Readers have often asked us if we believe the Great Flood in Genesis was worldwide or localized — as the answer to this question impacts many different issues, especially the extent to which the Bible is a universal book that encompasses the entire planet and everyone in it — or if it is literally what it says it is — the history only of “the generations of Adam” (Genesis 5:1).
What any of us believe about the Great Flood more often than not depends not on what the Bible actually says, but rather on what other doctrines we hold that are affected by the nature of the Flood.
Those whose doctrines are dependent on a literal English translation cannot be reasoned with. They literally believe that their preferred English translation is somehow the infallible word of God — and they will refuse to even consider any alternative and nuanced meanings brought up in the older Greek and Hebrew versions. They tend to approach the Bible like the proverbial bull in a china shop — there is no possible meaning beneath the superficial and literal one.
The same is true of those who cannot tell the difference between metaphorical and literal language — we saw this over and over again in the response to a recent article we published which addressed the meaning of the phrase “all men” in the Bible. Many readers refuse to — or are simply incapable of understanding these figures of speech in any other way than their superficially literal meaning — because to do otherwise would threaten their long-held doctrine of Christian universalism.
We would expect then for many to react to this series on the Great Flood in the same way — most Christians do not want their cherished doctrines challenged — especially with logic and a close reading of the translations. They believe their pastors and priests are just as infallible as the Bible itself — never considering that the Bible’s repeated warnings against “false teachers” could possible apply to their own pastors:
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.”
2 Timothy 4:3-4
So over the next few weeks we are going to take a look at different chapters from the booklet, Facts And Fictions Regarding Noah’s Flood by Charles A. Weiseman — which raises many fundamental questions about “sacred” doctrines held by universalists and Christian “creationists.”
Weiseman begins:
The Biblical story of Noah, the Ark and the Flood is perhaps the oldest and best known story
that exists today. The great Deluge — commonly called “Noah’s Flood” — as recorded in Genesis 6, 7 & 8, has been a subject of intense controversy and debate. Much of this debate surrounds the scope and even reality of the Biblical account. Some contend that it was a literal worldwide flood — while others say it is merely an allegorical story. Certainly if the truth of this one subject were made evident, many of the debates surrounding the Bible would no longer exist.
During the 19th Century, two doctrines gained strength and popularity among Christians
regarding what the Bible says: (1) That the earth and all that is on it is very young in age — and
(2) that there was a worldwide flood that destroyed all life upon the earth except that which
was in Noah’s Ark.
In an effort to support these concepts, a religious sect known as “creationism” has developed — lead by those known as creationists. Creationism is based on Christian “fundamentalism” or
“Judeo-Christian” theology — which many are now discovering to be a distortion of Christianity — a mixture of the Bible and humanist precepts.
Without either of these two concepts — that the Earth is very young and that there was a worldwide flood — the doctrine of creationism cannot stand and will quickly vanish from the minds of any rational person. It is the intent of this material to show that the idea of a worldwide flood is neither biblical, historical nor scientific. In this endeavor, we will need to examine exactly what is — and is not — being said today on this matter, and compare it to evidence derived from the Bible, science and history.
‘The Face Of The Earth’
Here we will examine the Bible itself and see if it actually says what the literalists,
fundamentalists, and creationists claim it says about a worldwide flood.
From the reading of the Genesis account of the Flood in the English translation, it would seem
that it was worldwide in scope — if and only if we take the passages involved strictly literally. Various passages tell us that life was to be destroyed from the face of the “earth” (Gen. 7:12), the waters were on the face of the whole “earth” (Gen. 8:9), etc.
When these passages were written, it would be hard to believe they were made with the
understanding of a global planet. We have to recall that it was not much more than only 500 years ago that people believed the “earth” was flat.
The word “earth” used in these passages of Genesis is the Hebrew word “erets” (Strong’s #776). Erets does not actually carry any connotation of a global, spherical planet in its translation. While it has been translated as “earth” many times, it is also translated as “country” 140 times — as “land” 1,476 times — and as “ground” 96 times in the Old Testament. In the various references to erets, it can be shown it is most often used to imply a limited land area rather than the entire planet.
The people living at the time of Moses had no concept of our global planet as we do today. The earth or erets to them would have been the extent of the geographical land area that they
knew existed. It thus would not mean the planet, and to apply this literal meaning throughout
the Bible causes some real and obvious problems.
[CFT note: compare the Hebrew erets to the Greek word oikoumené (Strong’s #3625), which likewise has often been mistranslated to encompass the entire earth.]
For example, when Cain was cursed by God, he was driven “from the face of the earth” (Genesis 4:14) — yet it is clear that he remained “in the earth” as a fugitive. Cain was driven out of a limited land area — not literally from the planet.
After God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, one of Lot’s daughters stated, “There is not a man
in the earth (erets) to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth (erets)” (Genesis 19:31).
She could not have meant that there were literally no men anywhere on planet earth — for we know that there obviously were. Rather, she was saying that “there is not a man in erets” or in the land area they were in (the area of Sodom) for they were all destroyed there.
When God had told Abraham, “Get thee out of thy country (erets)….unto a land (erets) that I
will show thee” (Genesis 12:1), He did not mean for Abraham to leave the earth and go to
another earth or planet. The word ‘erets‘ was referring to a limited land area just as it was in
Genesis 7:10 — “the waters of the flood were upon the erets” — or upon the land.
Creationists have arrogantly quoted Genesis 8:9 — “for the waters were on the face of the
whole earth” — and stated that it obviously means a global flood. As the creationist Dr. Morris
states:
“It almost seems frivolous to try to show that the Bible teaches a worldwide Flood. This fact is
Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, (1974) p. 252
obvious in the mere reading of Genesis 6:9 — and one who does not see it there will hardly be
influenced by other reasoning.”
Perhaps the most common error made in understanding the Scriptures is allowing inconsistencies to exist in the underlying principles it teaches. Creationists are no exception
to this problem — and such statements as that above clearly reveal their lack of Biblical study
and understanding. Their aim is to support traditions of men over Scripture. In doing so, they allow a misinterpretation of a verse to contradict other verses.
In the Bible the word ‘erets‘ rarely means the planet earth. For instance, during the plagues
upon Egypt, we read that “the rain was not poured upon the earth [erets]” (Exodus 9:33).
