The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Biblical flood

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

"If this event occurred as described in the Bible, the fossil record left behind could never be correctly interpreted by a naturalist."

This should be changed. There's no reason to think a naturalist couldn't correctly interpret a fossil record which showed a single massive global flood followed by repopulation by surviving animals radiating from Anatolia. Nor is it a question of a prior belief in the non-existence of the flood, since some of the 18th/19th century geologists who developed modern geological ideas started with the belief that there had been a flood, but were unable to reconcile that belief with the evidence they found.

Is a global flood possible?

Even evolutionists readily admit that their are marine fossils on mountaintops. This shows that the material of the mountain was once a sea floor. PrometheusX303 23:49, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

Regional Flood

Ungtss, do you favor the gloabl or regional flood? Your recent edits seem very much in favor of the latter. PrometheusX303 01:29, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

In a sense, what Ungtss believes doesn't matter; what matters are the facts. So I would like Ungtss to explain the paragraph in his edit:
In the original Hebrew, the Genesis Flood account does not explicitly state that the flood was universal. It states that "the land was covered" and and "Life died," but nowhere in the Hebrew is it explicitly stated that all life died in the flood.
in the light of Genesis 6:17, I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. (NIV) which appears to contradict the claim he included.
Philip J. Rayment 02:19, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Hey fellas -- figured this edit might turn out controversial. First to Mr. Hoffman -- I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the issue ... I hope to develop stronger opinions as I learn more, and I hope to learn more through my discussions with all of you. My only intent here is to articulate this point of view.
Now to Mr. Rayment: You're absolutely right about the English indicating that the flood covered the whole earth and wiped out all of humanity. And I've always taken that for granted. But today I was reading some Josephus, noticed a strong implication that the flood was regional, and decided to go to the Hebrew. The verse you quoted is "Hinneh aniy bow mabbuwl mayim erets shachath basar ruwach chay tachath shamayim kol erets gava." Literally, that translates to, "Behold I bring flood waters earth destroy flesh breath life under heavens all earth die." It does not explicitly say that the "waters covered the Whole Earth," as it does in English. It does not explicitly say that all life was killed during the flood (indeed, the fish must have survived, so that wouldn't be true). The author may well have intended it to mean that "waters covered the entire Earth," but the Hebrew unfortunately appears ambiguous to me.
Now to both: What do you think we ought to do with the reference to the sons of Anak in Numbers?
Hope I didn't ruffle any feathers ... just here to learn, and grateful for any insights you'd be willing to provide ... Ungtss 03:09, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
<<figured this edit might turn out controversial>>
And I figured that you might be trying to draw a distinction between the English and Hebrew. Do you understand Hebrew? I don't, but I wonder what you think the word "all" in the transliteration refers to. I'll probably look up other sources later, but could you answer these questions in the meantime?
Philip J. Rayment 06:31, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Not an expert in Hebrew by any means -- I use the concordance at blueletterbible.org. The all seems to refer to "Earth," but i guess the only point I'm making is that it doesn't explicitly state that the entire Earth was covered in water, as it does in the English -- it seems to leave room for ambiguity. Plus, the quote you gave is Jehovah's plan and contains the word "All," but the accounts about what occurred during the flood do not contain that word. Given the ambiguity, I'm struck by the fact that the Greeks, Muslims, Babylonians, and some Jews (like Josephus) remember the flood and remember it as being regional ... Ungtss 12:47, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Okay, so you don't know Hebrew any better than me. It is obvious from the transliteration you provided that Hebrew uses a different grammar than English, so you have no real idea what the word "all" applies to. That being the case, why not accept the expertise of the experts, the translators who gave us the English Bibles? Surely they would know how to understand the Hebrew better than you or I. Ah, that reminds me of a quote that I can add to the article. :-)
