Possible Proof for Noah’s Flood Found at Bottom of Atlantic Ocean

Ocean waveScientists exploring the Atlantic Ocean have discovered mysterious metallic nodules on the ocean floor that may provide telltale evidence of the Great Flood.

Last month, a German research team announced the discovery of dense clusters of manganese nodules on the ocean floor. Using a mesh net intended to scoop up marine life, the researchers accidentally brought up balls of manganese ore from over three miles below the water’s surface.

According to LiveScience, some of the round manganese nodules were as large as bowling balls. Underwater cameras revealed that the ocean floor was littered with the metallic nodules, many of which resemble pancakes. Though similar nodules have been discovered on many ocean floor locations, experts say this is the largest patch of manganese nodules ever found in the Atlantic.

Where did the ball formations come from? The researchers are not quite sure.

“I was surprised, because this is generally not the place you think of for manganese nodules,” said the German expedition’s chief scientist, Colin Devey.

According to secular models, underwater manganese nodules form very slowly, gradually adding new layers over millions of years. However, scientists admit that the origin of the balls remains a mystery.

Dr. Jake Hebert, a physicist with the Institute for Creation Research, believes the nodules did not form over millions of years. Rather, he says, the formations likely formed very quickly.

  • Connect with Christian News

“These metallic pellets provide strong evidence that most seafloor sediments were deposited rapidly, not slowly and gradually over millions of years,” Hebert wrote in an article this month. “Are these nodules evidence of the Genesis Flood?”

Hebert points out apparent flaws in the methods secular scientists use to date the nodules.

“Secular scientists claim that nodules grow at the extremely slow rate of just a few millimeters per million years,” he explains. “Yet manganese nodules have consistently been observed growing in lakes and man-made reservoirs, as well as on debris fragments from World Wars I and II, at rates hundreds of thousands of times faster than these calculated rates. This is just one more indication that there are serious problems with radioisotope dating methods!”

Hebert argues that the scientific models of creation scientists provide better explanations for why the nodules form and where they are located.

“In the millennia after the Flood, sediment deposition would have eventually slowed to today’s ‘slow and gradual’ rates,” he writes. “Hence, nodules are found mainly in the uppermost sediment layers because these upper layers were deposited slowly enough to allow nodules to grow.”

When the Great Flood of the Bible is taken into account, Hebert adds, the nodules are no longer a mystery.

“Batches of manganese nodules are just one of many geological features that are difficult for secular scientists to explain, but they make sense in light of the Genesis Flood,” he asserts.

Kenneth Patrick, a Christian geologist, arrived at a similar conclusion in a December 2010 article for the Journal of Creation.

“According to paleontological and radiometric dating methods, the nodules are supposedly multi-millions of years old, the result of extremely slow growth rates of just millimeters per million years,” Patrick explained. “However, actual observations have revealed that nodules can grow in excess of 20 cm within hundreds of years, a growth rate several orders of magnitude faster.”

“In addition,” he continued, “nodules are found only at the top of the ocean floor, with the greatest density within the first 5 m of sediment and decreasing in size at greater depths. This contradicts the idea that ocean sediment accumulated gradually and continuously over millions of years. Rather it suggests a period of rapid sedimentation that has subsequently waned, a scenario that is consistent with the events of Noah’s Flood.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Richard

    Here is another story about the possible discovery of evidence for Noah’s flood:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/evidence-noahs-flood-ark-real-robert-ballard-archeologist-titanic_n_2273143.html

    • Better AndBetter

      Nothing global about that.

      • Richard

        Your point is?

        • Better AndBetter

          So… it wasn’t a global flood?

          • Richard

            Never was. It was regional and described using hyperbole to convey the severity of the punishment not the science of it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Where, in the Bible, does it say that the flood did not cover the entire earth?

          • Better AndBetter

            The bible becomes secondary when they find ANY shred of evidence in the real world.

          • Richard

            Only to someone who doesn’t know God. It might be helpful to broaden your horizons and think beyond your limited understanding.

          • Better AndBetter

            Blind faith… no different than hindus or muslims.

          • Richard

            At least hindus and muslims have some history to build their faith on. Atheists have nothing. Atheism is the epitome of blind faith. No other belief comes close.

          • Paul Hiett

            Every single religion in existence exists based solely on blind faith.

          • Richard

            No, only atheism is based on blind faith because there is no evidence to support it and a mountain against it.

            Christianity has the most evidence, with others have some. Atheists have nothing but their opinion.

            Atheism is the epitome of blind faith. At least agnostics aren’t certain. Their’s is a little more than atheism.

          • Paul Hiett

            Why you think there is any evidence to support this claim is beyond me. The facts can’t be changed, which is why religion has never and will never have any evidence to support its legitimacy.

            If such evidence existed, Faith would no longer be required for religion, and in fact there would only be one religion left on earth.

          • Richard

            “Why you think there is any evidence to support this claim is beyond me. ”

            I agree. It seems beyond you.

          • Clive Johnson

            Now you’re going off the deep end.

            First, atheism isn’t a life philosophy. Various arguments and underlying assumptions might be.

            Second, unlike with some or much of the Christian faith, secular people are free to draw upon whatever is true, whatever works, and from whatever source, east, west, contemporary, historical, scientific, humanistic. The body of resources readily available for the secular far exceeds the self-imposed strictures of doctrinaire and traditionalist faith.

            Further, you fail to recognize that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive within one mind. Atheism might be an appropriate response to an especially irrational form of faith. Whereas, less specific theistic claims that don’t tread on scientific ground might reasonably be met with a more ‘I don’t know’ attitude. Don’t ascribe your dogmatic categories to something you’re still struggling to understand.

          • Clive Johnson

            Which god? Or, I should ask, how do you have any confidence whatsoever that your particular god concept is one that anyone should subscribe to? There are many others on offer. And we have no direct observational way to help us with selecting the one true god.

            And…how does one know anything about this god? Beliefs about this god are all over the map, often contradictory. No reliable knowledge seems at all possible. Thoughts?

          • Richard

            As I said, the literary device is hyperbole. When you read it’s raining cats and dogs, do you think animals are falling from the sky?

            When you read the Hawks crushed the Bruins, are you thinking all the players were flattened and squished?

            When Jesus said he is the bread of life, do you think he is made or whole wheat?

            One needs to read the text in the manner in which it was intended to be understood.

          • Paul Hiett

            So the Flood is hyperbole. Gotcha.

            That means the story of Exodus is too. As is the story of Job, and Sodom and Gomorrah, and the resurrection of Jesus, and every other miraculous story in the Bible.

            Glad we cleared this up!

          • Better AndBetter

            TONS of such “hyperbole” in your book of myths.

          • Richard

            There are lots of literary devices used. Hyperbole is one.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ah, so when the Bible says that Jesus came back from the dead, we’re not meant to believe he actually came back to life. In this case, it’s hyperbole to represent the memory of his life and his teachings.

            Now I’m getting it…

          • Richard

            Do you have trouble with literature? Do you have trouble discerning a literary device from reality?

          • Paul Hiett

            Just so we’re clear, you do agree that the resurrection was hyperbole, right?

          • Richard

            Is that what you believe?

          • Paul Hiett

            This isn’t about what I believe, it’s about the stories in the Bible.

            Do you believe that the resurrection story is hyperbole?

          • Richard

            “Do you believe that the resurrection story is hyperbole?”

            No. Hyperbole doesn’t even fit with the resurrection details. I don’t think you know what hyperbole is and how it’s used.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh I understand. Hyperbole is nothing more than writing something exaggerated, and not meant to be taken literally.

            The problem you have is that you’re now cherry picking.

            There is absolutely nothing about the flood story, as it is written in the Bible, that is hyperbole.

            However, if you wish for me to accept that it is, you must also accept that every such impossible story in the Bible is also hyperbole. You are clearly unwilling to accept that premise, so then you must now accept that ALL stories in the Bible are meant to be taken literally.

          • Richard

            No, the problem you have is a lack of understanding.

            “There is absolutely nothing about the flood story, as it is written in the Bible, that is hyperbole.”

            As far as you can discern. Learning how to read literary works would solve that problem for you.

          • Paul Hiett

            ” I am going to bring floodwaters
            on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that
            has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.”

            “Jesus rose from the dead after three days”

            Which of these is hyperbole and why?

          • Richard

            As I said, learning how to read literary works would solve this problem for you.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’d be surprised at what i know. And what a piece of paper says I know.

            Now, please answer the question.

          • Richard

            I’m more surprised with what you don’t know. Most people out of high school know how to interpret literary devices.

          • Better AndBetter

            There are natural explanations for catastrophic floods, INCLUDING the one you posted. No angry sky daddies necessary.

          • Richard

            God can use natural events to accomplish his purpose.

            What natural explanation do you have for the beginning of the universe? First life?

          • Better AndBetter

            And natural events can just happen which is FAR more realistic.

          • Richard

            I noticed you have no explanation.

          • Better AndBetter

            Nor do you… you only have blind faith.

          • Richard

            I have an explanation. You don’t. You are the one with complete blind faith.

            Putting your entire faith in an unprovable assumption is the epitome of blind faith.

          • Sarah ‘Norris’ Hissin

            Richard… I know you know this but you’re not alone. I too am a Christian and I’ve agreed with what you’ve said. I’m not as articulate as you are and I appreciate your words. I’m going to print this discussion out and use it as an example of how to better articulate my beliefs which, for the most part, are taught by a book (the bible) that uses multiple genres, has multiple authors, and covers a large portion of history.

            I’m thankful that faith in Christ is simply stated and easy to understand but the idea that everything is simple, as if a book like the bible could be simple for the reasons I stated above, is a false notion. I like what C. S. Lewis says, “If we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the something more is not simple”

            Not just taking a literal view (of course this view has a 21 century worldview attached to it) and learning about typology, exegesis, hermeneutics, genre, ancient culture… and list goes on, is no simple thing. I’m assuming it’s a lifelong study and one I personally love!!

            Lastly the idea presented that one has to have the 100% correct view/interpretation of the Bible in order to be a Christian is foolish. I say name one area of thought that humans 100% agree on every specific detail. There is none. But what Christians do agree on is that God is our Creator (personally I believe the earth in old) Jesus is our Savior and that belief in Him in one’s heart is what saves. Not if you belief the flood was local or world wide!

          • Richard

            Thank you so much for your comment. It made my day 🙂

            I fully agree with all of your comments. It’s little about the details which we can discuss and challenge each other on to grow personally…which is also good, but about our Lord, the work the HS is doing in us, and reaching out to the unsaved.

            I wish you success in reaching loved ones before God calls us home.

          • Sarah ‘Norris’ Hissin

            I’m new to Disqus… I was wanting to read other comments you’ve made. It says your history is private. Is there a way I could gain access to your past and future comments?

          • Richard

            Sorry, I like to keep my comments private. I’m not on here that often, but have the last few days.

          • Paul Hiett

            Not knowing how life began or how the universe was formed has never and will never be proof of the existence of a deity.

          • Richard

            It is proof something supernatural occurred, since both of those examples are impossible using natural laws. How do you explain that?

            How do you reconcile that something outside of the natural laws of the universe happened?

          • Paul Hiett

            No, it’s not proof…that’s the god of the gaps argument. Ignorance of something will never be proof of a supernatural creature.

          • Richard

            As an atheist that doesn’t believe in God, what is your explanation?

          • Paul Hiett

            We don’t know. And believe it or not, there’s nothing wrong with being able to say that.

            The BBT certainly gives a more plausible explanation than your creation myth, but at the end of the day, we simply don’t know.

          • Richard

            “there’s nothing wrong with being able to say that.”

            Since you admit to not knowing, how is it logical to completely rule God out? That’s illogical.

            But it does reflect a complete blind faith.

          • Paul Hiett

            Did I say I have completely ruled out a deity? No. I put that possibility at the end of the list, but atheists will never say with 100% certainty that they know how life/universe began.

          • Richard

            “Did I say I have completely ruled out a deity? ”

            Yes, you did during many other discussions…including with me.

            You said you don’t believe in any gods.

            Are you having a mental lapse?

            Or are you an agnostic?

          • Paul Hiett

            That is correct, I don’t believe in deities. But, I also recognize that with the supernatural, it is impossible to prove or disprove anything. Ergo, we must accept that it is a possibility, however minute.

            You, on the other hand, refuse to accept any possibility outside of your narrow belief system.

          • Richard

            I’ll categorize you as an agnostic from now one. In future, you may want to make that clear. Saying you don’t believe in any gods suggests atheism.

            “You, on the other hand, refuse to accept any possibility outside of your narrow belief system.”

            Another misassumption. I looked at all of the world’s beliefs. Based on my research, there is only one God. When I welcomed God into my life, he showed up.

            I told you before, I have personally experienced God countless times in my life. He’s not fiction. I can’t deny what exists.

          • Paul Hiett

            Incorrect. An atheist simply does not believe in the existence of deities. I don’t believe in any deity, period. However, being far more logical than a Christian, I also accept that because we can neither prove nor disprove anything supernatural, the chance remains, however small. We recognize that.

            I am most certainly not agnostic.

          • Richard

            “I don’t believe in any deity, period.”

            That is atheism. You have great faith in your opinion.

            So when I say I have personally experienced God, do you think I’m telling the truth, lying, or delusional?

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re either lying or delusional, yes.

          • Richard

            Can you prove that? Or is that just another of your misassumptions?

          • Paul Hiett

            Prove you met God.

          • Richard

            Prove I didn’t.

          • Paul Hiett

            I met Odin. Prove I didn’t.

          • Richard

            You ask for evidence of God. I am a personal witness of his reality, yet you reject it based on your misassumption and personal opinion.

            God could stand right in front of you and you’d probably say he was lying.

            We already did the Odin thing. As I said, I agree with you, Odin isn’t real.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah, you’ll never answer with any shred of integrity. If you can’t prove Odin does not exist, then he’s as real as your god.

            I know, I know, “But I agree with you he’s not real…”

            You can’t answer because you know the truth.

          • Better AndBetter

            No… it’s not.

            It’s proof that we don’t have all the answers. Nothing more.

          • Richard

            How do you think it is logical to fully believe something when you don’t have any answers?

          • Better AndBetter

            You don’t have answers… you have fables and faith.

          • Richard

            Christians have answers, facts, and substantial evidence.

            Atheists have nothing but an opinion. That is the epitome of blind faith.

            In other words, atheists put their entire faith in wishful thinking.

          • Paul Hiett

            Christians don’t have a single shred of evidence to support a single miraculous story in the Bible.

          • Richard

            Jesus. Predictive and fulfilled prophecy. History. Archeological evidence.

            Atheists use their opinion.

          • Paul Hiett

            Thank you for proving that Christians don’t have a single shred of evidence to support the validity of any miraculous story in the Bible.