Everyone understands erets here to mean only a local land area — the land of Egypt. Why,
then, in reading in Genesis that “the waters of the flood were upon the earth [erets]” — or that
“the rain was upon the earth [erets]” (Genesis 7:10, 12) — should we assume the whole planet is
meant? The rain that fell on the earth at the time of the Flood was also confined to a local
land area.
In Exodus 10, verses 5 through 15, we read of a plague of locusts in Egypt:
5 And they shall cover the face of the earth [erets], that one cannot be able to see the earth [erets]…
15 For they covered the face of the whole earth [erets] …through all the land [erets] of Egypt.
Again it should be evident that this locust plague covered only the limited land of Egypt, as
shown in verse 15 — and also in verse 14 which states “the locusts went up over all the land
(erets) of Egypt.” Why, then, should anyone insist that when it says the flood waters “were on the face of the whole earth (erets)” in Genesis 8:9, it must necessarily mean the waters were of a worldwide scale? It is the same wording used in both cases — and interpreting erets to mean a limited land area maintains consistency in such verses.
At the time when Joseph was in Egypt, there existed a “famine over all the face of the earth
[erets]” (Genesis 41:56). Was there a famine in Greenland, in the tropics of Africa and South
America, in Antarctica, in the Hawaiian Islands? There is no evidence of a global famine at
this period of time.
However, there was a famine in all the lands that had contact with Egypt at that time. Because of the famine, the Bible states “all countries [erets] came to Egypt—to buy corn” (Genesis 41:57). Certainly the Eskimos and Polynesians never came to Egypt.
Erets is often used in the plural in many instances — for example, Genesis 10:5, Leviticus 26:36, Ezra 9:7, 2 Kings 19:11. If erets meant the planet earth, then all planets must have suffered from the famine and came to Egypt to buy corn. To have erets mean the planet earth makes the entire context an absurdity — and the plurality has a limited rather than universal meaning.
Likewise, when we read about “all the hills” being covered or “all flesh” destroyed, it is
referring to “all” that existed in the “whole” land or erets only where the Flood was — not all that were on the planet earth.
When God spoke of destroying “all flesh,” He said he “will destroy them with the earth” (Genesis 6:13). The planet earth was not destroyed nor was all flesh on the planet — only that particular flesh and land (erets) where Noah lived was destroyed. The words “all” — “whole” — and “every” — are not to be taken in a universal context. If they are, then it can be said
that all the hills on all of the other planets were also flooded.
After the Israelites had been delivered from Egypt and settled in Canaan, they were described
in Scripture as “a people….which covereth the face of the earth [erets]” (Numbers 22:5, 11). Not
even creationists could say that Israelites covered every square foot of the earth’s surface — both land and sea — yet the Bible says so, does it not? The Israelites did not cover the planet, but rather only the expanse of land — or erets — where they were then dwelling.
When such events were originally written — whether it be of the Flood or the locust plague in
Egypt — the land area in which they transpired was the center of attention and encompassed the total scope of intent and field of understanding. In this context, a local affair or event can appear to have a universal meaning. Once this is understood, the entire account of the Genesis Flood — as well as these other events mentioned — make sense and become more credible and in line with history and science.
Jeremiah once spoke of a flood overflowing the erets — and though he used “flood” to
figuratively describe an invading army, it provides us with an interesting comparison:
“Thus says the LORD; Behold, waters rise up out of the north, and shall be an overflowing
Jeremiah 47:1-2
flood, and shall overflow the land [erets], and all that is therein; the city, and them that dwell
therein; then the men shall cry, and all the inhabitants of the land [erets] shall howl.”
If the word ‘erets‘ in this passage were translated “earth” — as it was in Genesis 7 — it would
sound like a universal flood. It thus could read, “an overflowing flood shall overflow the
earth….and all the inhabitants of the earth.” This sounds worldwide in scope, but we know it
was a flood covering only the land [erets] of the Philistines.
We find many instances in the Bible where it speaks of “the earth” — or “the face of the earth” — in which it clearly refers to a limited land area or country. When we thus read the Genesis
account of the Flood, the erets should be read as “land” as a more meaningful and correct
expression:
“And the flood was forty days upon the land.”
Genesis 7:17
And,
“And the water prevailed exceedingly upon the land.”
Genesis 7:19
The waters of the Flood prevailed upon the “land” in which Noah lived — and not the entire planet.
CFT, By the way Im not talking about the mixing with angels part, I agree that isn’t mentioned in Scripture and is debunked by Matthew 22:30, I am merely asking why your position on Noah being perfect in his generations changed?
I ask this sincerely, I’m not trying to be an ass.
CFT, I am noticing a contradiction here, on this artcile https://christiansfortruth.com/genesis-6-what-really-happened-between-the-sons-of-god-and-the-daughters-of-man/
You claimed “WASN’T NOAH “PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS”?
Another popular verse that some Christians use to “prove” the copulating angels doctrine is Genesis 6:9:
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. (KJV)
Many claim that in order to be “perfect in his generations” Noah — along with his wife and children — must necessarily have been the only Adamic man left in the world who was still unmixed by the corrupted seed of the angels. In other words, in his genealogy Noah did not have any ancestors who were not pure white, Adamic people. Of course this would necessarily extend to his sons and their wives as well.”
Why did you switch positions? I notice this happens frequently so Im just curious.
Elijah, that’s a fair question and observation. If you read this part of the essay carefully, all it’s saying is that Noah wasn’t preserved merely because he was a pure Adamic man, but also because he was righteous and followed God.
It also argues that God didn’t flood the land because Noah was the last un-mixed Adamic man, which certain CI circles claim. God flooded the land to cleanse it of sin, and race mixing was only one of those sins. So God did wipe out many pure Adamic peoples in the flood who had turned their backs on God and lived in sin.
We believe that scripture is clear that Noah was preserved for two reasons: his “genealogy” was perfect and untainted, and he was righteous and walked with God — the first is meaningless without the second, which makes Noah a type for future Israelite Christians. Yes, you must be a pure Israelite, but you also must follow Christ. Without faith, the flesh is worthless, even for Adamic people.
CFT, Thank you for clearing that up, this makes sense. I do agree many CI circles view only race as important and not Faith.
When I was apart of a certain group, I never saw any brotherly love – and of course, some would claim that is “emotional”, but it is said by Christ we must love our brethren. I got tired of the echo chamber.
I like this website – you guys don’t just ban people who have slightly different views. I found on that one site this happened a lot. Especially with the whole Flat Earth vs Globe earth (I’m not a FE’r, but I didnt agree with the banning certain individuals.
God bless and thank you for remaining true to Scripture!
Elijah
Elijah, you are correct – we do not ban anyone from commenting merely because they don’t agree with everything we write or believe. This is not an echo chamber.
But we have banned people who do not comport themselves in a Christian manner of treating each other respectfully, even in disagreement – or if they repeat themselves without providing proof of their position. That’s how we all learn from each other.
We have allowed people to debate the shape of the Earth, as long as it’s respectful, but we do not allow it to derail any thread if it’s not related to the larger subject at hand.
For us, the shape of the Earth is irrelevant to the faith. We cannot recall Christ emphasizing the importance of the shape of the Earth, and for us, that speaks volumes on the issue.
CFT:
That is fair, it makes sense especially since some individuals come in with agendas rather than being interested in Scripture. I Concur.
Thanks, CFT
-Elijah
Adriaan……………
“….About the origin of the races, let me just find a specific text in the Bible and you will be stunned about the truth….”
Still Waiting.
From reading some the comments in this thread it appears that a lot people have two competing religions and that they have far greater faith in one than the other.
Agrippa, and, of course, you consider yourself far superior to everyone else, right? You practice the “pure” religion, while everyone else, lower spirits without your insight, wallow in our ignorance. Thanks for your insight. You made me feel so small.
There is absolutely nothing in that article but diligent research of the Word to “prove all things”. Ignorance is curable and I am thankful for people more intelligent than me to correct all the lies that I have been taught about God’s Holy Word. I am angry at all those lazy pastors who went to seminaries who were taught lies by Communist Edomites/ Cannanites and did not study to show themselves approved. They just parroted the lies. Most went to seminaries for a job and money from testimonies who have been there. One of many examples… “In the 1930’s, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” And more: “Right now they are in the highest places, and they are working to bring about change in order that the Catholic Church will no longer be effective against Communism.” – Bella Dodd, activist lawyer for the Communist party in the United States in the 1930s and 40s.
If the flood was only local, in Israel and not on the entire planet then God would not need to tell Noah to build an ark and send 2 of each species of animals on it. Why would God send tigers, lions elephants, bears and other animals on the ark if there would be a flood only in the tiny land of Israel? Obviously all creation was wiped off and God sent 2 of each species, male and female so that they survive and reproduce. Furthermore, there are tales and myths about a global flood in each and every single pagan culture in the world. The Mayans had a legend about a global flood, the Japanese, the Indians, everyone. Some even mention the building of an ark with animals and only a few human survivors. They did not have any contact with Israel so you cannot say they copied the idea from Israel!! Obviously this means that all people of the Earth came from the same place (Mount Ararat) and passed on the story orally from generation to generation. As it got passed on orally and not written down, it suffered modifications hence why its different from culture to culture. Im sorry but this is one of your dumbest conspiracies yet. I suggest you delete this article not to embarrass yourself.
Inspector Gadget….
“….Obviously this means that all people of the Earth came from the same place …”
We here at CFT believe the Genesis 10 Nations were an Homogenous peoples —- White Peoples/Adamic Peoples.
We then make the logical assumption that Noah and his family were also White/Adamic.
So ………………… explain to us how you believe “all people of the Earth” came from Noah and his family? How does that work exactly?
Let me ask you a question —-
If we were to remove all Icelanders from Iceland — and then replace them with 500,000 pure blacks from the Congo and then restrict immigration to only black peoples ………….
How many years would it take for White people to begin to emerge from the loins of homogenous black peoples?
It is estimated that the flood occured about 5000 years ago.
This is not alot of time to have 4 distinct people groups — White, black, yellow and red.
How many years do you think it would take for white and perhaps even yellow peoples to emerge from the loins of an homogenous black population in Iceland?
I don’t want to assume, but don’t you believe that the races came to be due to “climate” and “location”?
In the various references to erets, it can be shown it is most often used to imply a limited land area rather than the entire planet.
If this above sentence is to be accepted as the truth, then how do you explain Gen 1:1. “God created heaven and earth (strong’s translation 00776 776 eh’-rets). So then ….. god…. with a small g vreated heaven and earth. Your god. Not mine. Mine is the ALMIGHTY GOD, FATHER-SON-HOLY SPIRIT, creator of EVERYTHING that exists, and without Him, nothing would be in existence. Your “g”od might have created only a small portion of earth, a country, a district. My God created even your god.
If you believe the erets word in Gen 1:1 is the same as the erets from the flood, you are serving a puny god, who only managed to create a portion of land. What are you going to believe now???
Adriaan…..
Is your comment addressed to me?
I don’t hold a strong belief in either of the two theories — local or worldwide. As I have said, I wasn’t there, I can’t possibly know for sure.
It’s not important to me. What IS important is the conversations that have transpired because of this topic.
I see CFT has just put out a new article — https://christiansfortruth.com/the-problem-of-racial-diversity-and-a-worldwide-flood/
What is your position on “Race” — do all the races of the world come from Adam and Eve? Did Noah preserve the non-white races on the ark?
This to me seems more important of an issue to discuss.
You seem to be maybe even angry at me implying that I believe in a “little” god because a local flood makes more sense to me.
If it means that much to you, then Ok ………….. if you are convinced the flood was worldwide, I won’t argue with you. You win.
Is this a Salvation issue for you — whether one believes in a world wide flood or not?
I’m confused by your hostility.
I hope you “weigh-in” in regards to the other new article.
Hey West, sorry if i came across as angry, that wasnt the intention. I just get upset that people put God into a tiny box. He can do this, but he cannot do that, just because we refuse to believe our God would allow/do such and such. Taken against our modern standards and beliefs and how we were raised.
I mean, God made a donkey speak, made a virgin give birth, created planets and a Sun, He is ALMIGHTY! So can He NOT control human DNA??
About the origin of the races, let me just find a specific text in the Bible and you will be stunned about the truth. I will contact you once i find it.
I am replying to your comment, because it seems no more comments are allowed??
Genesis 9:11 ends all arguments and discussions : ““And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth…” (Gen 9:11, KJV). So if the word earth here also still means eh’-rets, a district, a certain PART of land, then god (small g) wasnt able to keep his covenant, because how many floods have been reported ALL OVER THE WORLD??? Till today 2022-09-15, floods are happening. So god is then NOT the almighty god he was made out to be??? HOWEVER, since the time of Noah, there HASNT been another flood covering the face of the entire planet. And God (capital G) ALMIGHTY is then who we believe He is. Keeping His covenant.
Adriaan,
You keep ignoring my questions —- My comment to you is directly above yours. How did you miss it???
Here it is again —
Adriaan…..
I don’t hold a strong belief in either of the two theories — local or worldwide. As I have said, I wasn’t there, I can’t possibly know for sure.
It’s not important to me. What IS important is the conversations that have transpired because of this topic.
I see CFT has just put out a new article — https://christiansfortruth.com/the-problem-of-racial-diversity-and-a-worldwide-flood/
What is your position on “Race” — do all the races of the world come from Adam and Eve? Did Noah preserve the non-white races on the ark?
This to me seems more important of an issue to discuss.
You seem to be maybe even angry at me implying that I believe in a “little” god because a local flood makes more sense to me.
If it means that much to you, then Ok ………….. if you are convinced the flood was worldwide, I won’t argue with you. You win.
Is this a Salvation issue for you — whether one believes in a world wide flood or not?
I’m confused by your hostility.
I hope you “weigh-in” in regards to the other new article.
If there were a worldwide flood only 5,000 years ago, there would be unmistakable physical evidence of it everywhere. If you dug down in the earth only a few meters, there would be a huge, thick layer of debris worldwide. No such layer exists.
And even if it were only a localized flood in the Middle East, there should be that same layer of debris, but there is none. Neither happened. The story of the Noah’s Flood best understood as an allegory. If you try to make logical sense out of it, you’ll fail, too many holes, too much speculation.
Even when Christ is speaking of “the days of Noah” in Matthew 24:37-39, he could be talking allegorically, that is, a story to learn from that has parallels to Judea in the time of Christ.
There are tons of evidence but people like you are blind to see…
SALT MINES are one such evidence! Why are there salt mines on land? Salt mines means that there was once salt water on land. This supports global flood. During the global flood, the oceans mixed with the rain water. The water covering the earth was salt water.
Another such proof is sea shells and other marine life such as fish have been found fossilized on mountains, even as high as Himalaya: https://weather.com/en-IN/india/news/news/2018-06-29-fish-fossil-himalayas
But of course there is no mention of the flood, they just invent some mumbo-jumbo on the fly. Ohhh a pterodactyl brought some fish there a few trillions of years ago and it didn’t eat it so it got fossilized and that’s why there’s fish on the mountains! :))))))))))))))
There are other tons of evidence I could mention but this isn’t an article Im writing here but just a comment. It already got too big. Believe what u want. I know there is evidence that supports a global flood as the Bible says it not as some conspiracists now are trying to revise and reinvent the wheel on the internet!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lots of comments here, but not one comment actually disputing the meaning of “erets”.
They just ignore it and go on to insist on the worldwide flood because that’s what they want to believe because that’s what they were taught and they don’t have any intention of letting what the Bible actually says to interfere with their belief in a worldwide flood.
Amazing….
Nobody is ignoring the meaning of “erets”. They are just looking at the WHOLE picture, the entirity of what happened and the science and facts accompanied.
Is it true if false that the WHOLE Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit??
True or false the Holy Spirit, being part of the trinity of God, is all-knowing?? Knowing what the circumference and dimensions of planet earth is??
Could we speculate and say that Moses (who physically wrote the 1st 5 books) would not dare to question the inputs of the Holy Spirit, even if Moses himself didn’t understand??
Last points : in Genesis, different areas/districts/countries are mentioned. Nod, Eden, Shinar, Asshur, etc. Why wasn’t the area that was flooded, named?? Why call it “erets”?? Could it be because it was the whole earth, and writing down of ALL the names of ALL the countries would be useless seeing “the earth” would simply suffice??
The Bible deals only with the history of the generations of Adam, no other peoples. So the “earth” that would concern the Bible would be only those lands where the descendants of Adam resided, nowhere else. The Greeks had the same idea, that their “world” was anywhere Greeks lived or had explored and documented.
The Israelites who wrote Genesis had no concept of a ball-shaped globe as we do. It never would occur to them that a “worldwide” flood covered this round globe.
A “worldwide” flood would cover only their known world. People need to stop imposing modern concepts of geography on a people who wrote about 3,500 years ago.
Great answer/explanation!
Thank you Lelei
Do we know that the Israelites had no concept of a round Earth? Some thoughts that come to mind on this:
They were assembling argosies and sailing to the gold-rich far-off land of Ophir. CFT has articles about ancient Adamics in the New World.
Granted, from what I can find, sailing to Ophir isn’t confirmed biblically until ~400 years after Moses. However, any sort of sailing over the horizon could lead to suspicion of a curved earth; the distance to the horizon for a man is ~3 miles, and even the Sea of Galilee is is larger than that.
Aristotle suspecting a spherical earth after observing the earth’s round shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses. While Aristotle was well after Moses, the Israelites had the same view of the sky during an eclipse.
The more I learn about history’s mysteries, the less I like to presume that the ancients were less knowledgeable than we are today.
The purpose of the Flood was to punish God’s people, the descendants of Adam.
A worldwide flood would have “punished” millions of people outside the Adamic creation.
Why would God do such a thing, punish peoples who were not His? What’s the point of that?
“…The purpose of the Flood was to punish God’s people, the descendants of Adam…..A worldwide flood would have “punished” millions of people outside the Adamic creation.”
Another great comment. Thank you.
The flood wiped out every living thing in its midst. Non-Adamic animals were punished by that.
That said, if the flood were worldwide, then Noah would have had to have put all non-Adamic people onto the Ark with him. Besides the negroes, chinese etc, this would have also required putting the Rephaim aboard.
I suppose if the Ark could fit an elephant and a giraffe then it could fit Rephaim.
If the flood were not worldwide, then we resolve the “How did the platypus get to Australia?” sort of questions.
What i dont understand about it all, is that ALL-KNOWING God mentioned earth, or eh-rets, over and over when he spoke about the flood. If it was only localized, why didnt He name the area?? “I am going to destroy all Samaria, Canaan and Sidon.” Why didnt He say something like that? Because it is mentioned that the Ark came to rest on mount Ararat. A known name of a known mountain. Did God not know the names of the surrounding areas?
Wouldn’t an “all knowing ” God know that there isn’t enough water on the planet to flood all of the land underneath water?
An “all knowing” God would know that He would have to create a lot more water to artificially flood the entire planet.