Accept the expertise of those in the field? Oh my:). What would creationism come to if we started "accepting the expertise" of "experts in the field" of say ... biology:)? Ungtss 19:58, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Okay, I'll have to qualify that a bit. ;-) Accept the expertise of the experts when (a) there is a consensus (not necessarily absolute unanimity) and (b) when their views are not based on presuppositions that differ from our own. Evolutionary biology is ruled out by (b) if not (a) also. The quote I added (by James Barr) passes both criteria. (Barr does not believe Genesis to be true, but is honestly saying what the writer intended the reader to understand.) Philip J. Rayment 08:56, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Interesting:) ... I'd question both of your criteria tho:). As to A, science is the history of discarded consensuses, so I see no reason to accept a consensus unless there are hard reasons to accept it ... As to B, I don't think that the fact that we share presuppositions with a person affects their credibility -- what if both of our presuppositions are wrong? -- I prefer to go to the hard facts, because the facts don't lie, and allow me to test my presuppositions, as well as everyone else's:). In other words, the experts should not rely on their credibility to prove their points, but bring us the facts:). That's what I'm after in this section ... y'know? Ungtss 12:39, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
I was raising this in the context of neither of us understanding Hebrew. Sure, the facts are better than opinions, but where you don't have hard facts (either because they are not available to you or because its a bit of an art rather than an exact science, as language and translation tend to be), then it is proper to rely on experts. (Language and translation is not an exact science because there is not a one-to-one equivalence of words in different languages and there are different grammars, different euphemisms and idioms, different meanings depending on context, and all sorts of other subtle considerations that can make it difficult to understand any language, let alone one we are not familiar with.) Philip J. Rayment 12:59, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
I wish we had some experts that could provide us with some facts as to why it's traditionally been interpretted as a universal flood, rather than their opinions. you quoted one source's opinion ... did he provide facts as well? or are you aware of anyone else that might help us here? Ungtss 17:03, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
I think that you have it a bit mixed up and back to front. I didn't quote one source's opinion. I quoted one source that gave us the consensus of all the experts. And it wasn't merely an opinion. He was describing what the text actually says—i.e. he was telling us that the text says that it was global. The real question is why others (non-experts) choose to interpret the text to mean something other than what it says. Here is a fuller version of the quote, by the way:
...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.
Now I'm not certain about the global flood aspect, but certainly the idea that the world was created around 4000 BC (give or take say 1000 years) was pretty well the universal view until the 19th century when liberal scholars started to apply evolutionary ideas to the Bible. That is, (virtually?) nobody read millions of years from the Biblical text until "secular" (i.e. atheistic) views about the age of the Earth took hold. That is, they read it into the Bible rather than got it from the Bible. I suspect the same applies to the Flood, i.e. that nobody believed that it was anything but global until they wanted to accommodate the secular timescale. Philip J. Rayment 01:46, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
He was describing what the text actually says—i.e. he was telling us that the text says that it was global. The real question is why others (non-experts) choose to interpret the text to mean something other than what it says.
I can't follow you there, I'm afraid:). He's saying that he (and a bunch of other scholars) think the passage said that the flood was global. But he's not saying why they think as they do. The English translation throws in a lot of stuff to make it sounds explicitly global ... but i don't see those words in the Hebrew. I don't see anything in the Hebrew to indicate that the waters covered the entire Earth. That doesn't mean it wasn't global. It doesn't mean it was. It just means that the text doesn't say anything definite one way or the other. It doesn't take a Hebrew scholar to do a simple analysis like that. I can do the same thing in French or Swahili with a simple dictionary. If a Frenchman writes, "La terre etait inonde," that could mean, "The land was flooded," or it could mean "All the land was flooded." But if the Frenchman writes, "Toute la terre etait inonde" then there's no more ambiguity. All that to say, the only point that interests me is whether or not the Hebrew explicitly claims in no uncertain terms that the flood was universal ... and I don't see it. I've been doing some research, and I can find a bunch of people willing to give me their opinion one way or the other, but none willing to give me facts. Ungtss 02:14, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
