What Does the Bible Say About The Flood?

[@MalTomlin]

The simple Gospel is 1 Corinthians 15:1-3. We are not saved by how mush science, philosophy, or theology we know. There are good Christian men on both sides of the day/age debate which is often a red-herring - that is, misdirection off the main road to the house of salvation. My own view is that Dr. Ross has won all the debates I have watched on the topic.....mt

[@thepossessor]

Hugh Ross kicks so much ass, what an intelligent, well-articulated inividual

[@ian9toes]

Psalm 104:6 is a clear reference to the flood. God set a bound so waters cannot cover the earth again AFTER the flood. His whole argument around psalm 104 is flawed.

[@timfoster5043]

In talking about 2 Peter, I think Ross skipped this: [+] For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. (2Pet 3:5-6) There's no qualification of "world" - in fact, Peter seems to be talking about the "world" that was created in Gen 1. That would be the "whole world", not "just the world of the evil people that existed back then". This "whole world" idea is referenced again just a few verses later when Peter says the whole world will be destroyed by fire, to be replaced by a new earth. Does Ross want us to believe that part of the heavens and part of the earth will be replaced? I hope not. 1. In Gen 9, God promised to never again flood all the earth. If Noah's flood was local, God broke His promise. 2. Where ever in the history of creation have we seen a local flood take around a year to subside? (Short answer: never.) 3. If God was supernatural enough to make it rain like that; bring all the animals in like that; destroy with such destruction like that .. I think He’d know whether or not the whole earth was flooded like that. So why didn't He use "local-flood" language? 4. Why save the animals if it's a local flood?

[@TommyNitro]

+Tim Foster Here is the stong's concordance definition for the term world in 2 Peter:an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, governmentornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3the world, the universethe circle of the earth, the earththe inhabitants of the earth, men, the human familythe ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christworld affairs, the aggregate of things earthlythe whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christany aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sortthe Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc) 1. Even for a local flood, no He did not break his promise. There have been events of local flooding (i.e. the tsunami in 2004), but there has never been a flood to wipe out all life. 2. Not sure what you're going for here. Scientifically, historically? 3. There were many fewer words in the ancient Hebrew. For instance, the Hebrews had only the word "yom" to indicate a full day (24 hours), the hours of daylight, and an extremely long period of time (even epochs). One word for all three of those. I suspect that they lacked the "local flood" language you are calling for. Keep in mind that in ancient times, the term world often referred to the known world, and not what had yet been unexplored. 4. To avert a local extinction. A flood need not be worldwide to wipe out entire species. The known world would easily have been large enough to do that. Hope these thoughts help. :)

[@TommyNitro]

+TommyNitro Seeing how that did not copy and paste well, here is the hyperlink: www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2889&t=KJV

[@NorthviewVids]

The verse you are referring to Psalm 104:9 transliterates from Hebrew to English as 'a bound you have set, (they) do not pass over' The transliteration says 'not do to cover the earth'. the word translated as 'do' is yə-šū-ḇūn, which is also rendered as 'and turn' or 'return'. Some translations have inserted 'and do not EVER return' or 'NEVER to return'. The Hebrew does not use a term that should translate as 'never'. The Hebrew transliteration literally goes like this; 'a bound you have set, not to pass over and not turn (or return) to cover the earth'. The word 'ever' in 'not ever again to cover the earth' should not have been inserted in the translations that render it as such. The original King James version (still probably the most widely accepted translation available) renders verse 9 (as do other translations); 'Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth." There is no mention of EVER again, there is no Hebrew word here that denotes that this is an eternal proclamation. It simply illustrates how God at that time made it so the sea could not cover the earth in order for 'dry land to appear' we are also told God restrained the sea to 'only one place' (Genesis 1:9). There is NO indication that this refers to a premise that the waters would not EVER cover the earth once again. It simply is a proclamation that the tides are made to stick to their boundaries as was dictated God during the infancy of the Earth's creation. This 'local' flood idea hinges on only ONE verse in the entire bible - despite numerous verses in the Bible clearly enforcing the fact that the flood in Noah's time was GLOBAL in nature. 2 Peter 2:5 - 'He did not spare the ancient *WORLD*. 1 Peter 2:20 - "In it (the ark) only a few people, eight in all, were saved from the waters NIT; *only eight people in all* were saved from drowning in the flood." Genesis 6:7 - "And the LORD said, 'I will *wipe all man* I have created from the face of the earth. Yes, and I will destroy *EVERY living thing* --all the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky'." Genesis 7;4 - "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth *every living creature I have made* .” Genesis 7;19 - ..." *all* the high mountains under the *entire* heavens were *covered* . (20) The waters rose and *covered the highest mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits* . (21) *Every* living thing that moved on land perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, *all* the creatures that swarm over the earth, and *all* mankind. (22) *Everything* on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. (23) *Every* living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were *wiped from the earth*. *Only* Noah and those with him in the ark were left." Genesis 7;24 - "The waters prevailed over the *whole earth* for 150 days. " Genesis 8;21 - “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down *every* living creature as I have done." there are so many more...

