Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Percipient;

​

I would suggest reading the earlier postings, we have been discussing the points you brought up for some time. To sum it up, the flood was not the way many assume, and the evidence hence doesn't match their preconceived ideas. We also have evidence in the form of marine traces, relict lakes, super flood erosion and other things, that there has been a global flood in recent geological history. [/B]

---

Your recollection of this thread seems to be a little different from most of us. To us it is only apparent that you have made a bunch of a priori assertions and ignored any mainstream alternatives to your anecdotal pieces of evidence. You have strung together an unlikely string of circumstances and professed them to be a cogent theory.It is time for evidence, wmscott. Give us evidence that there were flood waters covering elevations higher than 1000 feet in North America. In this case, you have correctly shown that the sea was about 1000 feet higher than it is today. You then conclude that it must have been higher yet... and that it must have covered the entire world... This is complete nonsense. It is a conclusion completely based on biblical mythology. Show us that the Rocky Mountains were covered by flood waters.Then give us evidence that jokhalhaups can be larger than a single drainage. Give us evidence that there is a deep tectonic source of flow for glacial flexing (or whatever you call it). Give us good solid evidence that your diatoms were NOT windblown rather than "blowing off" the wind-born theory of diatom deposition. Give us evidence that the whale bones are found at elevations higher than about 1000 feet and that they are definitely not human-transported. Give us evidence that ice caps were floated off their moorings but never melted. Give us evidence that a bolide initiated some kind of catastrophic event that left virtually no record in the ice sheets. Give us evidence that all land elevations in the Pleistocene were under 1000 feet. All you have done so far is make assertions that these things are so. We want diagnostic evidence. Where is it?

---

Wmscott writes:
I would suggest reading the earlier postings, we have been discussing the points you brought up for some time. To sum it up, the flood was not the way many assume, and the evidence hence doesn't match their preconceived ideas. We also have evidence in the form of marine traces, relict lakes, super flood erosion and other things, that there has been a global flood in recent geological history.

---

I have read the earlier postings, and what I've noticed is a tendency to ignore the significant issues in favor of ambiguous details. Had there been a worldwide flood around 10,000 years ago it would have wiped out almost all land life, an extinction event greater than any other in earth history. It would have left its evidence everywhere. If ends of ice ages were really associated with world-wide floods then we would have evidence of repeated inundations and extinctions. If a flood had really swept across Antarctica we wouldn't be finding just diatoms, which are wind-borne anyway, but entire fish.In order to have a workable hypothesis you have to address the rather conspicuous conflicts with existing evidence. You need to deal forthrightly with the evidence instead of just claiming error, misinterpretation and preconceived notions.When the absence of evidence for a flood was recognized in the first half of the 19th century the preconceived notion at that time was that Noah's flood had been a real event. Since then the lack of evidence for a world-wide flood has only become more and more clear.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by no2creation:
I must apologize, since I can't seem to find all the info on the "Platonic Cycle". I'll have to find the book, but it describes how ancient civilizations had viewed the stars according to their location on earth (mainly the north star). Astronomers can use drawings/writings and other evidence from the civilization combined with the Platonic Cycle ...

---

After checking out the site you cited I see what you are talking about. The actual term chosen for the earth's wobbling cycle was "Platonic Year." Unfortunately, the casual refernce to this as the "Platonic cycle" has confused some readers.Vincent de Solla Price's use of the expression "Platonic Cycle" refers to the interchangeability of the four elements in Aristotles "chemistry", more acurately, alchemy.The two have no relation whatever. But I am glad you made me aware of the fact that the 26,000 year "wobble" has been given the name, "Platonic Year."---------
db

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott: I agree with you on the word land being used with different means,

---

I assume that you intended to say different meanings. But that is not at all what I am saying, and you continue to avoid addressing my primary assertion; Which is, that
nowhere in the Bible is the word Earth used in the sense of a global i.e. spheroidal, planetiodal reality.
Shouldn’t you settle on whether to call it earth or land?

quote:

---

in the cases you like to cite, such as "Nebuchadnezzar is said to be the destroyer of "all the earth"" it refers to the known world at the time or the known civilized world.

---

It refers to the Babylonian Empire; Nothing more.

quote:

---

Your argument then is that at the time of the flood the known world consisted of an area in the Mesopotamian valley.