          • Richard

            Do you have a problem with reading and comprehending?

            If you don’t think the examples I gave you are true, you will need to disprove each one. Dismissing them doesn’t negate them. Can you disprove them?

          • Paul Hiett

            Sure. There is no valid historical record of anyone ever coming back from the dead. That alone proves the Jesus story as false.

            There is no supporting evidence to suggest the world was flooded. That story is now false.

            Jewish slaves did not exist in Egypt. That story is now false.

            I can go on and on, but three examples should put the argument to rest.

          • Richard

            “There is no valid historical record of anyone ever coming back from the dead.”

            Yes, there is. The NT is a historical document that recorded the events as depicted. If you don’t believe it, you will need to disprove it. Can you?

            Unless you can disprove it, saying there is no historical evidence is wrong.

            “Jewish slaves did not exist in Egypt. That story is now false.”

            I already gave you information about that yesterday. Did you forget?

            You could go on and on, but not because you are correct, but that you don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

          • Paul Hiett

            There is no archeologist anywhere that agrees with your date period for Exodus. I can link you what the accepted time line is, if you’d like, but the truth is, not a single archeologist agrees with your time line. I’d trust them over you in a heartbeat.

            The NT is written just like the OT…with words. There is nothing in the OT or NT to suggest hyerbole, unless you just want to admit you’re cherry picking what is and what is not because the evidence doesn’t support your claims.

          • Richard

            “There is no archeologist anywhere that agrees with your date period for Exodus.”

            Of course, you are completely wrong. Most scholars peg the Exodus at around 1446 BC. The earlier date of 1200 or so BC has been changed in concert with a better understanding of the pharaoh lineage.

            The authors use literary devices. As I said, learning how to read literary works would be helpful to you.

          • Paul Hiett

            http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/merneptah-stele-faq.htm

            This ends the debate. Sorry you don’t like the facts.

          • Richard

            Thanks for the link…but it proves what I was saying is true. It disproves your claim. Did you actually read the article?

          • Paul Hiett

            *sigh*

            There were never Jewish slaves in Egypt in 1400. Never happened, and no amount of wishing on your part will make it true.

            Read this and educate yourself…

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/let-the-stones-speak-part-2/

            Ever wonder why the Pharoah in the Bible was never named?

          • Richard

            Providing a link to an atheist website is foolish. Like talkorigins, they are notorious for leaving out important information, fabricating others, being mistaken about others, misleading others, and disclaiming everything by saying “it could happen.”

            The date most historians agree on today for the Exodus is 1446 BC.

            Even Zahi Hawass, renowned Egyptian archeologist, Egyptologist, and former Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs acknowledges the Israelites were in Egypt before the Exodus.

            “Ever wonder why the Pharoah in the Bible was never named?”

            The Israelites, in reverence to God, didn’t want to mention the pharaoh’s name, as God was their Lord, not some pharaoh. So they referred to him in an inferior way…not mentioning his name.

          • Paul Hiett

            So…every other historical character of the times was named, but not the Pharoah. And the reason you give, one you are fabricating on your own I might add, is that they didn’t want to say his name?

            That’s just ridiculous.

          • Richard

            It’s not that it is ridiculous, but that you think it is because of your limited understanding of what you are criticizing. This is a learning error, not a Biblical error.

          • Paul Hiett

            You made a claim for the Bible that is not in the Bible. You have no way of knowing why the Pharoah’s name was never put in the story…what you said was nothing more than a singular opinion not supported by anyone else.

  • Better AndBetter

    BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

    • Richard

      Can you disprove it?

      Atheists are great at making unprovable assertions. When you ask atheists to prove their assertions, they generally disappear or insult. That is the extent of their logic and reason…and evidence to the contrary!

      • Paul Hiett

        Disprove the story in the BIble that the entire world was flooded to a depth covering mount Everest?

        Yes, I can easily prove that never happened. Do you really want me to? I mean, do you really think that happened?

        • Richard

          The Bible doesn’t say the entire world was flooded. The flood account is described using a literary device called hyperbole, which is used to describe the severity of the punishment not the science of the flood.

          • Paul Hiett

            Please tell me what, in the Bible, suggests that the story is hyperbole?

          • Richard

            People who study the Biblical text know how to discern the various literary devices used. Are you expecting that the Biblical authors would footnote every device they used?

            Have you read anything literature?

          • Paul Hiett

            The Bible says, and I quote, ” I am going to bring floodwaters
            on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that
            has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.”

            Tell me what part of that suggest hyperbole?

          • Richard

            That is called hyperbole: describing the severity of the punishment not the science of it.

            There are countless examples of this in the Bible. Some study would clear this up for you.

          • Paul Hiett

            What verse after that one proves hyperbole? Where does God say “oh, not really going to flood the WHOLE earth, just a little bit of it.”?

          • Richard

            As I said, authors don’t footnote when they use hyperbole. Study of how to read the Biblical text would clear this up for you.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sorry Richard, but you’re on an island on this one. No one agrees with you. You’re doing nothing more than what is called “cherry picking”.

            You refuse to accept the Bible as literal truth…the “word of God”…when the facts don’t support the claims. But when there are no facts to refute a story…such as the resurrection of Jesus…you claim literal truth.

          • Richard

            “”And at this point His disciples came, and they marveled that He talked with a woman; yet no one said, “What do You seek?” or, “Why are You talking with her?” The woman then left her waterpot, went her way into the city, and said to the men, “Come, see a Man who told me all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” – John 4:27-29”

            When you read the woman say Jesus told her about every thing she had done, do you think that Jesus recounted her entire life?

            No, just the things of importance that mattered to her.

          • Paul Hiett

            The Bible is the claim, not the proof. Never has been proof, never will be proof. It makes claims in nearly every book, but those claims can’t be supported by the evidence we have in our world.

          • Richard

            Apparently, not to you. But ignorance on the subject doesn’t negate what is true.

            You can solve your ignorance on the subject, if you choose to.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’ve read the Bible. I’ve also read parts of the Torah and Koran. I’ve also happily held a BA in English since 1995. Tell me again how I’m not able to comprehend what I read?

          • Richard

            You may have read the Bible, but you didn’t understand it in the way the author intended.

            “I’ve also happily held a BA in English since 1995.”

            Serious? And you thought everything in the Bible was literal? I’m shocked. Maybe that’s the reason you don’t believe the Bible is true, you took everything woodenly.

            Based on our conversation, you may want to pick up the Bible again and start reading it in the way it was intended by the authors.

            There are many resources available to help you with that.

            When you read “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture.” – John 10:9, did you think Jesus was made of wood?

          • Paul Hiett

            I’ve never believed in any of the stories in the Bible. However, I know how it reads, and I know what the accepted position is of Christians.

            No Christian would ever accept that the stories in the Bible were just analogies and metaphors, as you suggest. In fact, we can see that already in this thread.

          • Richard

            “I’ve never believed in any of the stories in the Bible. ”

            Based on a complete literal interpretation, I’m not surprised. Who would?

            But that’s not to say the events didn’t occur. They did. But understanding literary devices will put things in context.

            What did you think when you saw almost every description of the number of people in armies as being even numbers? Did you think that an army of 30,000 facing an army of 50,000 didn’t include odd numbered people?

          • MC

            So, you’re saying that Jesus wants us all to cut off our feet, hands, and eyes? Which of the apostles did that?

          • Jason Collins

            Do you know the definition of Faith?

            Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

            Faith is inside you, therefore the evidence is also inside you. The problem is that science tries to find the evidence of the supernatural in nature and by the very definition of the words we know that is impossible. You look for evidence of the supernatural in the spirit. You will find it there every time.

          • Jason Collins

            See, I believe that Jesus stepped into her heart and actually showed her all of the things that she has ever done. In modern times we would say, “her life flashed before her eyes.” Jesus showed her her faults and he forgave her. He told her to go forth and sin no more and she immediately began to testify, fulfilling Jesus’ commandment to go forth into the world and preach the Gospel.

          • Jason Collins

            I thought it was the devil who said, “God did not say you would SURELY die, did he?”

          • Crono478

            To add to Paul’s reply to you, why do Bible says that only 8 people out of whole world is saved when they entered the ark? How can it be hyperbole if God really say that.

            He said what happened in Genesis and that Jesus treated whole thing to be actual historical event (Luke 17:20-37, Matthew 24:36-44). If we find out whole thing really turned out to be a hyperbole, then it means that God lied about the global flood in first place, then how we can trust anything else that is said in Bible? You would have to discard whole Bible because it contains one error.

          • Richard

            “why do Bible says that only 8 people out of whole world is saved when they entered the ark? How can it be hyperbole if God really say that.”

            God punished the people in Noah’s area for being corrupt. When God said that only 8 will be left, he is talking about of all of the people in that area…the ones God punished. The area was huge, though.

            As I said, the flood did happen. Noah is true. But only for the area God destroyed.

            “And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” – Luke 17: 26-30

            Jesus also makes a reference to S&G for the same reason.

          • Paul Hiett

            No where in the Bible…no where at all…does it ever say anything about a local flood. The words of the Bible are very clear, and either the Bible is infallible and the word of your diety, or it is fallible and as such is NOT the word of a deity.

            So which is it?

          • Richard

            I’ll say this one more time, learning how to read Biblical text will clear this up for you.

            Authors DON’T stop and tell the reader every literary device they use. Some are pretty obvious an some require study.

          • Paul Hiett

            The authors of the Bible were not trying to write a story, Richard. As you, and so many of your fellow Christians have pointed out, the Bible was written as the word of God.

            So, either the Bible is literal, which the physical evidence does not support, or it’s all hyperbole…analogous stories meant to convey messages but certainly not a literal translation of a deity, in which case the Bible is no longer the word of a deity.

          • Richard

            “the authors of the Bible were not trying to write a story,”

            Not a fictional one, but a story about God’s interaction with mankind, God’s plan for mankind, and the implications for eternal life.

            “So, either the Bible is literal,”

            Wow, I’m shocked. How could you possibly read all the text as literal only?

          • Paul Hiett

            “How could you possibly read all the text as literal only?”

            Which is why what you do is called “cherry picking”.

            You, Richard, are not allowed to interpret the stories as true, or literal. As a Christian, either you accept the Bible as the word of God as it is written, or you’re simply not a Christian.

          • Richard

            You believe it’s cherry picking because you don’t understand how to read and understand Biblical text.

            “You, Richard, are not allowed to interpret the stories as true, or literal. As a Christian, either you accept the Bible as the word of God as it is written, or you’re simply not a Christian.”

            What an absurd statement.

            Not knowing how to read and understand the Bible is your problem, not mine.

            Sadly, this is a common problem with atheists. Their knowledge of Biblical understanding is either completely wrong, or so juvenile they draw all sorts of false assumptions.

            Rather than the Bible being wrong or untrue, it’s their lack of scholarship that’s the problem.

          • dconklin

            >Which is why what you do is called “cherry picking”.

            The critics do that. We use logic and reason to write an exegetical analysis of the etxt in question.

          • Jean Adams

            Have you read the above article. What they have found supports the flood NOT evolution.

          • Jason Collins

            Paul, the Bible is two things. It is the logos (λόγος) which literally means words. The words on the written page. The Bible is also rhema (ῥῆμα) with translated means living words, or utterance. God spoke the Bible into existence just like He spoke light and life into existence. It is this living Word of God that teaches us the true meaning of the Bible. Reading the words on the page (logos) will give you one story, but living the Word of God (rhema) will give you something that you cannot find anywhere else: Life, Wisdom, Peace, and Joy.

            Even in the logos there are parables, and analogies, but there are also very literal instructions. Once we allow the Holy Spirit to translate the rhema and teach us the heart of God, we begin to learn how to walk in the Kingdom of God and not in the fleash and on the earth.

          • dconklin

            >The authors of the Bible were not trying to write a story,

            Actually, that is exactly what they were doing. They wrote an account of what they saw and heard in their times.

          • Marvelatthis

            Here you go Richard. This may be helpful as well. Let me know what your thoughts are. Thanks.

            http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

          • Richard

            Complete agreement. It reflects current thinking on it.

          • dconklin

            Seems well done and makes points that I was unaware of.

          • Marvelatthis

            I’d like to follow your conversations if you would unlock your privacy for a few moments. If that is cool with you.

          • http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us Joseph A. Nagy, Jr

            Except Richard, Paul makes some good points. Either the Bible is the literal word of G-d, or it is made up stories by many authors. If the entire Bible is the Word of G-d, then there is only one author with many ghost writers. Do not claim to be a scholar of the Bible and a Christian and then deny G-d’s word says what it says. You do Christians no service in the matter what-so-ever.

          • Marvelatthis

            If you get a moment I would like your opinion on the link I provided Paul concerning the flood and the interpretive science relating to it. I’d be interested in hearing what you have to say. If you can’t get to the link let me know. Thank you. Have a blessed day.

          • http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us Joseph A. Nagy, Jr

            I ignored the link, as it seems you intend on proving Scripture to not be the word of G-d.

          • Marvels of life

            Oh that is not true at all sir. I do in fact believe in the Scripture. Why would you make that assumption?

          • http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us Joseph A. Nagy, Jr

            Because you’ve been arguing for a non-literal interpretation of it?

          • Marvels of life

            I see. Can you please explain non-literal to me. If you clicked on the link you would see that the site is very through in explaining things. I’m simply asking that you review it and let me know what you think. I’m not trying to shake your faith or make assumptions. I’m a Christian, and I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. My father was a minister, my grandfather, and great grandfather was ministers. I would not want to offend you in any way.

          • http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us Joseph A. Nagy, Jr

            Ezekial 14:13-20

            It is good that you believe.

            You’ve already made an error in your reasoning on that site, by the way. You say Psalm 104:9 eliminates the possibility of a global Genesis flood, yet it only states that since the Genesis flood a boundary has been set which the waters could not exceed again (which ties into the promise of G-d to not destroy the earth by flood a second time). While the rest of the Psalm does seem to focus on praising G-d for His creation, it does not support a ‘local flood’ model of the Genesis account.

            You also seem to reject a literal 6 days of creation, a rejection which is not supported anywhere in Scripture.

          • Marvels of life

            Is your interpretation based on the English, or the original Hebrew as explained. You can clearly see the meaning in the ancient Hebrew which often used a word to have multiple meanings. I’m not rejecting a literal 6 days, it’s certainly possible since all things are possible with God. However it is difficult to understand after Moses states that time has no real meaning to God. You of course know the vers. related to that. I would like to know if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old based on your interpretation of Genesis?

          • http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us Joseph A. Nagy, Jr

            I think it is a bit older than 6k years, but certainly not billions or even millions of years old.

          • Nick Wride

            You should get an education, Joe. Creationism is a lie, a story. Every ancient religion that pre-dates the Old Testament and Judaism had their own creation mythologies.

