Noahs Flood and Pangea.

[sylvanicdawn]

Dayage,

Honestly, I meant to say "Persian Gulf" rather than the "Arabian Sea", which lies further south. In between trying to juggle responsibilities, sometimes it's easy to mix up geographical locations!

[sylvanicdawn]

Dayage -- I will go back and compile everything you have written in this thread so far and then try to respond. Thanks

[Murray]

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?

or better yet a scientific theory called plate tectonics....

[Thwarp]

On page one of this discussion, I tried to show how other Biblical creation texts line up with the first three days of creation and rule out a global flood.

I've read into these scriptures several times and looked up many commentaries on it and I've come to the decision that God sent boundries for waters to obey. Much like a dog and one of those wireless electric fence that keep dogs from going no further. But since that was in place, I've never seen anything that would tell the land not to rise or fall.

To this day we see water breaching this boundry in the form of tidal waves. Yes I know they don't cover the whole earth. But then again After the flood God promise he would never again destroy every living thing on the earth and set his bow in the clouds to remind him of his promise. Heres a stupid rhetorical thought on my part. if the flood was local then would not rain bows be limited to the area affected by the flood?

There is so much archaeological evidence for a global flood its not even funny. For instance one subject of archaeology that really blows my socks off is the facts that there are hundreds of towns and city ruins found on the ocean floor. Most recent ones have been discovered as deep as 2100 feet. These are being found all over the globe. At this time I wont get into the details of some of the technological artifacts that have been found either.

I've never heard of a super continent named regina (whatever that would have existed prior to Pangea. I dont see any Biblical hint of one either. But it matters little.
If there was one big continent such as Pangea then one who have to ascertain as to how it got ripped apart? It would have had to have happen during the flood. Global hydroplate theory fits the bill nicely here as well. Please read http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html all 9 chapters. He uses alot of scripture as well. Its a good read and thought provoking.

I'm still trying to iron all this out in my finite human brain. As The Lord might say "You weren't there".
But I do know this. My God is the master of time. Time is not my Gods Master. After all he created it too. So of he said he created it in six days and then defined what a day is then thats how he did it. After all he is a God of wonders is he not?

I have lots of complaints about local flood and only a few about a global flood.

One of the few that I do have on a global flood is: If the flood was global and only Noah and his Sons (with wives and maybe children) survived then how did the descendants of The Nephilim survive and end up in the sights of God and Israel ? I'm certain that they weren't on the boat.

Tough questions....one big puzzle and yet no doubt who created it and through whom. To God be the Glory only

[dayage]

Thwarp,

But since that was in place, I've never seen anything that would tell the land not to rise or fall.

Me either. It has been happening for billions of years.

To this day we see water breaching this boundry in the form of tidal waves. Yes I know they don't cover the whole earth. But then again After the flood God promise he would never again destroy every living thing on the earth and set his bow in the clouds to remind him of his promise. Heres a stupid rhetorical thought on my part. if the flood was local then would not rain bows be limited to the area affected by the flood?

In context, the boundary was to stop the waters from covering the entire earth, as it had in Genesis 1:2. A global flood would have broken this decree.

9 "Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you;
10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth.

God's promise was to all humans and the animals associated with them. As far as humans spread across the earth, the rainbow would serve as a sign of God's promise. Rainbows are caused when light refracts though droplets of moisture in the atmosphere. So, rainbows have been around for about as long as the earth, God just gave them a covenantal meaning after the flood. Like, Jesus did with the bread and wine.

There is so much archaeological evidence for a global flood its not even funny.

Why are living trees older than the date of the flood? Why do ice cores not show evidence for a global flood? Please give links to the research (in archaeology journals) for the evidence.

I've never heard of a super continent named regina (whatever that would have existed prior to Pangea. I dont see any Biblical hint of one either. But it matters little.

I've never heard of regina either. I said Rodinia and Columbia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodinia

If there was one big continent such as Pangea then one who have to ascertain as to how it got ripped apart? It would have had to have happen during the flood.

It is called plate tectonics. The continents have been moving around for the last 3 billion years.

The Walt Brown link didn't seem to have much, if any scriptures, to back him up.
Here are a couple of problems that I saw:
2 Peter 3:5-7
Peter indicates that the flood was local. II Peter 3:5 mentions the creation of the heavens and the giving of form to the planet. The last part is obviously referring to when God gathered the seas and made dry land appear, on day 3, so that earth was no longer "formless and covered by water." In verse 7 he says that the same heavens and earth (planet) will be destroyed by fire.

The word for earth in verses 5, 7 and 10 is the Greek word Ge. But, what Peter says was flooded, by water (vs. 6), is the Greek word Kosmos. He uses this word earlier in II Peter 2:5 to describe the flooding of the people. Both places are referring to the people and the area in which they lived, not the planet.

Because of this and the creation texts that I mentioned earlier, there was no global flood and the hydroplate theory is irrelevant.

Frozen Mammoths were not snap frozen, as Walt Brown claims.
Answers in Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... pter15.asp
The Institute for Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/article/did-frozen-m ... r-ice-age/

So of he said he created it in six days and then defined what a day is then thats how he did it. After all he is a God of wonders is he not?

He said six yom, which could mean 24-hour periods, 12-hour periods or long periods of time. Evening and morning are not defining what a day is. If God had wanted to do this He would have said evening to evening or even morning to evening, but He didn't. He gave two points in time "And was evening" and "and was morning." Evening comes first, because it was the time when work ended. "In the beginning" was the first period of work which was ended. Morning was the dawning of the next work period (Psalm 104:20-23). You still have not dealt with Hebrews 4 and the seventh day.

