No, the oceans are the left over water from the flood. They know that the oceans are young because of the amount of salt in the water and also the relative lack of sediment deposited in the bottom. All of that is consistent with Scripture.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Genesis 10:25 "in his days was the earth divided"
- Thread starter George Antonios
- Start date
No, the oceans are the left over water from the flood. They know that the oceans are young because of the amount of salt in the water and also the relative lack of sediment deposited in the bottom. All of that is consistent with Scripture.
Not true, ocean water existed prior to the emergence of the earth per Genesis 1:1. God separated the water from the land and placed a boundary upon it.
If the science doesn’t bear that Biblical fact, the science is wrong, not the Scriptures.
According to Genesis 1:2 (KJV) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters./ therefore we know that land was all under water. So God called the land up from underneath the water but that put the water underneath the earth until the Flood. Genesis 1:9-10 (KJV) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so. And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
However, the ocean was not as great as it is now when it covers 70% of the surface of the earth. Because when the earth was flooded the water did not go back under the land but stayed on the surface. They know that the ocean floor is new since the discovery of sonar around the time of WW II allowed for the ocean floor to be mapped during the 1950s, which I remember when it was going on. So, yes there were seas, but after the Noachian Flood, there was all the water that we see today. Now science has discovered huge layers of water under the mantle all over the world and it is thought that there is as much water underground as there is on the surface of the earth. In order for the waters to stay on the surface of the earth, the ocean floors collapsed downward and the plates, whose seams we can see at the bottom of the ocean collided with each other and raised up high mountain chains along the coastlines. Thus the water ran off the land into the ocean. Where vast lakes were trapped such as north of the Grand Canyon, where these lakes finally undermined their earthen boundaries, they formed the Grand Canyon. Another runoff flood at the end of the Ice Age was located in Missoula, Montana, where the water broke free and ran to the Pacific Ocean in a couple of weeks or less. And there are such drainage floods all over the earth although none as great as the Grand Canyon, which carried off a mile of debris at that point. By the way, the debris can be found at the mouth of the Colorado River.
You ASSUME that the earth and water reversed places. Such is not at all part of the Biblical narrative.
Btw, the word for "seas" is also meaning sea shore. The EDGE of the water. It is not indicating the size of the water. We even in our language refer to both lakes, seas, bays, oceans without regard to size. For example the Great Lakes are all larger than the Sea of Gali
Total speculation. There is no proof from the Scriptures.
They STARTED mapping, but it was decades later that the maps were somewhat completed.
Do we see all the water, or are there areas yet unexplored that hold pools?
I point this out merely to show how speculation can draw conclusions that are unfounded.
Not happening! The Russians have drilled the deepest into the earth crust until the temperature got too hot for the drill to remain viable.
There is NO water in the mantel. The mantel is molten rock which occasionally squirts up through fissures in the crust in what we typically call volcanos.
Again speculation. Although I have already stated it is very possible that the weight of water and atmosphere pushing upon the crust of the earth did crack it along what is called the "fault lines." But, again that is admitted speculation. The Scriptures do not provide proof. Archeology has been all over the place with all manner of schemes which later have been replaced.
Again, this may sound good, but it is speculation. There is no Scripture proof, therefore all such speculation may change.
You are trying to use Genesis as a science book when it is a history book. It does not deal with some of the subjects that are self-evident such as the earth is now 7 continents and 70% water.
You seem to be postulating an old-earth, deep-time, evolution, uniformitarianism point of view of the 19th century. Perhaps you believe in the big bang? You have not given one link to any of your viewpoints. You have given the majority viewpoint and scoffed at the viewpoint of Biblical Creationists.
I place total authority upon the Scriptures. Not the Scriptures manipulated by some science presentation. When the presentation does not conform to the Biblical narrative, I reject that presentation.
I have no problem with "Biblical Creationists" as long as they don't chase after that which is factually unsound or would not be supported by Scriptures.
For example, the opening of Genesis has God creating both the heavens and the earth. The earth didn't have some fiery start as some would express, but was "without form and void" yet it was covered with water.
From THAT form God brought forth what we know as our world.
The flood of Noah took the earth back to that very time that God created in Genesis 1. The whole was covered with water.
I am not some "old earth", Big Bang, deep time, ... thinker. I take the Scriptures as factual. God took 144 hours to establish all that we look upon. Science that supposes other is for those who have declared "NO" to God and about God.
Certainly, the Genesis account is "history" and yet it can be used to verify the validity of the premises of one engaged in the science. I keep point back to how some of the science presented by some doesn't fit the "history" much less be actually have scientific soundness.
Science may still teach that the Grand Canyon was carved over millennia by the Colorado River. You and I know that it happened in a few months.
Science would discredit the flood as not being world wide because some creatures must live in salt water, others cannot. That the exact saltiness of the Oceans provides the specific level needed for those creatures. Science would present that the mixture of fresh and salt would have destroyed all ocean life.
Now that seems correct, yet the Biblical narrative can only lead one to just so far, and then one must "speculate" upon the how. Yet ALL speculation is devoid of ultimate validity, because the Scriptures are silent and the "speculation" may need revised as more information is gathered.
What too often I have witnessed is believers chasing after science and in effect setting aside the authority of the narrative found in the Scriptures in order to bring some need for understanding or reconciliation.
Noah built and ark. I don't need to have some super intellectual whose learning died with him to trust that God who gave the design also included the ability.
God shut the door of the ark. I don't need to have some super construction keeping it all together to trust that the very God who shut the door could keep the vessel intact.
See. How that works.
Hold Science with speculation. Keep the veracity the Biblical narrative presents as the validity in which all other speculations must conform, especially if the science suggests something that would violate the very laws of nature God established and keeps.
Yet you side with the old earthers and the evolutionists and are critical of the Biblical Creationists so I do not agree with you because you do not answer the skeptics nor the questions that you yourself have raised. Noah operated in a practical way and that practical way can be discovered by logic, reason, and history. For example, the Ark Encounter speculates how animal waste could have been removed from the ark. Now Genesis is silent on that matter but we cannot assume that animals did not have waste since Genesis does not discuss that problem. We have mapped the scars of the earth where the fountains of the deep opened up and then closed back up and sank to form the oceans but you are saying that the amount of water on the earth is the same as it always was. And so on. You first said that the Grand Canyon was formed by tsunamis and now you are saying that a great lake sized body of water eroded it away in a very short period of time.
I am critical of anyone who would violate the laws that God established concerning the manner in which His creation may operate. Teutonic displacement of such a scale as suggested is just not valid. You yourself should see how such cannot happen. It is just not consistent with the narrative of Scripture.
I don't "side" with anyone. I have already stated that I take the presentation of Scriptures as historically accurate. If some science happens to agree, then fine, but it matters not from what "side" one is proclaiming, if it doesn't fit the narrative of Scriptures such proclamations are worthless.
Really. Have you forgotten what I have posted?
Not completely true. One may SPECULATE how Noah operated, but they cannot prove what is beyond the Scriptures.
Speculation is fine, but it does not bar other speculative opinions.
Then why the need for speculation? If it is more than idle speculation and opinion sharing then that presents a problem for some will actually believe speculation as fact when it is not.
(see above)
That is correct. God did not need nor is it in the account that God ADDED to what water already existed prior to the first day when he said, "Let there be light."
There is SPECULATION concerning the breakup and closing. But that doesn't mean teutonic shifting over 1600 miles took place (the least distance across the Atlantic Ocean) and the swinging of the African continent, the smashing of India into Asia, the drifting of Australia, and the formation of Antartica.
I can speculate that the bowl shape of the Gulf of Mexico was from a huge meteor strike with created all the cracks, the "fountains of the deep" breaking, the tsunami effects that is evidenced in the Grand Canyon, and all the other matters concerning the flood.
But such is as all speculations...... matters of opinion of little practical value than to provide some level of satisfaction to a curious mind.
