Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[4WD]

What do you understand when God said "I will destroy them with the earth."? With regards all living things, that would mean they all died. How about with regards the "eretz", what does it mean to be "destroyed"?

I understand it the same way I understand the story of Joseph and the famine:

Gen 41:57  The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 03:47:30

What do you understand when God said "I will destroy them with the earth."? With regards all living things, that would mean they all died. How about with regards the "eretz", what does it mean to be "destroyed"?

I understand it the same way I understand the story of Joseph and the famine:

Gen 41:57  The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.

Pardon me, but the focus of the question is on what it means to be "destroyed". Now, if  the answer you gave addresses that, please expound that I may understand what you mean to say by it.

[4WD]

Pardon me, but the focus of the question is on what it means to be "destroyed". Now, if  the answer you gave addresses that, please expound that I may understand what you mean to say by it.

From Dictionary.com:

Destroy

verb (used with object)

1.to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
2.to put an end to; extinguish.
3.to kill; slay.
4.to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.
5.to defeat completely.

verb (used without object)

6.to engage in destruction.

Or if you prefer, the Hebrew word shawkhath found in Genesis 6:13:

shaw-khath

A primitive root; to decay, that is, (causatively) ruin (literally or figuratively): - batter, cast off, corrupt (-er, thing), destroy (-er, -uction), lose, mar, perish, spill, spoiler, X utterly, waste (-r).

[The Barbarian]

The flood we are talking about is that which happened at the time of Noah. So, no need to divert to other floods.

How do you know, this gigantic flood, that covered a vast area of Asia, as not the flood of Noah?    As you know, the Bible does not say the flood is worldwide.

Are you also suggesting that when the mountains were entirely covered with the flood waters of Noah's time, didn't mean that the global sea level did not rise as much

If the mountains in the land referred to those covered in the great flood that filled the Black Sea, then it wouldn't have affected global sea levels by much if any.

2. Also, on Gen. 7:11-12, about the fountains of the great deep being broken up, what do you say the scientist think this is?

Barbarian observes:
Same thing as the verse that says the windows in the sky were opened to let water in.   The Hebrews believed the sky was a big dome with windows in it, to let rain fall.   There was, they thought a massive ocean above the sky, and another one underground.    So these are figurative, like "it rained cats and dogs."    Probably, by Moses' time, the Hebrews knew this wasn't right, but understood the figurative nature of the verses.

So, even while they are figurative, I can understand the figure of speech of "the windows of heaven were opened" as to mean to have water rain down from the heavens. How about the figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up", what does that mean to you?

Another figure of speech, like the windows the flood story says were opened in the sky.   

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 03:47:30

It seems that you take Noah's flood as a mere natural catastrophic event and not some supernatural miraculous event that God performed as was the miracle of the Red sea in Moses' time.

I said nothing about it being a mere natural catastrophic event.  Just because it is a supernatural flood does not require that it be global not regional.  The miracle of the Red sea in Moses' time was definitely regional.

I did not say you did. Yes, it does not necessarily follow that because it's supernatural and miraculous, that it should be global and not regional or be regional and not global. But one thing is sure, it is supernatural, it is a miracle, and that it happened. Being a miracle, this can't be explained by scientists, on how it came about and what became of the lands and the remains of all those destroyed after, or do they have a theory that they assert that explains it that you believe? Perhaps you can share what you know what through science have been discovered with regards this biblical event. I guess the Barbarian have something to share to us on this, if at all one could even make a guess.

As for me, in my reading, I understand it to be global in scope, in the sense that, it includes all the lands at that time, where there lives the sinful man that God said He would destroy by flooding the lands with water, in Noah's time. That in all those lands, all flesh were destroyed, all living things in there, so that even the highest mountains were covered with water, so that, no living thing remained on those lands, save those inside Noah's Ark. And that God did that not flood the lands, only by means of heavy and continuous rain from the heavens above for forty days and forty nights, but also together with the welling up of waters from beneath the earth. 

[Michael2012]

The flood we are talking about is that which happened at the time of Noah. So, no need to divert to other floods.

How do you know, this gigantic flood, that covered a vast area of Asia, as not the flood of Noah?    As you know, the Bible does not say the flood is worldwide.