An “all-knowing” God would also know that if He flooded the entire planet, there would be nowhere for the flood waters to drain into.
So much for your understanding of an “all knowing” God.
Modern Archaeology has continuously discovered ancient items that contradict the “Evolutionist” theories. I think that it is vitally important to realize that “Evolutionist” theories are many and range from:
1. Adam-man was a caveman who grunted and had an IQ of 40 and “mankind” has continued to get more and more intelligent with time, OR Adam-man was the most intelligent bi-ped ever created and his descendants have continued to devolve throughout thousands of years due to rebellion toward Yahweh’s Law and race-mixing with other bi-peds which were and are not part of Yahweh’s plan.
2. The Holy Scriptures are a compilation of works specifically TO, FOR and ABOUT one genealogy or FAMILY of Adam-man’s descendants, OR the Holy Scriptures area all about EVERY BI-PED ON EARTH.
3. Noah’s Flood was a global event, OR throughout written history, including Biblical Historical records, there have been numerous flood cataclysms all over the earth recorded by various peoples in various locations with some flood catastrophes covering large land areas and some covering smaller land areas, but each resulting in loss of life and property due to a variety of reasons including tsunamis resulting from volcanos and earthquakes. The most notable flood stories in western culture are the destruction of Atlantis and the event that brought on the Younger Dryas episode (which really could possibly be the event which caused mass extinction worldwide spoken of in Jeremiah where THE EARTH HAD BECOME VOID and which begins the Genesis 1 record. Adam-man’s descendants have traveled the known and (at that time) unknown parts of the planet interacting with peoples of other races and often “playing missionary” which could very well result in different cultures and races integrating the Noah story in with their own records of various floods and cataclysms resulting in hundreds or thousands of years later when the culture is interacted with again, lo and behold, they tell a flood story that sounds similar to the Noah flood record.
4. All races on the earth come from Noah and his wife, OR Only one race comes from Noah and his wife due to the flood in which he built the ark being regional (and it was most likely a very large region not a tiny little region).
5. Modern “science” (if one can really call it that) states that there are only 3 distinct races (White, Black and Yellow), whereas American Aborigines of the entire western hemisphere (also known as American Indians) have always believed themselves to be a unique bi-ped creation and reject the notion that they came from “yellow man”. In their ancient medicine wheels, they demonstrate 4 races: White, black, RED and yellow, Vast oceans separated them (boundaries) from all other races on earth.
6. Every bi-ped alive came from Adam-man, OR the Creator placed different “pairs” that he created in different areas of the earth for his own pleasure and own purposes (yes, I know that Adam-man often believes that God has to answer to Adam-man and Adam-man is “entitled” to all of God’s knowledge and Adam-man deserves to judge God when Adam-man might not agree with what God has done, but really, that in and of itself is stupidity to an extreme).
7. Yahshua came to “the lost sheep of the House of Israel” specifically to “seek and to save that which was lost”, OR Every bi-ped is lost because every bi-ped came from Adam and later Noah and the statement about “the lost sheep of the House of Israel” actually meant every bi-ped because there is 2 Israels: A spiritual Israel spoken of by Paul and Peter and National Israel, a group of descendants who reneged on a contract with God and so God has thrown them all in the dust bin forever.
8. The “God” of the Old Testament was an unfair RACIST who stated that he would “bless whoever he choses to and disregard whoever he choses to or even “curse” who he chooses to, OR there is a NEW GOD of the New Testament who is really nice to everyone, wants to save every bi-ped, throws out the Laws of the old, mean God of the Old Testament, etc.
9. The Holy Scriptures warn of pagan God worship and strict adherence to Yahweh’s Laws forever (by his Covenant people) and warn of a “counterfeit” religion and gospel which will come along in the last days, OR “God” gives everyone a free-pass now because his son paid the price for sin and no one is accountable for any “sin” and can do as they please, worship God however they please, ect.
10. National and Familial Israel is gone and now there is only a “church” made up of every bi-ped on earth.
The Bible was translated from Aramaic into Greek by the apostles of Jesus with the aid of Greek people in Greece and then from Greek into Latin, English, German and many other languages. Are you saying they were dumb and didn’t know what they were doing? Ohh good thing we have these new age internet conspiracists now who know better than the apostles!
Gadget, don’t let what the NT actually says get in the way of your theories:
In the Greek New Testament, the language is referred to as the “Hebrew” language, not the Aramaic. “Hebrew” in these verses is translated from the Greek “Hebraisti”, Strong’s 1447. While some translate this instead as “Aramaic”, that doesn’t make it so.
There is strong evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, not Aramaic.
https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2021/05/19/did-matthew-write-his-gospel-first-in-hebrew/
Other NT writers also mention the use of Hebrew in Judea at the time:
John 5:2 “Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.”
John 19:13 “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.”
John 19:17 “And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:”
Acts 22:2 “And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith”
Rev. 9:11 “And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.”
Many of the early ante-Nicean fathers believed Matthew wrote in Hebrew, as witnessed by Origen:
“As I have learned by tradition concerning the Four Gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the Church of God under heaven: the first was written by St. Matthew, once a tax-gatherer, afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for the benefit of the Jewish converts, composed in the Hebrew language.”
“Finally, the water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, rising more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. All the living things on earth died—birds, domestic animals, wild animals, small animals that scurry along the ground, and all the people. Everything that breathed and lived on dry land died. God wiped out every living thing on the earth—people, livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and the birds of the sky. All were destroyed. The only people who survived were Noah and those with him in the boat. And the floodwaters covered the earth for 150 days.”
Genesis 7:19-24 NLT
This seems pretty clear it was a global flood. It gives the measurements of the water levels above the mountains. This isn’t vague, generalist or metaphorical language.
This article takes big issue with ‘creationists’ but I’m not sure why, the story of a global flood is found in almost every culture, on every continent, on earth. (yes I mean the whole earth)
Right on bro
My biggest issue is not what is called earth, and what not, but rather like in Gen 7:22 and 23 :”All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” (Gen 7:22-23, KJV). My issue is “dry land”
All that had the breath of life, including birds??? If the flood was localised, why didn’t the birds just fly away to the mountains?? Or to the next district?? Or didn’t that district have trees higher than a 2 story building??
The “earth” was covered under 15 cubits of water. That’s around 7 meters , only 2 stories high. Then, if the Ark was 3 stories high (around 9 to 10 meters ) , and around 1/3 of it was submerged in water (3 meters) , the bottom of the Ark, would only be 3 meters from ground level?? And I am 1.9m tall. So the bottom of the Ark would have been 1.1m higher than me.
