Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: Biblical arguments against "Flood Geology"

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
    the waters stood above the mountains.
    At your rebuke they fled;
    at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
    The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
    to the place that you appointed for them.
    You set a boundary that they may not pass,
    so that they might not again cover the earth.
    (Psalm 104:6-9 ESV)

    And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
    (Genesis 1:11-13 ESV)

    There is no way these can be talking about the same event.
    Agreed. There were two creative events on Day 3. Ps 104:6-9 corresponds to the first event (Gen 1:9-10), not the second (Gen 1:11-13).

    Source: Ps 104:6-9, NIV


    Psa. 104:6 You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment;
    the waters stood above the mountains.
    Psa. 104:7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
    at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
    Psa. 104:8 they flowed over the mountains,
    they went down into the valleys,
    to the place you assigned for them.
    Psa. 104:9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
    never again will they cover the earth.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Source: Gen 1:9-10, NIV


    Gen. 1:9 ¶ And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.
    Gen. 1:10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

    © Copyright Original Source

    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

  2. #12
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,409
    Amen (Given)
    770
    Amen (Received)
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    Yes. And we can see in ch 8 that "all" is not being used as a universal term, but as a relative term. So in the context of the same Flood account, we must not insist that "all" in ch 7 is used as a universal term. It is more likely a relative term as well. This is the crux of my first argument.
    So then it does not really mean Noah did "all" the LORD commanded him (7:5). It is the same term. It is related to a word meaning "compete" or "perfect."

    Where does Scripture say or imply this? Why would 15 cubits of water on top of mountains form new mountains?
    The water was 15 cubits deep and the top the mountains were covered. Are mountains under 15 cubits today?

    But if the geologic time scale is due to the flood, all trees would have been buried under thousands of feet of sediment. Where could the dove have found a tree to pluck an olive leaf or branch from in ch 8? This is the crux of my second argument.
    It is called coal. And besides those geological time scale sediment layers are world wide and distributed upon whole continents.

    No, establishing the geologic time scale is more complex than this, and many samples are taken.
    I would think the latter to be the case. Even so, only one sample from one location for each age were assigned.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Samples are claimed, but locations are very general and no method used for listed samples are cited.

    Maybe you can find some better examples for dating of the Geological Time Scale. And post the link or links.

    I found this table: http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolut...2/tab2-07a.jpg
    tab2-07a.jpg
    And this table: http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolut...2/tab2-07b.jpg
    tab2-07b.jpg
    Last edited by 37818; 11-18-2015 at 02:35 AM.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  3. Amen theophilus amen'd this post.
  4. #13
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    Yes. And we can see in ch 8 that "all" is not being used as a universal term, but as a relative term. So in the context of the same Flood account, we must not insist that "all" in ch 7 is used as a universal term. It is more likely a relative term as well. This is the crux of my first argument.
    So then it does not really mean Noah did "all" the LORD commanded him (7:5). It is the same term. It is related to a word meaning "compete" or "perfect."
    First, the grammatical construction is not the same. Gen 8 has "kal-ha-aretz", "all of the earth". The constructions "all of the high mountains" is the same.

    Second, do you think ch 7 means that Noah was sinless? That he did absolutely everything perfectly?

    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    Where does Scripture say or imply this? Why would 15 cubits of water on top of mountains form new mountains?
    The water was 15 cubits deep and the top the mountains were covered. Are mountains under 15 cubits today?
    No, but this doesn't answer my question. Why do you believe that new mountains were formed under this 15 cubits of water? Why couldn't it be that the original mountains were simply covered with water and then uncovered?

    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    But if the geologic time scale is due to the flood, all trees would have been buried under thousands of feet of sediment. Where could the dove have found a tree to pluck an olive leaf or branch from in ch 8? This is the crux of my second argument.
    It is called coal. And besides those geological time scale sediment layers are world wide and distributed upon whole continents.
    Are you saying that the dove found an olive leaf in coal?!? (My question is where the dove found the olive leaf if all the trees were buried under thousands of feet of sediment.)

    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    I would think the latter to be the case. Even so, only one sample from one location for each age were assigned.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale
    I can't see where this link says that "only one sample from one location for each age" was used. Can you please point this out with a direct quote?
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

  5. #14
    Mor
    Guest
    No book is intended as an evidence or an argument. (But it can help to remember something you know from your birth, as well as certain places on Earth can resemble another planets and help you remember something from your past. Maybe this is why children like fairy tales more than even the Bible?) About the pigeon, I can only imagine what the prototype is. Maybe it is a robot? All the more, it can even be named pigeon. E.g., do you know what is black shark? It is a helicopter.