We don't. I believe in the Holy scriptures, and that its author is God. So, whether the scientists points to things they consider evidence that to them proves that there was no global flood, would I listen to them and not listen to God? I believe the Holy scriptures, regardless of what scientists say. If you think that this gigantic flood to be the flood of Noah, it does not mean that the Bible is true because of that, nor does it mean that it is this gigantic flood that covered a vast area of Asia, as the flood of Noah. My conviction is that the Bible is true because its author is God. Period. And the scriptures tells of this flood, as to have destroyed all living things, leaving only Noah and those inside the Ark as to have remained alive. And this flood is not a natural happening as can be explained by any scientist, but was some supernatural miraculous event that God have purposely brought about. Now, if the so-called "evidences" that scientist points to does not add up to a worldwide flood, it does not follow that Noah's flood was not global in scope, nor it follows that it is only regional. We don't get to validate the truth in scriptures with science. Rather, we have the scriptures as that which tells us the truth not only of this physical created universe, but specially, of the truth of the spiritual world and of the Creator of both.

The first few verses of Genesis 1 comes to mind:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.   

That is the "erets" in the beginning. It came to appear when waters that covers it were gathered into what God called seas. As to what shape and form became of the land by the movement of water in the beginning is unimaginable. This is not far from what the waters of the flood in Noah's time could have done when the waters came to flood the "erets" and when the waters receded from the face of the ground. And unimaginable as it is a supernatural and miraculous work of God, do we expect the scientists to explain and tell us what happened and what the waters have done to the "erets"?

Are you also suggesting that when the mountains were entirely covered with the flood waters of Noah's time, didn't mean that the global sea level did not rise as much

If the mountains in the land referred to those covered in the great flood that filled the Black Sea, then it wouldn't have affected global sea levels by much if any.

Is that so? Can you prove that?

I'm curious, can you tell us how much is the biggest relative sea level difference in the seas all over the globe?

And if in a certain region such as the middle east for example, if the sea level rises to as much as to cover all the mountains therein, will not the sea level all over the globe necessarily rise by nearly as much?   

2. Also, on Gen. 7:11-12, about the fountains of the great deep being broken up, what do you say the scientist think this is?

Barbarian observes:
Same thing as the verse that says the windows in the sky were opened to let water in.   The Hebrews believed the sky was a big dome with windows in it, to let rain fall.   There was, they thought a massive ocean above the sky, and another one underground.    So these are figurative, like "it rained cats and dogs."    Probably, by Moses' time, the Hebrews knew this wasn't right, but understood the figurative nature of the verses.

Michael...

So, even while they are figurative, I can understand the figure of speech of "the windows of heaven were opened" as to mean to have water rain down from the heavens. How about the figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up", what does that mean to you?

Another figure of speech, like the windows the flood story says were opened in the sky.

I know. But what do you take this figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up" to mean? Does it not mean of water welling up from under the earth, in the same way that the figure of speech "the windows of heaven were opened" as to mean to have water rain down from the heavens above?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If the mountains in the land referred to those covered in the great flood that filled the Black Sea, then it wouldn't have affected global sea levels by much if any.

Is that so?

Yep.   The Black Sea basin isn't very large, compared to the volume of the world's oceans. And the mountains therein are still submerged.

Can you prove that?

I guess I could calculate the relative volumes if you like, but if you take a look at the globe, it's rather obvious.

I'm curious, can you tell us how much is the biggest relative sea level difference in the seas all over the globe?

Average sea level varies by about 40 cm, depending where you are.   Most people figure that since it's all connected, it should all be the same, but it isn't.

And if in a certain region such as the middle east for example, if the sea level rises to as much as to cover all the mountains therein, will not the sea level all over the globe necessarily rise by nearly as much? 

No.   Since it took water to fill the basin and cover those mountains, it would at least in principle,slightly lower the ocean level.

[The Barbarian]

   
Barbarian observes:
Another figure of speech, like the windows the flood story says were opened in the sky.

I know. But what do you take this figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up" to mean?

Same thing as "it's raining cats and dogs."    Lots of water.   

Does it not mean of water welling up from under the earth

In the same sense as "it's raining cats and dogs", mean that cats and dogs are falling out of the sky.

[KiwiChristian]

In the same sense as "it's raining cats and dogs", mean that cats and dogs are falling out of the sky.

