Source of biblical flood water?

Dear Sidelined; "windows of heaven" refers to rain falling from clouds."fountains of the deep" my thought here is that this refers to water coming from the ocean to cover the land. This has already been done here on this board in the two threads on "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood" http://EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood -->EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood & http://EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II -->EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II which reached the conclusion that my theory was plausible but that my supporting evidence was inadequate to convince most here on the board that it actually happened and that I need to gather additional evidence and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. In my spare time I am working towards that goal. There would be little point in rehashing what has already been debated at great length, but I would be happy to outline my flood theory for you if you wish.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Loudmouth; My theory explains a plausible way of flooding the entire earth at the end of the last Ice Age, in that the rising sea level would have reached the edges of the ice sheets and glaciers and the entire world would have been covered by water, just that the high points would have been covered by water in the form of ice. I would cover Mt Everest with water in the form of a glacier that would reach down to the flood raised sea level. The flood model I am proposing is a global model with a total submergence of all non glaciated land surfaces.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia; Actually my explanation of the water above being clouds and water below being the seas works very well, read the verses.
(Genesis 1:6-10) ".And God went on to say: "Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters." Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day. And God went on to say: "Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear." And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas."The waters "beneath the expanse" are clearly the seas as stated, and the water above the expanse would be the clouds.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia; The fact that the "water above" refers to clouds is stated repeatedly in the Bible. (Proverbs 8:27-28) "When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, when he made firm the cloud masses above ,"The idea that the Bible was written without a knowledge of water coming from clouds is ridiculous, just a simple check of a few verses shows that it was very well understood. (1 Kings 18:45) "the heavens themselves darkened up with clouds and wind and a great downpour began to occur."
(Job 38:34) "Can you raise your voice even to the cloud, So that a heaving mass of water itself may cover you?"
(Zechariah 10:1) "Make YOUR requests of Jehovah for rain in the time of the spring rain, even of Jehovah who is making the storm clouds, and [who] gives a downpour of rain to them, to each one vegetation in the field." This seems to be a common misconception, but while ancient people believed in a solid sky, that concept is not taught in the Bible. The error that the Bible teaches this can probably be traced back in part to when the Greek Septuagint translated the Hebrew word raqia` as stereoma which does have a meaning of a solid sky which the Hebrew used did not. I see some have been referring to Job 37:18 and twisting it to make it appear that it states that the heavens are solid, here read it in context.(Job 36:26-37:18) "Behold! God is more exalted than we can know; In number his years are beyond searching. For he draws up the drops of water; They filter as rain for his mist, So that the clouds trickle, They drip upon mankind abundantly. Indeed, who can understand the cloud layers, The crashings from his booth? . . . For to the snow he says, 'Fall earthward,' And [to] the downpour of rain, even [to] the downpour of his strong rains. . . . Yes, with moisture he burdens the cloud, His light scatters the cloud mass, And it is being turned round about by his steering [them] for their performance Wherever he commands them upon the face of the productive land of the earth. . . . With him can you beat out the skies Hard like a molten mirror?"The preceding verses show a knowledge of the heavens which clearly show that the heavens are not solid, for how could "drops of water" be drawn up into the clouds to fall as rain if the heavens were really as hard as a molten mirror? Notice the use of the word "like" in verse 18, the verse is making a poetic comparison. We find the same expression used in other Bible books.(Leviticus 26:19-20) "And I shall have to break the pride of YOUR strength and make YOUR heavens like iron and YOUR earth like copper. And YOUR power will simply be expended for nothing, as YOUR earth will not give its yield, and the tree of the earth will not give its fruit."
