Tackling the flood!

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Or that story is taken from Abraham. I think he was around then, right?

Correct. Abraham was around at the same time as the Sumerians. I would caution anyone trying to put a date on something talked about in the Bible. It is apparent to me that people want to look at the Bible see a date and look to archaeology to prove Gods existence. Well you are not allowed to test God. If you are attempting to do so it will be to your own folly.

reply to post by AllGloryIsGods


I am not trying to prove God's existence. I am trying to understand ours.

Yes, I recognize that a lot of information is false, and that it comes from "they". Yet still, I know their information cannot destroy the truth; it can only make understanding the truth harder. However, if you have faith in God, you can find understanding, even as "they" try to hide it.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to understand, is there?

Ask and ye shall receive?

edit to add: I think not wanting to understand how, is perfectly fine too. I'm not judging you for not caring to understand the how. And since reality is subject to change at his will, why might actually be the only question worth asking - so I agree in that aspect.

reply to post by Nightaudit


Sorry for being "back" here so late. Real life happened.

I will go through your answers now!

Thanks for replying!

reply to post by freedomSlave


I think the known ice age(s) and a world wide flood are two different things.

Good start though!

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


You might have a point there. I have seen videos of an asian underwater sight that absolutely blew my mind.

Sorry for not having the name ready.

It would still leave the challenge to see where the water came from, though.

Some people are in favour of a weird "water canopy" that I have already heard of. But that is not reasonable at all.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


So you are saying the flood happened on a united land mass, which was separated later by god?

Just trying to get your point here.

Originally posted by totallackey
All land was in one place...supported by current observation...

No mountains...supported by known fact...

All water is still here...supported by observation...

Could you please share some sources or facts on the first two points? I am rather curious!

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


I think it is know fact that the planet explands. But at the point where we still one huge hunk of land, there weren´t any living human beings around. That is for sure.

So this does not really count as a valid argument imo. I am ready to be convinced by some numbers though!

Originally posted by Hopechest
You need to read ancient Sumerian text, The Epic of Gilgamesh if I remember correctly.

The biblical story of the flood is directly ripped off from that culture.

Are you arguing in favor or against the flood?

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


This was extremely hard to put into words:

Earth's ancient ocean levels were so low, that the current water volume cannot be explained by the differences in the ancient and current glacial ice sheets' volumes?

And the differences in water volumes must have been caused by a lot of water being later added to Earth, which gave Earth its current volume of water; but then a subsequent expansion of Earth would be required to lower the water levels, to thereby leave Earth with its current land surface to water ratio?

Thus, great evidence for a global flood?

reply to post by Nightaudit


The only opinion I have, as of now, is that the reason there are so many great flood stories is because all the people were together as one when the actual flood happened.

How it all went down, I do not know. What I posted above seems that it could be possible, but very speculative. If it's not right, it's specious for sure.

If there were ancient underwater structures in the artic and antartic I would be highly in favor of it - as it would seem to be almost sure proof of less water volume in ancient times. There's also the ancient maps that show antartica without ice so, yeah it could very well be possible.

In the end, there's a lot of variables that need to be considered still.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


In this scenario you mentioned, I still do not see how the flood could have added extra water to the mix?

Where did it come from? Is this the point where god comes into play?

Could you maybe post a link or something in regards to the water level being lower in the past?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


You are right, there are a lot of variables in this.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

This was extremely hard to put into words:

Earth's ancient ocean levels were so low, that the current water volume cannot be explained by the differences in the ancient and current glacial ice sheets' volumes?

And the differences in water volumes must have been caused by a lot of water being later added to Earth, which gave Earth its current volume of water; but then a subsequent expansion of Earth would be required to lower the water levels, to thereby leave Earth with its current land surface to water ratio?

Thus, great evidence for a global flood?

Correct. My math is not one of my highlights and quite crude, but to give you a basic idea of what it might look like, Ice would have to cover the entire Antarctica continent, 141 miles high, in order to uncover the deepest archeological sites. And I seriously doubt you can stack ice that high.

From what I gather, Earth, has doubled its present size in only the last 62 - 70 million years. Our Earth at that size would have been covered by 95% + - water, if it had our present volume of water. And we know it wasn't that way, we only had shallow inland seas. I believe this is the time of the first global flood that started the expansion, and destroyed all the flora and fauna that created the 35% oxygen content of the air. It would also be logical to assume this was the real reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs, they were drowned.

So we are once again faced with "where did all the water come from"? I have a strong suspicion as to where it came from but our present scientific community with all of their built in prejudices are just not ready.

Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

You might have a point there. I have seen videos of an asian underwater sight that absolutely blew my mind.

Sorry for not having the name ready.

It would still leave the challenge to see where the water came from, though.

Some people are in favour of a weird "water canopy" that I have already heard of. But that is not reasonable at all.

edit on 7-4-2013 by Nightaudit because: spelling

Thank you.

We must take all accounts of this event, the flood, into account, but, we have to take them into the proper perspective of the witnesses. Many ancient scriptures state their was outside intervention into humanity. Fallen Angels, Watchers, Lord God, Ra, and a host of others. We are led to believe that these "Gods" for lack of better descriptions, were superior to the common man. Some of the scriptures speak of mankind only being created to be slaves and miners. Only a very few humans were allowed to be educated, and I suspect that education was very narrow and quite limited. But even at that, someone had to survive to tell the tale of the event. We are left with flood stories from around the world, that may have been written by "uneducated" people who's abilities of communication are very limited. And believe me, I can relate to them.

They were not perfect writings and great room for error was present. "water canopy" could translate to "It rained Cats and Dogs" as we sometimes say today. Could people in the future confuse this with the actual raining of cats and dogs? Water coming up from the depths may as well be taken out of the real physical context that was observed. If you boil all the story down to one thing then I think the one most important thing is, some one took responsibility for the act of the flood, and stated they would not do it again.

Once you identify the "Who", you will start to understand where the water might have come from.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


The one problem that I have with Antarctica being without ice is if you look at the maps drawn at the time (there is only a few) that the land masses look pretty much the same as they do today.

Wouldn't coastlines look completely different if all that ice was gone?

Don't know why that bothers me but it does.

Personally I cannot see the whole world having one flood event but I can make sense that there was a whole lot of localized flooding events to talk about and pass down through word of mouth that happened around the same time as glaciers receding.

reply to post by Nightaudit


I've dug deep into a lot of our misfit truths, of past and present, and the one answer that keep popping up is God; and it's not that I have to give up and say, "don't know, therefor God"; it's that, the evidence that is uncovered always turns out to be a very very good metaphor to what was written in the bible long long ago...

So to answer your question, yes; this is where God comes in. As always - he's humbling. lol

eta: Oh and we know the water level was lower because of the ancient under water structures. Those things weren't built underwater, they were built well up on the coast and then the water rose above them.

reply to post by Nightaudit


Point one...Look at any map...it is patently obvious the land masses fit together.

Point two...mountain ranges are consequential to land movement and tectonic shifts which cause uplift.

reply to post by Terminal1

I don't know the science behind ice formation, but I think ice forms better against solids.

It might have something to do with the land/ice being exposed to cool air, and because land and ice do not scatter heat like water does, it would naturally cool better against those surfaces.

Because water contours to the edge of land/ice, it would naturally form the basic shape of the land/ice it formed against, if only a modest silhouette of it, of course.

I saw a thread the other day with some map that actually showed Antarctica has having two separate land masses or rather a river or something going through it. That alone shows someone new of Antarctica without all the ice. (Key word being all.) Meaning, it could have been partially covered, and just grew in size and keep the same basic shape.

Oh just thought of something else: It could also be partially due to the water currents. The currents that shaped the land would shape the ice as well.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
My adapted theory is that, there is too much water here on Earth. It did not start off with this much water. We are only allowed to consider, by the institutions, that it has always been here. But what if? We know Meteors and dust fall on earth every day, its a fact. Why not consider the same when it comes to water? Why not allow for the possibility?

Actually it's believed by science now that the original earth did not have any water and that it most likely arrived via comet, on more than one occasion. Scientists have already observed comets that contain salt water. Science most certainly allows for that possibility and it's actually the most probable as well. Comet hits earth, raising the ocean levels. Combine that with the end of the last ice age, and you would definitely see impact on a global level in the form of dozens of localized floods. In the legends, they only considered it global because it was "their world" that was flooded. They didn't even know there the earth was as big as it was. It's not like they could just maneuver their boats to the other side of the world to check it out. The entire surface of the earth, however was never covered with water and science agrees. If there is too much water now, imagine how much there would be if that happened. There would be evidence and results of the pressure that would have been created by this much water, and it would be observed in the fossil record. We have no evidence of this. We'd also see a recent super volcano eruption in the fossil layer corresponding with the time period it happened. This is how we know when Yellowstone last erupted and why it is destined to blow again, relatively soon.