But there ARE fountains in the deep spewing water into the seas.

[KiwiChristian]

Was it you that was going to show me where i can find the intact "geologic column" in real life?

[Michael2012]

Barbarian observes:
If the mountains in the land referred to those covered in the great flood that filled the Black Sea, then it wouldn't have affected global sea levels by much if any.
Michael...

Is that so?

Yep.   The Black Sea basin isn't very large, compared to the volume of the world's oceans. And the mountains therein are still submerged.

Michael...

Can you prove that?

I guess I could calculate the relative volumes if you like, but if you take a look at the globe, it's rather obvious.

So, in other words you can't prove it. All that you are saying is "if", and so you are not even sure that the "erets" spoken in Genesis 6,7,8 are those only of the Black Sea basin. And that would imply that only those lands, which includes the mountains you say are there, were the only "erets" inhabited by the "all flesh (man)" whom God said He will destroy. And you say "the mountains therein are still submerged", which directly contradicts what scriptures said, that the flood waters receded so that the land covered by it then dried up. Anyway, I really don't expect that you can, with science even, explain the Noah's flood that scriptures says had happened in the days of Noah.

Michael...

I'm curious, can you tell us how much is the biggest relative sea level difference in the seas all over the globe?

Average sea level varies by about 40 cm, depending where you are.   Most people figure that since it's all connected, it should all be the same, but it isn't.

Michael...

And if in a certain region such as the middle east for example, if the sea level rises to as much as to cover all the mountains therein, will not the sea level all over the globe necessarily rise by nearly as much?

No. Since it took water to fill the basin and cover those mountains, it would at least in principle,slightly lower the ocean level.

So, if the average sea level varies by about 40 cm, can you tell us what, according to science, will be the effect to the sea level on a region, when for instance the sea level rises, say 10,000 ft, in another region? Is it not that the sea level there rises to as much with a difference of only about 40 cm then?  Now, Noah's ark was said to have rested on the mountains of Ararat, which is believed to be in modern day Turkey. Whether it is there or not, resting on a mountain implies a great height above sea level, which implies that water have practically covered all lands in the entire planet. 

[Michael2012]

Barbarian observes:
Another figure of speech, like the windows the flood story says were opened in the sky.
Michael...

I know. But what do you take this figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up" to mean?

Same thing as "it's raining cats and dogs."    Lots of water.   

Michael...

Does it not mean of water welling up from under the earth

In the same sense as "it's raining cats and dogs", mean that cats and dogs are falling out of the sky.

Very evasive. Anyway perhaps I just have to take that for you, the figure of speech "the fountains of the great deep were broken up" does not mean water welling up from beneath the land, and that you don't want to say whatever it means to you. Perhaps you don't believe that water can come from under the ground.

[The Barbarian]

But there ARE fountains in the deep spewing water into the seas.

There are undersea geysers.    But not fountains.    Seawater trickles down faults to hot rock, and then rises back to the sea, again.   Pretty much the way geysers work on the land.  Not what you were told they are.

Aquifers are also underground water, but as you know,they wouldn't burst out of the ground, flooding it, either.

[The Barbarian]

Was it you that was going to show me where i can find the intact "geologic column" in real life?

Thought I did... Well once again...

North Dakota:
The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):

    Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
    Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
    Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
    Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
    Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
    Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
    Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
    Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
    Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
    Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
    Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
    Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
    Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
    Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
    Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
    Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
    Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
    Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
    Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
    Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
    Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
    Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
    Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
    Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
    Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
    Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
    Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
    Precambrian...................................14945 feet
The Geologic Columnand its Implications for the Flood 2001 Glen Morton

He also lists the following locations where strata exist for every geological period:

Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:

    The Ghadames Basin in Libya
    The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
    The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
    The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
    The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
    The Adana Basin in Turkey
    The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
    The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
    The Carpathian Basin in Poland
    The Baltic Basin in the USSR
    The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
    The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
    The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
    The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
    The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
    The Jiuxi Basin China
    The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
    The Tarim Basin China
    The Szechwan Basin China
    The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
    The Williston Basin in North Dakota
    The Tampico Embayment Mexico
    The Bogata Basin Colombia
    The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
    The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

Robertson Group, 1989;
A.F. Trendall et al , editors, Geol. Surv. West. Australia Memoir 3, 1990, pp 382, 396;
N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990, p. 517)

Which is remarkable; you would think there would be no place on Earth where no period had been eroded away, but there you are.