[@ianfrancis777]

I agree. Are you likewise an old earther?

[@Mdebacle]

As the highest level of sediment at the Grand Canyon (Kaibab limestone) has marine fossils, then one of two options must be true: (A) The ocean receded and cut the Canyon, or (B) the sediment at the bottom of the ocean rose up to 8000 feet above sea level. The Scholar's Union explanation is: However, for reasons poorly understood, the beds of the Colorado Plateaus remained mostly horizontal through both events even as they were uplifted about 2 miles in two pulses. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area Hugh Ross, what sayest thou ?

[@gotallon5761]

Do you honestly expect him to read this comment, on a 5 minute video out of every video, and make a full response to it or even have the time to respond?

[@Mdebacle]

@@gotallon5761 My question is simple: Did water descend or did sediment ascend? To avoid a hundred pounds of verbiage, perhaps you can speak for Mr. Ross.

[@Jim-yk1ug]

U can message him this question in facebook

[@progodspeed2311]

There is this one key passage that really proves that the flood didn’t cover the entire planet, and that’s Genesis 8:11, where it says “then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth.” This was when Noah was on Mt. Ararat in the ark, when tips of the mountains started to become visible (Gen 8:5)... meaning there was still a flood. Anyways, the key word is “olive leaf.” Note that Noah sent a dove to see if the earth was dry two times in the span of 7 days. The first time, the dove found no resting place, and the in the 2nd try, found a olive branch. If the whole earth was submerged under water for nearly a year, all plants would have died. SOOOO how can there be an olive tree producing branches within 7 days?! According to an article published by the SF Gate, an olive tree won’t sprout for a long time, and when it does, it will take a month until it produces it’s first leaves. THEREFORE, there existed an area that must have not been submerged under water while Noah’s area was covered by water! In simplest terms, a local flood! It’s even evident when you read the verse carefully again, where it says that Noah had to send a dove to INFER if the earth had dried up! Why didn’t he just looked out of the window to see if it was dry?! This only makes sense when we realize there was a flood one place when there wasn’t a flood in another! Why else would Noah send a dove?!

[@sevensmith460]

1.Genesis 8:7 and sent out a *raven* It kept flying back and forth until the waters had dried up from the earth. 2. All The Animals Killed-In addition, Genesis speaks of all the animals being brought to Noah. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive (Genesis 6:19-20).When disembarking the ark, the Bible emphasizes that every type of creature on the earth had been on board. So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons' wives. All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds - everything that moves on the earth - came out of the ark, one kind after another (8:18-19). 3. Earth Populated From Noah's Sons-In addition, from the family of Noah, the entire earth was populated. Scripture says. These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth (Genesis 9:19) The purpose of the Flood was to destroy sinful humanity. The Bible explains why God sent the Flood. The LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the *earth* and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made *humankind* on the *earth* and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created - people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them. But Noah found favor in the sight of the LORD. (Genesis 6:5-8). 4. The Word Earth In Genesis 1:1 and 6:13 According to Genesis 6:13, the earth itself was to be destroyed. The Hebrew word for earth eretz is the same word found in Genesis 1:1 which describes what God created. In Genesis 1:1 it refers to the entire earth, it also does in Genesis 6:13.