          • http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us Joseph A. Nagy, Jr

            I have an education. Every religion that claims to predate Judaism has almost identical creation stories. The enemy wraps up a lie in the truth to make the lie easier to swallow.

          • Jason Collins

            Nick, when you say that something is a lie, you are required to support your position if you want people to take you seriously.

          • Nick Wride

            Your Magic Wizard scooped up a handful of clay, blew life into it and POOF, thus became Man? Yes, I’m going to say creationism is a lie.

          • Jason Collins

            Nick, instead of providing evidence to support your assertion that Christianity is false, you assert that Creationism is false. You will need to support both of these statements.

          • dconklin

            These allegedly older stories were simply written down before Genesis was written in the form we have it today. There is evidence within the book that Gensis is a compilation of stories that were handed down over time (presumably) on clay tablets.

          • Marvels of life

            Would you say then that your a young earth creationist?

          • http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us Joseph A. Nagy, Jr

            Yes.

          • Marvels of life

            The New International Version Study Bible does not have a specific date of the flood, but it does have the date that the Egyptians discover papyrus and ink for writing the first libraries, iron objects manufactured in the ancient Near East at 2500 BC. Does that provide information as to the timeline of the flood as you see it?

          • Sam Thompson

            Good job proving your ignorance

          • http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us Joseph A. Nagy, Jr

            No, I did eventually go view the link and it was just as I thought.

          • dconklin

            Anyone who reads the Bible can readily see that different authors wrote it. There is a differemce in style and order (witness the Synoptic Gospels). Secondly, there are passages in which David describes himself as being (in modern English) profoundly dexpressed. God did NOT write or dictate that to David.

          • Marvelatthis

            Maybe this will help you better understand what the Bible is saying. If you will take the time to read this, it is a good representation of the flood of Noah’s time.

            http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

          • Richard

            It’s a good website for information like this.

          • dconklin

            You are assuming that the bible was verbally dictated by God to man. It wasn’t. Only extreme or uninformed elements within the Christian community describe the Bible as being “infallible.” Mind you in every case where we can check (and that is the foundational key), the critics have always been found to be wrong.

          • Pablo U Hunni

            Another error on your part. All major religions of the world give a store of a cataclysmic flood. Not a regional flood. There is evidence all over the world to prove that.

          • dconklin

            It could have been a regional Flood and from the survivors the story of that Flood spread throughout the world afterwards.

          • Pablo U Hunni

            Unfortunately Richard, the scientists ARE studying this and proving the Bible is correct. Archeologists use the bible as a starting place for digs. The problem here isn’t whether the Bible is true or not, the problem is YOU just to refuse to admit it is.

          • MC

            When Jesus said if your hands, feet, and eyes causes you to sin, to cut them off and pluck them out. Do you really think Jesus wanted you to cut of your hands and feet, or was he using hyperbole? Do you really think there was a talking snake in Genesis or was Moses using hyperbole to describe Satan to the people of that time? How do we know? Snakes don’t talk. Stop reading the Bible in a wooden literal fashion.

          • Catherine

            Unless it says it is a parable or a “hyperbole” then it is literal. Jesus said I am the “door.” Do you think we are smart enough to know he wasn’t an actual door?

          • MC

            It’s not going to “say” if it’s hyperbole, the reader already knows.

          • dconklin

            The Bible never uses the word “hyperbole.”

          • Martin Mayberry

            I do read the Bible literally you are suppose to!

          • MC

            Then you have no feet, hands, and eyes?

          • jason bourne

            Subject on point is the Flood not Jesus dude. The Flood is not a hyperbole but literal account. So God gives Noah precise measurements to build a boat that would withstand any deluge even these days, for the sake of a parable or hyperbolic talk?

          • MC

            No one said the flood wasn’t a literal account, the “subject” on point is whether it was a global flood OR a local flood, nor is the precise measurements of the ark. One can believe it was global and one can believe it was local but that’s a non essential for salvation.

          • dconklin

            Paul told the Christians in Rome that their faith was known throughout the whole world. (Rom. 1:8–note that I gave the exact source). That is physically impossoble. It is an example of hyperbole (exaggeration for effect–a fairly common literary device). In the verse you quoted, with no source, I see the words “all,” “every” and “everything.” To me that is a clue that it is exaggerated.

          • Deina

            Hyperbole is exaggeration, “stretching” the truth, what some would call “white lies.” In other words it’s not THE truth.

            So are you saying that the Bible, the Word of God, contains lies? Even quotes directly attributed to God are lies?

          • Richard

            Ah no. Hyperbole: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

            Hyperbole has nothing to do with lying. That’s an understanding error on your part.

          • Paul Hiett

            ” I am going to bring floodwaters
            on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that
            has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.”

            If that did not happen, then this sentence is a lie. You can call it hyperbole if you want, but at the base of it, it’s a lie.

          • Richard

            “The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart.” – 1 Kings 10:24

            Do you think the author really meant that every person on earth came to see Solomon?

            “Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” – John 6:35

            Do you think the author meant that Jesus was food and drink?

            As I said, learning how to read literary works would solve your problem.

          • Crono478

            I have to upvote this one, Paul is right.

          • Richard

            Only according to your opinion. Study will clear this up for you, too.

          • Crono478

            I agree with Deina. Also, Jesus treated Noah’s flood as literal history. If you believe that it is hyperbole, then you can just discard whole Bible. Whole Bible cannot be trusted if it contains even just one lie.

          • Richard

            “Jesus treated Noah’s flood as literal history.”

            The major flood is history. But not a flood that encompassed the entire world.

            “If you believe that it is hyperbole, then you can just discard whole Bible.”

            Not at all. It just requires learning how to read the Biblical text in the manner in which it was intended to be understood.

            The Bible is a literary work, which includes literary devices, like most literary works. It needs to be read and understood as such.

          • Paul Hiett

            And this, folks, is why there are 42,000 denominations of Christianity.

          • Richard

            No, yours is an example of ignorance on the subject you criticize.

          • Marvels of life

            Paul I can see why you stated that. It certainly is difficult as a Christian sometimes. How are you by the way. I hope your doing well

          • MC

            You’re using hyperbole because there is not 42,000 denominations of Christianity. If you’re going by the World Christian Encyclopedia, they also say there are 242 Roman Catholic denominations, and that is false, there is only one Roman Catholic Church.

          • Crono478

            Okay, so everything is a literary work to you. The accounts of Jesus Christ dying on the cross and His resurrection is just a hyperbole to you. Same can go for the accounts of God creating everything in 6 days.

            If whole thing is just a literary work then we aren’t really sinners and we don’t need a Savior. There is no such thing as God. Why do you bother to study Bible if you believe in that?

            Bible says that every word written in there is truth and is from God. He cannot lie and his words will not be returned void. What is more is that, without faith, we cannot please God. To have faith is to see what we haven’t seen yet.

            This leads to this very good example. Prior to the account of global flood, Noah never saw any kind of rain or flood . Yet, he had faith in what God says that would happen.

          • Paul Hiett

            Let me quote Richards answer to you…”You just don’t know how to read the Bible.”

          • Crono478

            Yeah I see that.

          • Richard

            Peter 3:6-7 – a creation story, not about the flood (as mentioned in the verse before it)

            The rest of your verses suffer with similar malady.

            When God refers to satan as a snake, do you honestly think satan is one and crawls on the ground on his belly?

          • Crono478

            I mean 2 Peter 3:6-7

            6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

            Notice this: “world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.”

            Did I really misunderstand this part and that the scale of flood wasn’t global?

          • Richard

            “I mean 2 Peter 3:6-7”

            That’s what I thought you meant.

            Read the eight words before verse 6.

          • Crono478

            Are you referring to “standing out of water and in the water”?

            That is eight words before verse 6.

          • Richard

            Sorry, my mistake. The end of verse 4. That is the context that Paul is using.

          • Crono478

            I will include all of verse 4

            4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

            You are sure that Paul wrote this epistle?

          • Richard

            The context is the beginning of creation.

            “You are sure that Paul wrote this epistle?

            No, LOL. That’s Peter (hence 2 Peter). Too many conversations going at the same time…plus work.

          • Crono478

            Yeah, I thought that you meant to say Peter instead of Paul. Now, I will include 2 Peter 3:3-7

            3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

            Let’s look at the 4th verse. We should notice one part of the fourth verse, “all thing continue as they were from the beginning of creation”. This matches with what Jesus spoke about what people were doing during the time of Noah. Everyone were eating, drinking, marrying and giving into marriage.

            Verse 5 shows that people willfully forgot about this promise. We should recall that God promised Adam and Eve that the Savior will be from Her Seed. This is also in reference to verse 4 regarding the promise.

            God’s wrath was revealed in full to everyone who willfully forgot about His promise. Only Noah was found to be righteous by God in whole world at that time. Everyone including creatures that were not in the ark perished when the world were flooded. That is why we see fossil bones and sedimentary layers all over the world.

            Now, God said that the whole world will be engulfed with fire on the day of judgement. That will be obviously in the future.

          • Richard

            “this matches with what Jesus spoke about what people were doing during the time of Noah.”

            Jesus and Peter are talking about two different things. Combining them is a mistake. Jesus is talking in context of the flood and Peter is talking in context of the beginning of the world and man’s sinful nature from then on.

            “Now, God said that the whole world will be engulfed with fire on the day of judgement.”

            Do you believe the whole earth will be in flames?

          • Crono478

            Yes, they were talking about same thing.

            Yes, because He said that it will happen.

          • Richard

            Yours is an example of taking verses out of context.

            They are both talking about the evil and impending destruction, but not about the same references to it. Jesus is talking about the sudden destruction as in the flood and S&G, and Peter is talking about the sinfulness since the beginning of man.

            Trying to combine the two is a mistake. Here is an example of a misunderstanding from your part, not a problem with the Bible.

          • Crono478

            No, I didn’t misunderstand this. Statements by Jesus and Peter helps us understand what people were like during the time of Noah. They sinned and forgot about the promise. They did not expect the judgement which came swiftly. It will be like that in future too.

          • Richard

            But you are misunderstanding it and reading into the text what isn’t intended. This is called Eisegesis – a common reason people get the meanings and/or context incorrect.

            While they are talking about the sinful nature of man and the impending destruction, Jesus is giving examples, and Peter is talking about man’s sinful nature from the beginning of creation. Peter isn’t talking about the flood.

          • Crono478

            “Peter isn’t talking about the flood.”

            Tell me that I am doing what is called eisegesis when you haven’t really understood 2 Peter 3:3-7.

            Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one’s own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

            I have not introduced any of this when sharing verses to you. I am showing what it really says. In fact, I have complete faith that every word in the Bible is God’s. If he said that he created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day, then it means he created everything in EXACTLY six days. No less or more than that. I have not used any of eisegesis in this process. I believe in that.

            In contrast, you do not believe that He did create everything in exactly six days. This is because you used eisegesis to read these verse in this process rather than trusting in what He exactly said.

            You are one who really practices this.

          • Richard

            Yes you have. You are saying Peter is talking about the flood. He’s not.

            Moses didn’t intend to convey six days…but ages…periods of change. Using the term day is a great way to condense complex concepts into easy to understand concepts. He also wasn’t intending to write the science of it, but WHO did it and the process God used.

            No, I do not believe six literal days anymore than I believe satan is a real snake.

          • Crono478

            Peter did talk about the flood in verse 6.

            6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

            Now, I want to talk about Genesis 1. Let’s read Genesis 1:5 below.

            5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

            You can notice that the part of verse says “the evening and the morning were the first day”. Today, each day do have morning and evening. There is no reference to each day as “age” or “period of changes”. Think about this, “the evening and the morning” is repeated in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31 for each day. At this point, it should be pretty clear that God created everything in six literal days.

            If we discover the truth that differs from what God told us about what he did in the beginning then how can we trust His words? How will we know which words are true and which is not true? That actually casts whole Bible in doubt. Genesis provides the foundation to whole Bible.

            Remember, God cannot lie and does not change His mind. That is why we can completely trust in His words.

          • Richard

            “Too scared to drive not the ice now :-)”

            And that’s the problem. Peter is talking about since creation, not about the flood. As I mentioned, verse 4 sets the context.

            Here is a brief overview of the ‘days’ of creation:

            http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/daysofcreation

            And here:

            http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html

          • Crono478

            According to their “Our Mission” page
            (http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission), they said that they believe that the Bible is 100% without error. Yet, they stated “Reasons To Believe holds the day-age (long but finite days) view and yet we recognize the “sister” status of the framework and analogical views.” in their Day of Creation article.

            Also, Jon Greene mentioned in his article, “The Days of Creation: A Closer Look at Scripture (www.godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.htm) that Moses intended the days to be thought of in the most common sense of that term. The big problem is that Moses did not write about Genesis because he “intended the days to be thought of in the most common sense of that term”. The truth is, he wrote Genesis under inspiration of Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:16). It is really God that tells us the truth about what exactly happened in the beginning.

            I highly recommend you to read this article at https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/could-god-really-have-created-everything-in-six-days/ instead.

          • Richard

            Re: reasons.org – long but finite phases. Yes. At the completion of each phase, the next begins.

            Day age: a finite period of time. This concurs with the above.

            Much like being 15 years old. It is a long time (one year). At the end of the last day, you turn 16, a new phase of time.

            I understand the 24 hour day rationale and explanations (and the young earth position). But, they don’t stand up to the book of nature…another book God gave us, or other literary devices used in the Bible to convey information.

            If you are taking the Bible literally, which was satan:
            A snake?
            A dragon?
            A prince?
            A lion?
            A murderer?
            Prince of the powers of the air?
            Father of lies?
            Power of darkness?
            Angel of the abyss?

            He can’t be all of them literally.

            Is Jesus made of wood? Whole wheat?

          • Crono478

            You keep on telling me to “study more” and see the nature for myself. Yes, it lets us know that it is the proof of Creator. I choose to trust in words of Creator and you are not.

            Yes, Satan did really take the appearance of serpent. Yes to all questions. 2 Corinthians 11:14 says that he can masquerade as an angel of light so it is not impossible.

            You don’t have to ask absurd questions about Jesus. We already know what Bible tells us about Jesus. I trust in what Bible says exactly. I don’t know about you, really.

          • Richard

            “I choose to trust in words of Creator and you are not.”

            I trust in God implicitly. I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. But that doesn’t mean the writers were meant to take their writing literally.

            Satan doesn’t have the ability to ‘shape shift.’ He has no creative power. The references to satan are to describe what satan’s character is like, not what his physical appearance looks like.

            When you read Jesus saying, “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture.” Do you think Jesus is a gate? That you can go through him and find a pasture?