I will respond in two ways. First, to briefly try and explain further what I was getting at. Second, by providing the evidence that you seek.
  • If I say "Joe has kicked the bucket", does that mean that he applied his foot to a container with force? No, but that's likely to be all a person unfamiliar with English would get from studying a bilingual dictionary. However, to those who are fluent in the language and its idioms and euphemisms, there is no doubt that Joe has died. Thus I was suggesting that the experts may be understanding what the text is saying in ways that may not be obvious to you and me.
And indeed, if there were some mysterious phrases in the text that could hold secret meaning, I would consider the possibility of hidden or colloquial meaning. But the language is so terse, there aren't any "he kicked the bucket"s there to worry about:). Ungtss 12:12, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
Philip J. Rayment 08:53, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
good stuff, thanks for finding that! although I confess his points 4-6 are the only ones that hit home with me, and they're still only inferences (although very reasonable ones -- he concedes that the text does not explicitly state that the water covered the whole land, but holds that it's an easy inference from other aspects of the text, a conclusion i agree with). but i thought points 1-3 were non-sequitur ("the word may sometimes refer to limited land, but it must refer to all land here, because it's in the context of the creation account.") and wished he would have left those out:). Ungtss 12:12, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
What's your evidence that the Greeks, Muslims, etc. remember the flood as being regional?
Philip J. Rayment 13:25, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
I like your approach, sir:). Thanks for being so rigorous:). I'm on break from work right now -- I will flesh things out as soon as a I get the chance. Ungtss 13:57, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
<What do you think we ought to do with the reference to the sons of Anak in Numbers?>>
Not make too much of it. There seems to be little agreement as to what "Nephilim" actually means, and there is therefore no good reason to suppose that the Nephilim of Numbers are the same Nephilim as in Genesis.
Philip J. Rayment 07:55, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Interesting ... I'd be interested to know what other means for Nephilim you're aware of ... Ungtss 12:47, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Thanks for adding the extra point ... I think we'll end up with a valuable resource if we line up Pros and Cons as we come across them ...
Re: Nephilim—other than what? What do you think it means?
Philip J. Rayment 13:25, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Other than the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis as the descendants of the "Sons of God and daughters of men" -- I'm not aware of any other reference to Nephilim in the Bible other than that one. And if the descendants of Anak were descendants of those Nephilim (the only ones I know of) them some of the Nephilim survived the flood. Ungtss 13:57, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
I think we are misunderstanding each other a little. I agree that they are the only other Nephilim mentioned, but my point was, what does "Nephilim" mean? And what does "Sons of God and daughters of men" mean? The "Sons of God" could well be fallen angels, possibly inhabiting human bodies. They may also mean the line of Seth. Another suggestion is "power hungry rulers and despots" (such people sometimes referred to themselves as "sons of God" to enhance their image).
Then what does "Nephilim" mean? We don't know, other than the word seems related to "fall". I suppose that what I was getting at is that it may be a term for a type of person. For example, if the word means "giants" (which it probably doesn't), the term could apply to various unrelated people.
All true, but whoever the Nephilim were, if their descendants made it through the flood, then either Noah and his family were Nephilim, or some of them survived the flood.
I haven't made myself clear. If "nephilim" is a term, (such as "giants", to continue the prior example) it might be used of two unrelated groups of people—one prior to the flood who were wiped out, and the other a distinct group after the flood. Philip J. Rayment 08:56, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Now I follow you. That's an excellent counterpoint. Ungtss 12:39, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Another point, which doesn't depend on the meaning, is that the report of the sons of Anak being from the Nephilim was part of a false report brought by the ten dishonest spies. How much truth is there in it anyway?
Philip J. Rayment 14:13, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
Excellent point. Hadn't thought o' that.