[@progodspeed2311]

WTF Again? Mt Ararat is indeed 17,000 ft high. You are correct. The flood covered it. You are correct about that as well. But did you know that the Bible tells us by how much... by 15 cubits higher than their peaks (Gen 7:20), which is about 250 ft higher. But what about Mt. Everest to the very Far East. It’s basically 30,000 ft high in elevation. If that was covered, than the mountains back West in the region of Noah would’ve had to been covered by 760 cubits of water. Not 15 cubits. What do you say to that?

[@dawnknowles3680]

What happened to all the bodies that drowned in the flood? Did they stay on earth to rot?

[@branwhitcomb]

Great video! The idea that the water levels of Noah's flood rose high enough to submerge mountains is not Biblical. The waters rose over 20 feet from ground level up the sides of the mountains, not above the mountains. Consider the following: Genesis 7:18-20 reads "The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits (about 23 feet)." The term "covered" has been used to interpret that the mountains were submerged. However, with careful examination of the initial verses of the next chapter, we see this is not the case. In Genesis 8:3-4 we read "At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat." This means that at this point in time the mountains, if they had been submerged, should be at least far enough above the waterline for the ark to rest on them, as opposed to drifting over or around their peaks. However, verse 5 tells us, "The waters continued to recede until the tenth month (about 2.5 months AFTER the ark "came to rest"), and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible." This last verse has been cited to support the "covered = submerged" interpretation, but there are a couple of questions which must be answered to keep the proper context. First, if after 5 months of the waters receding the ark was able to rest on the mountains, why would it take another 2.5 months for the mountain peaks to become visible? Second, the mountain peaks became visible to whom? Fortunately, the answer to the second question clears up the issue of the first question. The peaks became visible to Noah, who would only have been able to view them through a ventilation shaft or window from within the ark which was only about 18 inches in height according to Gen. 6:16. When the ark rested against the mountain side it was initially too close to the mountain for anyone in the ark to view the peaks. But, as the waters receded, the ark drifted far enough away from the mountain side so that Noah could then look out the window and see the mountain peaks. This is akin to standing at the front door of a tall building, and not being able to see the top floor unless you back away far enough from the building. This also makes sense when you consider that A: we are not told about some perilous trek down a mountain after the flood, because the ark was at ground level when the flood was over, B: we are told that the ark came to rest on the "mountains (plural) of Ararat", as over several months the ark would have drifted up against several sides of the same mountain range, and C: not all mountains are the same height, so if we are talking about flood waters rising 23 feet uniformly then we must be dealing with a consistent measurement, and not one which would change from the peak of one mountain to another. Conclusion: The mountains being "covered" to a depth of over 20 feet simply means that the flood waters rose over 20 feet from the base of the mountains of Ararat up the mountain side.

[@timfoster5043]

Well - I gotta say that's a first for me. Never seen a local flood explained this way. Pray tell... if the flood was local, why did God say this: [+]"Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. "And I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." (Gen 9:9-11) If Noah's flood was local, God broke His promise because there have been quite a few local floods since then. I think "mountains covered" means exactly that: "mountains covered". (A more reasonable explanation is that the mountains prior to Noah were not nearly as tall as they are now. Ps 104 would bear that out, especially if you see v8 as a description of the flood.)

[@branwhitcomb]

Thanks for the reply, Tim! Actually, I'm not saying the flood was local, only that the account in Genesis pertains to the events of a specific locality. We don't need to hear what happened elsewhere because none of that leads up to the Christ. The flood was indeed global, and we have evidence of global flooding occurring due to the last ice age ending and ice melt causing ocean levels to rise many meters. Indeed, God's promise to never end the world that way again is a promise you can bank on, because the Earth will never be cold enough to have that much ice again! :-) As for the mountains somehow being shorter in Noah's day, that would not make sense, geologically or Biblically. Consider the following: 1. The Bible refers to the resting place of the Ark as the "Mountains of Ararat." If God meant "hills", He would have said so. 2. Psalm 90:2 says, "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." This means that mountains are very, very old, and not something that only came about on the face of the Earth in the past six to twelve thousand years. 3.Regardless of whatever height the "Mountains of Ararat" were, if "covered" means "submerged", then Noah's Ark simply cannot be resting on the Mountains of Ararat two and a half months BEFORE the waters receded enough for the tops of the mountains to no longer be underwater. It is important that we read God's word carefully, with the intent of finding out what God is actually telling us, and not for the sake of confirming our Sunday school teachers' lessons or our own preconceived beliefs.

[@dzalva1441]

Tim Foster I think God means a local flood of that magnitude. Right now however, we ourselves are making our own floods when the environment takes damage.

[@dzalva1441]

Bran Whitcomb In order to get this 'mountains vs. hills' situation correct, we have to look at the original Bible, and I'm not talking English Bible. There have been damages made to the Bible including the whole drinking of poison thing. If it were local, where on Earth would all that water go if it covered mountains? We know water expands when it freezes, but the glaciers aren't large enough to create a global flood if they were all melted.

[@branwhitcomb]

DZalva14​ We do know what the original manuscripts would have said via scholarly examination and textual criticism. The "mountains of Ararat" have been "mountains" for quite some time, so there isn't a problem there. As for the flooding caused by the glacier melt at the end of the last ice age, the world's oceans rose several hundred feet and this would indeed have caused flooding on a global scale. When the Bible says the mountains were "covered" it simply means that part of the mountain's base was under water, specifically about 23 feet. Eventually, the waters seeped into the ground, or found it's way into rivers, as flood waters always do. Thanks for your reply! :-)

[@fudgedogbannana]

Somehow it makes less sense to me if the flood was local. why would Noah need to build an ark which some say took him over 100 years, why would there be a need to bring all animals into the area then put them on an ark to save them, how can a local flood cover the high hills in just one location, how did no one else escape when it took so long to flood the area (40days) ?

[@snowtracks]

Noah communicate for God and used the ark as a platform

[@nick-wg5py]

Lol. If it was local then Genesis 6-8 would be 1 verse long. And the Lord said to Noah, "thou shalt LEAVE". Hugh Ross is absolutely ridiculous.

[@simclimie6045]

@@nick-wg5py Chapters and verses were put in later by people that King James of England appointed to bring organization. ...there 66 books or historical documents of the bible

[@victoriasue100]

The flood was a regional, local flood. Not world wide. All races do NOT come from Noah's 3 sons. “Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” In ancient times two different lengths of the cubit were in use. The sacred cubit of 25 inches and the common cubit of 20-5/8 inches. Therefore, the waters rose above the tops of the mountains it is speaking of by either 25 feet 9 inches or 31 feet 3 inches according to which cubit you use. If this meant that all the mountains on earth were covered, the waters would have to cover Mount Everest, which is nearly six miles high. If the whole earth was covered by six miles of water, then all nations must have been completely exterminated. However Babylonian, Egyptian and Chinese history runs right through this period without a break. The Bible gives the date of the flood as commencing in 2345 B.C. and ending in 2344 B.C.. In lower Sumer, later called Chaldea, which occupied the same Plains of Shinar to which Noah’s family journeyed after the flood, the city of Ur of the Chaldees was the leading city from about 2400 B.C. until about 2285 B.C.. Its history is not broken by any flood in this period. Farther to the north, Babylon was rising to power from about 2400 B.C. on and reached a great height of civilization under the famous King Hammurabi, who lived at the same time as the Hebrew patriarch Abraham, about 2250 B.C.. There is no break in this history due to a flood. In Egypt, the eleventh dynasty began to reign about 2375 B.C. over a great and powerful nation. The eleventh dynasty ruled to about 2212 B.C., and was followed by the twelfth dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 B.C.. There was no break in the eleventh dynasty at the time of Noah’s flood, 2345 B.C.. The nation continued to be large and powerful throughout this period. Accurate history of China begins nearly 3000 B.C. The Shu King historic record of China, shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 B.C., 11 years before the start of Noah’s flood, and ruled China for many years after the flood. During the reign of Yao, the Shu King reports that the Hwang Ho river, which drains the mountains and a great basin in Sinkiang province, had excessive floods for three generations. Here again, there was no break in history. The Chinese nation was not wiped out. Its own records show it continued in existence right through the period of Noah’s flood. Therefore, the Bible is correct in stating the flood covered only eh-rets, that land. The translators are wrong when they change the meaning of what Moses really wrote in Genesis chapter 7, and say the flood covered all the earth.