---

The Babylonian Empire included the land of Israel.

quote:

---

You have also made reference to the flood layer found by C. Leonard Wooley as being evidence of this flooding event that inspired the Genesis story.

---

I do not recall mentioning that, but since you bring it up ...

quote:

---

The lack of a flood deposit at Eridu limits the great Ur flood to a very limited extent indeed, far to small to have been the great deluge of bible history.

---

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

quote:

---

In fact the flood layer at Ur was created by a river flood that failed to even flood the entire city.

---

In fact, Woolley’s trial pit began under the bottom of the Royal Cemetery, at -... the lowest levels of the Ur mound in order to learn something of the city’s origins. After cutting through three feet of occupational debris, his diggers hit sterile river mud. Woolley calculated that the mud was above the original level of the surrounding plain. One possible explanation could have been that he had reached the top of a natural hillock ‘hidden’ by the larger, man-made mound of the city that had been built atop it.

​

But Woolley commanded his crew to keep on digging. Reluctantly, they complied. Sure enough, the record of human habitation recommenced eight feet further down."This "... eight-foot-thick water deposited clay, devoid of artifacts, lay just above another level that was studded with pre-Sumerian objects."
Sumer: Cities of Eden, (Time Life Books. pg. 32,88.)Given that these artifacts are pre-Sumerian and located four meters beneath the bottom of the Royal Cemetery, one might reasonably deduce that this layer of mud pre-dates the City of Ur.

quote:

---

Since it failed to even flood the entire city of Ur, ...

---

There is reasonable doubt as to whether Ur existed at the time.

quote:

---

it is hard to believe it could be described as flooding the earth even using your limited definition.

---

Again: Biblical use of the word earth never suggests the planet.

quote:

---

Other than claiming that this was a small flood that inspired a very exaggerated tall tail, there is no way to match the description found in genesis with the archaeological evidence of the flood deposits in Mesopotamia.

---

You are entitled to your opinion.

quote:

---

Due to the small size of the Ur flood and the other conflicting details, it is necessary to look elsewhere for the biblical flood.

---

We have evidence of a great flood -
In the valley of Eden;
In the same valley where Abram met God;
This is the valley from which Babylon conquered the whole earth.
It is the very same valley where the legend of the Great Flood was born;
Do you doubt that this valley comprised an entire biblical world?

quote:

---

I see no support for limiting the genesis word 'land' to that area ...

---

Is it to be land or earth? Please choose one. On the one hand you say "Earth," hoping that it may imply a global flood. On the other hand, you say "Land," hoping to explain why air breathing sea creatures weren't in the ark.I sympathize with the challenge you face. I once wrestled with it myself. It is not easy to understand the Bronze Age World View. But using these words interchangeably confuses the issue.The Hebrew word in question here is ERETS which is translated either way, as "Earth" or as "Land" but never as "planet."-------
db------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