It depends on who the Nephilim were.

[dayage]

Thwarp,

My mistake, I didn't talk to you about the seventh day, maybe you can answer my challenge on the seventh day. It is near the bottom of this link.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 8&start=30

[Calum]

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.

I find it hard to believe that humans spread over the entire planet in a period of less than 2,000 years (rough timespan from Adam to the flood). That's seemingly impossible. Actually, it is impossible. I believe that humanity was pressured into spreading over the continents by fluctuating temperatures, meticulously manipulated by God, over around 80,000-100,000 years in post flood times. It's logical that we were created at the end of the ice age, when temperatures kept varying dramatically, causing water levels to raise and lower. Given that YECs insist that tectonic activity of massive proportions would have accompanied the flood, it's unlikely that the early humans would have been able to cross the frozen land bridge between North America and Asia and from Asia to Australia. I believe God manipulated and guided global temperatures and tectonic activity in order to allow/pressure us to spread across Africa, Europe, Asia, N. America and S. America. According to YECs, however, you have to take all of these tremendous destructive forces like the numerous meteors, super-volcanoes, gamma ray bursts, supernovae eruptions, solar flares, all recorded in the fossil record, and squeeze all of them, ALL of them, into the narrow time frame of 4,000 years after the flood. You can't have them before the flood, as apparently all landmasses were connected before this deluge, and if we have all of these meteors, solar flares, super-volcanoes, and gamma rays pummeling the earth before this, life would be totally destroyed, and there would be no need for a flood of global proportions.

Also, the only worldwide archaeological evidence we have is that of the cultures AFTER the flood.
Let me illustrate an example to you. Imagine that humans had spread over pangea before the flood. A certain culture with its own language and social structure would evolve in that particular region. Then the flood comes. With the power to carve out the grand canyon, it destroys all relics of previous civilization. After the flood, we begin populating the planet again. As the mongoloid peoples spread down to South America, they establish their own culture, language, and social structure. The artifacts recovered from south america are all remnants of post-flood. If they were pre-flood, and somehow managed to survive the deluge, archaeologists would immediately recognize them as being foreign and distinct. However, no artifacts have been recovered that are alien from a post flood civilization to indicate people were able to migrate to what is now called South America before this 'global flood'. We have seen a slow and steady evolution of culture as indicated by ancient records, as well as in various fields of science. No abrupt or dramatic change has been recorded in any culture as of yet.

So actually, there is no evidence for pre-flood civilizations all over the planet Earth.

Furthermore, if the flood happened only 4,000 years ago, any racial mutations must have happened with amazing rapidity, since history shows that people of all types and colours already existed in ancient times, just as they do in the modern world. There is no evidence to indicate that people all over the planet experienced a brief and sudden change in their appearances. A population jumping from Africa all the way to South America in a world ravaged by destructive forces in less than four thousand years is very unlikely.

[Thwarp]

I'll get back to you on the rest of the stuff you posted. Thats alot to read and chew on for me.

Don't take me wrong. I'm not challenging anyone nor do I like to be challenged. Much like when I was learning about Eternal Security ( I came from an Armenian teaching camp) I asked alot of questions. Drove people crazy too I think. Thats kind of where I am at here. So you can see plainly were I am at and what tough questions I ask. I do not flat out believe everything I get told anymore. Been down that road and got hurt silly. Much the same that on some other forum there is a guy using a bunch of scripture to point out that reincarnation is a fact as well. I'm not buying it either. Seems like he's using verses out of context so it would seem.

The Nephilum (In breif discussion here) are introduced to us in Gen 6:4 prior to the flood and their descendants. Some use the term Giants. From what I can see they were quite tall indeed.

6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth on those days, and also afterwards, when the sons of God came into the daughters of man and they bore children to them.

Figuring out who the Nephilim are and or were is proving a little difficult for me though I am gaining some ground. I have read somewhere that Egyptian records indicate they had some business dealing with the Anaqium (yeah spelled that way) and they were not crazy about them politically. Maybe they didn't like they because they were always being tall to spite the Egyptians

Here there are 3 camps of thought as to who they and the sons of God are. I'm inclined towards explanation #3.http://bible.org/seriespage/sons-god-an ... nesis-61-8 It makes the most sense to me anyway.

Then we find in Numbers 13:33 We even saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak came from the Nephilim), and we seemed liked grasshoppers both to ourselves .

Some the decendants of Nephilim show up AFTER THE FLOOD. Obviously some pretty tall folks. According to the bed of their King they are...well big!! The bed alone is around 13.5 feet long. This could put them around 12+ feet tall.

But as you can see...I'm perplexed. Obviously in Genesis readings I can assume the Nephilim are extremely big folks and not the least bit righteous I assume.
How did their decendants survive the flood? Unless one of Noahs sons wives wasn't exactly faithful. I dunno my brother. I'm kinda stumped here. Curious as all get up and go.

Reading onward I find the rephraim ( think its a big valley) and pretty much anyone who lived there was considered Rephrain like the Anakim (tall and big) as we see in Duet 2:10
but then Duet 2:20 throws me off a lil bit but I still think the reference to rephraim is a local reference. But everyone there seems to be huge like the Anakim.

Shalom שלום חבר שלי