Source of biblical flood water?

i'm a biblical literalist. i think the bible means exactly what it says, and i explained the literal reading of where the water came from -- AND by implication, where it went after the flood. i also think the bible is wrong, and provably wrong when actually read literally. literalists do not seem to read the bible literally.

Mars had a civilization that was evil, so god slammed a giant astroid into it, this killed the wicked and vaporized the water so it became a cloud of vapor in space, it followed the law of least resistance and slid down the gravity well to earth where it condensed in the atmosphere as fourty days and fourty nights of rain, the water was cold from space, so there was no heat buildup, then the weight of the water caused much volcanic activity that blew the water back into space where again following the law of least resistance it slammed into venus eliminating that wicked civilization(wicked?just look at the name of the planet).It was god's three-cushion shot.This message has been edited by DHA, 04-15-2005 01:05 AM

If you claim to be a literalist, you differ from the common definition of the term. You make the claim that you yourself determine what the Bible says and means. Human wisdom is NEVER the final authority in scriptural interpretation (according to most "literalists" who would claim that the Bible explains itself.)I am not challenging your reasoning. I am merely pointing out that your method--using your own human wisdom as the final arbitrator--is not orthodox as pertaining to literalism.

Phatboy,Can you answer some short questions about the "orthodox" meaning of "literalism" ? I don't get the difference between this and what Arach did. He read the bible, and his understanding comes directly from the words of the Bible. How (other than that) can the bible "explain itself" ?Also, what would it mean if we read the Bible and, after reading once, we didn't understand? How could that be if the bible "explained itself" to me?I just didn't understand your explanation of "literalist," and I didn't find anything helpful via Google or Wikipedia when I tried a fast terms search.

TO TROY: Pink dragons are not funny. They go throughout the world and destroy ecosystems. They eat evos alive and sing creos lullabies. Yes, pink dragons are not funny.

​

Jazzns said, "Then all these animals seperated themselves nicely. Almost all of the non-placental mammals swam to Australia. The dinosaurs got off the boat and were eaten because no one liked them. (They were friends of the serpent). Then once all the animals got to their new homes they rapidly micro-evolved into the diversity of species that we know today. That speedy mico-evolution has since stopped for some reason."

​

I SAY: If that was true, what about underground animalia?

​

TO IANAT: You're not that bad at that Mars guess. But tell me, does water move in zero-gravity towards a fixed location?

Hi, Ben, Perhaps I should correct myself. What I mean't to imply is that Biblical Inerrencists differed from Arachnophilias philosophy, which he has summized elsewhere as being this: My critique of Arachnophilia is that he is using scientific understanding as the arbitrator of scriptural interpretation.
Take as an example the age of the earth. Most old time thumpers that I know stick rather staunchly to a 6000+ year interpretation. (Kind of like that play, Inherit The Wind) When asked why they believe such an obvious contradiction to the "facts" of science, they would reply that the Bible says it and that settles it. They may throw a scripture out such as:
1 Cor 1:20-21= Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
A Biblical Inerrencist would never take any scripture in the context of the time or place that it was written. They would use any scripture in the bible to support any point of contention raised.
Their logic is that : You can never tell an inerrencist that they are wrong, because according to them, you have no basis to judge the Bible except through the Spirit of God, and if you are coming against them or questioning the Bible in any way, you are applying mere human wisdom and intelligence.Personally, I am between the two extremes. I think that parts of the Bible are wisdom imparted by the Holy Spirit through ancient believers to modern believers. Since I maintain that only parts of the Bible are inspired, I alienate the inerrencist. Since I agree that the Bible has a wisdom beyond intellectual and educated theory, I alienate the scientific method. Thus, I am stuck in the middle of this one.

"Fixed location"? The earth stood still after all???
Allright. You mean "moving target". If you believe in cosmic wormholes, then how can you deny mass moving place to place. Maybe something similar was the tool!Disclaimer: I am not serious about the above explanation, but I need to have forum-fun once and again. You are looking for a rational explanation for a miracle.
Allah can move anything from anywhere, if Allah pleases.It reminds me of this show called "Lost" where one viewer sees a rational explanation and another viewer sees supernatural event.
It depends on where you sit.
(I come from a different culture and years back when I met some Texans in a meeting for the first time, one of them said "where do you stand on this issue?" I had not heard that before and was puzzled. Later in same meeting another Texan said "it depends upon where you sit". A few days later in another meeting, I decided to use a new learned expression, and said "where do you sit on this issue?" A few hushed giggles occurred, and then the heavy one said "it depends on if you use directional drilling" That was when the seriousness and stand-away feelings disappeared and we became friends as well as brokers).I must go back to work. I do not have much time for this. Thank you for fun on Friday.