[The Barbarian]

So, if the average sea level varies by about 40 cm, can you tell us what, according to science, will be the effect to the sea level on a region, when for instance the sea level rises, say 10,000 ft, in another region?

I showed you how to calculate the likely change caused by the filling of the Black Sea basin.   

Is it not that the sea level there rises to as much with a difference of only about 40 cm then?

It would actually have lowered, if it had any effect at all.  All that water that flooded the region had to come from the oceans via the Mediterranean.

Now, Noah's ark was said to have rested on the mountains of Ararat, which is believed to be in modern day Turkey.

That's a modern misconception.  The "Mountains of Ararat" are in Armenia, not Turkey.    "Ararat"is an old word for Armenia, from the ancient "Urartu."    And "Mt. Ararat" was not known by that name until medieval or late classical times. 

However the mountains covered by the flood that filled the basin are contiguous with the old Armenian state, which does have mountains.

Whether it is there or not, resting on a mountain implies a great height above sea level, which implies that water have practically covered all lands in the entire planet.

If the flood of Noah is not an allegory, then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark.   But that wouldn't require a worldwide flood.

[The Barbarian]

So, in other words you can't prove it.

I can show you that the drop in ocean levels caused by the flood would have been quite small.   Do I really have to calculate it for you?

All that you are saying is "if", and so you are not even sure that the "erets" spoken in Genesis 6,7,8 are those only of the Black Sea basin. And that would imply that only those lands, which includes the mountains you say are there, were the only "erets" inhabited by the "all flesh (man)" whom God said He will destroy.

It could have been much smaller, depending on how much land God was talking about.   It just couldn't be the entire world, because the evidence clearly rules it out.   And since there is no scriptural basis for concluding it meant the entire world, we can be quite sure that it wasn't.

And you say "the mountains therein are still submerged", which directly contradicts what scriptures said, that the flood waters receded so that the land covered by it then dried up.

There are mountains in Armenia, adjoining the Black Sea that would be the likely resting place of the Ark if it actually happened and wasn't an allegory.   And since they are the real "mountains of Ararat", that would nicely fit the flood of the Black Sea basin.

Anyway, I really don't expect that you can, with science even, explain the Noah's flood that scriptures says had happened in the days of Noah.

No one actually knows if the Flood story happened literally, or was an allegory.   However, we do have flood of Biblical proportions in the Middle East at the right time and place.   So there is that.

[Michael2012]

There are undersea geysers.    But not fountains.    Seawater trickles down faults to hot rock, and then rises back to the sea, again.   Pretty much the way geysers work on the land.  Not what you were told they are.

Aquifers are also underground water, but as you know,they wouldn't burst out of the ground, flooding it, either.

Do you not believe that Noah's flood was a miracle performed by God for His purpose and is just another natural disaster that happened. It seems not.

[KiwiChristian]

show me a picture of the place, anyone can type words

PS: When i say geologic column, i mean the different aged layers WITH the so-called "index fossils".

Remember, if those fossils are found in OTHER layers ANYWHERE, then they are NOT an "index fossil"

[KiwiChristian]

i googled one of the places and could find nothing that proves the entire geologic column exists there.

[AVZ]

Do you not believe that Noah's flood was a miracle performed by God for His purpose and is just another natural disaster that happened. It seems not.

Those who deny the global flood do so by necessity of their denial of multiple parts of scripture.
The denial is rather selective and follows no cohesive pattern.

- The miracle of the global flood is denied, but other miracles are accepted. No reason is given however why one miracle is different from another
- Usually the global flood is denied because of geological evidence, and on that same basis the accuracy of the creation account is denied
- Death is being declared something that God created, and is therefore good
- The accuracy of the story of the Fall is being denied
- The accuracy of the genealogies is denied
- The references made by Jesus and the apostles to creation and flood are denied
- People get themselves in a twist over what is spiritual and what is natural
- The symbolic meaning of the crucifixion and meaning of the physical death of Jesus is denied
- The bodily presence of Jesus in heaven is denied
and you can go on and on

Those who deny a global flood never ever leave it at that, they always have a whole list of other questionable parts of scripture.