(Deuteronomy 28:23-24) "Your skies that are over your head must also become copper, and the earth that is beneath you iron. Jehovah will give powder and dust as the rain of your land."Jehovah God was not saying that he would literally turn the sky into copper or iron and the earth into copper or iron, just the interchangeability of the two words "iron" & "copper" in the two verses should be enough to tell you that. What he was saying was that he would make the ground hard like iron or copper because it wasn't going to rain. If they failed to obey Jehovah, he would withhold rain and their ground would become hard and uncultivable. The sky would become like copper, iron or a metal mirror; by not having any clouds. Jehovah would clear the sky of clouds carrying any rain, and the sky would look like a mirror or a piece of shinny metal, without any moisture. That is what Job 37:18 is asking "can you beat out the skies Hard like a molten mirror?" can you clear the skies and stop the rain like Jehovah can do? Job was being asked if he could control the weather like God can, the speaker wasn't stating that he thought that the sky was metal. (or Job could have been asked if he could create the sky)Much of this perceived conflict between science and the Bible is due to the Catholic church's adoption of Aritotle's philosophy as part of their doctrine in the middle ages. I recommend that you get a hold of the April 1 2005 issue of the Watchtower "Science and the Bible; Do They contradict Each other?" pages 3-7. This article explains the issue quite nicely and could clear up most of your misunderstanding. Otherwise you are going to be constantly arguing about this or that biblical scientific error when you are in reality just tripping over Thomas Aquinas.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia; I would suggest that you need to look up the word 'firm' in the dictionary.When the Bible states that God made the heavens 'firm', it means that he made them to last, not that they were solid. Figurative speech, a metaphor. Here the same expression is used in a clearly figurative way. (Malachi 3:10) "Bring all the tenth parts into the storehouse, that there may come to be food in my house; and test me out, please, in this respect," Jehovah of armies has said, "whether I shall not open to YOU people the floodgates of the heavens and actually empty out upon YOU a blessing until there is no more want." Ever hear the expression "it rained cats and dogs"? Are you going to say real cats and dogs were falling from the sky? When the Bible states that" the floodgates of the heavens" were opened, it is just saying that it was a real down pour. (WmScott sighs and shakes his head) This is very very simple, look closely at the wording in the above verse. Notice the term "Firm as a" the verse isn't saying that the heavens are a metal mirror, they are saying that the heavens are firm or lasting or unbreakable like a metal mirror. It is not saying that the heavens are made of metal, just look at the first part of the verse, that the heavens are stretched out, another figure of speech which if taken literally would conflict with a literal interpretation of the heavens being made of cast metal. Cast metals don't stretch very well, just think of cast iron. So you would have a thin sheet of metal in the first part of the verse and a thick cast hand mirror in the second part, by missing the symbolism of the wording, you create a conflict that isn't because you are misunderstanding the verse. Your argument is based on two points, a misunderstanding of the wording used and a lack of knowledge of the social context. First off, the Jews didn't believe as other people of the time did, that the sky was solid. This fact is proven by their knowledge of the way the water cycle worked with water vapor being drawn up into the clouds and then rain falling from the clouds, such knowledge would be incompatible with a primitive sky dome point of view. With the oceans being put below the expanse and the clouds above in Genesis, and with biblical statements of water going up into the clouds and rain falling to earth, the Hebrews believed in water moving freely through the expanse or heavens. So they clearly didn't view the sky as a dome or roof if they believed rain fell through it.The wording used is certainly poetic and would be self contradictory if taken as a literal description of a metal dome. The Bible is full of symbolic poetic figures of speech, to take an overly literal interpretation would be to fall into the same trap of the YECs who insist on interpreting the six creative days in Genesis as literal 24 hour days when the context clearly indicates that they were creative time periods of unstated length. Such narrow minded thinking creates all sorts of silly problems and misunderstandings. Or are you still wary of going outside because of falling cats and dogs? Apparently you are thinking of something else, I have seen the type of material you are thinking of, and your description is correct. The Watchtower is cut from a different cloth, while clearly written, I have never heard anyone condemn it as being written on a level for children, normally I hear the complaint about it sometimes getting too deep.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia; The first definition you cited states "1 a : securely or solidly fixed in place", an object doesn't have to be stiff or firm to be firmly fixed in place in regard to physical mounting or in regard to how long it is intended to last. A sail can be firmly affixed to the mast, the fat from last night's dinner can be firmly attached to your waist and earth can be said to firmly fixed in its orbit. This is just basic grammar, does your argument require you to argue over the word 'firm'? If so, how 'firm' is your foundation? And as I pointed out that the Bible states that water is in the form of clouds. No, firmly established and made to last forever like a metal mirror. (tank) Viewing it as saying the heavens are metal, is in conflict with the context in the chapter and what is written in other parts of the Bible. For a blacksmith or other primitive metal worker, casting and hammer out sheet metal are two different processes and in Job they are listed in the wrong order for it to be a literal two step process. If it was literal as you say, casting would be first then the reference to pounding thin. The Jews were not Babylonians and I am aware of what some references say on this and the face that there are others that say just the opposite. The Bible context is not one that supports the primitive sky dome viewpoint that the surrounding nations of the time believed in. If you would have read the article referred you to, you would have learned the reason for this common error. Unless you expand your sources of study to include the better material that is out there that firmly supports the Bible, you are limiting yourself to arguments that are more against the Bible than for it, which gives you a unbalanced viewpoint. You can't see the positive because you only consider the negative. This limitation predetermines the out come of your judgement on the matter. The references to shaking the heavens are all figurative, just look and see.