The formation layers of the canyon walls suggest upside down death. The smallest creatures easily carried along by the less forceful tsunami were laid down, then as stronger tsunami washed over it carried ever larger with each. This pattern then was crushed into the sediment layers seen by the weight of the air and water.
Upon receding, the force of the water eroded the canyon which is why it appears as it does.
Unlike the Great Lakes, Hudson Bay and other such which are gouged out by glaciers, the canyon shows distinct signs of water erosion.
Unlike the old earth science thinking, such erosion took place quickly which is seen in how the canyon walls were excavated by the force of receding water leaving behind an open pit that shows the effects of the flood.
Does the Biblical narrative give all that information?
Of course not.
Therefore, it may be "provable" from some scientific premise and investigation, but it is still all pure speculation.
Does it ever occur to folks that such speculation was what Darwin was about?
That until later, science actually embraced (and some still do) the evolutionary presentation that was speculated by Darwin?
How is it that Darwin's speculation became fact? IT NEVER DID. But foolishness bound in the heart of people would present it as so.
Speculation is NEVER fact
I have to wonder if you think that the Genesis Flood was just a little backup in the basement after a heavy thunderstorm or if was a violent catastrophe that was the single most catastrophic event in the history of the earth. As for the plates of the earth, no one has ever refuted that.
Really?
That is what you draw from what I presented?
"As for the plates of the earth," no one has ever PROVED it. It remains one of the most absurd speculations of those who can only look upon modern maps and see how at one time with a little twisting and turning everything fit together.
Such speculation is likened to that of those who still believe in a flat earth.
Ha!ha! Flat earth. Have you seen a solar eclipse with a flat earth? It looks like a pancake across the middle of the sun.
Were you on this board before under another name?Your debate is not with me but with geophysics. Dr. John Baumgardner, who worked at Los Alamos, has been working on the total catastrophe of the Genesis Flood for 40 years. Secular scientists now agree with him.
Actually, one of the first people to postulate that the continents once all fit together was a French Creationists named Antonio Snider in the same year that Darwin published--1859--so that discovery is very old. It was formalized by a German scientist in 1912 once and for all. So you are debating with geoscientific thinking accepted by both sides of the dispute, the only point in contention is when, which we know was 4300 years ago and not millions of years ago.
When you can refute Dr. Baumgardner, you can make millions and travel the world: Here he is a couple of years ago at a conference in Utah:
Thank you for this question! It is very interesting. God's richest blessings to you and yours!
Creation Ministries International of Canada put out a good program on this question. They have a TV show. The sidekick then was Calvin Smith, who is now head of the Canadian operation for Answers in Genesis.
The raise the point that Genesis 11:1 explains what is going on. Genesis 11:1 (KJV) And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. That was what was divided up because the Genesis Flood had already divided up the continents. You refer to Genesis 10:25 (KJV) And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one [was] Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name [was] Joktan.
It is a good question but I think that geophysics the last 40 years has weighed in on the topic based upon Creationist Antonio Snider's discovery in 1859 that the continents fit together and had drifted apart. So it has to be the dividing up of the peoples into language groups due to their disobedience of the command to spread out over the earth after the flood. The violence of ripping the continents apart and moving them would have killed people because the mountains were pushed up also when plates collided.
I am posting the CMI TV show for you in hopes that you might have the spare half hour to watch it:
Yep. Darwin made what would be considered millions and traveled the world, too.Ha!ha! Flat earth. Have you seen a solar eclipse with a flat earth? It looks like a pancake across the middle of the sun.
Your debate is not with me but with geophysics. Dr. John Baumgardner, who worked at Los Alamos, has been working on the total catastrophe of the Genesis Flood for 40 years. Secular scientists now agree with him.
Actually, one of the first people to postulate that the continents once all fit together was a French Creationists named Antonio Snider in the same year that Darwin published--1859--so that discovery is very old. It was formalized by a German scientist in 1912 once and for all. So you are debating with geoscientific thinking accepted by both sides of the dispute, the only point in contention is when, which we know was 4300 years ago and not millions of years ago.
When you can refute Dr. Baumgardner, you can make millions and travel the world: Here he is a couple of years ago at a conference in Utah:
Didn’t make him right, nor his education an authority.
he who is doing the sin, of the devil he is, because from the beginning the devil doth sin; for this was the Son of God manifested, that he may break up the works of the devil; 1 John 3:8
I would value all opinions.
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[fn] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Gen 1:2 NKJV (fn Words in italic type have been added for clarity. They are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic)
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, Gen 1:2 YLT
At the moment of that in bold, were there any works of the devil, the sinner from the beginning, that needed to be broken up, undone and or destroyed?
Had the devil already been doing his thing? Where was the devil at the moment of that in bold? Had the plan for the Son of God to be manifested to break up, undo and or destroy the works of the devil been formulated before the moment of that in bold?
Son of God manifested as, what? At the very moment, of that in bold, would the undoing, breaking up and or the destruction of the devil and his works, require, the death? The death brought forth by sin ?
See Heb 2:14 YLT Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through death he might destroy him having the power of death -- that is, the devil --
TR ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν σαρκός καὶ αἵματος καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τὸν διάβολον
The death.
Beginning at Genesis 1:3 was God beginning to deal with a preexisting problem?
I would value all opinions.
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[fn] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Gen 1:2 NKJV (fn Words in italic type have been added for clarity. They are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic)
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, Gen 1:2 YLT
At the moment of that in bold, were there any works of the devil, the sinner from the beginning, that needed to be broken up, undone and or destroyed?
Had the devil already been doing his thing? Where was the devil at the moment of that in bold? Had the plan for the Son of God to be manifested to break up, undo and or destroy the works of the devil been formulated before the moment of that in bold?
Son of God manifested as, what? At the very moment, of that in bold, would the undoing, breaking up and or the destruction of the devil and his works, require, the death? The death brought forth by sin ?
See Heb 2:14 YLT Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through death he might destroy him having the power of death -- that is, the devil --
TR ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν σαρκός καὶ αἵματος καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τὸν διάβολον
The death.
Beginning at Genesis 1:3 was God beginning to deal with a preexisting problem?
Darwin was a recluse who married his cousin for money.
No, it is literal history of what happened at the moment. There was no preexisting problem. Satan had been cast out of Heaven and so he had to be outside of heaven but the universe was not created until Genesis 1:1.
Were Gen 1:1 and 1:2 the same moment?
If yes, did that that same moment extend into 1:3 ? I guess I am asking if the first twenty four hour period of the divided good light from the darkness began at Gen 1:1, 1:2, or 1:3
Did anything take place, on the earth, between Gen 1:1 and when God stated, out of darkness, light shall shine.
And saw, the God, the light, that good.
καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ φῶς ὅτι καλόν
IMHO Darkness and light in Genesis 1:2,3 fol. is the very same as the darkness and light of Acts 26:18 > to open their eyes, to turn from darkness to light, and the authority of the Adversary (the devil) unto God, for their receiving forgiveness of sins, and a lot among those having been sanctified, by (to or unto) faith that, toward me.
What do you mean the same moment?
Had anything that we would construe as time passed from Gen 1:1 to Gen 1:2 and from Gen 1:2 to Gen 1:3?
Was the earth without form and void because God created it as such or had it become that way because of, the devil, the darkness upon the face of the deep?
Please consider according to 1 Peter 1:18-20 it has already been foreordained for Christ to shed his precious blood.
Is this in case Adam sins and brings,the death?
Before the foundation of the world, what blood, what death,
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
It appears to me the devil was the problem before Adam was created and Adam ,the figure of him to come,the sinless Son of God manifested in the likeness of sinful flesh of Adam, was the solution, through death and grace of life from the dead to destroy the devil and his works.
By one man.
By one man.
Scripture doesn't say about time but there is a sequence or order of events. The devil had nothing to do with the nature of the universe. Adam's fall caused the entire universe to be cursed and eventually it will be burnt up, right?
If the earth was without form etc., it is because it was a construction project so to speak. It is the way God did it.