            While I respect your belief in God, I encourage you to look beyond using a ‘literal only’ interpretation of scripture. Take some time and discover all of the literary device nuances of the text. That’s when the real message can be experienced.

            That’s also when the Bible and the book of nature line up with each other. They are a perfect match.

            Even if you don’t, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ. We don’t have to divide over the details. We’ll have an eternity to discuss them and have God show us.

          • Crono478

            Jesus is the gate to Heaven. Also, he said that He is the Door. He uses that to describe that only way to Heaven is through Him.

            Even though that we are brothers in Christ, this type of compromise in Bible is why many churches eventually fall. It allows what was previously forbidden and unacceptable to become acceptable. Homosexuality, abortion, moral relativism and so on. More people are accepting this as normal now.

            Why do you think that Answer in Genesis is one of most hated Christian ministries? Many people stopped believing that God did create everything in 6 days and started to believe in theories such as Gap Theory to try to account for old earth and evolution. For this reason, God used Ken Ham to establish this ministry to proclaim this truth about His creation and how it is really connected to Jesus. When we stand on God’s words, we will be hated.

          • Richard

            Oh my. I suggest you spend some time in study.

          • Richard

            The entire Bible is a literary work that employs literary devices to convey it’s meaning. There are many literary devices, hyperbole is just one.

            “The accounts of Jesus Christ dying on the cross and His resurrection is just a hyperbole to you.”

            No, that is a literal account.

            “Same can go for the accounts of God creating everything in 6 days.”

            Six days is a reference to a ‘time or phase,’ not six literal days (it’s actually seven).

            Taking the time to understand how to read the Bible will clear all of this up for you. There are several good resources that deal with this.

            Taking the entire text as literal is a huge mistake. It was never written to be understood that way.

          • Crono478

            Richard, can you read these verses ( Peter 3:6-7, Isaiah 54:9, 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:5 and Hebrews 11:7) and tell me that the flood was limited to one area in the world like you said?

          • Richard

            I answered below. It’s your misunderstanding that’s the problem, not the Bible.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yep.

          • Richard

            Yep, is right.

            Study man! That will set you free from your misconceptions.

          • Paul Hiett
          • Jean Adams

            God created the world in 6 literal days! (It’s not actually seven, as he rested on the seventh day). They were literal days because it says “and the evening and the morning was the first day”, and the evening and the morning was the second day etc.

          • Marvels of life

            May I enter the conversation Jean. Hello by the way. I am a Christian that believes very much in the Bible. I will not offend you, but I would like for you to look at a few things and give me your input. Would that be ok with you?

          • http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us Joseph A. Nagy, Jr

            Sorry but you are wrong. There was a world encompassing flood as described in Genesis.

          • Richard

            If the flood waters covered the peaks of the mountains, the water would have frozen.

            The Biblical text uses hyperbole to show the severity of the punishment, not the science of it.

          • http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us Joseph A. Nagy, Jr

            Sorry, but you are incorrect.

          • Richard

            If you don’t believe water at 17,000 feet won’t freeze, then why are there glaciers, snow topped mountains?

          • http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us Joseph A. Nagy, Jr

            Pardon?

          • Deina

            So since the Antediluvian Flood is just “hyperbole” for a regional flood, how did it deposit 5 meters of sediment in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean? That’s what the article you’re defending said.

          • Richard

            If you read my comment, I didn’t defend it. I posted a link to another version…more accurate to the truth.

          • Deina

            Ah! So these “scientists” at the Institute for Creation Research are mistaken then?

          • Richard

            I would say yes. And those who are young earther’s.

          • davidreilly7

            Richard, I’m glad that you don’t believe in a global flood, but your brethren over at Answers In Genesis would say that you are deceived.

            Curious are you a theistic evolutionist (or evolutionary creationist I think is the new term used by Biologos)?

          • Richard

            I understand young-earther’s will disagree. But God gave us two books: the Bible (His inspired text to us) and the book of nature (science of all there is).

            God said we would know and understand him more by his creation. And we can.

            “are you a theistic evolutionist?”

            No. I believe in God’s sovereignty over all things, can set things in motion and can alter them at will. He can do that supernaturally if he chooses (conception of Jesus) or by altering the processes already in motion. I don’t believe in God of the gaps either.

          • Paul Hiett

            “I don’t believe in God of the gaps either.”

            Except when you try to explain things you know nothing about.

          • Richard

            Such as?

          • davidreilly7

            OK thanks. So you are an Old Earth Creationist (I was a gap theory OEC).

            You should check out biologos.org. One of the strongest defenses for Evolution is given by evangelical Christian Francis Collins in his book The Language of God.

          • Richard

            Mircoevolution is true. There is evidence of it every. But micro does not infer macro. Macroevolution is a myth. Never was true.

          • davidreilly7

            Thanks for the reply Richard. I’m sorry that your understanding of science is blinded by religion.

          • Richard

            Try Reasons.org They are scientists.

            There is no transitional to transitional examples of macroevolution that contain all of the intermediates. The fossil record betrays macroevolution. The only evidence that exists is circumstantial and hypothetical. That isn’t actual.

          • davidreilly7

            Hugh Ross is smart but wrong.

          • 1PierreMontagne1

            Hugh Ross is a conflicted academic. He was allowed to survive his career by Carl Sagan and is more a Saganite than a Christian. In his post Sagan life H. Ross is relentlessly trying to to shape biblical fact to fit speculative theory/fiction. Ross’s posturing requires he split Paleolithic from Old earth and then he Insists man has been around less than 40 thousand years and at the same time insists that everything else is 13 billion
            years old.
            He refuses to address Gauss’s constant on magnetic decay and earths magnetic field weakiening with time. Gauss’s constant extrapolates backwards from the present as an increasing constant, and gives us a planet earth with a 5,000 degree surface temperature a mere 15 thousand years
            ago!

            The science that repudiated Ross is something he will not even discuss except like others to insist that Gauss’s constant not be taught n school . He condescendingly theorizes from a posture of Academic arrogance – not to support Christianity or
            Christ but to Bilblicize the vacuous “Theory of Evolution”.

            The greatest paradox to the likes of Mr. Ross is that Jesus was so terribly smart and actually spoke about the Darwins, the Sagans and the Ross’s. It doesn’t matter how you choose to read what Jesus said weather metaphor, allegory or hyperbole the Creator of the universe while on earth in the form of
            Jesus left no wiggle room when he stated;
            If you cannot believe what Moses wrote How can you believe in Me? John 5:46.

            Jesus would have us believe only a part of what Moses wrote and not the rest? Seems that is what Hugh Ross wants.
            So Jesus was writing about the Hugh Ross’s and similar others.
            Don’t be deceived into thinking the things that are comfortable to the Hugh Ross types. Christ has left it simple – it is what Moses wrote not what someone else says.

            Maranatha

          • davidreilly7

            Well you’re going a different direction for saying that Hugh is “wrong” than I. Sorry for the confusion. I am not a YEC nor am I a Christian. I was an OEC born again believer 20 years ago.

            Evolution is as solid a theory as the theory of gravity, germs, atoms and heliocentricity.

            He is however correct on the age of the earth.

          • davidreilly7

            You really should read Francis Collins The Language of God and Jerry Coyne Why Evolution Is True (with apologies for his atheist polemic).

            Evolution is falsifiable. Rabbit fossils in the Precambrian is a classic example. Anybody disproving evolution would most certainly win a Nobel prize.

            Evolution has predictive power. Tiktaalic was found where it was expected to be based on evolutionary theory.

            Fossils are very rare. Every time a transitional fossil is found creationists respond, “see now there are two gaps!”

          • Angel Jabbins

            “Is there enough water to flood the entire earth? Absolutely! If the earth were perfectly spherical the oceans would cover all the land by more than a mile in depth. The biblical account is that it rained for 40 days and nights in which the floodgates of the heavens were opened up as well as the fountains from the earth (Gen. 7:11;8:2). There is a theory known as the canopy theory that states it had never rained on the earth up to the time of Noah and that a mist watered the plants (Gen. 2:6). The theory goes on to state that there may have been a heavy cloud or water vapor layer over the entire earth and that it was this canopy of water that became torrential rains during the flood period.

            Did the flood cover all the earth? Yes it did. The depth of the flood waters is described in Gen. 7:19 as covering “all the high mountains under the entire heavens.” Also, there are many references in the Bible to it being global: Gen. 6:1,4-5,12,13,17,19;7:4,6,10,19;8:3;9:15. There were 40 days of rain (Gen. 7:12), 110 days of flooding (Gen. 7:24) and 221 more days of draining (Gen. 8:1-5,13-14). That is a total of 371 days of flooding. That could not be a local flood.’

            from https://carm.org/could-noahs-ark-hold-all-animals (Christian Apologetic Research Ministry)

          • Catherine

            The World Wide Flood was all over the World. Otherwise why wouldn’t birds and fish survive?

        • smbelow

          Umm…and you know Mt. Everest was there at its current height, why? Your assuming the geographical landscape was the same as it is now. I’m sure you’re aware of the destructive nature of a flood, let alone a global flood.

          • 1PierreMontagne1

            At the time of the flood the earth did not possess the high mountains that we see today.
            In Genesis 10:25 a few gerentions after the flood it is stated “In the days of Peleg (one mans lifetime) the earth (singular land mass) was divided” into pieces. The genesi account is stating the forces of the division was not over milions of years but over a few decades. Geologists recognize the trememdous forces that occurred that created the worlds very high mountain ranges – only the wont wrap their heads around it as being sudden…judtbecsudsse they refuse to. A problem for the old earthers is that half way to Mt. Everst’s famous base camp is a sandy paleolithic seabed complete with modern coral…on a slope at 11,000 feet altitude. This is indicative of a very abrupt rise of the sea floor during the age of man and during man’s recorded history – a rise which today we refer to as the “Hindu Kush” moutain range which comprises the worlds highest mountains and biblically defaults to being appx 5,000 years old like it or not.
            Certainly sounds like the type of occurrence an all powerful God is capable of.
            It is not that it didn’t happen; it is that unbelieving men refuse to accept it.

            Many pastors in todays churches say that bleif in oild erath vis a vis yong earth really doesnt matter but t the chagrin of these pastors Jesus says it matters.

            If you cannot believe what Moses wrote How can you believe in Me? John 5:46.

        • Catherine

          Yes, Mount Everest wasn’t there before the Flood.

        • dconklin

          >Disprove the story in the BIble that the entire world was flooded to a depth covering mount Everest?

          Where does it say that in the Bible? It doesn’t. You were lied to.

      • Reinhold Von Kirschmann

        You have it wrong, you’re talking about christians

    • Paul Hiett

      This is hilarious…

      • Better AndBetter

        Aye… and this weekend I prove just how truly human Jesus was!

        I’ll be walking on water!

        • Oboehner

          Then you can “evolve” for us too.

          • MisterPine

            We’ve only been doing that for several million years…

          • Oboehner

            Correction, you have faith, you believe you’ve been “evolving”, and don’t include me in your religion.

          • MisterPine

            You’re essentially a baby pounding and crying and screaming and turning blue on the ground “it’s a RELIGION it’s a RELIGION it’s a RELIGION…” Guess what:? It’s still not. You lose. Evolution is not religion. Evolution is taught in science class.

          • Oboehner

            LOL, you’re desperation is showing.

          • MisterPine

            Yes, me, the dictionary, and science, we are all just as desperate as can be, fundie man.

          • MisterPine

            Speaking of LOLz:

            http://www.fstdt.com/Search.aspx?Fundie=Oboehner

            Do be sure to read the comments.

          • Oboehner

            I have to set up an account and log in, not worth the effort.

          • MisterPine

            No, not necessary. Anyone can read. No account necessary.

  • Frank

    I love oysters at tops of mountains… Woot woot.

  • Nuh

    Here’s hoping that the superstitious, not all religious people mind you, jump to the bottom of the ocean as well.

  • Richard

    Paul, if you’ve been taking everything in the Bible literally, that may be the reason you are having trouble believing in God. There are some good resources today that can teach you how to exegete the text correctly.

    You may want to pick up a study Bible, which has explanations for almost every verse, then start again. A good study Bible and some good resources may make a sizeable difference.

    • Paul Hiett

      So which denomination of the 42,000+ is the right denomination? Which of them is interpreting the Bible “correctly”?

      • Richard

        There’s almost as many atheist versions if you were to look at the variety of beliefs they have other than not believing any god is real.

        People are people. They will do as they please. Just because there is a right way to exegete Biblical text, doesn’t mean they will…or want to.

        That is a human thing, not a Bible or God thing.

        • Paul Hiett

          Atheism isn’t a religion, ergo there are no different denominations. Either one believes in deities, or one does not. Pretty simple.

          As for interpreting the Bible, again I ask, which of the 42,000+ denominations is doing it right?

          • Richard

            In a broad sense, atheism is a religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

            It’s a religion to you since you spend so much time criticizing religion.

            “As for interpreting the Bible, again I ask, which of the 42,000+ denominations is doing it right?”

            Many are, many aren’t.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, atheism is not a religion. Not in any definition. I suggest you read the definition of atheism. It’s simply a lack of belief in deities. Nothing more, nothing less.

            Now, again, I ask, which denominations are interpreting the Bible correctly? Since you have propped yourself up as the definitive interpreter of the Bible, this should be easy to answer.

          • Richard

            “No, atheism is not a religion.”

            Sure it is. That’s why atheist churches are springing up. Atheism is the worship of self. Atheists have themselves on the throne.

          • Paul Hiett

            I notice you hate answering questions directly. I wonder why that is.

            Are you unable or unwilling to state which denominations are interpreting the Bible the same way you do…er, I mean…correctly?

            Also, atheism is not a religion. Any claim to the contrary is an attempt by you to redefine the word. If you have a hard time understanding what atheism means, I suggest you check out the Miriam Webster dictionary site.

          • Richard

            I’ve already given you my answer. I won’t answer again.

            “Also, atheism is not a religion.”

            You keep saying that, but that’s not true. Not only is atheism a religion – a pursuit of supreme importance – it’s built solely on blind faith. One constructed out of misinterpretation, misunderstanding, misinformation, misassumption and unproven opinion.

            Atheists have great faith.

          • Paul Hiett

            You have not supplied the name of a single denomination. Not one. All you have to do is name the denomination that is interpreting the Bible correctly. It should be easy, as it’s apparently the same one you belong to.

            a·the·ism
            ˈāTHēˌizəm/
            noun
            noun: atheism
            disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

            That’s it. Any attempt by you to redefine the meaning of a word is nothing more than your opinion. I have proved, without question, that atheism is not a religion.

            Feel free to disagree with the rest of the world if you want, but this point is over and done.

          • Richard

            Lack of belief is actually a belief that God doesn’t exist. To have that belief…in spite of the mountain of evidence – is a religion.

            The religion is a worship of self.

            You can try and deny it, but that doesn’t negate the reality of it.

            Just ask the people who go to atheist churches. I’m sure they’ll disagree with you.

          • Paul Hiett

            When you learn what the definitions of religion and atheism are, then maybe you’ll start to understand how wrong you are.

          • Richard

            I’m not wrong. Atheism has been referred to as a religion for many years now. Many atheists agree with it.

            If this is a new concept for you, you might want to think on it. It does apply.

          • Clive Johnson

            I have reason to think that the evidence and arguments for the Egyptian pyramids being airlifted by aliens into their current place is not truth. I don’t have to have a belief about this, I can merely say I see no evidence for this claim and therefore I needn’t accept it. And in not accepting it it is not therefore a religion for me.

            Why when this god of yours is inserted into an analogous argument structure, why does this then suddenly mean atheism is a religion?

          • Richard

            religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

            Many of the atheist commenters come to these conversations regularly. That displays importance. Atheism is a religion to those people who believe they have to prosthelytize their faith.

          • Clive Johnson

            This isn’t an academic definition, but let’s roll with it anyway. The tricky word here is “supreme.” If we take this as being ‘most’ important, then religion could encompass caring for one’s children, one’s job, one’s health, a favorite hobby, etc. So, using this definition of religion really doesn’t tell us anything. For the purposes of trying to paint atheism as just as irrational and faith-based as religious faith, it won’t do the trick. We need a more sophisticated definition, one that fixes attention and allows classification of the kinds of social phenomena we intuitively want to combine.

          • Clive Johnson

            I see you’re not familiar with atheist scholarship.

          • Richard

            “atheist scholarship.”

            There isn’t any. That is the problem. The entire atheist faith is built on silly illogical nonsense. That isn’t scholarship.

          • Clive Johnson

            You substitute bias and psychological certainty/comfort for the truth. All you have to do is look. You haven’t, so you’re confirmed in your prejudices.

            For atheist philosophy, start with Michael Martin.

            For atheological accounts of the Bible, start with either Bob Price or Richard Carrier.

            Among many, many other names that could be listed there’s Gregory Paul: http://www.gspaulscienceofreligion.com

            There’s the academic journal Secularism & Nonreligion.

            Prometheus Books and the Humanist Press (Prometheus Books is considerably deeper) both have catalogs with titles that cover extensive territory. Some of this is strictly academic work, while other titles are written by academics for an educated audience, and then there are more popular titles.

            To even write such a sentence as you have, “The entire atheist faith is built on silly illogical nonsense” almost certainly suggests you have done even the most elementary research about a topic you seem to certain about.

  • Richard

    Some good resources on how to exegete Biblical text:
    – How to read the Bible for all it’s worth – Gordon Fee
    – How to read the Bible verse by verse – Gordon Fee
    – The Apocalypse Code – Hank Hanegraaff

    Taking time to study these resources should clear up the misconceptions we talked about today.

    • Paul Hiett

      So, just to be clear, anyone who doesn’t interpret the Bible the same way you do is wrong and not a Christian, right?

      • Richard

        Another misassumption. With your poor batting average, you’d think you’d stop doing that.

        But I understand it’s a desperate atheist attempt at discrediting Christianity.

        There are many levels of walking with God. It first starts with accepting Christ, and then God builds the rest a step at a time.

        Another evidence of God is that he made the separation a matter of faith, which anyone can muster, and not wisdom. This means no one has an excuse for the on going willful rejection of God.

        If you notice, all of the rest of the religions require effort to be reconciled to God – having to do more good than bad, etc.

        But with the real God, he already knew none of us could be good enough to be reconciled to him. That’s why God made the way (by sending himself) so that anyone who would believe could be saved.

        That is a single and important distinction between false gods, man-made gods, and the real God. In other words, God came back for us so that we could go home to him, whereas all the rest try and make their way based on their own effort.

        • Paul Hiett

          But if someone is not interpreting the Bible the same way that you do, they’re wrong, right? That’s what you’ve been saying to me and other Christians in this thread.

          • Richard

            If someone isn’t interpreting the Bible in the way the author intended, yes, that would be incorrect.

            This is why it’s important to study correct Biblical text exegesis, which is not unlike any subject on earth.

            Interpreting 2 + 2 = 7 would be wrong.

          • Paul Hiett

            So again I ask, which denomination is the right one?

          • Richard

            I’ve already answered. Asking again and again isn’t going to change my answer.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, like every other question that’s been asked of you, you have not answered it.

            All I’m asking for is the name of the denomination. Which is it?

          • Richard
          • Paul Hiett

            What is the name of the denomination?

          • Richard

            Atheists have great faith.

          • Paul Hiett

            I guess if i had asked you a question about atheism, that might apply, but I’m not asking about atheism.

            Again, I ask, what is the name of the denomination?

  • Marvelatthis

    I’ve seen some cross-referenced material regarding the flood of Noah’s time. When I was younger my thought had always been that the flood included the entire earth. However as I’ve grown older and look at the reference materials and studies I’ve seen, it would seem that the Flood was located in a particular area of the earth. Ex. The concept of a global Genesis flood can be easily eliminated from a
    plain reading of Psalm 104,1
    which is known as the “creation psalm.” Psalm 104 describes the
    creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with a
    few more details added). It begins with an expanding universe model
    (reminiscent of the Big Bang) (verse 2,1
    parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a
    stable water cycle (verses 3-5,1parallel to Genesis
    1:6-8). The earth is then described as a planet completely covered with
    water (verse 6, parallel to Genesis 1:9). God then
    causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8,1
    parallel to Genesis 1:9-10). The verse that eliminates a global flood follows:
    “You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will
    they cover the earth.” (Psalm 104:9)1 Obviously, if
    the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been
    local. Psalm 104 is just one of several creation passages that indicate
    that God prevented the seas from covering the entire earth.2
    An integration of all flood and creation passages clearly indicates that the
    Genesis flood was local in geographic extent. Also relevant is the interpretation from ancient Hebrew to English.

    Ex. The Hebrew words which are translated as
    “whole earth” or “all the earth” are kol
    (Strong’s number H3605), which means “all,” and erets (Strong’s
    number H776), which means “earth,” “land,”
    “country,” or “ground.”4 We don’t need to look very far in
    Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets.
    The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol]
    land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
    And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol]
    land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)

    Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the
    land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erets
    is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area of land, instead of
    our entire planet.5

    • Richard

      Thanks for sharing. I agree.

  • davidreilly7

    Finally, we have evidence that the flood of Gilgamesh is a fact not mythology!

    • Richard

      Many histories talk about a a major flood. Why wouldn’t they? Many countries talk about 911.

      • Paul Hiett

        Can’t name the denomination, can you? So you dance around the question, then trot off to ask questions of other people while refusing to answer those posed to you.

        I would say your integrity is in question.

        • Richard

          I’ve already answered the question. That’s enough. You’re starting to sound like a 5 year old.

          • Paul Hiett

            What was the name of the denomination you provided? I’ve looked at every single response.

            Why are you so scared of naming the denomination?

          • Richard

            Maybe 4 years old. You aren’t listening.

          • Paul Hiett

            Name the denomination.

            Rather than insulting me like the good Christian you are, why not try answering questions when they’re poised to you?

          • Richard

            I’ve answered every reasonable question you’ve asked. But I won’t be hounded when I’ve already answered.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re flat out lying. You have not answered the question. You have not provided the name of the denomination. Not once.

            I’ve read every single reply you’ve made to me, and not once have you answered the question.

            Any claim to the contrary is nothing more than a lie, and a confession that you have no integrity at all.

            Simple question, what is the name of the denomination.

          • Richard

            “You’re flat out lying.

            Really. You’re batting zero percent on your assumptions. If you would have read a little further down, you would have seen my answer:

            You said: “As for interpreting the Bible, again I ask, which of the 42,000+ denominations is doing it right?”

            I replied: “Many are, many aren’t.”

            If you are expecting me to list all the the denominations specifically, you’ll be disappointed. Each person within each denomination would need to be meticulously questioned. Not something I’m interested in, or find need of.

            Each person is responsible for their own growth. That’s not up to me.

            Moreover, each person is at a different level of spiritual development. It’s unrealistic to think everyone should be at the same place.

          • Paul Hiett

            Then it really shouldn’t be that hard for you to name a denomination that is interpreting it correctly.

          • Richard

            Did you not read my comment entirely?

          • Deina

            While it is true that “each person is responsible for their own growth”, it’s the responsibility of the denominations & the churches under them to teach the Bible properly. Given that most, if not all, of those denominations believe that their interpretation is the “correct one”, Paul has a valid question.

            I mean, if one denomination thinks that another denomination is interpreting Scripture correctly, why are they separate? Why do they not merge?

          • Richard

            Human nature is such that people have a hard time agreeing. I wish they would come together and agree on the main tenets of Christianity.

            But this is not unlike any other topic.

          • Deina

            Then who is right?

          • Richard

            Those who spend time studying correct exegesis. It’s not a mystery. Like any subject, studying the Biblical text requires effort in order to excel. There are a lot of resources to help in this discovery. I posted three in an earlier comment.

          • Deina

            Talk about evading the question!

            You must be a politician.

      • davidreilly7

        Yes good point. I suppose that a few hundred years from now there might well be some sacred text how Allah smote all of the heathen in the world on 9/11/2001 and only a remnant remained.

        • Richard

          Unlikely.

  • Jean Adams

    I’ve read so many of these comments which are arguing about people’s opinions of Biblical scripture. How come you aren’t commenting on the above article?

    • Marvels of life

      For me personally, the article brings out some other information that is available that applies to the article itself. I admit however that discussion sometimes moves into other discussions.

  • Michael Eade

    So what you are saying is that “god” exterminated every human on the planet except for ONE family, killing countless millions because he was angry with a few, is that not over the top?

    • Paul Hiett

      Not to mention the ludicrous idea that all of the animals of the world, and all of the races of humanity around the world all come from that small boat and 8 people who landed a boat on the top of a mountain in Turkey.

      • Michael Eade

        Finally someone on this website that speaks sense.

  • Daniel Nshk Himmelmoe

    This is one of the most biased thing I’ve ever read. And it is quite stupid to be honest. When they say that the process is poorly know, they don’t mean that it is impossible to know, like the article makes it sound like, just that the phenomenon has not been studied enough. There are so many misunderstandings about geology and science in general in this article. First of all you need to understand that millions of years of sediments, does not always mean 1000’s of meters of sediments. The rate sediments accumulate differs. That is why you can have millions of years of difference in very close proximity some places and other places have several meter between the different layers. If you think this is strange, you need to ask yourself Why the process would be exactly the same everywhere?

    But that is all besides the point I wanted to make. The point is this, EVEN if this incident would be easier explained by Noah’s flood, which it’s not, it wouldn’t matter, because everything else in geology goes against that. We do not find evidence of a world wide flood.

    And radiometric dating is very well known and accurate. There are several different methods we can use, and many of them overlap, which means we can individually test their accuracy up against each other. And they do!
    So if the manganese nodules are dated very old, it means that the rate of sedimentation must be very slow.

  • Charles Greene Jr.

    False. The Bible told us they arrived on dry land. How could it be on the bottom of the ocean. However, in Turkey they have fenced of an dig site where the Arc is said to exist. The documentary is on YouTube search it

  • BarkingDawg

    Manganese nodules are proof of the flood?

    that is really reaching. . .

  • Martin Mayberry

    what in the world does this have to do with Noah’s ark?

  • Crusader357

    Yes it is true and they have the Ark located in Turkey and have erected a National Park and validated the find. Noah’s family settled the area and it was know as “The valley of the eight”.
    The Bible is true and God sits on His throne laughing at the scoffers who ignore all of the overwhelming evidence of His Creation.

  • Penny Verville Stanton-Fry

    Put away the commentaries and other literature. Pick up your Bible and go to a quiet place. Turn off your phone and your computer. Bow your head and ask the Spirit of the only wise God and Creator of Heaven and earth to be your teacher and to show you all truth as He wants you to understand. Let God be true and every man a liar. Only He can show us what is true and good and right. Stop trying to convince one another. It is foolish to argue over who is right or wrong because only the Lord Himself can reveal truth.

    • Richard

      The Bible contains an entire book on wisdom for good reason. The Bible also tells us to test all things. It also says to renew the spirit by renewing your mind. Nowhere does the Bible say to go by subjective impressions and personal opinion.

      I believe one of the major problems with Christianity today is that too many Christians aren’t taking the time to really dig into the Biblical text to truly understand it. Rather, they use their subjective impressions about the text. This isn’t any different than atheism and New Age.

      Learn how to exegete the text in the manner it was intended to be understood is far better than thinking the Holy Spirit is going to drop knowledge into our heads.

      • http://www.remnantofgod.org/ John1429dotorg

        But part of the problem in that they use “their subjective impressions” is the faulty translations of the Scriptures.

  • Nick Wride

    I have a simple question for the Flood believers; If the planet was flooded to the point where every mountain top was under water, where did all that water go when it stopped raining? If you believe this world wide flood happened, then you must concede that your GAWD is the greatest mass murderer in world history.

    • Richard

      He created everything, why wouldn’t he have the right to destroy it if he wanted to?

      But I don’t believe the flood was world wide.

      • Nick Wride

        The whole creation thing is a story, a fable, a fairy tale, a LIE. Every religion, no matter how old, has a creation mythology.

        • Richard

          You’ve made an unproven assertion. Since the flood account is part of the Jewish historical record, you will need to prove it didn’t happen, not just assert it didn’t happen. Do you have such proof?

          There is evidence a regional flood did happen:
          http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/?no-ist

          And here:
          http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/12/archaeologist-claims-evidence-noahs-biblical-flood/

          • Nick Wride

            The OT flood account is a story, not historical fact. The proof that it didn’t happen is reason and common sense.

          • Richard

            “The OT flood account is a story, not historical fact.”

            That’s an unproven assertion. Or can you prove your assertion is true and the historical record is false?

          • Reason2012

            Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead, which I’m assuming you do? (I do as well). Well “reason and common sense” – or more accurate, repeatable, observable, scientific fact shows once a person dies and decays for days, they’re not coming back. So because of “reason and common sense” do you throw out Christ raising others from the dead and raising from death Himself? If you do not, then you’re inconsistent to call God’s Word false on other accounts on the “logic” of “reason and common sense”.

          • Nick Wride

            I don’t even believe that a physical Jesus ever existed, let alone rose from the dead. The Jesus Mythology is nothing more than stories stolen from earlier, more ancient religions.

          • Reason2012

            It’s one thing to not believe what He did and said, but to claim He didn’t exist is just willful ignorance.

            A secular historian Josephus wrote about Him.