  6. #15
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,409
    Amen (Given)
    770
    Amen (Received)
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    First, the grammatical construction is not the same. Gen 8 has "kal-ha-aretz", "all of the earth". The constructions "all of the high mountains" is the same.
    Yes. But the tops of mountains was not the land below them.
    Second, do you think ch 7 means that Noah was sinless?
    You know full well it is not saying that.
    That he did absolutely everything perfectly?
    you also know full well Noah correctly followed God's instructions on that matter.

    No, but this doesn't answer my question. Why do you believe that new mountains were formed under this 15 cubits of water?
    You do not comprehend ramifications of the whole earth literally being under water. And ". . . the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up . . . ." (7:11).
    Why couldn't it be that the original mountains were simply covered with water and then uncovered?
    OK. Then we need to read the text to mean 15 cubits "above" the highest mountains. Covering the whole earth, that would be even more water. As it is ocean bottom fossils are on the tops of most all the worlds mountains.

    Are you saying that the dove found an olive leaf in coal?!?
    Of course not.
    (My question is where the dove found the olive leaf if all the trees were buried under thousands of feet of sediment.)
    New plant growth.

    I can't see where this link says that "only one sample from one location for each age" was used.
    I was referring back to the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology not the following link.
    Can you please point this out with a direct quote?
    I would have to go to a Library that has the set. The library I had gone to has long since closed. It has been a number of years.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  7. #16
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    No, but this doesn't answer my question. Why do you believe that new mountains were formed under this 15 cubits of water?
    You do not comprehend ramifications of the whole earth literally being under water. And ". . . the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up . . . ." (7:11).
    But where does Scripture say that new mountains were formed under this 15 cubits of water? I am trying to get a biblical discussion here. (I understand the claims of a certain prominent hydraulic engineer who had no training in either geology or theology. I reject them.)

    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    Why couldn't it be that the original mountains were simply covered with water and then uncovered?
    OK. Then we need to read the text to mean 15 cubits "above" the highest mountains. Covering the whole earth, that would be even more water. As it is ocean bottom fossils are on the tops of most all the worlds mountains.
    But isn't this what the text says? It says that water covered "all of the high mountains", the same grammatical construction as water covering "all of the earth" in ch 8. And we know from the context that this "all" in ch 8 is a relative"all", not an absolute "all".


    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    Are you saying that the dove found an olive leaf in coal?!?
    Of course not. New plant growth.
    Are you saying that this olive tree grew in less than a week? Or that it grew underwater? Remember that Noah had sent the dove out a week earlier and it saw that water covered "all of the earth".
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

  8. #17
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,409
    Amen (Given)
    770
    Amen (Received)
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    But where does Scripture say that new mountains were formed under this 15 cubits of water?
    It does not. Where does the Scripture say there would not be ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains?

    Where does the Scripture say the flood did not cover the whole earth under heaven?

    I am trying to get a biblical discussion here.
    Really?
    (I understand the claims of a certain prominent hydraulic engineer who had no training in either geology or theology. I reject them.)
    OK. Let's keep real evidence of the flood out of this.

    But isn't this what the text says? It says that water covered "all of the high mountains", the same grammatical construction as water covering "all of the earth" in ch 8. And we know from the context that this "all" in ch 8 is a relative"all", not an absolute "all".
    No. The context does not support this. You seem to think it does. Because while the whole ground was still covered, the tops of mountains were no longer under the water. In the Scripture the tops of mountains and the ground are referred to separately. Genesis 7:19 then 7:20. The distinction is made.