Genesis 6:17 says And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. Croswalk.com's lexicon shows that "all" (Hebrew kol) is translated as

 all, the whole
  1. all, the whole of
  2. any, each, every, anything
  3. totality, everything  [1]

That seems to indicate the entire earth. So many interpret earth to mean a territory or region. The word that is used, erets, has many meaning. It is traslated as

land, earth
  1. earth
        1. whole earth (as opposed to a part)
        2. earth (as opposed to heaven)
        3. earth (inhabitants) 
  2. land
        1. country, territory
        2. district, region
        3. tribal territory
        4. piece of ground
        5. land of Canaan, Israel
        6. inhabitants of land
        7. Sheol, land without return, (under) world
        8. city (-state) 
  3. ground, surface of the earth
        1. ground
        2. soil 
  4. (in phrases)
        1. people of the land
        2. space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
        3. level or plain country
        4. land of the living
        5. end(s) of the earth 
  5. (almost wholly late in usage)
        1. lands, countries 1e 
  6. often in contrast to Canaan [2]

Also, Genesis 7:20 says "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet." Even if the flooded region was in a dpression, the waters could not have covered the mountains unlessthey covered the entire Earth. PrometheusX303 15:44, 13 March 2006 (GMT) Ungtss, I was simply curious as to where you stood. It doesn't matter to me either way.

All good points. You wanna add them to the article? Ungtss 18:58, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
I think this whole flood-thing is impossible. The whole legend was probably told and changed over and over until we get the story we have today. If there was a big flood, then can someone tell me why the Ark hasn't been found? Scorpionman 11:51, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
Do you know of other ancient wood constructions that are still intact today, which would support your contention that the ark should still exist?
Wood is made of cellulose (long strings of sugar), which microorganism (bacteria and fungi) digest readily. As a result, wood decomposes rapidly. Even structures made from modern pressure-treated woods are not built directly on the ground if they are wanted to last. --Chris Ashcraft 18:32, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Global VS Local

I strongly support the global flood and lean havily towards catastrophioc plate tectonics. I will soon make edits accordingly.PrometheusX303 23:20, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

ps I apologise for needing to create a new section. I have been having problems with editing large wiki pages. Any text past a certain line gets cut. PrometheusX303 23:20, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

Freshwater sources

I have removed the following sentence from the section "Is a global flood possible?", about freshwater sources: "They would add about another 2–3 thousand feet (200 metres)." 2–3 thousand feet is nowhere near 200 meters, so which is correct? Penguino 03:49, 9 May 2006 (GMT)

the original value was in feet. meters were added with this edit. of course i'm not sure where the feet value came from in the first place ... do we have some verifiable source and/or methodology for these numbers? Ungtss 03:57, 9 May 2006 (GMT)

Timeline

Why can't the flood timeline be uploaded to the pool and be put directly in the article? --A. Morris Talk 21:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I dont remember where we got it - so I cant ask for a release.
The timeline addon would be a great tool for creating one, but its not working for some reason and we've been unable to figure it out. It was used to create a timeline on the Biblical chronology page, but I had trouble with it attempting to create genealogy.

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Water to cover the highest mountains?

While this topic should definately be addressed, the following answer is highly theoretic, and as such will have to be isolated to a separate page and labeled with a warning that it represents "original research". I will, however, make a small note regarding the theory on the flood water page --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says the flood covered all the high mountains Genesis 7:19 . Today, the highest mountain is around 5.5 miles high. That is a tall order for water to cover the whole earth that high. Most people only look at the water that is in our oceans, and the water that is just beneath the earth's crust. What we forget to account for is the water that actually exists in the upper parts of the earth's mantle. Science has found that a mineral called wadsleyite, contains enough water to fill 30 of our oceans. This is more than enough to flood the earth to the highest mountain.

How can you bring up the water out of the mantle without boiling the earth? Which is actually a good question because it makes us search the word for an answer. What we find is that flood water came from three sources: 1) In the form of rain. 2) From beneath the earth's crust (fountains of the deep). 3) And from God (windows of heaven). This is a trinity. Side note: If you do research in the word of God on the term "windows of heaven". You will find that anything that passes through this portal (from one realm to another), is directly created by God. In other words, more water was created to flood the earth. So this answers how the water was brought up to flood the earth, but did not boil the earth. It was never brought up, it was created then forced down into the earth at the end of the flood.