[@Mdebacle]

All humans have mitochondrial DNA from one of three haplogroups, conveniently coded L,M,N, with the region of intersection being southwest Asia. This is because all humans have mtDNA from one of the three daughters-in-law of Noah.

[@victoriasue100]

@@Mdebacle No way in HELL do ALL humans come from Noah's 3 sons. YOU are under an extreme strong delusion. There is no way in HELL that 8 white people made Negroes, Asians, Arabs, Mexicans. etc. No way in HELL. Kind after kind with its SEED (DNA) in itself. Eight white people did not have kids and they suddenly turned into Asians, Negroes, Arabs, Mexicans and other sub races. That is LUDICROUS. When we come to Genesis chapter 7 where it is talking about the flood, wherever it says the flood covered the earth, the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was eh-rats, meaning the land. The flood did cover the particular land where it occurred. It was a local flood, which covered one particular region or land, not the whole earth. The translators took the Hebrew word eh-rets, which means that land and mistranslated it to mean the whole world. If six miles of water covered the whole earth, then all nations must have been completely exterminated. However Babylonian, Egyptian and Chinese history runs right through this period without a break. The Bible gives the date of the flood as commencing in 2345 B.C. and ending in 2344 B.C. In lower Sumer, later called Chaldea, which occupied the same Plains of Shinar to which Noah's family journeyed after the flood, the city of Ur of the Chaldees was the leading city from about 2400 B.C. until about 2285 B.C. Any flood does not break its history in this period. Farther to the north, Babylon was rising to power from about 2400 B.C. on and reached a great height of civilization under the famous King Hammurabi, who lived at the same time as the Hebrew patriarch Abraham, about 2250 B.C. There is no break in this history due to a flood. In Egypt, the eleventh dynasty began to reign about 2375 B.C. over a great and powerful nation. The eleventh dynasty ruled to about 2212 B.C., and was followed by the twelfth dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 B.C. There was no break in the eleventh dynasty at the time of Noah's flood, 2345 B.C. The nation continued to be large and powerful throughout this period. Accurate history of China begins nearly 3000 B.C. The Shu King historic record of China shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 B.C., 11 years before the start of Noah's flood, and ruled China for many years after the flood. During the reign of Yao, the Shu King reports that the Hwang Ho River, which drains the mountains and a great basin in Sinkiang province, had excessive floods for three generations. Here again, there was no break in history. The Chinese nation was not wiped out. Its own records show it continued in existence right through the period of Noah's flood. Therefore, the Bible is correct in stating the flood covered only eh-rets that land. The translators are wrong when they change the meaning of what Moses really wrote in Genesis chapter 7, and say the flood covered all the earth. When Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden of Eden, Genesis 3:24 tells us Yahweh placed cherubim with a flaming sword at the east side of the garden of Eden, to keep Adam and Eve from returning and having access to the tree of life. If this guard was to accomplish anything, it must have been placed between Adam and the Garden of Eden. So we see that Adam and Eve were driven out to the east. From Eden, Adam's course would naturally have led him across northern Iran, around the southern end of the Caspian Sea, into what was formerly called Chinese Turkistan and today is known as Sinkiang province in the extreme west of China. We find the word there mistranslated earth is the Hebrew word eh-rats, which only means the land, that particular land. There is a reason for using this Hebrew word. This was the place where integration and mongrelization had taken place, with its degenerative effects as compared to the qualities possessed by each race separately. Nice Try. What a load of crap. Noah's flood was LOCAL, not World Wide. All world history continued on throughout the flood, Churches are LYING to bring ALL RACES into the Covenant which is a false teaching. The convenant is RACIAL and is ONLY for the White Adamic RACE who are the Israelites of the bible proven by Luke 3:34, Luke 3:35 and Luke 3:36 and Luke 3:38. We descend from Shem, Heber, Jacob and are the children of Yahwah.