doctrbill;You have stated that your primary assertion is that nowhere in the Bible is the word Earth used in the sense of a global i.e. spherical, planetoid reality. Do you still mean the Hebrew word 'erets' is never used to refer to the entire planet, or are you now restricting you assertion that it lacks a reference to just the earth being a sphere? The sphere question is a bit off course from the flood issue itself. There is plenty of evidence that the Hebrew word 'erets' can be used to refer to the entire earth. On the Hebrew words for earth and land, here is what one of my reference books stated. "In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used for earth as a planet is e'rets. E'rets refers to (1) earth, as opposed to heaven, or sky (Ge 1:2); (2) land, country, territory (Ge 10:10); (3) ground, surface of the ground (Ge 1:26); (4) people of all the globe (Ge 18:25).
The word adhamah' is translated "ground," "soil," or "land." Adhamah' refers to (1) ground as tilled, yielding sustenance (Ge 3:23); (2) piece of ground, landed property (Ge 47:18); (3) earth as material substance, soil, dirt (Jer 14:4; 1Sa 4:12); (4) ground as earth's visible surface (Ge 1:25); (5) land, territory, country (Le 20:24); (6) whole earth, inhabited earth (Ge 12:3). Adhamah' seems to be related etymologically to the word adham', the first man Adam having been made from the dust of the ground.Ge 2:7." Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 1, p667. The Hebrew word "Erets" can mean a land or the entire planet, the meaning is inferred from the context, the way the word is used. The fact that this word can refer to the entire planet earth is also supported by the definition found in Strong's Hebrew dictionary as well.
Strong's Number: 776 Transliterated: 'erets Phonetic: eh'-rets
Text: from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): --X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.The only way the usage of these two Hebrew words could supply any support for the theory that the Bible is describing a limited flood, is if only the Hebrew word 'adhamah' was used in describing the extent of the deluge and the word 'erets' was not used. but a quick check of the flood account shows the word 'erets' was used as well. Hence there is no linguistic support for the belief the flood account was mean to be description of a partial flooding of the earth.We do a number of verses throughout the bible where the entire earth is obviously being referred to, here are a few of them.Genesis 1:29-30 "29 And God went on to say: "Here I have given to YOU all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree on which there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed. To YOU let it serve as food. 30 And to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food." And it came to be so."Exodus 19:5 "the whole earth belongs to me"Joshua 3:11"The ark of the covenant of the Lord of the whole earth"Psalm 72:19 "19 And blessed be his glorious name to time indefinite,
And let his glory fill the whole earth."Psalm 97:3-6 "4 His lightnings lighted up the productive land;
The earth saw and came to be in severe pains.
5 The mountains themselves proceeded to melt just like wax on account of Jehovah,
On account of the Lord of the whole earth.
6 The heavens have told forth his righteousness"Isaiah 40:22 "22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell," Note the expression 'circle of the earth'.Isaiah 51:13 "And that you should forget Jehovah your Maker, the One stretching out the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth,"Daniel 2:35 "And as for the stone that struck the image, it became a large mountain and filled the whole earth."Since you referred to the bible as a whole in your statement, here are three verses in Matthew where the entire earthly globe is referred to. (Mt 5:18, 35; 6:19) Considering what the reference works state, and the context of the above verses, it is very obvious that the bible makes references to the entire earth. One of them even referring to the circle of the earth, or sphere as some bibles translate it. So I see no restriction in the use of the Hebrew language for the flood description not to refer to the entire planet.You made reference to the flood layer found by C. Leonard Wooley in the link you posted in your earlier post. The lack of a river flood deposit does equal evidence of absence. A huge valley wide flood of the type you infer, would have left a valley wide layer of river sediment, that layer is absent form the city of Eridu only seven miles from Ur. If as you have now posted, that the layer of mud predates the City of Ur, is incorrect. As you yourself quoted "pre-Sumerian objects" are found below the layer you referred to. The site was occupied at the time of the river flood, and that flood failed to flood the entire city. Now if you mean your flood may have occurred much earlier than the flood layer found, then you can not refer to the Mesopotamian flood deposits as evidence since the ones archaeologists refer to have occurred too late in time to be from your flood and do not date from a single event anyway.I found a site that has a theory very much like yours, only I thought it better in a number of details. Perhaps you may want to check it out.Climate, Culture, and Catastrophe in the Ancient Worldedge & Percipient;You two seem to be on the same page today. Here are some links with evidence relating to a sudden flooding event in connection with the ice sheets.
"According to some scholars, catastrophic walls of ice broke off from the receding glaciers and joined a massive run-off of melt-water, scouring out the contours of the Mississippi River. It is envisioned that a sudden collapse of the NA ice cap produced a massive sea-level rise with the speed of a tidal wave around the world. It is likely that the river valley in the upper Mississippi was once 500 feet deeper than it is now, filled as it is with gravel and sand deposited by that melt-water. The accumulated Gulf of Mexico organisms have provided compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water about 11,600 years ago"
Glacial Lakes and Rivers form the Mississippi River Valley"these features are inferred to support the hypothesis that subglacial outburst floods beneath the Laurentide ice sheet crossed Georgian Bay and strongly sculpted the Bruce Peninsula"
http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/KorEvidenceThe1998.htmlAnd evidence of a comet impact event associated with the Carolina bays. "the unique orbital and physical characteristics of a comet favor a model in which a high velocity retrograde comet or a low velocity prograde comet collided with the Earth. The incoming nucleus approached from the northwest and fragmented. The fragments, diverging from the main trajectory, volatized and subsequently exploded in the atmosphere near the surface. The resultant shock waves created shallow elliptical depressions which are best displayed in the sandy sediments of the Coastal Plain".
A RE-EVALUATION OF THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL ORIGIN OF THE CAROLINA BAYSThis link is interesting. "Evidence is growing that a huge comet smashed into the Earth about 4,000 years ago. Scientists are pointing to studies of tree-rings in Ireland which have revealed that about 2,354-2,345 BC there was an abrupt change to a colder climate" I would expect tree ring dating to agree with bible chronology, and this date is just about right on. If correct this could be climate evidence of the impact event, but this would have to be reconciled with the dates for the ice age ending much earlier in time. But if the flood occurred at the biblical date, this could be part of the evidence you wanted of an impact event.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...h/sci/tech/newsid_100000/100101.stmThese are just some of the parts and pieces of the event that happened. I have more in the book of course, but what I am currently pursuing is marine foraminifera. I hope to obtain soil samples this summer from high elevations out west and identify marine foraminifera as traces left by the flood. This would answer most of your questions in this area and would be impressive evidence of the deluge.