Which would also then mean that there wasn’t a mountain higher than 5.5meters in that district to have been covered by the 6 meters of water??
Now, even if the meaning was that the highest mountain (even if it was 150 meters high) was covered by 6 meters of water, it defies science. For something like a mountain (or even a bath tub) , to be covered by 6 meters of water, it would have meant that the other side of the bath tub, the surrounding area, i.e the whole house, the yard, the suburb, the district, all of it, needed to be very deep under water. If there was no high level water on the outside of the bath tub, the water would simply spill over the edge of the bath unto the lower, surrounding area (bathroom) and NEVER EVER reach a height of 6 meters. Maybe, just maybe 10cm. Same goes for the mountains. If they were to be covered by 6 meters of water, then on the other side of the mountains, the water would also needed to be 6m higher than the mountains. Understand??
Last remark : we have all seen video footage of tsunamis. Some of those easily covered 3 story high buildings. Still, the water dissipated in days, only. The Ark was on top of water for a total of 11 months. How can that be, if it was a localised flood??
If the flood were worldwide and covered all mountains, where did the water recede to? Water always recedes to the oceans, but if the oceans are underwater, there’s nowhere for the water to recede to. Scientifically impossible.
There’s no enough water in Earth’s entire ecosystem to flood the world to such an extent anyway. It’s all impossible.
Can we discount the idea that God made more water and then removed that water?
I am not partial to that theory myself, but I’d like to know how to contest it.
To be fair there are many people who have answered this. Both evolution and creation claims that the shape of the earth has shifted. One claim it has happened over many ages, the other in a cataclysm.
https://creation.com/how-did-the-waters-of-noahs-flood-drain
That site does make an interesting observation, that if the Flood were localized then it should have taken the Ark out to sea as it drained.
It’s not a “checkmate”-tier counterpoint to the localized flood theory though.
If the flood was indeed worldwide, doesn’t that mean that Noah took the literal giant ancestors of King Og, the Behemoth, and what may have been 4 legged birds (Leviticus 11:20) onto the Ark?
” And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” Genesis 7:19-20 KJV
Scripture translation is a sacred work only to be undertaken by special ministers – it is presumptuous and blasphemous for regular people to change the English King James text that God gave us.
The water rose 15 cubits, huh? A cubit was 16 inches (Genesis 6:15), so the water rose 120 inches, or ten feet. How did 10 feet of water cover all the mountains in the world?
Let’s just say for argument’s sake that these were “long cubits” (Ezekiel 40:5), which are 21 inches. That’s about 28 feet deep of water, still not enough to cover all the mountains.
Biblical weights and measures:
https://biblehub.com/weights-and-measures/
The measure of 15 cubits is the distance the water rose above the tops of the mountains.
” And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.” Genesis 7:19 KJV
The earth was of smaller circumference before the flood, and then water was added, both from underground and fell from an ice plate that covered the sky.
” …all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” Genesis 7:11 KJV
After 40 days the earth expanded steadily in circumference, making the waters recede back down into our present oceans.
” And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.” Genesis 8:3 KJV
Proof the size of earth changed:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/OB1UB0UsFm8L/
Another bout of further earth changes occurred in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25). Further disruptions will occur at the second advent (Rev. 16:18; etc).
That’s an interesting video on the expansion of the Earth causing the continents to move apart.
Although the video’s theory about marsupials seems like a counterpoint to the flood being worldwide?
Lastly, if the flood were worldwide, where did the olive leaf, that Noah’s dove brought back to him, come from?
The video shows the earth’s expansion, but I his theories about timing are incorrect.
Here is a map showing mid-ocean seafloor consists of newer rock, meaning that is where the expansion is spreading from:
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/images/WorldCrustalAge.gif
The “millions of years” thing is their guesswork because that spread happened recently at time of Noah’s flood and the days of Peleg.
(By the way, notice the red lines headed up the gulf of Baja California, showing that a massive crack is waiting to split the USA in two up that line.)
The theory about “eretz” being wrongly translated is obviously false. English words “earth” and “land” also have different meanings depending on the context. We know that in Noah’s flood the tops of the mountains were covered, hence it was clearly a world-wide flood, and not a local one.
Also, if it was a local one, then God’s promise to never send another such flood was broken since many local floods have happened. Also, God could have simply told Noah to take animals and move to a different spot if the flood was local. Also, if it was a local flood, the Ark would have simply floated to the coast and disembarked, rather than weight for the mountains to appear.
The bogus “local flood” theory is invented by these guys who insist that non-whites are not related to Adam. Since non-white people survived the flood, they were either on the Ark or else the flood didn’t reach them. Since they insist that non-whites were not part of Noah’s family, they must either say non-whites were animals on the ark, or say that non-whites survived because the flood wasn’t universal.
The reality is that Noah’s son Ham was the father of the black races and he was on the Ark. Therefore negroes are “Adamite.” But that doesn’t mean they are 100% Adamite because when God made Adam he also made other men – the “sons of God” – who fathered other races. So although Ham’s father was Noah, his mother and wife must have come from the non-Adam races. This gives the African a completely different genetic make-up. Noah’s wife gave birth to Shem and Japheth as full brothers, but Ham was only their half-brother. Shem is the father of the Oriental races, and Japheth the father of the White race.
These guys also don’t like the idea that Japheth is the father of the European because they want Whites to be “Israelite” and therefore descended from Shem. This theory is another half-truth because although the lost tribes of Israel did assimilate into the Indo-European race and enter Europe, they simply merged with a larger stock of existing White/Japheth people. This fulfilled the prophecy that God would “enlarge” Japheth and that he would “dwell in the tents of Shem.” So Whites are only “Israelite” by a small admixture, and only restored to full Israelite status when we embrace Christianity (Deuteronomy 30:3-6).
But now that 2,000 years have passed, and the admixture of the lost tribes has even assimilated into the far-East and Africa, now even many of these people have (seemingly) embraced Christianity, becoming “Israelite” by adoption and the new birth.
That doesn’t mean very many of them are actually saved, or that being “Israelite” spiritually we should ever race-mix with them, because race-mixing remains wrong. But it does mean that God’s grace in Christ can be extended to all races of people, and we should not begrudge anyone’s (professed) salvation.
RB:
The dove’s olive leaf probably came from a floating branch.
