Genesis Flood: Forgotten, Disproved, or Under a New Alias?

I have not seen anyone debate the idea of what I know as "the Genesis flood." It's a theory that has been around for quite some time and may be a good discussion topic. The Genesis flood refers to the pre-Noah flood stated in Genesis 1:2.Genesis 1:1 states that "IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:2 says that “The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters.”The elapsed time between what is stated in Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 could have been a period of millions or billions of years; plants, animals, even man-like creatures could have existed prior to this flood. Genesis 1:2 begins the process of the seven day creation (or re-creation after a previous destructive flood) which initiates the beginning of mankind’s' story.This idea would support the age of the planet according to what science knows so far. Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are only a verse apart yet that doesn't make them close relative to time.All bible references come from the amplified version found at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.-Catastrophes in the name of Christianity are a result of the perpetrator knowing half the bible and everyone else knowing nothing.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think that the Genesis Flood typically refers to Noah's Flood. What you are talking about is AFAIK generally referred to as the "Gap Theory"Are you referring to the scientific evidence of theological argument when you refer to "disproof" ? On the scientiifc side there isn't the sort of break you indicate, nor huge flood deposits at a convenient time. On the theological side YECs would reject it on the basis that it contradicts their "no death before Adam" doctrine (although that isn't proof to anyone who doesn't accept that doctrine).

Well later verses mention the creation of the sun, moon, "and the stars also" (which must be the greatest understatement of all time). That statement alone invalidates the inspired potential of Genesis.Therefore what this theory would mean is that the earth was all alone for billions of years. Not much insight there - not to mention that we are receiving star light that is millions of years old.

The problem with this is that there is no actual evidence for a global flood at any time. All purported 'evidence' is either due to misinterpretation or misrepresentation combined with ignoring the huge (and I mean HUGE) amount of evidence to the contrary.Maybe the Genesis stories are not meant to be taken literally. While there are some who think the Bible is a science textbook, they have been shown repeatedly to have little or no knowledge of either science or the Bible.I think any dual flood hypothesis just increases the problems rather than offers any solution.

But Genesis 2:4 states:

quote:

---

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

---

So, if we read literally, the creation of the heavens and earth occurred on a day. Now, you could say that this day occurred before the day when light was created, but if you do then the first day couldn't be the 'first day' as Gen 1:5 says, and would be the second day. So, you have to merge the two and say that they both happened on day one.

---

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer

What flood.Sorry but there is absolutely NOTHING in Genesis 1:1-2 to suggest a flood and Genesis 1:1 states positively that the earth was without form.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Gen 1:2 doesn't seem to imply a flood (water rising to cover pre-exisiting land), but rather seems to say that water was the original state. Here is the start of Genesis, for reference:NIV:

quote:

---

Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

​

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light....

---

As far as checking against the evidence, science has shown that there has been no time, not ever, when the earth was completely covered by liquid water. Even at the very beginning, the earth was hot and dry, and the water vapor cooled until it rained, only then filling the oceans. This is just another place where the story in Genesis makes no sense if read literally.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Methinks that those waters - "the deep" - was the "ocean" that surrounded the disk-shaped Earth in old middle-eastern cosmologies. Whether the Earth's "pillars" were in place before God started hovering doesn't seem to be addressed, though.

First off, it is silly to be so literally picky.
and a day in space and time and in gods view may
not be on your clock. you error without knowing of
what time an event took place becouse you have
no valid stick to use that he speaks about.He has never spoke in terms above those times.
and he talks about only events he feels is important
skipping what may get over the peoples heads at that
time.Zcoder....

Though the flood of Noah is remarkably similar to the one told in the Epic of Gilgamesh, it is by no means the only stories of the flood. The stories span the world and are told by many peoples separated by vast distances and it would be foolish to say they all got it from Gilgamesh.Stories of the flood can be found with the following locales/peoples:Australia- Kurnai, Babylon- Berossus' account, Babylon- Gilgamesh epic, Bolivia- Chiriguano, Borneo- Sea Dayak, Burma- Singpho, Canada- Cree, Canada- Montagnais, China- Lolo, Cuba- original natives, East Africa- Masai, Egypt- Book of the Dead, Fiji- Walavu-levu tradition, French Polynesia- Raiatea, Greece- Lucian's account, Guyana- Macushi,
Iceland- Eddas, India- Andaman Islands, India- Bhil, India-Kamar, Iran- Zend-Avesta, Italy- Ovid's poetry, Malay Peninsula- Jekun, Mexico- Codex Chimalpopoca, Mexico- Huichol, New Zealand- Maori, Peru- Indians of Huarochiri, Russia- Vogul, U.S.A. (Alaska)- Kolusches, U.S.A. (Alaska)- Tlingit, U.S.A. (Arizona)- Papago, U.S.A. (Hawaii)- legend of Nu-u, Vanualu- Melanesians, Vietnam- Bahnar, Wales- Dwyfan/Dwyfan legendWith such a wide coverage of flood legends, something must have actually happened. Whether it was the world engulfing flood or some smaller version I don't know.

"flood" implies that an area was dry before a body of water covered the area. in this case, there is no indication of any such dry land prior to this. water is simply the initial state of creation, and symbolic represents chaos and disorder through the hebrew texts.the case of noach, god is simply returning his creation to its initial state, because he regrets having made it. the use of water is meant to reflec this passage in genesis, only in reverse. no, this quite obviously not the case. we are given a creation story, not a re-creation story. the fact that this story exists at all is evidence that there is nothing before it -- if the authors were only concerned about this creation we are living in now, the bible would have started at noach.second, genesis 1:1-3 is a single sentance. forgive me for not rendering the hebrew exactly, as i'm at work, but it goes something like:

quote:

---

b'reishit bara elohim et ha-shamim v'et ha-aretz -- v'ha-aretz tohu v'bohu (...) -- v'y'amar elohim "yeheh aur!" ...

​

when god began creating the skies and the land -- and the land was not formed or filled (...) god said "exist, light!" ...

---

the first phrase, b'reishit... is a dependent clause, and the second verse phrases the noun and verb backwards from normal biblical hebrew, indicating it is not part of the normal sequence of events (ie: grammatically, it's an aside, part of another sentance). the first action of creation is the command for light to exist -- that is what god did at the beginning of creation. you can find a more detailed argument in this thread. no, it would not. we still have no geological record of ANY world-wide flood, and much of the genesis story is still quite antiquated. for instance, one would think that nasa would have run into the solid dome of the heavens every time they tried to put a shuttle into orbit. and also, animals were not created only 6,000 years ago.gap ideas are neither biblical, nor rectify the text with science. they lose on both accounts.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo no one would have noticed

---

Welcome to EvC, MyFix.The idea of wedging an immense span of time between the first two verses of Genesis is not new and it does find voice here. A search of gap theory, for example, should turn up some earlier EvC discussions.The idea will find fans as long as people want to reconcile the evidence for an ancient earth with a literal reading of Genesis.As you see, the idea is of no help with the science. One just makes more problems for oneself in the realms of geology, physics, and astronomy.As a biblical interpretation the 'gap' reading actually stands falsified by the original Hebrew.In the original Hebrew Genesis 1.1 is not a complete sentence. Genesis 1.2 provides the subject: earth. Scholars today render the first sentence as a dependent clause in order to catch this. Consult the most reputable translations and you'll find a reading that goes something like this:

[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

​

NRSV

You still see some recent translations adopting the two-sentence structure. They use it not because it's the best way to render the Hebrew (it isn't), but because the target market for these translations tends to be fiercely loyal to a certain translation made in 1611.Sticking a 'gap' of vast ages between verses 1 and 2 has always been an awkward construction to put on a text. That gap closes to airtight, though, when you consider that the details in verse 1 describe the thing we're shown in verse 2.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

In the beginning would have been the morning of day one the day God created the heaven and the earth.In the evening of that day things seem to be in a mess.God made some light and divided the light from the darkness.When that darkness had passed in the morning it is said that was the first day.So a literal reading says that the events that took place in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:26 could have taken place in the period from the beginning until sometime in the evening when we find everything in the condition it is in, in Genesis 1:2.Then God said in verse 3 "Let there be Light". It does not say He created light.He divided the light from the darkness and when morning was come the first day had passed.EnjoyEdited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

evening comes before morning. days start at sun-down, not sun-up. what? no. that's incredibly... out of order.

---