    Are you saying that this olive tree grew in less than a week?
    No. I said new growth. Olive trees from a seed takes about a month to have leaves. And existing olive tree can grow leaves getting sun while yet underwater. But that is not relevant. The scripture says what happened.
    Or that it grew underwater?
    Olive trees can grow leaves while yet underwater. The Scripture is silent on this.
    Remember that Noah had sent the dove out a week earlier and it saw that water covered "all of the earth".
    Yes.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  9. #18
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    It does not. Where does the Scripture say there would not be ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains?
    Where does Scripture say anything about "ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains?" Nowhere, so far as I know. This is extrabiblical speculation.
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Where does the Scripture say the flood did not cover the whole earth under heaven?
    Doesn't it say that the flood did cover the "whole earth" or "whole land"? The question is what this means.
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Really?
    OK. Let's keep real evidence of the flood out of this.
    I'm looking for real, biblical, textual evidence of the flood, not sci-if speculation by non-scientists.
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    No. The context does not support this. You seem to think it does. Because while the whole ground was still covered, the tops of mountains were no longer under the water. In the Scripture the tops of mountains and the ground are referred to separately. Genesis 7:19 then 7:20. The distinction is made.
    So you are reading "eretz" here as "ground"? If by this you mean "land", this is a good way to read it. (The word is often translated as "earth", which is correct if we understand this as "land". But "earth" also has connotations of "planet earth" or "globe", which would not have been in the mind of the author of his audience.)
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    No. I said new growth. Olive trees from a seed takes about a month to have leaves. And existing olive tree can grow leaves getting sun while yet underwater. But that is not relevant. The scripture says what happened.
    Olive trees can grow leaves while yet underwater. The Scripture is silent on this.
    Yes.
    So you seem to be saying that the trees were covered with floodwater and still alive. As the water receded, the trees were uncovered and new leaves grew. Do I understand you correctly?

    If this is your position, it rules out the extrabiblical Flood Geology notion that the flood covered the land with thousands of feet of sediment.
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

  10. #19
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,409
    Amen (Given)
    770
    Amen (Received)
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    Where does Scripture say anything about "ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains?" Nowhere, so far as I know. This is extrabiblical speculation.
    No, it is not speculation. But is an extrabiblical fact of geology.

    Doesn't it say that the flood did cover the "whole earth" or "whole land"?
    "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. " -- Genesis 7:19.

    The question is what this means.
    ". . . Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: . . ." -- 2 Peter 3:6.

    I'm looking for real, biblical, textual evidence of the flood, not sci-if speculation by non-scientists.
    You do not believe the plain text of the Bible. Are you a scientist? I'm not.

    So you are reading "eretz" here as "ground"? If by this you mean "land", this is a good way to read it. (The word is often translated as "earth", which is correct if we understand this as "land". But "earth" also has connotations of "planet earth" or "globe", which would not have been in the mind of the author of his audience.)
    So what?

    So you seem to be saying that the trees were covered with floodwater and still alive. As the water receded, the trees were uncovered and new leaves grew. Do I understand you correctly?
    How do you explain the olive tree branch?

    If this is your position, it rules out the extrabiblical Flood Geology notion that the flood covered the land with thousands of feet of sediment.
    That is how you want it.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  11. Amen theophilus amen'd this post.
  12. #20
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    56
    Amen (Received)
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    Where does Scripture say anything about "ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains?" Nowhere, so far as I know. This is extrabiblical speculation.
    No, it is not speculation. But is an extrabiblical fact of geology.
    Sorry, my statement above is very misleading when removed from the previous context. I should have been clearer. The "extrabiblical speculation" is the idea that there are "ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains" due to a single, worldwide inundation.

    There is scientific evidence for fossils in many places, but deposited at widely different times in different events. There is textual biblical evidence that the Flood covered "all the land" (whatever this means), but no mention of fossil deposition. The "extrabiblical speculation" is associating the fossils with the Flood.

    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    Doesn't it say that the flood did cover the "whole earth" or "whole land"? The question is what this means. I'm looking for real, biblical, textual evidence of the flood, not sci-if speculation by non-scientists.
    "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. " -- Genesis 7:19.

    ". . . Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: . . ." -- 2 Peter 3:6.

    You do not believe the plain text of the Bible. Are you a scientist? I'm not.
    Why do you accuse me of not believing the plain text of the Bible? I agree with you on what the text says. The question is what it means. As I showed in the OP, there is evidence in the Flood account itself that "all" is not used as a universal term.

    (BTW, I am a scientist, with graduate degrees in both science and theology. I DO believe the biblical text; I believe that Scripture is inerrant in its original manuscripts.)

    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    So you seem to be saying that the trees were covered with floodwater and still alive. As the water receded, the trees were uncovered and new leaves grew. Do I understand you correctly?
    How do you explain the olive tree branch?
    Pretty much the same way as I summarized above. This seems to be the implication of the text.

    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
    If this is your position, it rules out the extrabiblical Flood Geology notion that the flood covered the land with thousands of feet of sediment.
    That is how you want it.
    Whether I want it or not is irrelevant. This seems to be the clear implication of the biblical text.
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •