The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

systemsready · 26-10-2012 07:31AM

J C wrote: »

Welcome Back

Thanks

The Concrete Doctor · 28-10-2012 02:04PM

If the bible teaches that the great flood covered the whole world, does that mean Mount Everest was also covered with water?

dan dan · 28-10-2012 02:25PM

Yes . As far as I know it was water He used . Not lemonade ,or wine.

MrPudding · 28-10-2012 03:16PM

dan dan wrote: »

Yes . As far as I know it was water He used . Not lemonade ,or wine.

I think perhaps the nuance of the question may have been beyond your ability.

MrP

The Concrete Doctor · 28-10-2012 03:31PM

dan dan wrote: »

Yes . As far as I know it was water He used . Not lemonade ,or wine.

Sarcasm does not become you. Dan dan. If you don't know the answer just say so.

Peregrinus · 28-10-2012 03:41PM

Genesis explicitly says that "all the high mountains under the entire heaven were covered" (Gen 7:19) to a depth of more than 15 cubits (about 7 metres). So if you understand the Genesis account literally, yes, Everest was covered.

The Concrete Doctor · 28-10-2012 03:54PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Genesis explicitly says that "all the high mountains under the entire heaven were covered" (Gen 7:19) to a depth of more than 15 cubits (about 7 metres). So if you understand the Genesis account literally, yes, Everest was covered.

Does that mean that the whole world was covered by 6 miles of water?

MrPudding · 28-10-2012 03:57PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Genesis explicitly says that "all the high mountains under the entire heaven were covered" (Gen 7:19) to a depth of more than 15 cubits (about 7 metres). So if you understand the Genesis account literally, yes, Everest was covered.

my understanding was that after the flood the earth was pushed up... So, pre-flood there would have been no Everest, as we know it now, it would have been created by the pushing up of the earth. Some nutters people believe this pushing up is one of the mechanisms by which the huge volumes of "spare" water was dealt with.

MrP

Peregrinus · 28-10-2012 04:03PM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Does that mean that the whole world was covered by 6 miles of water?

No, not strictly correct. Assuming, again, that you interpret Genesis literally, the peak of Everest was covered by 7m of water. Other points on the surface of the earth were covered by a depth of water varying between 7m and 8,455m, depending on how far above sea level that point is. Land at sea level would be covered by 8,455m of water, which is about 5.25 miles.

To complicate matters further, sea level is not the same everywhere in the world. But let that pass.

Peregrinus · 28-10-2012 04:05PM

MrPudding wrote: »

my understanding was that after the flood the earth was pushed up . . .

There's nothing in Genesis about that. SFAIK, this is a speculation of creation "scientists" in an attempt to avoid the objection to a literal reading which, I strongly suspect, The Concrete Doctor is about to make.

Sulla Felix · 28-10-2012 04:05PM

Just crunched the numbers. God would have needed to create approx 1.8 billion cubic kilometres of water to flood the earth. The volume of the oceans is about half a billion km3, water in lakes and rivers on land is negligible.
Not that I'm supporting a literal reading. I think it more likely that the flood of the bible is a folk memory of the flooding of the mediteranean basin or even the black sea.

The Concrete Doctor · 28-10-2012 04:06PM

MrPudding wrote: »

my understanding was that after the flood the earth was pushed up... So, pre-flood there would have been no Everest, as we know it now, it would have been created by the pushing up of the earth. Some nutters people believe this pushing up is one of the mechanisms by which the huge volumes of "spare" water was dealt with.

MrP

So by that account Everest must be a relatively new mountain, do people actually believe that?

philologos · 28-10-2012 04:08PM

Some Christians regard the flood as having been regional which would correlate with other flood narratives in the region. It depends how you read eretz either as the whole land or the whole earth. The former can be read regionally where as the latter can't.

Peregrinus · 28-10-2012 04:11PM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

So by that account Everest must be a relatively new mountain, do people actually believe that?

By an amazing coincidence, Everest is a relatively new mountain. The formation of the Himalayas began 40 to 50 million years ago, and is still continuing. This makes the Himalayas one of the youngest major mountain ranges on the planet.

But not as young as creation science requires it to be.

The Concrete Doctor · 28-10-2012 04:19PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's nothing in Genesis about that. SFAIK, this is a speculation of creation "scientists" in an attempt to avoid the objection to a literal reading which, I strongly suspect, The Concrete Doctor is about to make.

I don't object to anyone taking the bible's literal interpretation. But I don't understand how the Earth can ever have been covered by 6 miles of water. Do people ever think about that? Water is self levelling so if it covered Everest, it also covered everywhere else, Britain and Ireland, USA, China, Australia, everywhere would have been under 6 miles of water.

Peregrinus · 28-10-2012 04:34PM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

I don't object to anyone taking the bible's literal interpretation. But I don't understand how the Earth can ever have been covered by 6 miles of water. Do people ever think about that? Water is self levelling so if it covered Everest, it also covered everywhere else, Britain and Ireland, USA, China, Australia, everywhere would have been under 6 miles of water.

Where are you getting six miles from? The summit of Everest is only a bit over 5 miles from sea level.

But, yes, a fundamentalist literalist interpretation of Genesis does require the entire earth to be covered with water to a considerable depth, and that requires a prodigious quantity of water. As Philologos points out, some believers suggest that the flood was local/regional, on the basis that the word eretz, usually translated as "world" also means "land" (as in "Eretz Israel", the land of Israel). But your strict literalist will point to the bit already quoted about every mountain under the heavens being covered and say that no, the entire planet was involved.

And they will acknowledge that, yes, this requires a phenomenal amount of water but, if the Genesis account requires that amount of water, the God must certainly have provided it. After all, if he could create the planet, creating sufficient water to cover it doesn't seem too much of a stretch.

dan dan · 28-10-2012 08:13PM

Notwithstanding the fact of the nuance going over my head.My joke seems to have upset someone.
The flood in the Bible story,is just that .A story to explain the unexplainable at the time. To accept the flood one must accept the Ark. Adam and Eve .ETC ETC. Both Testaments have been interpreted time and again by people who knew not the dialects . They were adjusted ,re written,messed about ,until what we have today is a mish mash of mish mashes. Quiet difficult to take anything without salt.

philologos · 28-10-2012 08:17PM

dan dan wrote: »

Notwithstanding the fact of the nuance going over my head.My joke seems to have upset someone.
The flood in the Bible story,is just that .A story to explain the unexplainable at the time. To accept the flood one must accept the Ark. Adam and Eve .ETC ETC. Both Testaments have been interpreted time and again by people who knew not the dialects . They were adjusted ,re written,messed about ,until what we have today is a mish mash of mish mashes. Quiet difficult to take anything without salt.

Honestly that's not even true. There's no evidence the Bible was rewritten. There's clear manuscript evidence against it. Please read the "Why trust the Bible?" links in my signature.

If you want to see an ancient mishmash look no further than Aristotle's Metaphysics. Nobody is sure where it begins. There are at least three differing definitions of metaphysics. The reality is the Bible is the most authentic ancient text in the world today.

golden lane · 28-10-2012 08:22PM

great story......but a bit far fetched....

AtomicHorror · 28-10-2012 08:36PM

I did (very) rough numbers on it before in the Creationism megathread part II. Something like 3-4 times the known volume of water currently on Earth would have had to have come from somewhere and then gone somewhere afterwards. This has lots of very tricky implications. Genesis says this extra water came from a combination of rain and upwellings from underground. So a good amount of this would be fresh water. This would mean the overall salinity of the resulting global ocean would be significantly less than normal sea water, killing a lot of salt water life forms. Fresh water lakes and rivers would have been inundated, killing off many fresh water species. The short period of time during the initial inundation would have meant the waters were very turbulent in many places, creating a jumbled mess of sediments including lots of dead species.

We see no physical evidence of any of this today.

dan dan · 28-10-2012 08:48PM

The nearest written account of the passion,has been verified to 40 years after the event. Great tracts of the bible was written centuries after the fact.
Oral traditions and the passing down of stories by keepers of the tale. Were the sources. The story of Mary at the Crusifiction,for instance was adjusted to read better .

philologos · 28-10-2012 10:04PM

dan dan wrote: »

The nearest written account of the passion,has been verified to 40 years after the event. Great tracts of the bible was written centuries after the fact.
Oral traditions and the passing down of stories by keepers of the tale. Were the sources. The story of Mary at the Crusifiction,for instance was adjusted to read better .

That's also not true! The first account we have of the crucifixion and resurrection were written in 55AD in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Impressive since Paul was a convert to Christ. Now we know that the gospel which is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was preached in the early church before Paul. Moreover if you read Paul's conversion account in Galatians you'll see a timeline in years from Paul's conversion to the writing of Galatians.

Please read the links in my signature. There is no evidence of the Gospel being rewritten.

Yellowblackbird · 28-10-2012 10:19PM

I know that Edmund Hillary can argue that technically he was the first man to "climb" Everest - but I think it's clear who the first man to top Everest was - our man Noah. Unfortunately he wasn't in a position to put a flag into it or anything.

J C · 29-10-2012 12:18AM

golden lane wrote: »

great story......but a bit far fetched....

A bit like Spontaneous Evolution ... and it's billions of years requirement actually!!!:)

... I feel a thread merger coming on!!!:eek:

J C · 29-10-2012 12:22AM

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

I know that Edmund Hillary can argue that technically he was the first man to "climb" Everest - but I think it's clear who the first man to top Everest was - our man Noah. Unfortunately he wasn't in a position to put a flag into it or anything.

There is no record of Noah climbing Everest ... he may have sailed over the proto-Everest allright ... when it was considerably lower altitude (and beneath the waves of the Great Flood) ... and before it was thrust up to it's current height!!:)

PDN · 29-10-2012 08:10AM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Water is self levelling so if it covered Everest, it also covered everywhere else, Britain and Ireland, USA, China, Australia, everywhere would have been under 6 miles of water.

While I think it quite possible that Genesis refers to a localised flood - what
you say about water being self-levelling isn't actually true. The earth is not perfectly spherical, and the gravitational effects of the sun and moon cause water to 'bulge' in certain points.

If water were truly self-levelling on a global scale then you would be forced to believe that extra water was being created every time the tide came in.

J C · 29-10-2012 10:24AM

wrote:

The Concrete Doctor
Water is self levelling so if it covered Everest, it also covered everywhere else, Britain and Ireland, USA, China, Australia, everywhere would have been under 6 miles of water.

The Bible doesn't say that the Earth was under 6 miles of water everywhere during the Flood. It says that entire Earth was covered with water ... with the highest mountains (at the time) covered to a depth of 15 cubits or about 8 metres.

Gen 7:17-20 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

In this regard, if the Earth was a smooth sphere, there is sufficient water in the oceans to cover the entire Earth to a depth of 2.5 Km or about 1.6 miles!!!
... the calculation is done here ... and Atomic Horror ... please also take note!!!:)
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env300.htm

It is thought that the ante-diluvian world didn't have the extremes of topography that currently exist and therefore inundation with water was more easily achieved than would be possible nowadays.

Peregrinus · 29-10-2012 10:58AM

J C wrote: »

In this regard, if the Earth was a smooth sphere, there is sufficient water in the oceans to cover the entire Earth to a depth of 2.5 Km or about 1.6 miles!!!
... the calculation is done here ... and Atomic Horror ... please also take note!!!
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env300.htm

It is thought that the ante-diluvian world didn't have the extremes of topography that currently exist and therefore inundation with water was more easily achieved than would be possible nowadays.

But think this through for a minute.

Were the earth in fact a smooth sphere (and were the smooth-sphere earth to have the same quantity of surface water that the real earth has) it would of course always be covered in water; there would be no question of floods.

We know, obviously, that the antediluvian world was not a smooth sphere. It did have permanently dry land, it did have mountains, etc.

Even if we assume that its grandients and eminences were not as great as today, they were nevertheless significant. Land which is only just above sea-level is regularly flooded by the sea, but the Flood is presented as exceptional, unique. Land which is far from the sea but has no gradient is regularly flooded by rivers. And mountains and valleys, even before the flood, were large enough/deep enough to affect agriculture, human settlement, population movement, etc.

Right. So even if mountains were not as high as today, they were certainly high enough that to cover all the earth with water would require much, much more water than the earth actually had. If this were not the case, then major floods would be routine, not exceptional. So to read the Genesis account literally, we still need God to create, and then presumably to annihilate, a considerable volume of water. Obviously, if God’s in a creatin’ mood, it makes no difference to Him whether he creates 1 litre of water, or 100 billion trillion gigalitres.

So assumptions or arguments about geology and the changing topology of the earth don’t make a literal reading of Genesis any easier or more plausible; they still require a special creation. And if you’re going to have a special creation then one which creates enough water to cover 8,400-metre Everest is just as plausible as one which creates enough water to cover 840-metre Everest.

Benny_Cake · 29-10-2012 12:22PM

Since this seems to be a continuation of the discussion about the flood in the megathread, I'm going to merge the two.

shizz · 29-10-2012 08:19PM

J C wrote: »

A bit like Spontaneous Evolution ... and it's billions of years requirement actually!!!:)

... I feel a thread merger coming on!!!:eek:

You've said this sentence before and I told you then what I'll tell you now. Evolution is not spontaneous. You say it's requirement is billions of years, all be it sarcastically I imagine. Nevertheless you cant say evolution is spontaneous and then say something which automatically makes what you said previous so obviously wrong a child could see it.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments