd have miles of clouds covering the entire Earth at that point).

You don't need one extra drop of water to flood the entire earth.
Here is an interesting fact. If you leveled out the ocean valleys and mountain peaks, the entire earth would be covered in over 2 kilometers of water. No land would be visible. Have the ocean valleys and moutain ranges always existed as they are now? The valleys and the mountains are both results of plate tectonics and drift.

Plate techtonics move slower than your finger nails grow so it wouldve been a very long process.

They do now. But that is uniformitarianism. The current land scape of the earth with giant jagged moutain ranges is good reason to believe that more violent activity occured in the past. Take two cars, put them bumper to bumper and depress each accelerator at 1 m.p.h. What will happen? not much. Now put those cars 50 feet apart and press the accelerator at 30 m.p.h and see what happens.

[dayage]

Dallas,

I have to agree with many of the others. The Biblical flood was not global, although it was universal, because all of humanity lived in one region.

You also stated

This is just speculation, but before the flood there was no rain it was mist. So this would lead me to think that a lot of the water would be evaporated. Yet again, this is just speculation.

Most translations insert the words mist or stream in verse six: “but a mist went up from the earth.” This reading, plus the statement that no plant of the field was in the earth, has led many to conclude that no rain had fallen until the Flood. These translations make nonsense of the text. God said there were no plants, because it had not rained. Yet, these translations say that there was a mist or stream that watered the ground. So, what was the point in stating that there was no rain? And why, if there was a water source, weren’t there any plants?

Recent studies show that the word ed, in verse six, should be translated as rain cloud. Three lines of evidence point to this.

First the "problem/solution" context found here.
Simply put:
Problem
No wild shrub
No cultivated grain

Reason
no rain
no man/cultivator

Solution
rain was sent
man was formed

Second, this is the best understanding of its use in Job 36:27.
"27 For He draws up drops of water, they distill as rain in His rain cloud (ed),
28 Those clouds (shachaq) pour down, they drip upon man abundantly."

Thirdly, etymology studies point to the meaning of rain cloud.

Another word which may cause some readers problems is eres. Many translations use the word earth, in verses 5-6, making it seem as though no rain had fallen anywhere on the planet. The Hebrew word eres has many meanings (planet – Gen. 1:1, continents – 1:10, land, etc). If we stay within the context of the sixth day, the best translation is land. This is how eres is used in Genesis 2:11-13; whole land (eres) of Havilah, whole land (eres) of Cush.

With these points in mind, we can make a clear and consistent reading, of Gen. 2:5-6, that fits with the rest of chapter two and the sixth day of creation:

5) “Now no wild shrub of the field was in the land and no grain of the field had grown, because the Lord God had not sent rain upon the land and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
6) But a rain cloud began to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
7) And the Lord God formed man…”

Now it becomes obvious that it had not rained in a particular land, during a particular period of time.

[Ivellious]

The Biblical flood was not global, although it was universal, because all of humanity lived in one region.

Well, I'll disagree with your reasoning on that one. I agree that if anything the flood had to be local, but the idea that all of humanity lived in the middle east back then doesn't really make sense, considering the Bible says that the flood happened only about 4,285 years ago. There is no way that I can think of that supports the idea that humans never left the Middle East until just that long ago...there is a massive amount of archaeological and scientific evidence to support that we had spread across the world by the time of the flood.

Oh, here's how I got my year estimate, it's a creationist site called Answers In Genesis. While I disagree with much of what is on the site, I figured it would be a reasonable estimate that we could all agree on based on the Bible only.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... oahs-flood

[dayage]

Jay,

The Bible rules against a global flood. The earth started of covered by a global ocean (no land). Then on day three land rose up. At this point, other creation texts say that water would never again cover the earth. Here are some other creation texts and how they fit with Genesis one.
Job 38:4, 8-11
In the beginning
4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,
Gen. 1:2
8 "Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;
9 When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band,
Day 3
10 And I placed boundaries on it, And I set a bolt and doors,
11 And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop'?

Ps. 104:5-9
In the beginning
5 He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.
Gen. 1:2
6 Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains.
Day 3
7 At Thy rebuke they fled; At the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away.
8 The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which Thou didst establish for them.
9 Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over; That they may not return to cover the earth.

Proverbs 8:27-29
In the beginning
27 "When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
Day 2
28 When He made firm the clouds above, When the springs of the deep became fixed,
Day 3
29 When He set for the sea its boundary, So that the water should not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;

Jeremiah 5:22 'Do you not fear Me?' declares the LORD. 'Do you not tremble in My presence? For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it.

[dayage]

Ivellious,

The Bible does not give a date for creation or the flood. I hold to a flood date of around 50,000 yrs ago, based on the descriptions in the Bible and general revelation.

The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were not meant to be added up. First, these periods are never added up in scripture, but other periods are.

Second, these genealogies are not complete. This is common in Biblical genealogies.
Luke 3:36 shows us a name missing from Genesis 11 (Cainan).

Genesis 5
A little background is needed first. God told Eve that there would be enmity between the serpent's (Satan's) seed and her seed. Satan was a liar (Gen. 3:4) and a murderer (spiritual, Gen. 3:7-10).

Genesis 4 and 5 should be seen as part of this opposition between the seeds. Cain became the seed of Satan (he murdered and lied Gen. 4:8-9). Seth became the new seed of the woman, replacing Abel (Gen. 4:25). These are the Godly and ungodly lines.
These genealogies (Gen. 4 & 5) are highly selective in order to bring out this theological point. So, in the second generation we find Cain set against Seth. In the fifth generation there is Mehujael (meaning - Smitten by God) set against Mahalalel (Praise of God). In the seventh generation we find Lamech (a polygamist and murderer) in opposition to Enoch (who walked with God).

Even the Lamechs in the two genealogies seem to be a comparison/contrast. In Genesis 4 Lamech is the only one who speaks, his offspring produce activities (work) and there are three sevens connected with judgments (Gen. 4:24). The Lamech of Genesis 5 is also the only one of his line to speak, but his offspring is to bring rest (Gen. 5:29) and the three sevens here are connected with life.

To get such selective genealogies and yet still keep direct lines of descent means generations must have been skipped.

Even Moses, the author, wrote his genealogy as Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses. Comparing the time in Egypt (430 yrs) with his genealogy and looking at parallel genealogies, makes it clear that he skipped 6 to 9 generations between Kohath and Amram. Also, from Moses' genealogy we get the total years lived and the same word, begat.

In Ruth 4:20-22 there are about 13 generations skipped between Obed and Jesse.

To Add these generations up, is to assume something the Bible never confirms.