The unique plants/animals in Australia were isolated when that continent split away in the days of Peleg, and they were protected there from mainland diseases, while local Australian diseases killed any mainland plants/animals.
In Leviticus 11:20 “fowl” just means flying, so it describes insects not birds. The flying insects that walk with four legs and have two more large legs extended above their bodies for jumping, can be eaten.
” All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.” Leviticus 11:20-22
The giants were born after the flood are mostly from Ham’s descendants – Watussi type people. The giants arose from the race-mixing of the original sons of God who went aside from the original wives given them and took harems of young women born of the men in the other races. When they fathered children with these women instead of their own wives, it must have generated genetic errors and so this early hybridization resulted in freakish anomalies. Over time the genetic pool reverts to the mean/average, so such freaks would appear less and less frequently until they disappeared.
To Normando…..
…The reality is that Noah’s son Ham was the father of the black races…”
And you know this, How? Where is your Scriptural proof.
“….. Shem is the father of the Oriental races, and Japheth the father of the White race.,,,”
Again …………. just saying something does not make it a fact.
Where were you when this “topic” was discussed in detail?
There are plenty of articles that you could comment on.
I will give you just a few — https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-the-nations-in-scripture-and-who-they-are-not-and-why-it-matters/
https://christiansfortruth.com/pre-adamics-in-genesis-adam-was-not-the-first-man/
https://christiansfortruth.com/man-and-beast-in-the-bible-who-they-are-and-who-they-are-not/
I hope you first read those articles before making another comment. And then read the comments because many of your ‘points’ are already challenged.
For Normando …..
You said — “…But now that 2,000 years have passed, and the admixture of the lost tribes has even assimilated into the far-East and Africa, now even many of these people have (seemingly) embraced Christianity, becoming “Israelite” by adoption and the new birth….”
I will just assume you are brand new to this site.
This site’s primary focus is to expose International Jewry.
HOWEVER ………………. in doing so, as a result, this site proves WHO the Scriptural Israelites are — Caucasian Peoples. Pretty much the European Peoples of the last 2000 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ohreeLlCcw
https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Abrahamic-Covenant.pdf
If this is truly your first time here, your comment is understandable.
But if this is not your first time here, you have quite the arrogance.
Why are you here and what brought you here?
Normando, there is no “adoption” of non-Israelites who become Israelites in any sense. You made that up.
The word “adoption” in most translations is very misleading. It’s based on the Greek “huiothesia” (Strong’s #5206), which primarily means, according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
“In the N. T. it is used to denote a. that relationship which God was pleased to establish between himself and the Israelites in preference to all other nations.”
It does not mean adoption of an unrelated person into another family as we use it today. More accurately, it is the “placing of a son” into his rightful order in a family.
If you are a “son of God”, you are an Israelite or an eligible Adamite from the nations who can be a true follower of Christ because your name has been in the book of Life from the foundation of the world. Mixed peoples can never be “sons”.
To West:
When anyone changes the words in the Authorized King James Bible, ask them:
And you know this, How? Where is your Scriptural proof? just saying something does not make it a fact.
[Edited by CFT]
Normando, sorry, but we do not engage in any discussions about the Bible with people, like yourself, who are King James Only adherents.
Please do not submit any further comments, as it is a waste of everyone’s time here. Our readers are sophisticated enough to understand that multiple translations, including the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew texts are necessary to have a true understanding of the Bible. Even the editors of the KJV were honest enough to acknowledge that.
Then we should consider :
How did a 3 storey high Ark get stuck on the TOP of Mount Ararat, if it was only 10 feet deep water??
In my personal opinion . and this is based on scoentific fact coupled with Biblical research. The flood was worldwide!
They are finding buildings and artifacts beliw the sea Worldwide!
Seashells and whale carcasses high up in mountains in South America !
Klaus Dona has travelled the world doing archeological finds proving there was a People all interconnected Globally !!
There are pyramids all over the world that date back Thousands upon thousands of years !
Read this book , banned by the Allies after ww2 it certainly puts perspective on things , I dont agree with all he says but it makes sense !
https://archive.org/details/neuschwabenlandarchivhermannwielandatlantiseddaandbible200000yearsofgermanicworl
I read this in less the 2 days , I couldnt put this book down !
Gott Mit Uns !
Yes, in Western China there are pyramids where they found mummies of tall red headed Aryans. The Chinese government has covered them with soil and planted trees on them to try and hide this from overhead satellites.
Similar whale fossilized bones have been found in California mountains. Not that rare.
Researchers believe that “the fossils merged into the hills after more than a million years of earthquakes and tectonic plate shifts.”
https://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/whale-fossils-mountains-california/2015/09/22/id/692712/
We have no idea, really, what happened on Earth prior to the Adamic creation in Genesis, but we do know that the Earth had a long history already before Adam. Given the age of fossils, they must have been created long before Adam ever was. Could not have been created in the recent Great Flood.
imho God hit the reset button quite a few times, looking at the sedimentary layers .
Also I think he sent Jesus instead of doing it again. Because lets face it boys, we would be facing a flood very soon if not a few decades ago with the degeneracy and insanity we’re seeing.
God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone. thats been proven a few years ago(check youtube vid of a few guys going there and finding solidified molten blotches of sulphur and buildings turned to ash)
I think Jesus was God’s last hope for us! Perhaps Im wrong . Maybe its the final showdown between Lucifer’s Fallen Angels and Gods Chosen White Aryans …. and God finally destroys them .
Theres alot of history ive run accross these past 22years of research but only since Ive accepted Jesus as my saviour has the final pieces of the puzzle been put together for me! A final Showdown is coming , and in our era I think ! Things are really heating up with the Synagogue of Satan✡️ its all or nothing now as people are waking up to them in the masses now !
Gott Mit Uns !
AP:
God made a covenant with Noah and all his descendants, a promise that there would be no more floods. Noah’s flood was the last flood, setting the stage for the coming of the Messiah….(Genesis 9:11):
“And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.”
Yes (to all), ArmedPatriot.
Mercy gamer said: “We have no idea, really, what happened on Earth prior to the Adamic creation in Genesis, but we do know that the Earth had a long history already before Adam.”
Who’s we? And how does this “we” KNOW that. Why do you believe that the various artifacts and/or “fossils” that people have excavated from the ground are the age that they tell us? Were you or any of these people there when the organism died? Were they there when it “fossilized”? The radiometric dating techniques are guesswork based on assumptions and not factual date ranges as people have been duped into believing. The materialism priests of the scientism religion see things through the lens of their own cult creation myth — the big bang and evolution — and therefore certain objects dug out of the dirt must be millions of years old because they need it to be that way for their religion to be correct.