All this originates from the same source: People believe themselves more than that they believe God's Word.
Scientific theories whose only effect is to negate God's involvement or existence are being declared God's contribution to man for a better understanding.
The reliability of scripture is questioned, and science has been crowned king.

[Michael2012]

So, if the average sea level varies by about 40 cm, can you tell us what, according to science, will be the effect to the sea level on a region, when for instance the sea level rises, say 10,000 ft, in another region?

I showed you how to calculate the likely change caused by the filling of the Black Sea basin.

I'm not asking about the filling of the black sea basin. Please read carefully the question.

Is it not that the sea level there rises to as much with a difference of only about 40 cm then?

It would actually have lowered, if it had any effect at all.  All that water that flooded the region had to come from the oceans via the Mediterranean.

I am asking where the flood water came from, for clearly scriptures said that it came from the heavens above and from under the ground. I was asking of sea level rise in one region of the globe relative to other regions.

Now, Noah's ark was said to have rested on the mountains of Ararat, which is believed to be in modern day Turkey.

That's a modern misconception.  The "Mountains of Ararat" are in Armenia, not Turkey.    "Ararat"is an old word for Armenia, from the ancient "Urartu."    And "Mt. Ararat" was not known by that name until medieval or late classical times. 

However the mountains covered by the flood that filled the basin are contiguous with the old Armenian state, which does have mountains.

I'm not arguing on the issue of the place where Noah's ark rested. As I've said "Whether it is there or not, resting on a mountain implies a great height above sea level, which implies that water have practically covered all lands in the entire planet."

Whether it is there or not, resting on a mountain implies a great height above sea level, which implies that water have practically covered all lands in the entire planet.

If the flood of Noah is not an allegory, then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark.   But that wouldn't require a worldwide flood.

Noah's flood is definitely not an allegory, unless you want it to be as perhaps you would take still other events that could not be explained through science as allegories.

Barbarian...
"then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark."

With that, it implies that Noah's flood waters covered these mountains. Take the highest mountain thereabout and ask your good self, how many feet or meters the peak is above the sea water level. Perhaps around 10,000 ft? Now, that would make of flood waters rising by 10,000 ft from the sea level. How do we picture this as happening and what will the sea level be in different parts of the globe?   

[Michael2012]

So, in other words you can't prove it.

I can show you that the drop in ocean levels caused by the flood would have been quite small.   Do I really have to calculate it for you?

Why are you so into the drop in ocean levels when we are talking of a flood that covered even the mountains of Ararat, that implies a huge amount of rise of sea water levels? 

All that you are saying is "if", and so you are not even sure that the "erets" spoken in Genesis 6,7,8 are those only of the Black Sea basin. And that would imply that only those lands, which includes the mountains you say are there, were the only "erets" inhabited by the "all flesh (man)" whom God said He will destroy.

It could have been much smaller, depending on how much land God was talking about.   It just couldn't be the entire world, because the evidence clearly rules it out.   And since there is no scriptural basis for concluding it meant the entire world, we can be quite sure that it wasn't.

Well, since you rely and listen to your scientific mind, apparently you conclude as you do, since you point to scientific evidence. This just shows that for you, you don't believe it as a miracle that God have done, but take it to be a mere natural disaster that can be explained therefore by using science. This is a clear example of bible interpretation using science.

And you say "the mountains therein are still submerged", which directly contradicts what scriptures said, that the flood waters receded so that the land covered by it then dried up.

There are mountains in Armenia, adjoining the Black Sea that would be the likely resting place of the Ark if it actually happened and wasn't an allegory.   And since they are the real "mountains of Ararat", that would nicely fit the flood of the Black Sea basin.

So? No matter how one goes about this, it does not remove what scriptures said that all the land there, including hills and mountains were covered with water. And that, in all the lands where man is, for scriptures speaks of God destroying all flesh, save Noah and his family.

Anyway, I really don't expect that you can, with science even, explain the Noah's flood that scriptures says had happened in the days of Noah.

No one actually knows if the Flood story happened literally, or was an allegory.   However, we do have flood of Biblical proportions in the Middle East at the right time and place.   So there is that.