How did the water get down into the mantle without boiling off? Being that the highest mountain is around 5.5 miles high. And the deepest part of the ocean is 6.6 miles deep. You get 12.1 miles deep of water (round off to 12 miles for easy math). According to scuba diving books, every 33 feet you descend in water equals one atmosphere. There are 5,280 feet in a mile. So 5,280 times 12 = 63360 feet, which equals 1920 atmospheres (63360 divided by 33). 1920 atmospheres equals 28,216.2066837 psi. Now the average boiling point of water at 30.00inHg is 212.15 F. So if you times 30.00inHg times 1920 atmospheres equals 57600.00inHg. When pressure rises, so does the boiling point of water. 1920 atmospheres is more than enough pressure to raise the boiling point of the water created by God, to enter the upper part of the earth's mantle and stay in a mineral called wadsleyite. This is why water comes up during volcano eruptions. It was put there by the flood water going in the the earth's upper mantle.

All that extra water created for the flood, would not that expand the earth's crust? Yes. Upon the extra water created, and then poured upon the earth, through the windows of heaven. Would expand the earth's crust because that water was more water than originally came up from the fountains of the deep. So imagine how much expansion took place for the earth to take on 30 oceans of water, and now you know why the continents look like they were together at one time. For the earth's crust to expand to accept that much more water would separate the continents in the manner we observe today.

Response

The last part where the earth's crust expanded because of the extra flood water created for the flood. I want you to watch a video of the shrinking of the earth. Which would represent the reverse of the water from the flood being removed. Which changes the size of this planet. Upon doing so, you will notice that the continents fit together like an exact all the way around the earth. And when they expand the earth, like the water of the flood going back in, the continents go back out to like we observe today. Now this is not a creation video. But I want you to notice how it supports my theory on the expansion of the earth from the extra flood water that was created. Expanding and contracting earth video. Not even the Pangaea theory works this well.Ikester7579 04:01, 18 June 2007 (EDT)


I just have few questions.

1: I really don't see how extra water is a viable mechanism for crust expanion. Can you go deeper into detail? You need a good mechanism.

2: The video can't be evidence for your theory, bacaused it's modeling assumes the the Flood nevered. The conditions made by the Flood would make is as evidence impossible.

3: Summoning a miracle to account for the Flood waters sound VERY unscientific to me.--Nlawrence 22:43, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

If God were scientific, science could explain Him. If God's creation were scientific, science would already have all the answers. Some parts of creation are not explainable by scientific means. Therefore mechanisms do not apply. God making man from dirt is not scientific. God breathing life and a soul into man is not scientific. These are God only powers that come from the spiritual side. Because if you think everything in the creation has to have a naturalistic explaination. then you are missing the very reason God exists. And why faith is required.Ikester7579 00:22, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
It is perfectly valid to think that what is seen in creation has a naturalistic explination for why or how it is sustained, however its very original existence is what is not scientific in the naturalistic sense, but rather supernatural. Science does not need to be confined to naturalistic explinations for the existence of life, but rather how it is sustained. --Tony Sommer 00:24, 20 June 2007 (EDT)


Science need not understand what it is talking about. It must merely attempt to discribe it, thus God is a scienctific notion. Design in detectable. Please tell me, what proof is there that God created water for the Flood?

God creating the universe IS a scienctific mechanism because certain models of quantum mechanics would allow. Thus I have a mechanism. What do you have?

God doesn't exist because of your faith. He exist because He does. I am that I am. My God is one of reason, justice, and science.

Now can you answer my questions?--Nlawrence 16:01, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Answer to your questions

I just have few questions.

Q:1: I really don't see how extra water is a viable mechanism for crust expanion. Can you go deeper into detail? You need a good mechanism.

a: Why does everything need a mechanism? Is there a salvation mechanism? One that science can explain?

Q: 2: The video can't be evidence for your theory, bacaused it's modeling assumes the the Flood nevered. The conditions made by the Flood would make is as evidence impossible.

a: Yes, only science makes God impossible. Therfore I have no answer suitable for you, if science has to explain it.