I really fail to see your point there. Even casual reading of the Bible reveals that the autors had no concept of what it was they were actually threading on there. They clearly believed that the entire world could be observed from the top of a mountain and that some trees could grow high enough to be observed by all kingdoms on the planet. They do not describe a local flood in the Myth of Noah...But they are making it quite clear that they had absolutely no compreansion of how absolutely ENORMOUS the earth was compared to their little corner of the world. The make it quite obvious on several passages that they did not think for one moment that there were any other continents beyond the seas and everything in christian early mythology supports this ingrained belief that the Middle East was the whole world

About glacial run-off, since you advocate a world-wide flood at the end of the last glacial period, you should be seeking evidence of a world-wide flood, not evidence of glacial flows. We already know about glacial flows, and no one doubts that there were large glacial flows at the ends of ice ages. What you lack is evidence of a world-wide flood.About the comet impacts, even if they actually happened you still have no evidence of a world-wide flood.Once again your dates are in conflict. The end of the last glacial period and the date for when the "huge comet smashed into the Earth" are about 8000 years apart. Dr. Victor Clube is a catastrophist in the mold of Immanuel Velikovsky, ie, he believes that the events of the Bible correlate with astronomical events like close approaches of and collisions with asteroids and comets. Incredibly, Dr. Clube is at Oxford University. Go figure!The other article about comets or asteroids forming the Carolina bays is from 1975. It is scholarly but was probably considered "out there" even then. It goes against common sense that the 500,000 Carolina bays were formed relatively recently by impacts of extraterrestrial origin. The Siberian event, which the article mentions by way of example, was just a single body exploding in the earth's atmosphere, yet it downed all trees in an enormous radius. But if 500,000 little planetoids had impacted the earth's surface in the last 20,000 years knocking out bays on the Carolina coast with sizes ranging from 200 feet to 7 miles there'd be copious evidence, such as meteor fragments everywhere, the typical impact shape of raised perimeter ridge, major flora/fauna extinctions, dramatic world-wide climatic effects (the kind that would return the world to an ice age), etc. Plus there's the mystery of somehow hitting only the coastline, never inland.Here's a picture of the 50,000 year old Barringer Crater in Arizona. It's less than a mile in diameter and the meteor is estimated to have been about 150 feet across:This is fairly distinctive and even after 10,000 years on a coastline would still be very evident as a crater, particularly if 7-miles across.Your proposal of a world-wide flood in the last 10,000 years has a very simple test: was nearly all land-life wiped out about 10,000 years ago? The answer is no.If foraminifera, like diatoms, can be windborne, then finding them anywhere is not evidence of a flood. If you find relatively young remains of non-microscopic sea life on your trip out west then you've got something.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Do you still mean the Hebrew word 'erets' is never used to refer to the entire planet,

---

Yes.... are you now restricting you assertion that it lacks a reference to just the earth being a sphere?No.The sphere question is a bit off course from the flood issue itself. No it isn’t. If earth is a sphere, then it includes the sea by definition. As you have pointed out, earth is set in contrast to "heaven". What you fail to point out is that earth is also set in contrast to "sea" (Gen. 1:10; Ex. 20:11). Furthermore, by today's science we are aware that Earth is part and parcel of the heavens. This concept was unknown or unacceptable to those who penned the Book of Genesis. here is what one of my reference books stated. "In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used for earth as a planet is e'rets. Your reference book is biased and wrong.The Hebrew word "Erets" ... can refer to the entire planet earth ... the definition found in Strong's Hebrew dictionary ...an unused root probably meaning to be firm;If what Strong suggests is true, then the meaning could hardly include the sea. The sea is most assuredly not firm.The only way the usage of these two Hebrew words could supply any support for the theory that the Bible is describing a limited flood, is if only the Hebrew word 'adhamah' was used in describing the extent of the deluge and the word 'erets' was not used.This is the same argument as that regarding created versus made, and just as silly.... there is no linguistic support for the belief the flood account was mean to be description of a partial flooding of the earth.There is neither linguistic nor contextual support for the belief that the flood account was meant to be descriptive of a total flooding of the planet.... verses ... where the entire earth is obviously being referred to, ...
Genesis 1:29-30 "29 ... to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food."Do bugs have souls then? Do whales eat green vegetation?Previously you excluded the sea from your definition of earth.
You asserted that Earth could only mean dry land because otherwise air breathing sea life would have to be on the ark.
Now you want to include the sea because you need the word Earth to mean planet. Joshua 3:11"The ark of the covenant of the Lord of the whole earth" Jehovah did not rule the planet, nor was Nebuchadnezzar the "hammer" of the planet (Jer. 50:23). Yet both verses use the expression: "whole earth". Psalm 97:3-6 "4 His lightnings ... The earth saw and came to be in severe pains. The planet saw lightning and felt pain? How poetic. 5 The mountains themselves proceeded to melt just like wax More poetry. How quaint! Isaiah 40:22 ... Note the expression 'circle of the earth'. Circles are flat. Isaiah 51:13 " the foundation of the earth,"Like this helps your case!? Daniel 2:35 "... the stone ... became a large mountain and filled the whole earth." Is this supposed to convince us that earth means the planet?... three verses in Matthew where the entire earthly globe is referred to. (Mt 5:18, 35; 6:19)The "footstool" of God is the ark of the covenant, or the Temple, or Jerusalem itself. (1 Chr. 28:2; Ps. 132:7; Lam. 2:1). In those passages where it is called earth we may understand it to mean land, as in holy land.Considering what the reference works state, and the context of the above verses, it is very obvious that the bible makes references to the entire earth.Obvious to you, perhaps. Believe it or not, there are reference works which provide clearer, more unifying, interpretations.One of them even referring to the circle of the earth, or sphere as some bibles translate it.Most Bibles are created to support the status quo.
Some Bibles are intentionally biased.
All Bibles are created by men.So I see no restriction in the use of the Hebrew language for the flood description not to refer to the entire planet.The Hebrews had a perfectly good word, GULLAH which could have been used to describe the spherical earth. Yet, it was never used in that way. If you wish to understand restrictions on the language, look at restrictions on the science of the age. The Bronze Age.You made reference to the flood layer found by C. Leonard Wooley in the link you posted in your earlier post. ... I found a site that has a theory very much like yours, only I thought it better in a number of details. Perhaps you may want to check it out. Climate, Culture, and Catastrophe in the Ancient World You evidently failed to notice the graphic of the Karun River diversion, a possible mechanism for the unusual flooding of cities in the Mesopotamian Valley. Interesting that you wish to deny evidence of the great Mesopotamian flood, yet claim a more recent global flood, for which there is no evidence.------------
db------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

​

[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 02-28-2002]

Hey doctrbill. Interesting argument. I pondered over this awhile ago whether earth actually meant planet earth. Or dry land earth. I came to this conclusion, if heavan means sky, than earth means land. This seems to fit what knowledge Noah/Moses (you know, the mystery author to Genesis) would of been available at the time. So I went through the flood story and read it with sky and land in place. Well, this didn't sound like no global flood. Since I have limited knowledge of Hebrew (I only know about 10 words), there was no way of knowing for sure. So I just kept it in the memory banks for a later research task. In the meantime, I've mentioned it to many fundamentalist Christians who well, just don't seem to budge on the subject. I don't get it, he's an oppurtunity to show them the book doesn't contradict the evidence.Oh well, I still don't mind reading wmscott posts. Pretty interesting stuff, showing that the evidence can fit a global flood. I'll just stay out of the way and let this carry on...

Thanks for the feedback. I stumbled upon the solution to this question in 1995, after reading the first chapter of Genesis for the umpteenth time. I was studying the question of whether the earth was going to be destroyed, as the Fundie's proclaim.For me, the key was the word "firmament". What is a firmament? Answer that, and the rest falls into place quite nicely; providing you read carefully.It all begins in the water. The water is divided by the firmament. Sun, moon and stars go in the firmament (under the upper water). Earth appears "under" the firmament (in the lower water). And there is water under the earth (Exodus 20:4). The Universe is described as "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them" (Ex. 20:11). Thus, Earth and Sea are separate realities.Put this in your memory banks.----------
db

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
edge & Percipient;

​

You two seem to be on the same page today. Here are some links with evidence relating to a sudden flooding event in connection with the ice sheets.
"According to some scholars, catastrophic walls of ice broke off from the receding glaciers and joined a massive run-off of melt-water, scouring out the contours of the Mississippi River. It is envisioned that a sudden collapse of the NA ice cap produced a massive sea-level rise with the speed of a tidal wave around the world. It is likely that the river valley in the upper Mississippi was once 500 feet deeper than it is now, filled as it is with gravel and sand deposited by that melt-water. The accumulated Gulf of Mexico organisms have provided compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water about 11,600 years ago"
Glacial Lakes and Rivers form the Mississippi River Valley

---

Sorry, but this is not evidence. It is a "just so story" an assertion. It also does not acknowledge any water depths greater than 500 feet above the present sea level.

quote:

---

"these features are inferred to support the hypothesis that subglacial outburst floods beneath the Laurentide ice sheet crossed Georgian Bay and strongly sculpted the Bruce Peninsula"
http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/KorEvidenceThe1998.html

---

And this supports anything more than a local effect? You notice that it also apparently happened a number of times...

quote:

---

And evidence of a comet impact event associated with the Carolina bays. "the unique orbital and physical characteristics of a comet favor a model in which a high velocity retrograde comet or a low velocity prograde comet collided with the Earth. The incoming nucleus approached from the northwest and fragmented. The fragments, diverging from the main trajectory, volatized and subsequently exploded in the atmosphere near the surface. The resultant shock waves created shallow elliptical depressions which are best displayed in the sandy sediments of the Coastal Plain".
A RE-EVALUATION OF THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL ORIGIN OF THE CAROLINA BAYS

---

Nice anecdote, but how does it relate to the Pleistocene event that you propose? There is no argument that bolides do not occur only that one of them initiated a catastrophic ice melting event.Your "evidence" falls short. Sure we can put together anecdotal stories and they may be true in local effect. You have not given an iota of evidence to support a global flood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
It all begins in the water. The water is divided by the firmament. Sun, moon and stars go in the firmament (under the upper water). Earth appears "under" the firmament (in the lower water). And there is water under the earth (Exodus 20:4). The Universe is described as "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them" (Ex. 20:11). Thus, Earth and Sea are separate realities.

---

Thanks for that. I've always wondered whether the way they describe the physical world is different to how we perceive that they would of. Thus, it could give an answer to the confusion some might have about being literal with the Bible. However, I've never been able to get it to all come altogether. I think you've said it clearer than I was even thinking in the first place. I'm going to have to look into this more...

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
... The water is divided by the firmament. Sun, moon and stars go in the firmament (under the upper water). Earth appears "under" the firmament (in the lower water). ... Earth and Sea are separate realities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
Thanks for that. ... I'm going to have to look into this more...

---

This may help.http://www.geocities.com/anudei/Creation.html------------
db

doctrbill;You have admitted that your interpretation is in conflict with two bible reference works that clearly contradict what you say. Plus as the scriptures I posted showed, the whole earth is referred to at times in the bible. For our point of debate, it doesn't matter if the ancient Hebrews didn't know how big the earth was or if it was flat or round, the point is in each case is whether or not they were only referring to a part or all of it. The words used, according to bible references can mean all of the earth. The context in the scriptures I posted was also clear in referring to all the earth. The Hebrews didn't need to know the size or shape of the earth to say all the earth or the whole earth. Just as today we can make statements referring to the entire universe even if we don't know the size of the universe or comprehend it fully. The scripture in Daniel 2:35 "And as for the stone that struck the image, it became a large mountain and filled the whole earth." is referring to the Messianic Kingdom that according to bible prophecy will one day destroy the governments of the world and will extend its ruler ship to cover the entire earth. The fact that the Kingdom is to rule over the whole planet is shown by statements such as 'all nations' referring to all the nations on earth everywhere. Revelation 7:9 "After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations" The great crowd here referred to, comes out of all nations everywhere, not just from nations in one area or part of the earth. The whole point of Jesus' message was that salvation was available to all, so restricting 'whole earth' in Daniel would be in conflict with the basic message of Christianity. Galatians 3:8 Plus your thought that 'earth' can never include the sea is unreasonable, for it would require that the Hebrews believed that Jehovah's rulership of the earth ended at the sea shore. Rather we find that they believed Jehovah had mastery over the sea, even parting one for them to walk through it. I find your idea of limiting all bible references to the earth to strictly a portion there of, in complete conflict with scripture, bible references and common sense.I didn't miss the graphic of the Karun River diversion on that web page, I wanted you to see it. The theory they are suggesting was that a rise in sea level flooded the area and created the diversion of the Karun river, possible they are referring to the delta a river forms when it enters standing flood water. This makes much better sense than a river flood, for rivers carry sediment and leave a layer of it behind after a flood. Sea water like lake water, doesn't have much of a sediment load, the sediment settles out in deltas as the river water enters the still water of the ocean or a large lake. Thus a brief marine flood would not leave behind a sediment layer, which as the archeology evidence shows, there is not a universal flood sediment layer to be found in the Mesopotamian valley. The sudden temporary jump in sea level caused by a sudden release of glacial melt waters is also very reasonable. What I differ on is that I believe the rise was much greater, and the timing earlier than they fix the date in respect to some events. But like I said, it is a better theory than a regional river flood and much more workable.PercipientOn glacial flows, if you take the sum, the total equals a deluge. The one site I listed described the result being a sudden large rise in sea level spreading around the world with the speed of a tidal wave. The idea of a comet induced release of glacial meltwater is that many noted releases may have happened at the same time, which would have resulted in a sudden and very large rise in sea level. Other releases of course have occurred over the comings and goings of the various stages of the ice age.On the Carolina bays being formed by impacts, I highly recommend the book "The Mysterious Carolina Bays" by Henry Savage Jr. 1982. The book is out of print and a bit hard to get hold of, but well worth it. It covers the history of the controversy on how the Bays were formed and covers all of the technical points very nicely. It is true that the Bays were not formed by meteors, but by comet fragments. A comet exploded over the Ohio river valley in the Midwest, allowing for various effects, all of the Bays point to this area. The individual impacting comet fragments exploded on contact blasting open a shallow depression. The Siberian event blast occurred at about 10,000 ft and the area of knocked down trees is the same shape as a Carolina Bay. If the blast had occurred at ground level, a depression in that shape would have been created in an area with a sandy soil like the area the bays are found in. The author even mentions "Near Camden South Carolina is a long farm drainage ditch with a depth of about fourteen feet. Exposed at the bottom of the ditch are masses of prostrate timbers, many of considerable size, indicating a massive blow-down." page 96, the similarity with the Siberian event is obvious. Inside the Bays, coring the ground has revealed that the original surface was removed and a raised rim formed. This action occurred very quickly, for the bottom of the bays show no sign of gradual action in that the next layer is lake bottom which then filled in over time. The rims also contain fractured shells and pebbles, and these same shells and pebbles are unbroken when found in other areas. The Bays are also found in a patter of over lapping and in rows that only a bombardment pattern of comet fragments could create. The Bays are eroding away, they are not being formed by processes in action today. There are no new ones forming and no other answer for their creation that makes more sense then comet impacts has been put forward. Any theory can be attacked, but let us see if you can find a better one, otherwise if by nothing else, the impact theory wins by default."If foraminifera, like diatoms, can be wind borne, then finding them anywhere is not evidence of a flood." No they are too large to be wind carried, so it will be interesting to see what happens when I hopefully find them. Beautiful picture of Barringer Crater by the way.

Mr wmscott,Indeed,scripture often time refers to "the whole world" quite clearly. Wanna know what else is clear? That they had no idea how absolutely ENORMOUS the world really was. Lets leave aside their no less obvious belief in a flat disk shaped earth for a moment and concentrate on the fact that they believe that A: A tree could grow to be high enough to be seen from anywhere on "the whole world" and B:that it was possible to climb on a mountain high enough to actually SEE "the whole world". So when you look at things in that context,its easy to see why they would believe the the mesopotamian flood,which left much evidence BTW,was actually a GLOBAL flood...they honnestly believed that the Middle East was in fact "the whole world"...