Then you admit that you don't have faith in the scriptures, that it did happen literally. Perhaps, if you find scientific evidence, then you would believe that it did. That means, your faith somehow depends on scientific evidence.

Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Luke 17:26-28
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;

2 Peter 2:4-6
4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;

2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

How do you then take these passages speaking of Noah's flood, an allegory, and not that which literally happened?

[The Barbarian]

show me a picture of the place, anyone can type words

I cited you two sources, with the precise location of the well where all these layers were found in drilling cores.   

PS: When i say geologic column, i mean the different aged layers WITH the so-called "index fossils".

That's what they found in those locations.

[The Barbarian]

Do you not believe that Noah's flood was a miracle performed by God for His purpose and is just another natural disaster that happened. It seems not.

So the argument is divine providence can't use natural forces?   How do you figure that?

[The Barbarian]

i googled one of the places and could find nothing that proves the entire geologic column exists there.

Well, let's see... (Barbarian choses one)

Jiuxi Basin

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/274096962_fig5_Geological-stratigraphic-column-of-Sichuan-Basin-central-China

Try googling the location and "complete geologic column.    Worked for me.

[The Barbarian]

I'm not asking about the filling of the black sea basin.

The only flood that would fit the time and the scope of Noah's flood is that one.   

Is it not that the sea level there rises to as much with a difference of only about 40 cm then?

Barbarian observes:   
It would actually have lowered, if it had any effect at all.  All that water that flooded the region had to come from the oceans via the Mediterranean.

I am asking where the flood water came from, for clearly scriptures said that it came from the heavens above and from under the ground.

Specifically, it says that windows in the sky were opened, and water fell out of them.    There aren't actually windows in the sky.   Likewise, there aren't actually underground fountains.

I was asking of sea level rise in one region of the globe relative to other regions.

Right.  It would have caused a lowering of the Mediterranean, and eventually a small, maybe unnoticeable lowering in the world's oceans.

Now, Noah's ark was said to have rested on the mountains of Ararat, which is believed to be in modern day Turkey.

    That's a modern misconception.  The "Mountains of Ararat" are in Armenia, not Turkey.    "Ararat"is an old word for Armenia, from the ancient "Urartu."    And "Mt. Ararat" was not known by that name until medieval or late classical times.

However the mountains covered by the flood that filled the basin are contiguous with the old Armenian state, which does have mountains.

I'm not arguing on the issue of the place where Noah's ark rested.

Probably a mistake to bring it up, then.

I am asking where the flood water came from, for clearly scriptures said that it came from the heavens above

Through windows in the dome of the sky, it says.   There is such dome (raqua) nor are there window.   So figure of speech, not a literal discription.

I was asking of sea level rise in one region of the globe relative to other regions.

The flood, if it's a literal history, would have slightly lowered the ocean levels, albeit maybe by an imperceptible amount.

Whether it is there or not, resting on a mountain implies a great height above sea level,

Remember that the story doesn't say that the mountains of Ararat were covered.   It says the mountains in the land (erets) were covered.   And as you see, they were.   

which implies that water have practically covered all lands in the entire planet.

You're assuming that "erets" means "the whole Earth", which it does not.

Barbarian observes:
If the flood of Noah is not an allegory, then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark.   But that wouldn't require a worldwide flood.

Noah's flood is definitely not an allegory,

You could be right, but no one actually knows for sure.

Barbarian observes:
"then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark."

With that, it implies that Noah's flood waters covered these mountains

Don't see how; it certainly doesn't say so.

[Michael2012]

Do you not believe that Noah's flood was a miracle performed by God for His purpose and is just another natural disaster that happened. It seems not.

So the argument is divine providence can't use natural forces?   How do you figure that?

No sir. The argument is that it is a miracle and is a supernatural event.

[Michael2012]

I'm not asking about the filling of the black sea basin.

The only flood that would fit the time and the scope of Noah's flood is that one.

That is because you don't take the Noah's flood as a miraculous and supernatural event and so think that it must have scientific evidence to that effect. 

Specifically, it says that windows in the sky were opened, and water fell out of them.    There aren't actually windows in the sky.   Likewise, there aren't actually underground fountains.

The point remains that water was said to come from the heavens above and from under the ground.

I was asking of sea level rise in one region of the globe relative to other regions.