Q: 3: Summoning a miracle to account for the Flood waters sound VERY unscientific to me.

a: Yep, but is God always bound by naturalistic laws? If science has to explain everything believed about God. Then how could God even do it? Being boundless in the power of creation is one of the things that makes God be God. I'm not going to deny His power to create by putting naturalistic laws, and then imply that He must follow them.

What I see here is that you have a problem with miracles because your scientific friends will not accept a God miracle as an answer to a question. Their peer pressure is pushing you into a direction that denies the power of God to suit them. I tell any evolutionist that has problems with God using a miracle, that it is their problem that they do not believe this. Not mine. That I will not deny the power of God to create, or perform a miracle, based soley on their opinion. They do not like this because when you don't give an inch on this issue. They basically just lost the debate even though they would never admit to that. But, if they can get you to conceed that you must find an answer they would accept (without a miracle), then you have denied the power of God, and given control to the person who challenged you.

When your debating opponent that has doubts about miracles. And you conceed to this doubt by searching for a possible answer without a miracle. You reconfirm their doubt, and even weaken the miracle of salvation. For if God cannot use one miracle to do one thing, why use it to do another? We are the ambassadors of our Savior. We represent who and what He is. So when we conceed to a non-miracle view of God, we as a representation of God, put that same doubt about miracles into the minds of non-believers. A miracle requires total faith because it is unexplainable. Non-believers want you to explain your view without a miracle because it takes the heat of faith off them. Because if they like you, then they are obligated to a point to look into the views you have. It's safer for an atheist to look into views that does not require him to ponder faith in order to believe as you do.

But the danger of this is two fold. You suffer because what you believe is not controlled by God. So your faith weakens because denying miracles, because people laugh at them as a cop out, lays a foundation that is not based on what God can do. But what God should not do. Why else would you question that God would not use a miracle to make a flood? Is it what you would get from a biblical point of view, or the peer pressure from a scientific one?Ikester7579 06:43, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Pictures for this page

Here are some pictures for this page:

[3]

[4]

[5]

Pictures are copyrighted and most have this statement:

Creation Science Evangelism gives its permission for the Creation Seminar Series slides to be displayed on the creation wiki site: http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page with the following stipulations:

1. Information on slides must not be altered.

2. The sources for each of the slides will be given proper credit.

3. The following information will be displayed.

These slides, used by permission from Creation Science Evangelism, are part of a 6,000-Power-Point-slide Creation Startup Kit on two CD-ROMs from Dr. Kent Hovind's award-winning Creation Seminar Series. They are available from Creation Science Evangelism at 29 Cummings Rd., Pensacola, FL 32503.

Call toll free (877) 479-3466, e-mail orders@drdino.com, or contact www.drdino.com <http://www.drdino.com/> on the Web.

[http://creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 07:15, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I really think we should shy away from using ANYTHING related with Kent Hovind. --Tony Sommer 13:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

So we abandon a brother in Christ just because he makes a mistake? What if Christ abandons us for a simular reason? Who in the bible was perfect besides Christ? So if we judge Hovind in this manner, but trust those who wrote the books in the bible, to what ens do we justify our actions? And what excuse will we have for treating a brother in this manner? Or has this brither become unsaved because of the crime that he has committed?[http://creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 23:46, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

references

I am not sure that the statement "Why is the geologic record so much more consistent with catastrophism than with uniformitarianism?" is nesseccarily true, and this article provides no supporting references for this statement.

Purhaps the article should represent how this statement is true by showing examples and comparisons before this statement is aloud to stay. I want to remove it until we can provide at least one good reference and I will do so unless told not to by creationwiki admins.--Tylerdemerchant 11:42, 29 February 2008 (PST)


also, some of the references are non-existant. The author should check them for examlple, the reference titled "the fossil record"

We need to make sure this article is accurate.--Tylerdemerchant 15:52, 27 February 2008 (PST)

I removed the following reference because it leads nowhere-
I did a quick search for the title on the originating website and found the updated URL. Websites are being reconfigured all the time. Its better to update dead links if possible than deleting them.--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2008 (PST)


THanks, That was my intention to do or let someone else do it.--Tylerdemerchant 18:06, 1 March 2008 (PST)

Life span

The artikel lists "Prophecy before the flood: (Genesis 6:3 )" as argument for the shorter lifespan after the flood. I would like to discuss this verse, as my church (Seventh-Day-Adventist) has a different understanding of Gen 6:3. We understand the 120 years as the time from the prophecy till the flood came. Gen 11 lists several people after the flood who lived far beyond 120 years. Evermann 13:04, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

True--among whom we can both recognize Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Moses actually lived a life of exactly 120 years.
Before I discuss this further, I will need to consult my pastor. He is very learned in the Bible and the original language in which it is written.--TemlakosTalk 18:41, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Where did the water go?

Recent discoveries have revealed that the inner earth may hold more water than the seas. Analysis of the earth's likely composition in 2002 revealed "there may be more H2O deep underground than in all oceans, lakes, and rivers combined."[1] In 2007, scientists discovered for the first time that a vast 'ocean' exists beneath Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.[2] According to National Geographic, the water appears locked in moisture-containing rocks discovered through scanning seismic waves[3], but further discoveries could follow.[4][5][6] This might prove Biblically compatible since in Genesis 7:12, it says the rain stopped after 40 days, but that the waters continued increasing after this, 150 days, until covering the mountains, apparently from the fountains of the deep. (Genesis 7:18-24; compare 7:11, 8:2)

I know of no flood geologist that holds to this view - that the water receded into the "inner earth". I'm assuming you meant to include this as support for a source of the flood water instead? Otherwise you will need to provide references to creationist publications to support that this is held by creation geologists.

but that the waters continued increasing after this, 150 days, until covering the mountains,

This is an often misquoted number. The Bible does not say how long the water continued to increase. 150 day is the duration of time from when the flood began to when the ark came to rest on the Mountains of Ararat.
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. - Genesis 8:3-4 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. (5 months = 150 days.)--Ashcraft - (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2012 (PDT)
Ah, you're right, it was more aimed at where the water came from, not where it went, my apologies. Thanks for correcting that! :) As far as the 150 days, I was looking mainly at Genesis 7:17-18, but maybe it's not that clear that it was after the 40 days were over that the waters kept increasing. I think you're right about leaving that part out. That really touches on another concern raised about the Flood, however, whether it was 40 or 150 days. I've heard that one brought up before, and it's pretty easy to answer as well - the 40 days involved the rain, the 150 were the time the Flood itself was on the Earth. --Jzyehoshua 17:31, 18 April 2012 (PDT)

Addressing the Corruption of the Flesh

I moved the text titled "Addressing the Corruption of the Flesh" to the article on sin, and placed links to it from relevant text in this article.

corruption of the flesh

The book of Genesis is a series of Diaries (Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Books) and the diaries break from Noah to Shem in the middle of chapter 6 Genesis 6:9 . In this transition, Shem notes the physical priority of the floodwaters. While mankind may be considered wicked and violent, how do animals sin or behave wickedly? Why would God kill the animals when they are not accountable for their moral decisions or lack thereof? --Ashcraft - (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2014 (EST)
  1. Harder, Ben (2002, March 7). "Inner Earth May Hold More Water than the Seas." National Geographic.
  2. Than, Ker (2007, February 28). "Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth." LiveScience.
  3. Lovett, Richard A. (2007, February 7). "Huge Underground 'Ocean' Found Beneath Asia." National Geographic.
  4. Harder, Ben (2010, November 8). "Earth Contains a Vast Amount of Water, But Scientists Are Unsure of Its Origins." Washington Post.
  5. Bryner, Jeanna (2007, October 1). "Huge Stores of Oxygen Found Deep Inside Earth." LiveScience.
  6. Krulwich, Robert (2011, June 23). "How Much Water Is There On Earth? Magellan Would Be Shocked." NPR.