(Haggai 2:6-7) "For this is what Jehovah of armies has said, 'Yet onceit is a little whileand I am rocking the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry ground.' "'And I will rock all the nations, and the desirable things of all the nations must come in; and I will fill this house with glory,' Jehovah of armies has said." The 'desirable things' are people who will serve God, the 'earth' is mankind and the 'heavens' are the governments which are over mankind.You can see the same symbolic reference using the term 'heavens' to refers to governments.
(Isaiah 34:2-5) "For Jehovah has indignation against all the nations, and rage against all their army. He must devote them to destruction; he must give them to the slaughter. And their slain ones will be thrown out; and as for their carcasses, their stink will ascend; and the mountains must melt because of their blood. And all those of the army of the heavens must rot away. And the heavens must be rolled up, just like a book scroll; and their army will all shrivel away, just as the leafage shrivels off the vine and like a shriveled [fig] off the fig tree. "For in the heavens my sword will certainly be drenched. Look! Upon Edom it will descend, "And here again in 2Peter we see it again.
(2 Peter 3:5-7) "that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men."At the time of the flood the literal heavens were not destroyed, nor was the literal earth, it was the 'world' of wicked mankind that was destroyed and at Armageddon the 'heavens' meaning the governments and the 'earth' meaning those of mankind opposed to God are destroyed by 'fire'. This is also shown by that the 'heavens and earth that are now' are destroyed by the 'destruction of ungodly men".So there is no support for saying that the symbolic language used in the Bible about god shaking the heavens means that they are viewed as a primitive sky dome. In the Bible there are no oceans in the sky, that is just an attempt made by some to try to explain how the flood happened, but it is unsupported biblically. We are clearly told that the waters above are clouds, (Proverbs 8:27-28) "When he prepared the heavens . . . the cloud masses above." and that they are still there. (Psalm 148:4) "Praise him, YOU heavens of the heavens, And YOU waters that are above the heavens." The biblical waters above were not some heavenly ocean that fell to the earth in the flood, they are simply the clouds. The fact that each creative day is described as having a morning and an evening does not in itself require that they be literal days. Remember many things in the Bible are told in signs that have larger meanings like the parables Jesus told. Sometimes you have think a bit to discover the answer, this is part of how things in the Bible were hidden by God. On the length of the creative days, each one had a morning and an evening, all but the seventh day. Each of the earlier days we are told ended, but not the seventh, the Bible indicates that it is still on going. At Genesis 2:3 the seventh day starts and is on going, being referred to in Hebrew chapter 4 as still going on. In fact the seventh day is believed to last at least until the end of Christ millennium reign, which would give it a minimum length of over 7,000 years.The scriptural evidence is that the creative days are long periods of time rather than literal 24 hour long days. In the Bible, the term 'day' is used to refer to a period of time, it can refer to a literal day or it can refer to a much longer period of time or age. (Isaiah 13:9) "Look! The day of Jehovah itself is coming," (Jeremiah 11:4) "I commanded YOUR forefathers in the day of my bringing them out of the land of Egypt," (Ezekiel 21:29) "the wicked men whose day has come" (Exodus 10:6) "your fathers' fathers have not seen it from the day of their existing" (1 Samuel 7:2) "And it came about that from the day of the Ark's dwelling in Kiriath-jearim the days kept multiplying, so that they amounted to twenty years," (Psalm 110:3) "Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day of your military force." (2 Corinthians 6:2) "For he says: "In an acceptable time I heard you, and in a day of salvation I helped you." Look! Now is the especially acceptable time. Look! Now is the day of salvation." In each of these examples, the term day is used to refer to a time period much longer than 24 hours. But are the creative days literal or are they too references to longer time periods? An answer is found at (Genesis 2:4) "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." here the six creative days and the untold time before the first day, are referred to as one day, which only makes sense if in referring to creation, long periods of time are referred to in the Genesis accounts of creation. Then one day, or long period of time, could equal six 'days' or periods of time, but there is no way one literal day can be equal in length to six literal days, so the only way this makes sense is if the Genesis creative days are of long unspecified lengths. The creative days are event related stages of time in the creation of life on our planet. The biblical term day is sometimes an open ended time period, to determine the length of each creative day, we would need to date when the events that happened on each day, occurred. The evidence found implies that the creative days were of varying lengths, with some being possibly billons of years long. If you consider that fact that life was progressively created over the length of these long periods of time, any perceived conflict with the fossil record disappears.