Right.  It would have caused a lowering of the Mediterranean, and eventually a small, maybe unnoticeable lowering in the world's oceans.

That would render a picture of the beaches not flooded while the nearby hills and mountains way higher than the beaches to be flooded. Wow!

And this is all because it has to be according to your scientific mind, since you count it not to be a miracle. Noah's Flood was not some flood brought about by the natural forces and laws of nature, as had happened throughout human historical existence, but by the direct doing of God, supernaturally, that is. This is similar to what God supernaturally had done in the beginning with the water, so that dry "erets" appeared:

Genesis 1:9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Now, Noah's ark was said to have rested on the mountains of Ararat, which is believed to be in modern day Turkey.

Barbarian...

That's a modern misconception.  The "Mountains of Ararat" are in Armenia, not Turkey.    "Ararat"is an old word for Armenia, from the ancient "Urartu."    And "Mt. Ararat" was not known by that name until medieval or late classical times.

However the mountains covered by the flood that filled the basin are contiguous with the old Armenian state, which does have mountains.

Michael...

I'm not arguing on the issue of the place where Noah's ark rested.

Probably a mistake to bring it up, then.

No sir. It was brought up simply to make a point that Noah's ark rested on very high grounds, to have you see the implication of this relative to the sea levels. That for water to flood these very high grounds would have the adjoining sea to have its water level rise to a height over these high grounds.   

I am asking where the flood water came from, for clearly scriptures said that it came from the heavens above

Through windows in the dome of the sky, it says.   There is such dome (raqua) nor are there window.   So figure of speech, not a literal discription.

It's a figure of speech that was meant to refer to the out pouring of rain from the waters in the heavens. Unless you have a different take on that.

I was asking of sea level rise in one region of the globe relative to other regions.

The flood, if it's a literal history, would have slightly lowered the ocean levels, albeit maybe by an imperceptible amount.

Only because you don't take Noah's flood as a miracle and take it only as a natural occurrence brought about by the forces of nature.

And as ever, evasion seems to be a favorite refuge.

Whether it is there or not, resting on a mountain implies a great height above sea level,

Remember that the story doesn't say that the mountains of Ararat were covered.   It says the mountains in the land (erets) were covered. And as you see, they were.

How can then Noah's ark rest on the mountain? Besides, read what these passages says about the mountains of Ararat.

Gen.7
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hillsunder the whole heaven  were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

Gen. 8
3 And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4 Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

which implies that water have practically covered all lands in the entire planet.

You're assuming that "erets" means "the whole Earth", which it does not.

No sir. I'm not.

Barbarian observes:
If the flood of Noah is not an allegory, then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark.   But that wouldn't require a worldwide flood.

Michael...

Noah's flood is definitely not an allegory,

You could be right, but no one actually knows for sure.

We can be sure sir. One just have to read:

Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Luke 17:26-28
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;

2 Peter 2:4-6
4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;

2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

How do you then take these passages speaking of Noah's flood, if it was an allegory, and not that which literally happened?

Barbarian observes:
"then it seems that the mountains around the Black Sea would be good candidates for the actual resting place of the Ark."
Michael...

With that, it implies that Noah's flood waters covered these mountains

Don't see how; it certainly doesn't say so.

Just read:

Gen.7
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hillsunder the whole heaven  were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

Gen. 8
3 And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4 Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Do you not believe that Noah's flood was a miracle performed by God for His purpose and is just another natural disaster that happened. It seems not.

So the argument is divine providence can't use natural forces?   How do you figure that?

No sir.

So if God can use nature to effect His will, what makes you think that He didn't?

The argument is that it is a miracle and is a supernatural event.

The natural world is a miracle and a supernatural event.   On what grounds do you suppose that He didn't use nature for this, if you agree that He can?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The only flood that would fit the time and the scope of Noah's flood is that one.

That is because you don't take the Noah's flood as a miraculous and supernatural event

No one actually knows, because He doesn't tell us.  It could be an allegory, or it could have really happened.   But there's no way to know.  If you focus on the details, you lose sight of what He was actually telling us.

[The Barbarian]

No sir. It was brought up simply to make a point that Noah's ark rested on very high grounds

Scripture doesn't say that.   It only says it came to rest in those mountains.    Remember the mountains in the land, from which Noah came were completely covered.   But it doesn't say the mountains of Ararat were covered.  So the Ark would then come to rest in those mountains outside the land that was flooded.