            Tacitus, a Roman historian, wrote about Him, calling the Christianity Jesus founded as evil. (Annals 15 -44).

            Phlegon, a Greek writer provided further evidence, mentioning the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. (Origen and Philopen, De. Opif. Mund. II21)

            Suentonius, another Roman writer, wrote about Christ as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (Calu., xxv).

            The Jewish Talmud, refers to Jesus having been crucified on the eve of Passover.

            The gospel accounts.

            And for a man that you claim never lived, billions currently profess faith in Him. No one who’s ever lived could claim such a monumental reaction in all of history.

            Changed lives from the inside out the moment profession of faith in Christ is made.

            You’re free to pretend He didn’t exist – or even to instead not believe His claims – but that’s between you and God.

            So do you instead believe your ancestors were reptiles of the past?

          • Nick Wride

            The first writings about Jesus were by Saul, more than 50 years after the supposed events. Check out a DVD called “The god who wasn’t there. It explains things pretty well.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, people have always been trying to claim Jesus did not exist. Been there done that. The facts I cited contradicts that claims and a DVD repeating it doesn’t make it any more valid.

            So you believe your ancestors were reptiles of old?

          • Paul Hiett

            Actually yes, there’s lots of proof. The geographical strata layers prove it. We (geologists and archaeologists) know what to look for when a flood occurs. We have the advantage of seeing catastrophic floods and what they leave behind. Unfortunately for Noah’s story, the lack of such evidence proves without a doubt that the world was never flooded, as it is clearly written in the Bible.

            Yes, you can feel free to scream “BUT IT’S HYPERBOLE UNLIKE THE OTHER STORIES IN THE BIBLE I AGREE WITH THAT CAN’T BE PROVEN FALSE LIKE NOAH’S FLOOD”, but the bottom line, the world was never flooded in it’s entirely. That’s a solid fact accepted by anyone with half a brain.

            So yeah, Noah’s flood is easily proven to be false as it is written in the Bible.

          • Richard

            The flood was regional. The Bible uses hyperbole to communicate the severity of the punishment, not the science of it.

            So, no, the Bible isn’t false, your wooden understanding of it is your problem, not the Bible’s.

            We’ve had this discussion, so to infer otherwise is lying.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes we have, but you’re still wrong. The reason you’re wrong is because you don’t have an understanding of A) basic anthropology, and B) an idea of life during these times.

            First, man cannot live without water. Ergo, he builds his homes near bodies of fresh water. From time to time, such bodies of water naturally flood. We see this around the world every year. Some are obviously worse than others.

            Yes, the floods that many civilizations reference in their creation myths are, obviously, regional floods. However, because communication and travel were such base concepts at the time, the “world” to any civilization is going to be much, much smaller than what we know today. This is compounded exponentially the further back in time we go, especially back to something that supposedly occurred about 4000 years ago.

            Your claim of “hyperbole” in Genesis is unfounded though. It’s a common ploy used by Christians because they know a global flood never happened. So, you claim such things were not meant to be taken literally, even though at the time it was written, to those people, it clearly was literal. Their whole “world” as they knew it probably did flood, especially if it was the Black Sea flood as most intelligent people believe it to be.

            The bottom line is that the story in the Bible was written to be literal, not hyperbole as you independently claim it to be. The world was never flooded, and all of the animals and people in the world today did not come from a small boat that landed on a mountain top in Turkey.

          • Richard

            “Your claim of “hyperbole” in Genesis is unfounded though. It’s a common ploy used by Christians because they know a global flood never happened.

            Do you really think a camel can go through the eye of a needle?

            To educate yourself on literary devices used in the Bible:

            http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_idioms.html

            “The bottom line is that the story in the Bible was written to be literal,”

            Your misconceptions are staggering.

          • Paul Hiett

            There’s a difference when relating a metaphor that a person actually said vs describing a cataclysmic event. The words of Genesis, as they were written, were never written as analogous to anything. The writer was very clear on what happened in the world at that time.

            Further, the whole “camel through a needle” verse wasn’t intended to describe an actual event, it was used to describe how difficult it would be for a rich man to get into heaven.

            That is most certainly a far cry from the literal book of Genesis.

            Look, you can spin this anyway you want, but you’re in the minority on this. Even other Christians agree that Genesis was written as the literal word of God.

          • Richard

            As I said many times to you yesterday, it’s ludicrous to read the Bible in a purely literal sense. Yet, you seem to think that’s what the writers intended. They didn’t.

            For more information:

            https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/why-do-you-take-the-bible-literally/

            https://www.gci.org/bible/literally

            The Bible is a literary work. It needs to be read as such, including the many literary devices used to convey its meaning. Taking everything literal is a ‘reader’ error and not a Bible error.

          • Reason2012

            Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead, Richard?

          • Richard

            Yes.

          • Reason2012

            Then how is it you can claim God did not do some things because you won’t believe it, but then throw out observable, scientific fact to believe Jesus rose from the dead? That’s inconsistent. The evidence is there to back up everything God said He did – if we are going to throw out the parts we do not like, and teach others God’s Word can be dismissed in parts, that should give us pause as it’s incredibly inconsistent of a professing Christian to do so.

          • Richard

            It’s a matter of study. There are many resources to help unpack the true intent of the writings.

            Not inconsistent at all.

            No one is throwing anything out. But you don’t want to make the text say things that the writers didn’t want to say or intent.

            Deeper study doesn’t spoil the Bible, but enriches it…and your walk with Christ..as you don’t have to fabricate things to make them sound true.

            The Bible is a solid literary work. It has stood the test of criticism and time. But not reading it with the correct understanding does nothing but harm it, not help it.

            Once again, the Bible isn’t inconsistent but completely consistent.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, to claim “God didn’t mean that – it’s just an allegory – it’s just emotive writing” is just a fancy way of throwing out parts we do not like, perhaps b/c we’re embarassed.

            You should take note: those who hate the truth of God, like atheists, never attack the resurrection of a person, and hence the resurrection of Christ, which would be their EASIEST attack on belief in God because it’s obviously anti-scence and would be an EASY argument for them to win which can only end with “well I believe God” – and they can then claim ignorant superstition vs science.

            But they never attack that!

            They instead attack other parts, that seem less important. That’s how you inject doubt. Then they start doubting other parts and other parts until eventually the false Christian is exposed and they eventually turn away from GOd’s truth altogether.

            That would never happen if you attack belief in the resurrection directly

            It should concern a professing Christian to do likewise and inject doubt into GOd’s Word just because they’re uncomfortable or embarrassed with certain parts.

            The fact is it’s an observable, repeatable, scientific fact that coming back to life after decaying in death for days is IMPOSSIBLE, but Christians believe God anyway.

            To them claim to have “scientific” or “logic” reasons to throw out what God says on other topics is just flat out inconsistent – and it also has Christians doing exactly what atheists do: attack God’s Word in smaller areas to inject doubt and the doubt spreads like a cancer until it eventually taints all of it.

            Matthew 16:6 “Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”

            Matthew 16:12 “Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

            (others who claimed to follow God but threw out / ignored / dismissed as “allegory or not literal” parts they did not like and refused to believe)

            Galatians 5:7-9 “Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. “

            Saying “the Bible doesn’t really say that” is just a fancy way of peoople dismissing what God has made clear. Homosexual activists do the swame thing, pretending the Bible “doesn’t really condemn homosexuality” and they are just as wrong.

            Add this to your “study”

            https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/was-there-really-a-noahs-ark-flood/

            There’s a ton of explanations out there for the professing Christian to learn from that shows how the Bible says what it clearly says.

            “The Bible is a solid literary work.”

            So it’s just a made up story that Jesus rose from the dead?

            But of course now you claimn that ONE aspect is not just “a literary work”.

            So please list the parts that are “just a literary work” and the parts that “are not a literary work, but actual fact”.

            Reading the Bible from the point of view of “this didn’t really happen – it’s just literature” is just a fancy way of calling it false.

            So why is Jesus raising from the dead NOT a “literary work” but suddenly literal, actual historical fact?

            So the Bible is not 100% a literary work but actually contains SOME literal, actual, historical fact?

            So what’t he percent? 1% literal? 2%?

            Yes, God’s Word stands the test of those who claim to dismiss it as just made up literary work. And those who fall away usually start with disbelieving one part of the Bible until eventually they turn away from God completely – it’s the most common tactic of atheists against believers. How sad professing Christians do the exact same thing.

            And no, you don’t “prove” the Bible is “consistent” by just saying it’s “just literature” – you have in fact merely dismissed GOd’s Word and made is so we can just do whatever we wish since it was all “just a literary work” to begin with.

            There will be many who face Christ and claim to have done many wonderful works in His name, and they will be cast out. It should give us pause if we go around teaching others that God’s Word is just literature.

            If you wish to disbelieve parts of what God did you do not like, that’s between you and God – I would think twice before going out of your way to teach it to others.

          • Richard

            I am a Christian. I don’t hate the word of God, I love it.

            But I also read the text in the way the writers intended.

            I don’t have the time to educate you on Biblical exegesis. I admire your passion to defend God. That’s great.

            You also have a lot of misconceptions about what I said, which I won’t address either.

            Suffice to say, on this, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

          • Reason2012

            So why is Jesus raising from the dead NOT a “literary work” but suddenly literal, actual historical fact? It’s an easy question which I think will show you that you’re just kidding yourself.

            If Bible did raise from the dead, as you said He did, then the Bible is not 100% a literary work, but actually contains SOME literal, actual, historical fact, correct?

            So what’s the % of literal, historical fact, since it’s not 100% “just a literary work”?

          • Richard

            Do you understand what a literary work is?

          • Reason2012

            Why is it you cannot answer such an easy question?

          • Richard

            I’d like to define a starting place….and I will answer your question.

            But first tell me what you think a literary work is.

          • Reason2012

            What do YOU mean by it since you are the one that brought it up to use that line to DISMISS some of the things God said and you claim it didn’t happen. So tell me what you mean by “literary work” since you use that line only to dismiss parts you do not like about the Bible.

          • Richard

            A literary work means something ‘written using words.’

          • Reason2012

            Ok thank you. So then something that’s 100% fact you would call “a literary work” as well?

            And if so, why do you fall back on “it’s a literary work” when addressing some parts of the Bible are not literally true as it seems you’re misusing your own definition(?) – as if “it’s a literary work” is somehow synonymous with “it’s not all true”?

          • Richard

            “So then something that’s 100% fact you would call “a literary work” as well?”

            Yes, if it was communicated through writing not talking.

            Literary works (anything written using words) generally contain literary devices to communicate their meanings. For example:

            “It’s raining hard outside” is a literal statement saying that it’s raining outside.

            This statement can also be written to impress upon the reader that it’s ‘really’ raining outside, as such, “It’s raining cats and dogs outside.” Today’s reader would understand the intent of the writer’s words to mean it’s really raining outside, not that animals are falling from the sky.

            Both statements are true, but communicated in different ways.

            That’s like writing, “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse.” That doesn’t mean the writer is going to eat a horse, but that he is really hungry. Both communicate truth, but in different ways. The literal way is plain and the other is more colorful.

          • Reason2012

            In that case it seems pointless to say “it’s a literary work” when trying to defend the Bible being wrong about certain things, as if saying “it’s a literary work” that “proves” something’s NOT literal, historical fact, correct?

            And this “literary work” was provided to us by God, sometimes by direct words to those who then wrote it, and sometimes by inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Which makes the Bible quite different from any other “literary works”.

            John 14:26 “[Jesus said] But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

            Not to mention

            John 10:35 “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;”

            So we’re talking about GOD’s literary work – God’s WORD, not just another man-made literary work.

            Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

            Which shows us how every piece of God’s Word is important and not just to be dismissed as “emotional prose” and so on.

            So unless God makes it clear something’s not literal, we are to take it literal, which includes the flood, which includes creating Adam and Eve, which includes Jesus raising from the dead.

            For us to say “it was just emotional prose from the writer – it’s just ‘a literary work’ – and hence didn’t really happen” falls far short under all of the above, which is my point.

          • Richard

            “It seems pointless…”

            Not really. It’s important to recognize that anything written uses literary devices. The same holds true for the Bible.

            The Bible wasn’t intended to be a science text…stating only technical information. The Bible is a testimony of people interacting with God and communicating that God is real and interacts back.

            “Which makes the Bible quite different from any other “literary works”.”

            I agree. The writers were inspired by God.

            “So we’re talking about GOD’s literary work – God’s WORD, not just another man-made literary work.

            I agree. The Bible is unique in the world.

            “Which shows us how every piece of God’s Word is important and not just to be dismissed as “emotional prose” and so on.”

            I agree.

            “So unless God makes it clear something’s not literal, we are to take it literal”

            But the writers, who were writing to people who understood the language of the day, knew the literary devices the writers used. They didn’t have a problem with the text. But because the text is far removed from that day; written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek; and uses words English doesn’t have equivalents for, the translators needed to translate the meanings and the ‘flowery’ intent into English…but along with the colorful literary devices the original authors used.

            To not take all of this in account, will leave the reader interpreting woodenly, and not with the intent of the original text.

            For example, the passage, “for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.” – Psalm 50:10 If you understand this literally, that means that all of the rest of the cattle on the remaining hills in the world aren’t God’s.

            But that’s not what the writer is saying. The writer is saying that ALL of the cattle world wide belong to God. But the saying in the day was recognized as intending that.

            I didn’t say the text is just emotional prose. But does contain literary devices to communicate its meaning. Study illuminates their many and when and how they are used.

          • Reason2012

            “Not really. It’s important to recognize that anything written uses literary devices. The same holds true for the Bible.”

            We’re talking about what God wrote – and claiming “its’ just emotional prose” does not in any way prove it’s false and “just emotional prose”. We must compare scripture with scripture.

            “The Bible wasn’t intended to be a science text…stating only technical information.”

            Never said it was. But it’s clear it offers mostly literal, historical facts. And until anyone can prove something from the Bible was meant to be “prose” or “an allegory” and so on, then it’s considered historical, literal fact.

            “The Bible is a testimony of people interacting with God and communicating that God is real and interacts back.”

            The Bible is a testimony of what God said, what God did, what God commands of us – of literal, historical, fact. This includes creation, Adam and Eve, the flood and so on. Are there allegories and some instances of things not literal? Of course – they are easy to spot. The flood and creation itself are clearly meant to be literal.

            “I agree. The writers were inspired by God.”

            Then they can’t be wrong b/c they injected their own “emotional prose”, which is injecting mankind’s failings into God’s Word to pretend God didn’t use the flood when clearly He did.

            “But the writers, who were writing to people who understood the language of the day, knew the literary devices the writers used.”

            The writers were making clear what God did – they didn’t instead use literary devices to try making points, only to make it LOOK like God did something He really didn’t or not do something He really did. So they didn’t say “God flooded the world and only 8 poeple survived” to mean “millions survived”.