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia; You always get hung up on this point of roots, a compounded word has a different meaning than the root word which is why the writer used it instead of the root word. Notice also the definition stated "securely or solidly" which should be a clue on the meaning used. My point on the sail was that it being made of cloth, it is not rigid and yet it can be firmly secured. My point was that even non rigid things can be made firm without being made rigid, to show what it is a figure of speech. But you are still hung up in my little illustration, yes gases can be made firm too, by being bonded to surfaces, encapsulated and other processes. So even humans can make gases firm. God made the heavens firm in that he made them to last. To try to say that the Bible literally states that the sky is metal, is like the YECs who prowl through science books looking for things to try to support YEC. They grab a phrase here or there while ignoring the fact that they are taking it out of context and that their interpretation of it runs counter to what the author is trying to say. You are taking a phrase and a poetic expression out of context and misinterpreting in a way that conflicts with the overall biblical description of the subject. Actually lasting forever does spring to mind first. (Deuteronomy 32:4) "The Rock, perfect is his activity," In the Bible God is frequently referred to as being a rock, this doesn't mean he is a literal rock, it is referring to the fact that he is eternal and unchanging. Yes that is my point, it is Hebrew poetry, it is not a literal description! You accept that both the casting and stretching are figurative, yet you insist that a literal metal is being referred to. The reason for that is simple, you are clinging to your belief that the Bible teaches primitive thoughts of man and is not the Word of God. This is part of the justification for your belief system, to see this point would put a crack in your foundation, so you refuse to see it because you can't afford to. I am trying to make you see something that is in the center of one of your blind spots, unless you shift your viewpoint a bit, you will never see it. Wow! Good point! But no, that still doesn't make the Jews Babylonians any more than Americans are British. The point of Gen 11:31 is that they left Ur and became a separate people with their own identity and beliefs which were different from the Chaldeans. The independent accounts that Moses put together in writing the book of Genesis included the oral or written records handed down through the Flood, it is from these early accounts that the Babylonians stories draw their information. The Babylonian accounts have been changed, but the common source is still obvious as you pointed out. Gen 36:31 isn't a problem, it was written by Moses who also wrote (Genesis 35:11) ". . .and kings will come out of your loins." (Deuteronomy 28:36) "Jehovah will march you and your king whom you will set up over you . . ."
(Deuteronomy 17:14-20) "When you eventually come into the land that Jehovah your God is giving you, and you have taken possession of it and have dwelt in it, and you have said, 'Let me set a king over myself like all the nations who are round about me'; you should without fail set over yourself a king whom Jehovah your God will choose. From among your brothers you should set a king over yourself. You will not be allowed to put over yourself a foreigner who is not your brother. Only he should not increase horses for himself, nor make the people go back to Egypt in order to increase horses; whereas Jehovah has said to YOU, 'YOU must never go back again by this way.' He should also not multiply wives for himself, that his heart may not turn aside; nor should he increase silver and gold for himself very much. And it must occur that when he takes his seat on the throne of his kingdom, he must write in a book for himself a copy of this law from that which is in the charge of the priests, the Levites. "And it must continue with him, and he must read in it all the days of his life, in order that he may learn to fear Jehovah his God so as to keep all the words of this law and these regulations by doing them; that his heart may not exalt itself above his brothers and that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right or to the left, in order that he may lengthen his days upon his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel."Moses knew that Israel would one day have kings, it was common knowledge to him. Also consider that no one thought that is was an error, until people began to doubt God' word and started to look for excuses not to believe. Considering how much you have bragged up the JPS I am surprised that they have this wrong. Look at what Strong states on the Hebrew word used in this verse.Strong's Number: 7834
Transliterated: shachaq
Phonetic: shakh'-akText: from 7833; a powder (as beaten small): by analogy, a thin vapor; by extension, the firmament: --cloud, small dust, heaven, sky.And as shown by Psalm 148:4 the Hebrews viewed the waters above as still being there, and as shown by many scriptures, they knew water came from the clouds, hence the water above was the clouds. Not inconsistent, the clouds are above the Hebrew heaven, they are the water above. As to where the water went, it is still here, the sealevel was lower in the Ice Age. The two accounts don't conflict. Don't you think Moses; or who ever you think actually wrote it, wouldn't have noticed? Why are all of these 'contradictions' only apparent to modern critics and were invisible to earlier readers? I mean if I was the complier of the Genesis account, and I mean for it to be interpreted as you do, I certainly would have corrected the 'contradiction'. The fact that this error wasn't corrected despite how plainly obvious it would have been, can only mean that it isn't an error. And the only way they could not have viewed it as an error is if the days referred to, were not literal. The ancient Hebrews had to of viewed the creative days as a poetic description rather than a literal six days. I meant all of the major conflicts with the fossil record. Most of the other contradicts are problems of your interpretation and are not real. The Hebrews certainly knew that you can't grow plants without light, ever wonder how they understood the account? Obviously your interpretation is flawed.