Source of biblical flood water?

did you know that the egyptians historically had the first monotheistic religion? it was several hundred years before the earliest estimes of when moses would have been there, assuming moses even existed. it was under a guy named amenhotep iv, or akhenaten, take your pick.from the sounds of it, egpytian religion may have more of an effect on judaism than vice versa.including this "living god" bit. that's an egyptian phrase for "pharoah." just so you know. not dino-type thing. DRAGON. great serpents. with seven heads. and yes, that's probably what tanniyn in genesis 1 is referring to. no, let's.

quote:

---

Rev 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

​

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

---

quote:

---

Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.

---

same language. revelation is drawing on the leviathan imagery, which draws on the story of lotan and el. and as already discussed, leviathan has seven heads according to that story. nessie. and plesiasaur. and no, leviathan is not one of those. although it *MAY* have been based on dinosaur bones, but i doubt it sence they then would have associated with land. this is a description of a mysterious monster that lives in the great deep, and wrecks ships, with lots of heads. a more likely animal would be a giant squid. eh, i looked up another translation. that verse seems to be talking about the "vault" as in the dome i was talking about. you asked where enoch walked. i said with god.

quote:

---

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him.

---

he walked with god. then, he was not because god took him. so presumably, when he walked with god, he did it on earth. god being on earth is not a foriegn concept you know. have you even read the bible? he does it all throughout genesis and exodus. and yet, that's what the bible says. it's not my fault it doesn't make sense. want the verse?

quote:

---

2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, [there appeared] a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

---

elijah is in heaven. this heaven:

quote:

---

Gen 1:7 And 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.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

---

and this heaven:

quote:

---

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

---

heck, if he's there, we should be able to see him with BINOCULARS. and the hubble telescope should be UNDERWATER. yeah, but we are discussing the views in genesis, aren't we? they wanted to know where the flood came from. if we ignore genesis -- we ignore the flood. no really. the bible is an interesting book. you should actually read it sometime. it's also funny. tell me you got some of the jokes, right? thank you but i am not reading out of context at all. i'm reading not in context of the rest of the old testament, but the context of the society in general. perhaps you should do some research. the last bible class i was in really gave the fundies a hard time. because the teacher dealt strictly with what the bible said. and the literalists just couldn't accept that the bible didn't actually say what they thought it did.

quote:

---

. i am not assigning the ridiculous quality

---

We'll have to disagree, as I never heard such a whopper, and I heard quite a few weird interpretations.

quote:

---

it says there's a solid object that divides the water above from the water below

---

Right, a barrier, the question is which water from which water, in case you missed that.

quote:

---

. the amount of water it would take to flood the planet being contained in the ground would saturate the rock so much that there would be no such thing as solid ground.

---

What is that supposed to mean? I've seen rocks in a river, and they don't get any more 'saturated' in a few months than rocks on dry ground. Pull them out of the river, even a deep river, and you can walk on it fine!

quote:

---

he's willing to ignore that blatant statements in genesis that indicate the water came from the source of creation, above the heavens and below the earth: the great deep.

---

The heavens meant a few different things, depending on the word translated. If water did come down from deep space, what kind of difficulty do you think this would present to the Orchestrator?

quote:

---

. there'd be so much water in the atmosphere we'd all drown

---

A small thin canopy would present no such problem, if the bulk of the water was from beneath.

quote:

---

where's the other end of the ladder? most of these suggest a solid roof.

---

In a vision or dream, who cares where the rungs end? Heaven can be, I think, if I remember right, the heaven of heavens, where God usually hangs out, the stars, and sky, or, the atmosphere where birds fly. Walt's book pointed out a few ideas for 'firmament' as well. Basically we do not know exactly, even if you like to claim you do.

quote:

---

. the only legitimate reading is that a solid object, a firmament, separates the waters above the earth from the waters below the earth

---

Then, if you were right, they came in from deep space, I take your decrees of "only legitimate" with a large pinch of salt.

quote:

---

you're the one proposing magic here.

---

Before it becomes science, things were often thought of as magic. For the limited science of the box of physical only, it would appear as such, since they are so far behind the 8 ball, on the spirit world. For God, what you call magic is routine, and natural.

quote:

---

i know a lot about science. i know alot about the bible. and they don't fit with EITHER

---

I always can tell when someone thinks they know a lot, how little they actually know!

quote:

---

. i don't care about it lining up with the real world. i don't care about it lining up with ITSELF. i'm interested in what the bible says.

---

Lining up with the real world is good. Comparing scripture with scripture is good. Thinking the bible has us in some metal dome cage is bad.

quote:

---

to justify science with theology is even sillier.

---

When so called science is a belief based faith, I don't worry about justifying it, only slapping it into line when it gets to old age dreams and extrapolations of present physical processes into imaginary dates that disagree with the bible's account of when Adam really lived!

I understand better now. I think there's two things you're saying:1. When interpreting the bible, we use human powers of reason (of course, we're human).2. When JUDGING the bible, Arach uses a combination of his interpretation (taken via reason) and scientific knowledge. When they don't match, I'm sure Arach double-checks his scholarship, the scientific knowledge and, if they're still conflicting, concludes that the Bible is simply not describing reality, i.e. is wrong.Then you're saying that classical literalists take a different way; when they come across a discrepency between scientific knowledge and their interpretation of the bible, then, because their most basic assumption is that the Bible cannot be wrong, they assume that there's error in either:
1. Their interpretation of the bible
2. The scientific knowledgeLet me know if this summary is not quite right. Thanks for the info.

quote:

---

the egyptians historically had the first monotheistic religion

---

No, Adam believed in the One God, as did Noah, etc. But I think the early egyptians may have knew a few things, and may have modeled the pyramids after heaven. The golden city, many feel is mountain shaped, or pyramidical.

quote:

---

including this "living god" bit. that's an egyptian phrase for "pharoah."

---

Yes, but as we saw later, they were mickey mouse, compared to the real deal! Plagues, red sea swallowing their soldiers, etc.

quote:

---

great serpents. with seven heads. and yes, that's probably what tanniyn in genesis 1 is referring to.

---

Dragons, OK. But you again plunge needlessly into the mystic in assigning them 7 heads, trying to tie it into some prophesy. The beast in revelations was symbolic of something, so it was represented that way. Only in your mind is there any link at all.

quote:

---

. But that's a long story, and wouldn't mix with a science forum.

​

no, let's.

---

These guys shut down posts for things like that. So better to leave it.

quote:

---

Well, there you go, it couldn't have been a metal skydome, or we'd see him pasted up there, with a telescope!

​

and yet, that's what the bible says. it's not my fault it doesn't make sense. want the verse?

---

They no more encountered a metal skydome than the nasa people do when they travel there. Elijah went to heaven.

quote:

---

heck, if he's there, we should be able to see him with BINOCULARS.

---

He's a spirit, so don't hold your breath

quote:

---

yeah, but we are discussing the views in genesis, aren't we? they wanted to know where the flood came from. if we ignore genesis -- we ignore the flood.

---

I can discuss a kitchen in the hardware store, as well as at a kitchen table, and I might even get a fresh perspective on it.

quote:

---

the bible is an interesting book. you should actually read it sometime.

---

Just because I saw no metal sky dome in there doesn't mean I never looked at the book.

quote:

---

the last bible class i was in really gave the fundies a hard time. because the teacher dealt strictly with what the bible said

---

So getting bogged down in silly locked in, unmatched to the real world, or the rest of the bible -interpretations are your idea of a fun time. Hey, it confused the fundy in the room. Well, I might suggest the poor guy was already well on his way to confusion going to such a strange class, where the object of the teacher was to muddle, and confuse with some dogmatic, unreasonable, time wasting ultra literalist interpretaion.

then you haven't read genesis. it's right there in black and white in your own copy of the bible. i think you're the one missing something.

quote:

---

Gen 1:7 And 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.

---

now try cramming 10 gallons of water into a pebble using a pressure cooker, and see what happens. actually, it would. ever hear of something called "the greenhouse effect?" but you're still ignoring the fundamental MEANING of the scripture. when god opens the windows of heaven, and unstops the fountains of the great deep, he is undoing that first step in creation, and bringing waters back together. you're missing the concept of undoing creation.it seems to me that to try to justify the story without any attention to the REASON or SYMBOLISM behind it is to completely invalidate the need to justify the text in the first place. heaven can mean the vault itself, or the space under the vault (the sky). i might concede that there is no solid object to hold it up, but that would be ignoring the job reference:

quote:

---

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?

---

which seems to indicate a solid object. as well as the fact that word for "firmament" implies something solid, and spread by the process of beating. however, even if nothing is there... the bible still says that there is water above the sky. nothing but water above the sky. walt brown is a hack. do a search for his name on this board. and yes, we DO know roughly what the bible is talking about, and it's an antiquated world view that does not fit modern science. if you want to reject science for genesis, the least you can do is actually do that wholeheartedly. no. not deep space. the sun, the moon, and stars are all in this firmament. this firmament is like a tent over the earth. the water is outside of it. this is not an interpretation. this is what the bible says. it's not that it's the only legitimate interpretation. it's basic reading comprehension. science is founded on something called methodological naturalism.religion is founded on the supernatural.it would be wise not to mix the two up. don't look at me. you're the one who apparently hasn't read the bible. i'd suggest that that would be a good place to start. we'll get darwin and dawkins later. tell me then, according to the bible, when did adam live? please provide the book, chapter, and verse?and science is NOT a "belief based faith." christianity is a "belief based faith." science is based on something called "evidence" where faith in christ is not. like i said, it would be wise not to mix the two up.

more or less, yeah. except i'm pretty much done with interpretation. once you divorce the bible from the idea that it has to represent reality, it's pretty easy to read literally and see what it means.what i've said in this thread is NOT a matter in interpretation. peple have interpretted these things other ways, but only to get the text to fit their notions of modern scientific reality. i try to read it like it would have been read 2500 years ago. and my argument is that they are perverting the intentions of the text of the bible in order to do so. genesis does not talk about vapor canopies and sub-crustal oceans. this is a combination of spiritual matters and scientific, and dilutes both.

read genesis again. you see, genesis is what we call a "henotheistic" book. not monotheistic. the people there are tolerant and accepting of the religious traditions and practices of others. there are also a ton of verses in the bible that suggest an earlier POLYtheistic religon.let's look at a verse, shall we? and then we'll play the interpretation game.

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 32:8-9:

​

When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he set the bounds of the people
according to the number of the sons of God.
For the LORD'S portion is his people;
Jacob [is] the lot of his inheritance.

---

now, this verse is subject to some controversy. but i've rendered what the original text almost certainly said. i've also put in the correct line breaks. we have two sets of sons, ben'adam and ben'elohym. ben'adam literally reads "the sons of adam." but it can be read a couple of ways. sons of adam does not literally mean cain, abel, and seth. it means the descendants of adam. all man kind. so this is sometimes read "the sons of man" or "mankind." they are both acceptable and mean the same thing.but what about ben'elohym? it literally means "sons of god." reading it the same way, it can also mean all of god-kind. other gods. this is traditionally read "angels" (as the septuagint reads -- only dss contain the proper parallel). the masoretic text reads "the sons of israel" but that doesn't make any sense. israel, either the person or the country, was not around at the time the most high divided the nations (gen 11).so what does this verse suggest? god set the boundaries according to the number of sons of god. whatever that means. one son of god to each country, each region having it's own patron deity. but israel belongs to yahweh, the most high of all the other gods.in short, there are polytheistic tendencies in the bible. like i said, it's an interesting book. you should read it sometime. according to the hebrew tradition, sure. what'd you expect? the only record of semitic people we have in egypt are hyksos. and they ruled egypt, until they were kicked out and chased all the way back their homeland, to place that if memory serves sounds an awful lot like "yerusalem" in egyptian. yes, and the great red dragon in revelation was playing of the imagery of leviathan. i'm not saying it's the same thing. i'm just saying that that is where john got the imagery. that's all. except that this is in miscellaneous. it's open to both scientific and religious arguments, and i'm more than capable of dishing out BOTH.

quote:

---

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?

---

so tell me. if the "nasa people" aren't people aren't running into this strong part of the sky that's like a molten mirror... what now? oh, i'm not. you're the one that insisted we'd be able to see him. yes. well. we're discussing genesis. if we're gonna ignore genesis, then we'll ignore genesis. if not, we'll discuss genesis. get how this works? actually, apparently it does. i mean, who skips the FIRST PAGE? no, the idea was to study the bible as a piece of historical hebrew literature. not all knowlegde is bad. and the teacher, btw, was religious. as am i.

quote:

---

2 Peter 3:5 ... the earth was formed out of water and by water.

---

According to ancient 'science:' Yes! Yes it was. Prime Elemelntsdb

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

quote:

---

now try cramming 10 gallons of water into a pebble using a pressure cooker, and see what happens.

---

You have a peculiar view of the flood.

quote:

---

actually, it would. ever hear of something called "the greenhouse effect?"

---

Ever hear of something called a tropical, and semi tropical pre flood world?

quote:

---

you're missing the concept of undoing creation

---

Maybe you should miss it as well.

quote:

---

to justify the story without any attention to the REASON or SYMBOLISM behind it is to ....

---

Men grew very wicked, He had to clear the slate.

quote:

---

which seems to indicate a solid object

---

Not to me, it indicates a sky.

quote:

---

we DO know roughly what the bible is talking about, and it's an antiquated world view that does not fit modern science

---

Your version, I'm afraid, sounds like it.

quote:

---

. if you want to reject science for genesis, the least you can do is actually do that wholeheartedly.

---

I don't reject science. Only realize it has chosen the box, and treat it accordingly, as a very limited, yet valid area of study.

quote:

---

not deep space. the sun, the moon, and stars are all in this firmament. this firmament is like a tent over the earth. the water is outside of it

---

If the sun moon and stars are in this thing, I'sd say you have to go pretty far out, to get to it's border. I used the short term, deep space, perhaps for your sensibilities, I should have said, very very deep space, deep as one could go, and beyond.

quote:

---

science is founded on something called methodological naturalism.

​

religion is founded on the supernatural.

​

it would be wise not to mix the two up.

---

It would be wise to acknowledge all aspects of reality, spiritual, and physical.

quote:

---

I always can tell when someone thinks they know a lot, how little they actually know!

​

don't look at me.

---

Why? Who else just said they know a lot about science, and the bible?

quote:

---

tell me then, according to the bible, when did adam live? please provide the book, chapter, and verse?

---

Read Usher's stuff. As Walt Brown's book pointed out, there is some room for opinion there, but not much. Depending on when someone actually left a certain city, etc. It is in the vicinity of 6000 years.

quote:

---

science is based on something called "evidence" where faith in christ is not

---

On the contrary, physical evidence is only part of the evidence, and even there assumptions are rife. On the other hand the faith in Christ, and the ressurection was actually witnessed by many. His book also is alive, and it works, and has been felt directly by untold millions, with innumerable proofs. Where did the first lifeform come from in evolution's tale? No witnesses there! They don't even know where it supposedly came from. Very faith based!

do you know how much water it would take to flood this planet above the himalayas? something on the order of 4.5x10⁹ km³now, the oceans are only 1.3x10⁹ km³. so this flood had a volume roughly three and half times that of the ocean.earth's total groundwater is about 3 orders of magnitude LESS than this. starting to get the picture, or do i need to spell out the physical impossibilites? ever hear of something called a "pressure cooker?"

quote:

---

They assert that the canopy's sudden collapse would have increased the volume of the ocean by 30 per cent (p.326). This would mean that 30/100 of the original ocean volume, or something like 30/130 of the present ocean volume, came from the canopy. That amounts to about 75 million cubic miles. That quantity of water in the form of a vapour canopy would raise the pressure of our atmosphere from its usual 15 pounds per square inch to a crushing 970 pounds per square inch, which would create all sorts of problems for living things.

​

Worst of all, the pressure in the base of the canopy would be so high that it would need to have a temperature of over 500 degrees Fahrenheit. (Any cooler, and it would collapse into rain.)

​

(Hayward, 1985, p.151)

---

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Additional Topicsand that's just 30%! we're talking 334% or so! that's a new one. a creationist dismissing the bible. i'll have to bookmark this. and he did it how? as long as your ok with rejecting parts of the bible too. you're applying modern scientific knowledge to this thing. go and look at the sky and tell me where the sun or the moon is right now. how do you think people 3000 years ago, without telescopes or spaceshuttles understood the world? yes, but let's not forget which is which. you've demonstrated that you don't know very much about EITHER. no. you said the bible gve a date for when adam lived. i want the book, chapter, and verse. where does it give the date? what other kind of evidence is there for the natural world? and what assumptions? that things behave in natural and predicatable ways, subject to laws? or, rather, said to have been witnessed in a story written years after the fact. heck, i've got better accounts of alien abductions, and i don't believe in those. even if betty nearest i can tell, there is no book written by jesus available today. (i've looked) now if you mean in the aspect of constantly changing, sure. it's editorial process was.... evolutionary. who witnessed adam's creation? your arguments actually don't work very well against evolution, but against your own arguments they work perfectly. actually, look up some abiogenesis research. we know where the first life came from.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-19-2005 12:37 AM

An idle thought - What was the Hebrew word used? I ask merely because in the Chaldean cosmology, the waters that were divided into heaven and Earth were seperated by a layer of tin...http://www.faqs.org/faqs/mythology/sumer-faq/

רָקִיעַ (raqiya): firmament/expanse. used to describe solid objects. from raqa meaning "to stamp out" (as you would with metal) שָׁמָיִם (shamayim): heaven/sky.this seems consistent with the chaldean mythology. no suprise here. also, welcome to the board. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-19-2005 04:50 AM

also, from the link for those reading along:

quote:

---

The primeval sea (abzu) existed before anything else and within that, the heaven (an) and the earth (ki) were formed. The boundary between heaven and earth was a solid (perhaps tin) vault, and the earth was a flat disk. Within the vault lay the gas-like 'lil', or atmosphere, the brighter portions therein formed the stars, planets, sun, and moon. (Kramer, The Sumerians 1963: pp. 112-113)

---

sound familiar?

Well there's a thing. At least it explains what happened to Beagle 2...

Hello, DP, and welcome.Are you sure that you're not just resting? Or maybe stunned?