Some water measurements for the Flood

HBD, just as we know the Pharisees in Jesus' time (and all the way up to the present for that matter) missed the boat on their own scriptures, we have no reason to think that any diagram of "Ancient Hebrew Conceptions of the Universe" carries any weight of understanding over how a Spirit-led Christian reads the scriptures.

But what does the Bible say Faith? What are the actual words, not what FAITH thinks it should say?

Does Genesis 7 say ...

"Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

What is the model, mechanism, process and method to open all the fountains of the deep (whatever they are) and the windows of heaven (what ever they are) on one single 24 hour day?

Once we know that we can move on to see if there is any evidence of that model, mechanism, process and method ever happening or even being possible.

That model was built on a simple, straightforward reading of scripture. Are you now saying that a modern day, Spirit-filled Christian reads the Bible in a way other than a straightforward, simple way and understands the text differently than a simple, straightforward reading would present? Maybe with a modern understanding of cosmology and physical processes?

HBD

Once we know that we can move on to see if there is any evidence of that model, mechanism, process and method ever happening or even being possible.

We don't need to know all those specifics, we just need to believe what the scriptures say. We don't need to know exactly what "fountains of the deep" or "windows of heaven" means, we just need to know that they are treated in scripture as the sources of the water that flooded the Earth, one source above, one beneath. I see no reason to regard either as miraculous, especially since both persisted after the Flood in some form or other, so I think of them as metaphorical phrases for natural processes, but we certainly don't need to be looking for a model to find out whether any of this is "possible" or not because this is the word of God we're talking about. Whatever it means, it actually happened.

HOW it happened is very interesting to think about, that's the whole enterprise of creationism after all, but we don't need science to tell us whether or not it is true, if we are believers then we know it is true whether we know exactly how it happened or not.

Edited by Faith, : fix quote code

That model was built on a simple, straightforward reading of scripture. Are you now saying that a modern day, Spirit-filled Christian reads the Bible in a way other than a straightforward, simple way and understands the text differently than a simple, straightforward reading would present? Maybe with a modern understanding of cosmology and physical processes?

A "simple" reading doesn't mean a stupid reading, or a blockheaded physicalistic literal type reading, and yes, the more real knowledge of how things operate the better for understanding what the scripture means. Of course.

So once again instead of facts you present opinion?

As expected.

However, why Faith, who insists on a clear and simple reading of the Bible, would depart from such a clear and simple reading is beyond me.

Easily answered. It is readily apparent is that some Creationists claims to legitimacy, namely that they use the straightforward, no-compromise reading of the text are without real substance. Often what we see is an attempt to shovel doctrine into the Bible. The Flood story is an apt example, because the particular Creationist version Faith holds to is rife with non-textual assumptions.

Nothing new. This is something that was pointed out during the Grand Canyon discussion. Exactly what does the Bible say about that anyway?

Perhaps opinion is all that's possible in some cases. Your view that science can tell us whether the scriptural description is possible or not is certainly opinion, reprehensible opinion that puts fallible human thought above God.

So now you're all feverishly engaged in trying to define what a "clear and simple reading" means as if your view of that carries any more weight than the Biblical Creationist view of it? Wow. The language about these things is NOT simple and clear, it is open to some interpretation. You like your miracle interpretation, but there's no ground for making that view hard and fast, you are merely persuaded by it so leave it at that. I find the language metaphorical and believe it is a way of describing natural processes that still remain mysterious to us. Why are you arguing at this level of angels dancing on the head of a pin anyway?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: I should have said something more like "Hope of success is beyond our meager resources." It would be hard enough, and probably impossible really, to get a few hundred people praying with enough consistency and fervency to make the Mojave desert bloom, but when you are talking about praying to solve the problem of millions of people displaced by evil political machinations in the name of militant Islam, that would take millions of prayer warriors praying around the clock, a tall order. Of course, as you say, we can all pray about it anyway and hope we have some positive impact on the problem. Usually it's a great thing if we have enough united prayer to deal with a local problem in the local church.

So prayer doesn't work.

Your view that science can tell us whether the scriptural description is possible or not is certainly opinion, reprehensible opinion that puts fallible human thought above God.

Again, God wrote the universe, man wrote the Bible. I believe what God wrote not what humans wrote.

Why are you arguing at this level of angels dancing on the head of a pin anyway?

I've made the reasons behind my questions perfectly clear. My point is that your interpretation is non-textual to the point of being a sham.

Again, congratulations on doing some arithmetic correctly. But right now the calculations, which by the way are not measurements, have no point.

Again, God wrote the universe, man wrote the Bible. I believe what God wrote not what humans wrote.

No you don't, you believe what humans say about the universe. That's why God inspired the Bible, to save us from our fallible minds.

The sham is your crazy insistence that something has to be miraculous just because you can't tell a metaphor from a literal description.

Faith writes: The sham is your crazy insistence that something has to be miraculous just because you can't tell a metaphor from a literal description.

Is there a beam in your eye at all?