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia; NO one has yet to prove that the Bible is inconsistent or inaccurate, time and time again, such claims have been proven false. The reason such claims are made despite the evidence to the contrary is simple. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) "If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through." I answered this once before for you, and now you post it again, you are displaying a flat learning curve. The answer was so simple and so basic I was shocked that you even asked it the first time. If you really want to know the answer, reread that post, maybe the effort of having to search for it will help you remember the answer this time. I don't see anything to debate about, the whole law code given to Israel was centered on worshipping Jehovah at the temple and the command given at Deu 12:13&14 is a repetition of the commands given earlier in Exodus.
(Exodus 23:17) "On three occasions in the year every male of yours will appear before the face of the [true] Lord, Jehovah".
(Exodus 34:23-24) "Three times in the year every male of yours is to appear before the [true] Lord, Jehovah, the God of Israel. For I shall drive the nations away from before you, and I will make your territory spacious; and nobody will desire your land while you are going up to see the face of Jehovah your God three times in the year."The Israelites worship was centered on the tabernacle and later the temple, any offering made at another location while in the wilderness was viewed a worshipping another god and the penalty was death.(Leviticus 17:3-5) "'"As for any man of the house of Israel who slaughters a bull or a young ram or a goat in the camp or who slaughters it outside the camp and does not actually bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to Jehovah before the tabernacle of Jehovah, bloodguilt will be counted to that man. He has shed blood, and that man must be cut off from among his people, 5 in order that the sons of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they are sacrificing in the open field, and they must bring them to Jehovah to the entrance of the tent of meeting to the priest, and they must sacrifice these as communion sacrifices to Jehovah."
(Leviticus 17:8-9) "And you should say to them, 'As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who may be residing as an alien in YOUR midst who offers up a burnt offering or a sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to render it to Jehovah, that man must be cut off from his people."Once they were in the promised land, the building of an altar was enough to raise suspicions of false worship and nearly caused a civil war.(Joshua 22:10-16) "then the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar great in conspicuousness. Later on the other sons of Israel heard it said: "Look! The sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar on the frontier of the land of Canaan in the regions of the Jordan on the side belonging to the sons of Israel." When the sons of Israel got to hear of it, the whole assembly of the sons of Israel were then congregated at Shiloh to go up for military action against them. . . . "This is what all the assembly of Jehovah have said, 'What is this act of unfaithfulness that YOU have perpetrated against the God of Israel in turning back today from following Jehovah by YOUR building for yourselves an altar, that YOU may rebel today against Jehovah?"I suppose you will say that this history was all fabricated much later and the events are made up, but even that argument fails when you consider the fact that Jesus when replying to the Devil "It is written" quoted from the book of Deuteronomy. I see that in your other posts you state that you are a christian, if you believe Christ was the Christ, I don't see how you can reject Bible books as inspired when Jesus cited them as such. If you believe that Jesus didn't know any better, that would preclude Jesus from having come from heaven since then we would have known, and rejecting that would be in conflict with claiming to be a christian.
(John 3:13-16) "Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life. "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son,"To call one's self a christian, you have to believe what he taught; that he was the son of God and came down from heaven to die for our sins and was raised from the dead and is alive in the heavens. If you don't believe that, then you can't say that you are a christian. To claim to be a christian, one at least has to believe what he said, just thinking he as a nice guy who taught some wise teachings doesn't make the definition of being a christian. (unless of course you want to use the definition of christian of 'a person who is a member of a christian religion', but then you would be a christian in name only and not in truth.)I am cutting back on my time spent on this, it is spring and I have projects to do and I don't seem to be getting anywhere with you anyway. So my future posts if any will be somewhat reduced, unless you can really come up with something worth the time.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson