The Black Sea = Noah's Flood?

[Puritanhead]

The Black Sea = Noah\'s Flood?

Does the Black Sea = Noah's Flood? First, I am not postulating that, but it was the source of a National Geographic article when I was subscribing, and they have followed up on it.

The famous submarine explorer Robert Ballard who uncovered the Titantic found a submerged village under the Black Sea. Scientists postulate that the Black Sea like the Caspian Sea was significantly below sea level and much smaller in antiquity. Some cataclysm triggered a rupture of the ancient isthmus between Europe and Asia Minor, and opened up the Strait of the Bosporus, flooding the Black Sea basin until it presumably reached parity with the Mediterranean.

Some people have tried to assert that this was Noah's flood. What do you guys think of the idea of marginalizing Noah's flood from an earth-encompassing cataclysm to a regional cataclysm that simply affected a large area.

Or, is this analogous to those textual critics efforts to surmise the Moses' crossing the Red Sea was simply crossing some marshland on the northern fringes of the Red Sea, thus marginalizing God's power to wring out great disaster and greater miracles.

Regardless, it is interesting archaeology. I love National Geographic type stuff.

Black Sea

 

[Bladestunner316]

It may be related but the entire earth was flooded.

 

[non dignus]

I find this to be an interesting theory too. I originally heard a version which used the Mediterranean Sea. The strait of Gibralter has a similar topographic gateway. If I'm not mistaken there is submarine evidence of human life there as well.

How do the rivers Tigris and Euphrates figure into a Black Sea/Med. Sea hypothesis? Doesn't it stand to reason that a good way to permanently shut us out of the garden of Eden was to make it absolutely impossible to inhabit that ground? And what about all that petroleum under the Saudi desert?

I do believe the flood was world wide which accounts for sedimentary rock strata found everywhere.

 

[Bladestunner316]

NO it was billions of years of evolution because of the big bang

 

[non dignus]

I believe in the big bang theory.

God said it, and BANG there it was. I heard a theory (this is a little off topic, I hope you don't mind) that the Lord first created all the energy of the universe: "Let there be light." That was the ex nihilo'. So then He used those light "waveacles" as basic building blocks to make the elements and so forth which means everything is an intricate constuction of these light units.

 

[Bladestunner316]

Interesting I also heard a theory that God used the angels to create things.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

God said, "Let there be Light", not God told the angels, say, "Let there be Light".

I was a local flood proponent, but I had to change to global flood. The evidence is too overwhelming.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Slippery
God said, "Let there be Light", not God told the angels, say, "Let there be Light".

I was a local flood proponent, but I had to change to global flood. The evidence is too overwhelming.

I used to be a global flood proponent, but I changed to believe in a local flood. I believe the geological evidence is too overwhelming.

Thus, your statement above surprises me. Are you a follower of Henry Morris, perhaps? Do you attempt to explain all the world's fossil deposits as a result of the flood? I hope not, because it is VERY easy to demonstrate that they CANNOT be explained by a global flood.

What evidence did you find "overwhelming" in support of a global flood? I am genuinely interested in hearing your perspective.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by non dignus

I do believe the flood was world wide which accounts for sedimentary rock strata found everywhere.

I am curious how you support this. Sedementary rock is full of fossils. And the distribution of fossils is totally inexplicable in accordance with a global flood. I am not saying they were necessarily deposited over millions of years. But I am saying that it is impossible to conceive of them all being deposited at once. The fossil strata would look VERY different if that were the case.

 

[BobVigneault]

Genesis 6:17 The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

That's enough evidence for me.

 

[kceaster]

Indiana was once under water, and it was salt water. For anyone who has been here that is pretty amazing. Right now, the mean elevation is 700 feet above sea level. Kentucky is 750, Ohio is 800, Michigan is 900, and Illinois is 600. Evidence suggests that all five of these states were under water.

KC

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Genesis 6:17 The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

That's enough evidence for me.

Bob, the English translation distorts the Hebrew a bit. In truth, a regional flood fits the data of Genesis 6-9 very well.

Please read this article:

The Genesis Flood - Why the Bible Says It Must be Local



Also consider these:

NOAH'S ARK & FLOOD - Global Or Regional?

A Bridge Over Troubled Waters - A Scientific Look into the Genesis Flood Account - by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

The Waters of the Flood - By Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Genesis 6:17 The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

Bob, the English translation distorts the Hebrew a bit. In truth, a regional flood fits the data of Genesis 6-9 very well.

Joseph,

The English translation is not distorting anything. The way it is translated is perfectly legitimate. For it to be a distortion, there would have to be a purposeful use of the words in a way that is not in keeping with what the words mean. Erets means land, yes. But it also means earth. Those are two perfectly fine renderings. Likewise, har can be a mountain or a hill. Both are perfectly legitimate. There is no distortion to use either of them.

It may be disputed over what "land" means, and one may say that these are hills and not mountains. But the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to give the depth of the waters. Fifteen cubits above the hills surrounding is pretty high. The article states that no mountain ranges are mentioned in the text. However, the mountians or hills of Ararat are mentioned in the context of the flood story. The current mean elevation of the region surrounding Ararat is 900m above sea level. And the highest elevation of the region is 4090m. If we said that the elevation has grown an inch a year, it would still only mean a difference of about 100-200m. If a more radical change in elevation, it still may only mean 500-600m. That means that it could still have been 300m at the lowest, or 3400m at the highest. That's a lot of water and it would have covered a pretty good area.

Also, if it was only local, the waters would have receded much more quickly because of the sheer force of pressure. Yet we know that the earth was not dry until almost a full year after the rains and floods. If the region was that much above sea level, the water would have found a way to equalize itself.

Consider what the Bible says in what is not disputed. There was a flood. It killed all flesh, animals, and birds. Consider also the sign that God would not destroy the earth again. Are rainbows only found in the area of Ararat? Do we not see rainbows here as a sign that God will not send a flood to destroy the whole earth? It cannot be allowed for the science of the thing to tear down the redemption of the thing. This was an act of judgment and redemption. We cannot allow science to confuse this for us.

In Christ,

KC

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by kceaster

It cannot be allowed for the science of the thing to tear down the redemption of the thing. This was an act of judgment and redemption. We cannot allow science to confuse this for us.

There is no confusion. God sent a great flood to destroy all humans living on earth, except for Noah and his family. I agree that it was an act of judgment and redemption.

But a global flood was not necessary for that judgment and redemption. And a global flood simply doesn't match what we see in geology. And Biblically, a global flood is not a necessary interpretation of Genesis 6-9. And finally, Psalm 104 suggests that Noah's flood could not have been global.

For some detail on both Biblical considerations and scientific considerations, please read the articles I posted above as links.




[Edited on 2-3-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Genesis 6:17 The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

That's enough evidence for me.

I believe the same argument was used by the church when scientists proposed that the world is round:

Isaiah 11:12 - And He will lift up a standard for the nations And assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth.

Revelation 7:1 - After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree.

 

[BobVigneault]

Joseph, Hugh Ross????????????????
He's not even a 6 dayer! Not going to go down that path of trying to make the Bible fit science. Just not necessary.

Christopher, the Isaiah and Revelation passages are obviously using poetic literary technique whereas Moses, is taking extra care to describe the number of cubits. He intends for us to understand this is not some poetic description but a specific measurement regarding a specific event.

Kevin, well said.

 

[BobVigneault]

Joseph, I just saw in another thread that you're not a six dayer. Sorry didn't mean to assume you were.

That being the case, Hugh Ross isn't the authority to appeal to.... CARL SAGAN is your man!!!!!

Now I'm just playing.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Joseph, Hugh Ross????????????????
He's not even a 6 dayer! Not going to go down that path of trying to make the Bible fit science. Just not necessary.

Christopher, the Isaiah and Revelation passages are obviously using poetic literary technique whereas Moses, is taking extra care to describe the number of cubits. He intends for us to understand this is not some poetic description but a specific measurement regarding a specific event.

Kevin, well said.

Bob:

1) Not all of the links I gave were by Hugh Ross. Try reading them before trying to critique them.

2) Whether Ross is a 6 dayer is irrelevant. We are talking about the flood, not the days of creation.

3) Scripture itself denies that the flood was global. Psalm 104 talks about the world being covered with water in the original creation, and never being covered again. This would be invalidated if the world was covered with water again in Genesis 6-9. Again, please read the articles I posted above.

4) It is impossible to explain the distribution of fossils, if they were laid down during a global flood.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Joseph, I just saw in another thread that you're not a six dayer. Sorry didn't mean to assume you were.

What thread?

I don't remember denying God's forming of matter in 6 days. Rather, I think I just pointed out that the actual ex nihilo creation of matter happened initially, "in the beginning", BEFORE the 6 days of Genesis 1. What God did afterwards, during the 6 days, was not ex nihilo creation by fiat. Rather, He was ordering the matter He had already created.

For example, God did not create man ex nihilo. Instead, God took pre-existing matter (which He had already created in the beginning), and He *formed* it into Adam.

Originally posted by BobVigneault

That being the case, Hugh Ross isn't the authority to appeal to.... CARL SAGAN is your man!!!!!

Now I'm just playing.

Now THAT guy WAS a complete nut!!

 

[BobVigneault]

Sorry again Joseph, that was a misreading of what you said in the young earth thread. What you really said was "I am not yet convinced that the young-earth theory is the only theory that is faithful to Scripture."

My mistake, on the other hand this is an effective debate technique - If you can't beat 'em, misquote 'em. Just don't use it on me.

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by BobVigneault]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Sorry again Joseph, that was a misreading of what you said in the young earth thread. What you really said was "I am not yet convinced that the young-earth theory is the only theory that is faithful to Scripture."

No harm done. I just didn't want a rumor getting started that I somehow repudiate the 6 days of Genesis 1. We just don't know for sure how much time elapsed prior to those 6 days. And frankly, we don't know how much time has elapsed since then, because the Bible just doesn't tell us. For all I know, Adam and Eve may have lived 20,000 years ago, or 50,000 years ago. The genealogies of Scripture aren't as easy to pin down as many people think. There are demonstrable gaps in them.

Thus, I leave the whole "age of the earth" question a lot more "open" than some people do.

But at the end of the day, I agree we must hold to Scripture first and foremost. If there was a verse in the Bible that said, "The Earth is only 6,000 years old", then I would believe it. I just don't think Scripture gives us that information.

Originally posted by BobVigneault


My mistake, on the other hand this is an effective debate technique - If you can't beat 'em, misquote 'em. Just don't use it on me.

Good point.

But since in some other thread you revealed that you are a Federal Vision supporter who believes in atheistic evolution, I'm sure you will be kicked off soon and so we won't have to deal with your sorry hyde any longer.


. . . oops . . . I hope I didn't misquote you somehow.






I'm DEFINITELY just kidding!

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[BobVigneault]

Oooooooh, you've used that technique before, I can tell. That was below the belt. That might be the meanest thing you've done since the day you said D**g W*ls*n baptized you and you started speaking in tongues, reciting the Prayer of Jabez in another language. (See previous disclaimer regarding misquoting)

 

[kceaster]

Joseph....

The article has some flaws.

First, his treatment of Psalm 104 is in keeping with his presupposition that the flood was not global. He is assuming that verse 9 is saying that the waters cannot again cover the earth as they did when He created the earth. This shows that the seas have boundaries they may not cross. That does not mean that God will not command them to cross those boundaries at his bidding. If this is not so, then why are there local floods that destroy men and animals. If God's promise extended to a land that He would never again destroy all life in that land, then how can God destroy other places that flood in which all life is lost?

Rather, in the global flooding, the waters were permitted beyond their bounds, and after this, God promises never to destroy the whole earth by flooding.

Secondly, he doesn't like the English Bible rendering of erets and har in the Genesis story, but he's perfectly fine with their usage in this Psalm? Obviously, he has a bias. But then, so do I. However, if the flood has to be local because it should be translated as "land", then Psalm 104:9 could be local because it could be translated as "land" as well. One can't have it both ways. Do you see this? Verse 5 should be earth, but verse 9 may be translated as land because the Psalmist is talking about what the waters may not cover. It is not so that they cannot cover the earth, because the earth is covered 2/3 by water.

Additionally, the Psalmist is writing about the provision of God for His people in where they live. They obviously cannot live in water, so He makes the land to appear on which they may live. That is why He will not allow the waters beyond their boundaries, so that man may live. It is clear from the flood account that God did not want man to live, thus He commanded the waters to flood.

Only if one views the water as having a will of its own, can one say that God has strictly commanded the waters never to cross their boundaries. However, we know and would affirm that God does command the waters to cross those boundaries at His bidding. Thus, there is no contradiction between the world wide flood of Genesis and the Psalmists words in 104.

In Christ,

KC

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I somehow repudiate the 6 days of Genesis 1.

You did? *sigh*, stinkin liberals!

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
"The Earth is only 6,000 years old", ... Scripture gives us that information.

It does? What Bible are you reading?

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
But since in some other thread you [BobVigneault] revealed that you are a Federal Vision supporter who believes in atheistic evolution, I'm sure you will be kicked off soon and so we won't have to deal with your sorry hyde any longer.

Mods - get him!

 

[BobVigneault]

Mods - get him!

They'll never recognize me with these bad boys on.

Kevin I really appreciate your responses. I'm going to try to resist the temptation of inserting comic relief and keep this a serious disussion.

So Joseph, I won't keep this going and I won't try to get the last word my brother. (dookie pants!)

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Oooooooh, you've used that technique before, I can tell. That was below the belt. That might be the meanest thing you've done since the day you said D**g W*ls*n baptized you and you started speaking in tongues, reciting the Prayer of Jabez in another language. (See previous disclaimer regarding misquoting)

 

[historyb]

I find the topic of gobal or local flood an interesting one. What did the author mean by the whole earth. Could he have meant the area he knows? When we say the whole world in speech we don't always mean global. Things to ponder, indeed.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by historyb
I find the topic of gobal or local flood an interesting one. What did the author mean by the whole earth. Could he have meant the area he knows? When we say the whole world in speech we don't always mean global. Things to ponder, indeed.

For example:

Colossians 1:5-6 "For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit"
Colossians 1:23 "This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant."

(btw, these 2 passages are the partial preterist answer to Matt. 24:14.)


Note how Scripture uses the word "world" in Colossians 1:6. It is in reference to a specific region, not to the entire earth.

I believe the same goes for Noah's flood in Genesis 6-9.




[Edited on 2-3-2006 by biblelighthouse]

 

[historyb]

Maybe me leaning heavily to partial preterism is the reason me thinks a local flood maybe not a global.

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by historyb]

 

[BobVigneault]

Good point but you shouldn't use Koine greek as your tool for interpreting ancient hebrew idioms.