Remember, if there was a flood, the one that happened at that time would not have been world wide.

[The Barbarian]

Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Luke 17:26-28
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;

2 Peter 2:4-6
4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;

2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

How do you then take these passages speaking of Noah's flood, if it was an allegory, and not that which literally happened?

If someone in the Bible cites an allegory, that changes it to a literal event?   How so?

[Michael2012]

Michael...
"Do you not believe that Noah's flood was a miracle performed by God for His purpose and is just another natural disaster that happened. It seems not."

Barbarian....
"So the argument is divine providence can't use natural forces?   How do you figure that?"

Michael...
"No sir."

Barbarian....
"So if God can use nature to effect His will, what makes you think that He didn't?"

Michael...
"The argument is that it is a miracle and is a supernatural event."

Barbarian....
"The natural world is a miracle and a supernatural event.   On what grounds do you suppose that He didn't use nature for this, if you agree that He can?"[/i]

God sure used nature in doing a miracle, and to effect His will. But the very fact that it is a miracle, it means that it is something that is done not in accordance with the set laws and forces of nature. This is why it is "supernatural".

That's exactly right, the natural world is a miracle and a supernatural event. So, I wonder why scientist keep on trying to explain even that which is a miracle and a supernatural event, such as the beginnings of the universe, life, and man ~ even how things came to be, when he can't even explain why and how water turned into wine, how Jesus walked on water, how the dead are resurrected, how the waters of the Red sea were divided, and many many other miracles of God recorded in the Bible? If I remember it right, haven't you said that the scientist, while he may have a theory about how the natural things that now exist work, through science, he can't explain the miracles of God? Scientist who are unbelievers can't realize this. But the Christian scientist can. 

 

[Michael2012]

Barbarian observes:
The only flood that would fit the time and the scope of Noah's flood is that one.

Michael...

That is because you don't take the Noah's flood as a miraculous and supernatural event

No one actually knows, because He doesn't tell us.  It could be an allegory, or it could have really happened.  But there's no way to know.  If you focus on the details, you lose sight of what He was actually telling us.

Let me cite just one instance. Did God tell us that when the ground split apart and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men with Korah, with all their goods, so they and all those with them went down alive into the pit, the earth closed over them, is a miracle? Yet we know that this is a miracle, and that this literally happened, and is not an allegory or what.

[Michael2012]

Michael...

No sir. It was brought up simply to make a point that Noah's ark rested on very high grounds

Scripture doesn't say that.   It only says it came to rest in those mountains.    Remember the mountains in the land, from which Noah came were completely covered.   But it doesn't say the mountains of Ararat were covered.  So the Ark would then come to rest in those mountains outside the land that was flooded.

Remember, if there was a flood, the one that happened at that time would not have been world wide.

Please read again and carefully this time the following passages:

Gen.7
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hillsunder the whole heaven  were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

Gen. 8
3 And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4 Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

Notice in Genesis 8, Noah's ark is said to now have come to the region of Ararat, and rested in the seventh month in the mountains in that region. At this time, the tops of the mountains, from the view point of Noah were not seen yet, while the waters continue to subside. It was only on the tenth month, that is, after 3 months from the time the ark rested at this point that Noah's ark is said to have rested on one of the mountains of Ararat. This implies that, the ark had rested on the highest mountain in Ararat. So high from the rest of the mountains of Ararat that it took 3 months for the water to subside before the tops of mountains were seen. This clearly refutes the assertion that "it doesn't say the mountains of Ararat were covered".

Barbarian...
"Remember, if there was a flood, the one that happened at that time would not have been world wide."

That is what science or so-called scientific evidence perhaps tell you, but not scriptures. Simply put, because in the findings of scientists, there is no evidence for a world wide flood, and which you rely on in your interpretation of the Noah's flood written in scriptures, that you believe that Noah's flood is not world wide more than what can be read plainly in scriptures that mountains as high as the highest mountain of Ararat was flooded.

More important than the point that it was a world wide flood, another point here that remains is that Noah's flood is a miracle that scientists and science can't explain. It was done at the direct will of God and happened not as a result of the laws and forces of nature but according to the design, decree, and power of God.