Right. And the difference is, the second guy sits in a place where he says "I'm going to jump to a conclusion about what I saw, and never change my mind" and the first guy says "I'm going to find out what actually happened." If it pleases Allah to order the universe in a way that makes it look like he never intervenes directly, shouldn't we please Allah by investigating the universe according to that assumption?

i read the bible literally. i'm not making interpretations or pointing to metaphors or hidden meanings. i'm just describing what the bible actually says. if the literalists don't agree with me, well, they're not reading it literally. see my explanation in this thread. did i do anything secretive? did i appeal to any sort of personal opinion, save that i think it's wrong? no. i just explained what the text says, using, of all things, the text.

no. i'm not doing that at all. the people who talk about vapor canopies and sub-crust oceans do that. i'm not trying to fit the bible into any kind of modern understanding at all. i'm trying to understand what the people who wrote it meant, and how it was read back then.heck, i described a flat earth, with a giant glass dome, surrounded by water in every direction. i said this glass dome keeps the water out, and that universe is not only geocentric, but limited to the earth and this dome. how, exactly, is this a scientific understanding?in fact, i'm fairly certain that science has proven 100% of that to be innacurate, but that's not my fault, i'm just reporting what the scripture says. it's the people who try to get them to line up -- and are forced to compromise BOTH -- who are using modern scientific understanding.

Arachnophilia Yes I agree that you did explain it in the context of the view that ancient people took in that region as being an explanation of the events. I am,however,wishing to deal with those folk who claim the position that the description of these people about the events actually occured in the way that they described.A flood that covered the highest points of the globe cannot have occured due to the fact that such a volume of water does not exist in nature.There are people on this board who have claimed otherwise and my arguement pertains to them.Thank Arach.

well, my point is also designed to combat those people. you see, they do NOT actually believe it happened the way the bible says it did. they like to pretend they do, sure. but they don't.who in their right mind would defend this glass dome in the sky bs? and yet that's where the bible says the water came from. that, and great well beneath the ground. to try to read something else into the bible is simply idiotic. this is what it says.but hey, i'll give this argument to the first fundy that actually argues that the earth is flat, there's a big glass done over it, and everything else is water. if they wanna think science is completely wrong, and that the bible is the ultimate truth, they should at least do it whole-heartedly. not this half-assed bastardization of both. to further argue this devil's advocate (or rather bible's advocate) position... i do believe god qualifies as "supernatural" as opposed to "in nature." so what's wrong with thinking the flood came from outside the natural universe? i mean, it was a miracle, right?

This makes sense! Indeed...if God can create a universe out of nothing, why can He not also create a flood out of nothing?
He could even go so far as to place much of the supernatural miracles of the bible in the peoples minds whom experienced such events.Bottem line: The Bible is NOT natural. I agree with you that we should stop trying to get it to line up with natural explanations.

well, it's not nothing. it's water. and it's always been there -- god didn't create it, according to the text. god just created the heaven and the earth inside it. we should also agree that it's just sometimes wrong.in this instance, to remove the themes of dome of heaven and primordial ocean is to rob the story of its meaning. you cannot divorce the story for this, and pretend that a natural flood just kind of happened in a completely impossible way. and *maybe* god did it.no, it's clear the authors didn't understand the universe the way we do today. it's also clear that they borrowed a plot to apply their themes too. this is a common story. maybe they're all really based on a real, localized flood. maybe not. but the issue isn't whether or not this actually happened, but the promise at the end of the story.the point of biblical stories is often found at the end. "...and this is why..." etc. in this case, god promises never to destroy all of humanity again. even if he never really did in the first place. the authors of genesis seem more concerned with the importance and meaning and traditions of the stories than their literal truths.cause, let's face it. the bible is wrong about that flat earth and glass dome in the sky. there may be some metaphysical and metaphorical truths to the story, but the literal reading really has very little to do with reality.

quote:

---

well, my point is also designed to combat those people. you see, they do NOT actually believe it happened the way the bible says it did. they like to pretend they do, sure. but they don't.

​

who in their right mind would defend this glass dome in the sky bs? and yet that's where the bible says the water came from.

---

Funny I never heard about some sky water bubble, except in some minor side interpretation. I believe it happened just like the bible says.

quote:

---

so what's wrong with thinking the flood came from outside the natural universe? i mean, it was a miracle, right?

---

That some things were beyond what man can detect now, as 'natural' isn't saying much, we can't even detect spirits. But even within the 'natural, we have a wide range of choice as to what to believe, with the known facts. WE can believe the fountains of the deep opened, to give us most water on earth, or we can believe some 'cosmic snowballs' tossed it here over great imagined time, for example! http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/komwater.html
Of course I don't believe the 'evo oriented' have a good sense of time. As an example, the dino bones thread here was closed some time ago for "24 hours". Either that, or some evos simply have a perpensity to lose all track of the truth.