@ArmedPatriot
Zero Point Volume I Messages From The Past FULL MOVIE 1080p
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6-ALZxiCi9Q
thanks Tom
I just read Noah’s story in Genesis the other week, and the concept that people believe it was hyper-literal & not a localized event– I don’t recall where I saw or read this, so take it with a grain of salt, but geologists discovered there was a giant deluge of catastrophic, apocalyptic scale in the area of the Caucuses around the timeline of events described in the bible, and that surely would have affected the entire Middle-East with the amount of rivers & lakes that flow into the Tigris & Euphrates– has bugged me since I originally heard the story as a child.
This article puts a lot of things in perspective.
Most if not all mountain tops have sea creature fossils found on them, 99% of fossils are found on mountain tops while 1% are ground level.
Could this interpretative that the flood was worldwide because finding fossils so high up everywhere on the planet is definitely more proof of a worldwide flood than just wording in a book surely?
I have marble tiles in a room from the sea floor covered in shrimp fossils that were pushed up from the plates over time that’s it ?
Not an actual analogy considering marble tiles do not come from the sea bed (floor?)
Your head must be like marble the tiles were cut from Italian mountains that were pushed up from the sea floor then i bought them from a company and like it .
That particular company you bought them off used what is called in the trade “Marketing skills”
You fell for it hook line and sinker LOL
Nevermind, a quick internet search might help you out with the answer I gave you, OR, you could ring up that *salesman* and have him reassure you PMSL
David Chilton’s Paradise Restored and Days of Vengeance are books that gave me perspective on how to read the Bible.
He emphasized over and over that the Bible is first and foremost literature, written as a narrative, using both literal and symbolic language. It is up to us to differentiate between them.
If you want to see more on this, you can research the series – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2020/02/cap-kingdom-of-god-study-list.html?m=0 – in my library.
Crush, you’re absolutely right. The Bible uses both literal and symbolic language, and most people who read do not know how to tell the difference between the two. My guess is that it’s far more symbolic than literal, and far too many people get in trouble trying to defend it as literal. And you can’t convince people they’ve erred in taking something literal when its symbolic. They believe what they want to believe.
This may or may not be an answer to your question. The scientific community has put forth an event many, many millennium ago called Pangaea. So, being that the flood was only local in nature, was catastrophic as well.
In Genesis 1:9 it states:. 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.
So, if the waters were gathered into once, IMO, it could apply to the dry land as well. This is one detail that the creationists miss or leave out in their commentaries, whether intentional or not. Morris was also a supporter of Judeo-Christianity.
This may not be a sound or logical take, but it is my understanding of the matter.
America/Europe said: “This may or may not be an answer to your question. The scientific community has put forth an event many, many millennium [sic] ago called Pangaea. So, being that the flood was only local in nature, was catastrophic as well.”
I’m not sure you know what science is because a made-up story like Pangaea is certainly not science and therefore no “scientific” community can put forth such a concept. The very sentence in which you mention Pangaea bears witness against itself as being “scientific”. If this happened millions of years ago as you claim how could anyone collect empirical data or test a hypothesis through experimentation. Pangaea is just another bedtime story for evolutionists.
To be clear I’m not trying to pick on you in particular. The vast majority of people don’t understand what science is and the colloquial misapplication of the term has caused much confusion and many false understandings.
Pangea is based on the geological theory of continental drift. It’s not far-fetched, and there is ample evidence in support of it. It’s not merely a “story” or “myth” like the Greeks had of their “gods”.
That said, I’m not necessarily wed to the idea of a super Pangea continent prior to the breaking up into separate continents, but it’s based on the idea that the Earth’s crust “floats” on top of the more fluid core underneath, not hard to believe, with all the upheavals we can see evidence of on our lands.
Lindy said: “Pangea is based on the geological theory of continental drift.”
So, because it’s based on another made up concept that makes it not made up?
“it’s not merely a story” and “there’s ample evidence to support it”
…. because… I guess …you say so?
Pangaea IS made up. Its pure conjecture the same way I might conjecture about Atlantis. My guess is that you believe it is an idea that has merit because its origins are in academia or “science” (even though its not science). But unfortunately, that is just your own perception and lends no credence to it being a real thing, except for in your own mind I suppose.
Now, if you’d like to prove the existence of Pangaea, go right ahead.
Atlantis is a story, a myth with no physical evidence to support it. There’s no scientific theory concerning Atlantis.
Pangaea is not merely a story, a myth. As a theory, plate tectonics accounts for a number of observed physical phenomena, not just an excuse to explain Pangaea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
The science of plate tectonics has a lot more going for it than, say, “Evolution”. For example, there’s good evidence that the Atlantic mid-Ridge is spreading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading
Observable geo-magnetic patterns on the sea flood also support the spreading of the ocean floor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vine%E2%80%93Matthews%E2%80%93Morley_hypothesis
OK jonjon PMSL to you there were no salesman I was able to go through all the packages on a pallet and pick out what was good I saw many shrimp fossils and liked it. You’re so smart how is shrimp fossils in marble rock on an Italian mountain? and 3$ a sf the company let it go the last they had of it. you seem not like being called marble head? pardon me jonjon and sorry to CFT I’m not looking to argue just telling the truth about some tiles? maybe jonjon knows more.
Couldn’t that have happened during the creation event, and not during the Flood? Is the Flood the only time that shells could have been strewn over mountain tops?
Or as James said, sea floors were pushed up into mountains at one time….not during the Flood…?
if mountains were pushing up and moving with massive earthquakes , bones and fossils would have been pulverized no ? just my 2 cents
The name of this marble is rosso verona from Italy it’s the color of pink shrimp and you can see its compacted with shrimp some of the best fossils broke up when setting them but still have a lot in the 10 x 17 laundry room because that’s all they had left to sell anyway I think maybe a mill yrs. of shrimp doing good there living and dying their built-up thick sediment and being around the ring of fire where volcanos are and got pushed up into a mountain not up a mountain like a lot islands anyway it’s a lot of shrimp and would take more time than 11 months when the water receded ? or like peggoty said .
Yes, it certainly could. And most likely did.
And could be both flood and plates central america is a string of volcanos some up to 12000 ft