            People have always used this claim (“it’s not literal” or “it’s just a literary device” or “you’re reading it woodenly” or “it’s just an allegory”) to dismiss what they do not want to believe, and they can never back it up.

            For example:

            – “No, homosexuality is not a sin – it was just a literary device – you’re interpreting woodenly”

            – “No, Jesus did not really raise from the dead – it was just a literary device – you’re interpreting woodenly”

            – “Abortion is ok – God didn’t really form people in the womb – it was just a literary device – you’re interpreting woodenly”

            – “God did not judge the world with a flood and only save eight people – it was just a literary device – you’re interpreting woodenly”

            Looking at the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek text merely verifies that God gives us no reason to assume it was just some sort of “literary” device and hence did not mean homosexuality is a sin, or did not mean He knows us before He formed us in the womb, or did not create in six days, or that He did not judge the world by the flood and so on. Checking the entire Bible re-iterates that’s precisely what He said and did in those cases and others.

            Then you cite Psalm 50:10.

            (1) That’s a book of songs, so right there that means we need to be on extra guard for sentences that are prose and not literal.

            (2) One verse in Psalms or anywhere not being literal does not mean we can use that as the reason to dismis things that clearly ARE meant to be literal: the resurrection, creation, the flood being three of them.

            So while your exegesis of Psa 50:10 was good, you make the error of thinking that means we can ignore other things that don’t even come close to being prose or a literary device or “insert reason to dismiss it as historical fact here”.

            When we study God’s Word, it’s clear the creation account is literal, the resurrection is literal, homosexuality being sin is literal, the flood is literal and so on. People are free to believe otherwise (and they always will to promote their own desires as to not believe certain things that offer NO reason to think they are not literal) but that’s between each person and God.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Paul Hiett

            So why is that literal and not hyperbole?

            I don’t think you know how to read the Bible, Richard. Hyperbole is used to describe something without being taken literally. I thought you knew this?

          • Richard

            This is where study helps – to understand the many devices, how the writers used them (to communicate the message to their intended audience…which were people who were familiar with the language in the day), and what messages they were communicating.

            For example, Moses was telling his audience about God’s power, sovereignty, distaste for sin, and the consequences of it. Moses intent wasn’t to communicate the science of the flood, but the severity of the result of sin. He used hyperbole to communicate God’s reaction to major sinfulness and what can happen.

            Many other Hebrew writers did as well. That was the style in those days.

            The NT writers, even though they used hyperbole, it was to a lesser degree, as their intent is to communicate the facts of Jesus’s life and what he did.

            This distinction alone shows Christ’s resurrection is real, not hyperbole (different intent, different audience).

            I know what hyperbole means. I’m the one that mentioned it to you.

          • Paul Hiett

            Genesis was not meant to be taken out of context. It was written to be taken as it was written. You’re very much in the minority on this, even among your fellow Christians.

            If you still persist on claiming some parts of Genesis as being literal and some analogous, then all you’re doing is the classic cherry picking.

            Or, let’s say the Bible is not mean to be literal.

            Why the metaphor about Jesus coming back from the dead? Instead of using hyperbole to say he came back from the dead, why not just iterate that his message was carried forth by his followers?

          • Richard

            You said you take everything in the Bible literally. Do you honestly believe:

            “You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace;
            the mountains and hills will burst into song before you,
            and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.” – Isaiah 55:12

            Mountains and hills can sing?

            Trees, first, have hands, and second, can clap with them?

            Or:

            ““And another sign appeared in heaven, behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads.” Revelation 12:3

            Do you believe satan is a fiery dragon or a snake? He can’t be both or else you believe he is a shape-shifter.

            I could provide multiple hundreds of examples like this.

            For more information about the literary devices used in the Bible:

            https://bible.org/seriespage/iv-literary-forms-bible

            If you don’t know how to discern the many devices, study helps.

          • Reason2012

            Richard, of course the Bible is not 100% literal. But just because it’s not 100% literal does not mean we just dismiss parts we’re too embarrassed to believe God did. The resurrection is one of those, as is creation and the flood. At least atheists realize it’s clear Genesis was written as a historical record – no need for us to be ashamed to believe God did what He said He did.

          • Reason2012

            The Ark was not “a small boat”. It was almost two football fields in length and almost a third of a football field in width.

            No, the only ones who claim the Bible is not “literal” are those who are trying to dismiss parts they don’t like to only believe in parts they like.

            Why claim all the people in the world did not come from the Eight human survivors but ignore the fact God points out the human race came from two that He created at the beginning?

            Attacking the truth of God has always gone on – in the end it does not change the fact that we will face God and be judged. People can claim it’s false all they wish and convince others all they wish – in the end it will not change a thing when we face God.

            John 5:28-29 “[Jesus said] Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

          • Paul Hiett

            If God wiped out everyone but the 8 people on the boat, what does Adam and Eve have to do with it? It was a reset. Only, instead of 2 (never mind where Adam and Eve’s sons found wives, right?), it was 8. You actually believe that all of the worlds people today came from those 8 about 4000 years ago.

            Seriously, think about it.

          • Reason2012

            Adam and Eve were the ancestors of those eight people. Please tell me why God cannot wipe out everyone on the Earth? You do realize He’s going to do it AGAIN after He removes all of His Children?

            2 Peter 3:10-11 “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, “

            So God cannot do a “reset”? Please prove God is not allowed or cannot do a “reset” as you call it.

            Adam and Eve lived for almost a thousand years. You do realize this changes the rules on middle age and how old your wife will be?

            Not to mention:

            Genesis 3:20 “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”

            Do we instead believe you that Eve was not the human mother of all humans and instead there were other humans that were not related to Eve? Where do you get this omniscient information and please cite your source – also please explain why God was wrong.

            Do reverse-engineering on population numbers and birth rate – it works backwards to merely thousands of years.

            “Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1


            After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.
”

            So are you claiming to believe in God and trusting in Jesus Christ for salvation, that Jesus rose from the dead? If so, why do you try to “disprove” God doing other things He said, to ignore science and believe a person can decay for days but then be raised back from the dead – that would be ironically inconsistent.

            So do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?

          • Richard

            Reason, this is the problem with taking everything in the Bible literally. It makes a fool out of you and the Bible.

            The Biblical writers never intended to have everything taken literally. Hebrew, was a very colorful and highly emotive language…much more that english.

            Hebrews in those days described life in a very dramatic, over-the-top, and colorful way. They understood fully what the Biblical writers intended. To reduce their expressive descriptions into mere literal words robs the text of its descriptive meanings…and makes the text look foolish.

            I encourage you to look deeper and discover the true nature of the writers’ intentions.

          • Reason2012

            You claim to believe Jesus rose from the dead, Richard. It’s observable, repeatable, scientific fact when a person is dead and decays for days it’s impossible to come back to life.

            So, how do you reconcile your “you are fool to believe God’s Word” with your belief in people coming back to life that were decaying for days?

          • Richard

            “It’s observable, repeatable, scientific fact when a person is dead and decays for days it’s impossible to come back to life.”

            That’s true from a natural perspective, but easy for God who is supernatural. This is one of the miracles that demonstrates he is God.

            “So, how do you reconcile your “you are fool to believe God’s Word” with your belief in people coming back to life that were decaying for days?”

            I didn’t say that. I believe Jesus is the risen Lord…a demonstration to the world that HE is the only real God.

          • Paul Hiett

            If you’re going to claim God uses magic to raise Jesus, then why not use the same claim for the flood?

          • Richard

            First, it’s supernatural power…like the creation of the universe and first life…not magic.

            Second, that would be an incorrect understanding of the text.

          • Reason2012

            It’s not a correct understanding to say “God didn’t do that” when He said He did.

            https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/was-there-really-a-noahs-ark-flood/

          • Richard

            You keep linking to a literalist website. What else would you expect to find there. You might want to expand your horizons and see what current thinking is,

          • Reason2012

            They point out scripture – and it doesn’t matter who points it out -they show you how the Bible makes it clear God literally did what He said He did.

            Homosexual activists will say “you keep linking anti-homosexual websites – what else would you expect to find there. You might want to expand your horizons and see what current thinking is on homosexuality” – and they’re just as wrong.

            Back up that the flood is just prose and did not happen with scripture – prove the Bible makes it clear it’s not literal.

            You never do.

            Thanks for posting.

          • Reason2012

            So you’re not a Christian then? Just making sure we’re clear.

          • Reason2012

            And therein is the inconsistency of professing Christians claiming “well God didn’t really mean what He said” in other areas: they believe God when it DOES contradict observable, repeatable, scientific fact (the resurrection) but then claim “science, logic” shows God didn’t or couldn’t do other things.

          • Reason2012

            So why is it no longer “easy for God who is supernatural” on other things you dismiss? Again, you contradict yourself – only seems “easy for God” on things you do not mind believing. Please think again.

            And you said “taking everything in the Bible literally. It makes a fool out of you and the Bible” – sorry but a person does not become a fool for believing God did what He clearly said He literally did – it’s called believing God.

          • Richard

            “sorry but a person does not become a fool for believing God did what He clearly said He literally did – it’s called believing God.”

            It is when you interpret scripture woodenly…which was never the writer’s intent.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, professing homosexuals will say “you’re interpreting scripture woodenly” to promote homosexuality as being ok with God. Doesn’t make them right either.

            Feel free to PROVE the bible is not literal on the flood, not just saying “it’s not literal b/c I said so”, which is all homosexual activists do as well and anyone else trying to dismiss parts of the Bible they do not like.

          • Nick Wride

            Don’t ask them to think, Paul. They believe and that’s all they need. They have no need for facts or reason.

    • Reason2012

      Here’s a simple response: why are there intact sea creature fossils on mountain tops and high above sea level all over the world? Secondly, lower the depths of a body of water and the water level on the surface lowers.

      • Paul Hiett

        Have you heard of the concept of plate tectonics?

        Also, did you mean “raise the depth” of a body of water? What you said makes no sense. The deeper something is, assuming the volume of water remains constant, the water level will drop.

        • Reason2012

          So you DO believe the entire world was covered in water even using YOUR belief system? Why the claim that the world cannot be covered in water? You contradict yourself.

          Secondly, please show plate tectonics:

          (1) forming a mountain from below sea level
          (2) moving sea creatures INTACT from below sea level
          (3) doing this all over the world

          Nice belief system, but you only offer a belief, call it fact and use that self-proclaimed fact to “disprove” what God has made known to us.

          If you lower the depth of bottom of a pit, the water in it goes down. The grand canyon shows us what can get created by a violent flood. We’ve seen miniature canyons formed by floods – a global flood would do likewise of epic proportions – basic science.

          • Paul Hiett

            First, I did not claim the entire world was covered with water. Not
            sure where you got that from, but I did not say it or allude to it.

            We
            know the world was a very different place millions of years ago. We
            know that there was a single continent, Panagea, I’m sure you’ve heard
            of. Anyways, as the plates under us shift, they sometimes college into
            each other. Mountains are formed this way, in case you were asleep
            during geography 101.

            The oceans of the world have shifted
            dramatically throughout the history of the world. Ocean floors become
            deserts, or mountain tops. Deserts become swamps, swamps become
            savannah’s. The arctic circle was once a lush, tropical jungle at one
            time.

            Finally, I see you edited your statement…you can thank me for educating you on that one.

          • Reason2012

            Basic logic, Paul. If you claim where we found fossils on mountain tops and high above sea level were “plate tectonics” (moving fossils of sea creatures buried below water to such heights) and these fossils are found all over the world, you are claiming the entire world was covered in water (but that it started out flat and all below water for the sea creatures to die there and be fossilized over millions of years).

            So which is it? if the world was NOT covered in water in your belief system, how did the sea creatures swim to all those areas that “were not covered with water”?

            Flood, of epic proportions world-wide.

            We don’t know the world was “millions of years old” – dating methods haven been PROVEN to be farce on everything we DO know the date of – to ask us to “believe” these dates only when they cannot be confirmed is a farce.

            All dating methods proven to be a farce, based completely on assumptions and verified to give utterly false dates of everything we can verify:

            http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

            _”Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.”_

            _”10-year-old rocks from Mount St Helen’s were dated from 390,000 to 2.7 million years old, and rocks from the ad 1800 lava flow in Hawaii returned dates of 160 million to 3 billion years.”_

            Those ranges were given by cross checking all dating methods – they didn’t just use one dating method. As anyone will tell you, scientists know to cross-check results of any dating method with other methods and henced they came up with dates of rocks that were merely a few decades old of up to 3 MILLION years in spite of all their standard cross-checking.

            It’s similar to fossils “dated” millions of years old (different dating methods than for rocks), but then having red blood cells and soft tissue found in them, proving they can’t be more than thousands of years old. What do evolutionists do? Ignore the scientific fact that red blood cells and soft tissue would never survive millions of years and pretend they now do.

            Even original animal proteins found in fossils proves they can’t be hundreds of millions of years old, but instead only thousands. What do evolutionists do? Dismiss more observable, scientific fact and pretend such facts are no longer true: that soft tissue and red blood cells can now last countless millions of years.

            I never edited my statement: you lower the bottom of something that holds water the water goes DOWN. You then asked “don’t you mean ‘raise’? So what is it you’re talking about that I supposedly ‘edited’?

          • Reason2012
          • Paul Hiett

            Oh boy…ok…let’s see if we can educate you a bit here.

            The entire world has never been flooded during the age of man. It’s never been flooded in at least the last 300 million years, of that we know as a fact.

            I can also guarantee you that it’s never been flooded in the last 3500-4000 years.

            Waters shift, the plates shift, the continents shift. Deserts become oceans, oceans become forests, etc. Our planet is dynamic, and does not remain, on the surface, a constant topographical entity.

          • Reason2012

            Let’s back up before we continue: are you claiming to be a Christian, Paul? To believe Jesus rose from being dead for days?

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, no, I’m an atheist.

          • Reason2012

            Ok. Well in any event, dating methods have been proven to be a farce every time we CAN verify the dates those cross-checking dating methods they do come back, so claiming the Earth is that old is just a belief – we have no reason to believe the dates that are grossly false on things we can know – things decades old ‘dated’ 3+ MILLION years old.

            Secondly, fossils of sea creatures are found EVERYWHERE on mountain tops and high above sea level – you claim tectonic plates did it, which meas you are claiming all those areas were below water at some point. Which shows, just like in explaining the global flood, you lower parts of land and it takes in the water and that’s where all the water “went”.

  • Reason2012

    More evidence of global flood:

    Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents

    Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals

    Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas

    Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances

    Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata

    Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession

    https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/

    For those who claim “science” proves God is wrong, more so professing Christians, it IS observable, repeatable, scientific fact when a person is dead and decaying for days, they are not coming back to life. Do we throw out the resurrection of Christ as well?

    Of course not -we believe God.

    So don’t throw out other things God says under the same guise of “science” and “reason” when you discard “science” and “reason” to believe God did what He said He did in other areas.

    Those who attack the truth of God never do so directly (attack the resurrection). They instead attack parts you’re willing to claim God was wrong on, calling it “a literary work only” or “just an allegory” and now that doubt you have for God and His Word grows like a cancer. And sadly professing Christians are some of the greatest promoters of this false theology. And many of them years later are no longer Christians, to no surprise, hence proving they were never Christians to begin with.

    Matthew 10:22 “[Jesus said] And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

    Is it enduring to the end to start teaching others God’s Word cannot be completely trusted but instead parts dismissed as “just literary” or “just an allegory” or “just a parable”?

    • Paul Hiett

      As has been pointed out already, catastrophic floods occur around the world. We know they’ve happened before, and we know what to look for. Based on proof of other floods, we know, for a fact, that the entire world has never been flooded during the age of mankind….and certainly not during the bronze age which is when the flood supposedly occurred, based on the Bible.

      Furthermore, other societies around the world do not record being wiped out by such a flood. That alone should tell you that such a thing did not happen. The history of the Egyptians by themselves proves a world wide flood did not occur. We can date their history back to 6000 BC, which is over 8000 years ago…more than twice as long as when the great flood is recorded as happening in the Bible.

      There is no question about this at all. The flood, as described in the Bible, simply did not happen.

      • Reason2012

        No, you can’t “know” the world has not been flooded throughout the age of mankind – you can only believe it hasn’t as there was a large amount of time there was no writing. And the fact that so many cultures record a massive cataclysmic flood, contrary to your claim (google it) only leads credence to the fact of the world-wide flood.

        You do not believe Christ rose from the dead -trying to give your opinion about other things of the Bible has no meaning as you don’t believe any of it anyway.

        You’re free to believe your ancestors were reptiles of old – but the irony is there’s no proof of any such thing yet you cling to it by faith. You have your beliefs others have theirs – the difference is they don’t try to call their beliefs science.

        Take care.

        • Paul Hiett

          Why don’t we focus on one little, tiny problem of the flood story.

          Why is the Egyptian time line not interrupted by such a flood?

          • Reason2012

            Who says it’s not?

          • Paul Hiett

            The Egyptian time line.

          • Reason2012

            What about it? You haven’t presented anything (let alone backed it up) that contradicts the flood account.

          • Deina

            What evidence do you have that Egypt did flood in that time frame, or are you going to go by the standard answer of “Well, the records of the Pharohs don’t say that it didn’t have such a flood!”

            The Pyramid of Djoser was finished some 2-300 years before the flood of Noah, and the Egyptians were writing then, as evidenced by the inscriptions on and inside the pyramids. Granted, the Nile valley flooded almost annually, but something as described in the Bible would certainly have covered the pyramid.

            Where are the accounts of the pyramid being inundated?

          • Reason2012

            I said they flooded? Where’s your proof they were there BEFORE the flood?

            So prove your “2000-3000” years before the flood. Saying it does not make it true. And so far the both of you have only given claims and have not backed up a word of it.

            Where are the accounts of the pyramids being formed 2000-3000 years before the flood?

          • Deina

            I said 2 to 3 hundred years.

            Why do I always have to do everyone else’s research for them?

            Noah’s floodUsing the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BCE. http://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/

            Egyptian Pyramids:
            Current estimates for the construction of the pyramids, based on surviving lists of the pharaohs, are believed to be accurate to within about 100 years.
            But Cambridge University Egyptologist Kate Spence says that by analyzing the relative position of Earth and two stars, she has dated the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza — one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World — to within five years of 2478 BCE.
            That means the Great Pyramid is 4,478 years old — or 75 years older than one commonly accepted estimate. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119794

            Djoser ruled Egypt from approximately 2670 to 2650 BCE. His vizier, Imhotep, built the pyramid of Djoser, also known as the “stepped pyramid.”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Dynasty_of_Egypt
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djoser

            Based on that, we can see that Djoser’s pyramid predates the Genesis flood by about 300 years, and the Great Pyramid of Giza is about 130 years earlier, so it was certainly underway, if not completed by Noah’s deluge.

          • Reason2012

            (1) wickipedia and abcnews are your sources? That’s your first problem.

            (2) Dating methods have been proven to be a farce every time we CAN verify the dates. “approximately” here and “commonly accepted” there. Made up dates and their “verification” is “yes, we accept that too!”

            (3) Sorry – 2-300? My bad. That makes it quite a stretch to claim their guessed dates are THAT accurate.

            So again, you cannot prove the pyramids were built before the flood, only “they were b/c someone said so on abcnews”.

            All dating methods proven to be a farce, based completely on assumptions and verified to give utterly false dates of everything we can verify:
            http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

            _”Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.”_

            http://creation.com/templeton-confounded-by-lyell

            _”10-year-old rocks from Mount St Helen’s were dated from 390,000 to 2.7 million years old, and rocks from the ad 1800 lava flow in Hawaii returned dates of 160 million to 3 billion years.”_

            Those ranges were given by cross checking all dating methods – they didn’t just use one dating method. As anyone will tell you, scientists know to cross-check results of any dating method with other methods and henced they came up with dates of rocks that were merely a few decades old of up to 3 MILLION years in spite of all their standard cross-checking.

            It’s similar to fossils “dated” millions of years old (different dating methods than for rocks), but then having red blood cells and soft tissue found in them, proving they can’t be more than thousands of years old. What do evolutionists do? Ignore the scientific fact that red blood cells and soft tissue would never survive millions of years and pretend they now do.

            Even original animal proteins found in fossils proves they can’t be hundreds of millions of years old, but instead only thousands. What do evolutionists do? Dismiss more observable, scientific fact and pretend such facts are no longer true: that soft tissue and red blood cells can now last countless millions of years.
            http://creation.com/original-animal-protein-fossils

            So the bottom line is the flood could have happened before the pyramids, but some want to say they believe it did not. Beliefs are all this discussion is about – no proofs about these dates that have been shown to be a farce every time we can verify dates..

            Thank you for posting.

          • Deina

            Did you really say “dating rocks?

            Just because a volcano or an earthquake recently pushed a rock to the surface does not make it a brand new rock any more than sawing a board in two makes brand new wood!

            I see you “conveniently” overlooked the fact that the ages of the pyramids are taken from historical records as well as scientific dating techniques. But then, facts like that won’t support what you want to believe, will they.

            The date of the flood comes from the same site that you are quoting.

            The hypocrisy is strong with this one!

            Why is it that you so called “Christians” feel that it’s alright to lie and use deceit to “prove” that you’re “right”?

            Do you think that your “god” is so weak that you have to cheat to help him win?

            The God I believe in doesn’t need to use trickery & fraud, because He created the Heavens & the Earth. He also created the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and all of the other sciences, and He created evolution to help us adapt & survive!

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Dating methods of ALL kinds are based upon assumptions>. What you cite use words like “approximately” in it and “commonly accepted” and prove my point: assumptions galore. Same way they date everything else: assumptions.

            And the date of the flood is ALSO an estimate, as you pointed out: But you are trying to use nothing but estimates to “prove” the flood did not happen until after they built pyramids, which only shows you know you’re not proving a thing.

            No, the rock was formed by the eruption, not pushed to the surface by it.

            Saying “you lie!!” doesn’t make it true – care to back up your claim it was a rock formed 3 million years ago that was pushed to the surface by the eruption rather than formed by it when it happened decades ago? Of course not.

            And consider: if a person saw Adam the day after He was formed, their similar response would be “God doesn’t use trickery! Adam proves the world is at least 20 years old!” and they’d be just as wrong. Why would they say this? Perahsp because they’re embarrassed or ashamed and don’t want to be ridiculed by those who hate God..

            Do you believe Christ rose from the grave after being dead three days? After all, it’s observable, repeatable, scientific fact when a person is dead and decaying for days that is impossible.

            If you do INSTEAD believe God, why be inconsistent to claim other things far more possible are NOT possible “because science says otherwise”. That’s blatantly inconsistent.

            And no, God created Adam and Eve, not molecules to man evolution on the back of millions of years of suffering and death through no fault of mankind.

            Sorry it bothers you that I believe what God says. Take care.

          • Deina

            Most things are estimates, my dear. What time is it? Says who? Based on what? How do you know that that’s accurate?

            How far is it to the Moon? What temperature is the Sun? How many cubic miles of water would it take to flood the Earth 15 cubits above the mountains? How many to the nearest quart?

            So you think that if you go in your backyard & pan out an ounce of gold, melt that 4-billion year-old dust in a crucible until it is molten, then mold it into a ring to give to your sweetie, that it’s no longer 4 billion year old gold? Sure, you can add things into the gold to give it different properties – that’s why there are different carat weights of gold, because various hardening agents are blended in to toughen it & make it go farther.

            But it is still the same gold that has been since the beginning of time. Gold is an element, one of the basic building blocks of the universe. It can never be broken down into anything other than itself.

            The rocks from a volcano are the same – they are nothing but compounds of various elements, heated & blended together.

            Have you never wondered why no one, except the charlatans try to carbon date rocks & dirt? But when you go to their website those are the only things they use to “prove” that scientific dating is wrong. Why don’t they show examples of plants & bone, and other formerly living tissue that are in error? I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.

            Egyptian writing isn’t the world’s oldest, but it’s where we are, so we can continue. Phonetic hieroglyphs on bone & ivory (which can be carbon dated) date back to around 3250 BCE in upper Egypt.

            But there is no written record of such an Earth-changing flood in Egypt. In Mesopotamia there is written history very similar to that in Genesis about the flood of Gilgamesh, but that happened many centuries before the Genesis flood. Apparently it was an old story even before writing was invented, which the Institute for Creation Research estimates to be around 3300 BCE.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. So since you admit most things are estimates, you prove that your date estimates do not refute the flood.

            Dating methods of rocks date when the rock was formed. You need to read up on what it is you’re defending before you imply the dates are the same before and after they “are blended together”.

            You are honestly claiming no one else dates rocks? I would read more than you’ve been spoon fed to believe.

            Thank you for proving the dates you use to “prove” the flood did not happen are all merely estimates. I suggest you read up dating to finally learn dating methods are used to determine when rocks were formed. Education is the best defense against the false claims you’ve been fed.

            So do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? It’s a simple question, one you continue to avoid.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Deina

            So you don’t even believe the very same charlatans that you quote. How pathetic!

            I’m not “avoiding” my beliefs about Jesus, they are simply irrelevant to something that happened several millennia prior to his birth.

          • Reason2012

            Sure I believe them – just pointing out the common sense that they are ESTIMATES. You do know that even when ESTIMATES are made, people are still for the most part correct – it’s called margin of error. Basic statistics.

            And offering ESTIMATES means you cannot claim to PROVE them wrong by implying their dates and yours are 100% correct and not an estimate at all.

            So you believe someone who’s been dead and decaying for days can come back to life? How anti-science of you. To try to undermine other things God said and use the logic “science shows otherwise” is the height of hypocrisy and shows you do not have any ground to stand on.

            Thank you for posting.

  • Richard

    Reason and Paul, if you both take the entire Biblical text literally, what does this mean to you?

    “for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.” – Psalm 50:10

  • Reason2012

    Richard, no one’s saying 100% of the Bible is literal, as you falsely imply. But you’re using the logic “the Bible is not 100% literal, hence I’ll let you know what’s not literal that you can ignore” which is what we refute.

    Yes, there are things in the Bible that are clearly shown to not be literal. What you refuse to get is that the global flood is not one of them, creation is not one of them, the resurrection is not one of them and so on.

    You keep claiming the Bible shows the flood is not literal, but can never back up your claim with scripture, which says it all.

    Thank you for posting.

  • Reason2012

    Genesis 7:19 “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.”

    We have to ignore this verse and claim it’s not literal (with NO reason whatsoever to show how it’s clearly not literal) to pretend the flood is also not literal.

  • Eric Stuckey

    Attention all scoffers: God and His Word are not the defendant here; you are! What do you know and how do you know it? http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

    • Paul Hiett

      That has to be, honestly, the worst website I’ve ever seen. Who wrote that crap?

    • Deina

      It most certainly takes logical fallacy to new heights!

      Why does God have to exist before logic can exist? If it ever gets to the point where it explains that, it must be layers below where I got tired of looking.

      • Eric Stuckey

        The proof that God exists is self-evident. You either profess this knowledge or suppress it. Even the writers/signers of the Declaration of Independence realized this: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

        • Deina

          It’s “self-evident”?

          Then it should be easy for you to explain it to me, and show me the proof.

        • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr

          Whose god? The one in which you believe, likely because it was the one you were taught to belive? The Hindu god(s) as the Hindu were taught to believe? The Muslim god as the Muslims were taught to believe? The Zoroastrian god as the Zoroastrians were taught to believe?

          It is self evident that, especially since the advances in modern science, that some of the stories in the Bible are simply not true.

          Even an objective study of translations makes it clear that much has changed from original text, including the mistranslation of the Hebrew word “almah,” which, of course, had to be mistranslated in order to cement the doctrine of the virgin birth.

          Were “almah” not mistranslated, then the entire edifice of Christianity likely would have never been constructed. Even dictionaries now show the Christian meaning of the word in support of the original mistranslation and the edifice constructed from it.

    • gods need not apply

      When god’s word has been proven to be so out of touch with the reality that we live in, I do believe they are the defendant.

  • Anonymous

    Can they provide a link to the original research article! I mean. Opening an article with “Scientists exploring the Atlantic Ocean have discovered mysterious” is’nt really convincing. I would consider reading the article if they had atleast told which scientist who discovered these finds or a link to the original research paper.

  • http://thebenevolentthou.com/ Max T. Furr

    A new discovery, a new mystery. I love it! I predict, as virtually all scientific discoveries do, the follow up research will find a perfectly rational, natural explanation for this phenomenon.

    Interesting, though, that scientists hypothesize a 10 million year period of growth for the larger nodules which, if it turns out to be confirmed, writes yet another chapter to the already voluminous amount of evidence against Biblical literality.

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    Dr. Jake Hebert, a physicist with the Institute for Creation Research,

    Here is your problem.

  • dconklin

    >This is just one more indication that there are serious problems with radioisotope dating methods!”

    No, radioisotopes are completely different than the acrretions that are suspected for fporming these nodules. BTW, I’m an old-earther Creationist.

  • Paul Le Clercq

    It didn’t happen. Stop making up shit to try to prove something that was impossible. Religious loons…

  • bistek_tagalog

    is this another The Onion website.

  • dwb1957

    Creationism is an intellectual dead end. A lie. Foolishness. And so are all you.