[@lolic4712]

Hey I don't know if you will read this but could you please tell me what ehrits is I kind find it mentioned anywhere

[@victoriasue100]

@@lolic4712 Genesis chapter 7 where it is talking about the flood, wherever it says the flood covered the earth, the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was e-rets, meaning the land. The flood did cover the particular land where it occurred. It was a local flood, which covered one particular region or land, not the whole earth. Genesis 7:10 "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth." The word "earth" comes from Strong's H776 - 'erets and the meaning is: country, territory, district, region, piece of ground" It did not cover the whole earth. It was a regional flood located in the Tarim Pendi Basin of western China. After the Adamic family had left the Garden of Eden and moved eastward into the Tarim Pendi Basin of western China, they began to mix with the neighboring races, just as Cain had done, who had long lived there already. The Great Flood happened because of that racial adulteration of God’s special family. Gen 6:2-3 says, "It came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose." The problem was that God’s children were breeding with other races. So, God was angry and said, "I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth." Then in Gen 6:9, "But Noah found grace before the Lord God. . . .Noah was a just man. Being perfect in his generation, Noah was well-pleasing to God." The word for generation is γενεα/genea, which means "race." Noah’s family was saved because it was the only non-adulterated family left! The translators made this mistake. The translators took the Hebrew word e-rets, which means that land and mistranslated it to mean the whole world. ensignmessage.com/articles/noahs-flood-was-not-worldwide/

[@zamiel3]

Where does Job 38 talk about the flood being a specific area?

[@williamlis7947]

Another expert! Does it really matter!

[@celal777]

You're assuming the oceans existed from the beginning which is not necessarily the case.

[@nsshero]

His analysis of “the ungodly world” being different from the world is just flat out wrong. God says the only holy ones at that time were Noah and his family. Ungodly world is not a qualified statement in the context of the whole story. This is not to say that old earth creationism is wrong, just pointing out his exegesis of “ungodly world” is completely fallacious.

[@ianfrancis777]

See my recent comment (on top of this thread) on other reasons it is wrong. I also consider myself an "old earther".

[@zamiel3]

What you are failing to understand is, that the narrative is being told about a specific family lineage. The Bible stories are all focused on a single family line. Noah, from among his people, his family, is the only person who found favor. God has found that the descendants of Adam, the people occupying a specific area of land, to be wicked. God spares Noah, his family, and some animals to repopulate that land. God then makes a covenant with Noah, those on the ark, and their descendants. This covenant is reiterated throughout the stories. Being specifically applicable to the Israelite people, exclusionary to all others who fail to abide by the guidelines.

[@danielright2044]

Look at the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis...you're welcome.

[@WaynePhilmore]

This video completely changed my mind about everything I believed about earth geology, theology, and so much more. The other creation accounts are key when examing the flood.

[@Mdebacle]

Can someone simply tell us how marine fossils ended up in he Kaibab limestone (the highest layer of the Grand Canyon) ?

[@Mdebacle]

@WTF Again? The Scholar's Union doesn't think it was that easy. "for reasons poorly understood, the beds of the Colorado Plateaus remained mostly horizontal through both events even as they were uplifted about 2 miles in two pulses." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area

[@Mdebacle]

@WTF Again? The issue is whether 1) the sediment was lifted 1.5 miles. or 2) the ocean was up there and receded. We can see from the size, shape, and altitude of the Canyon the water was up there.

[@Mdebacle]

@WTF Again? What the article claims is "a shallow seaway" and "nine varied geologic formations that were laid down from 1.2 billion and 740 million years ago in this sea." 4000 feet of sediment in a "shallow seaway" makes no sense. They are not claiming this carved the canyon. Since the Colorado River cannot flow up hill, they have no idea what carved the canyon.

[@hanzluffy]

Hi Dr. Hugh Ross and Team, just a small question. How do we explain the similarity of the flood narrative with the Epic of Gilgamesh, where the cuneiform tablets seems to pre-date the writing of the Torah..? Do you think that the Bible writer(s) borrowed the story from this?

[@joefpsunset]

I also want your question to be answered or addressed.

[@fudgedogbannana]

Why would it be necessary for one to copy the other? The story was not a secret, I am sure that the 8 survivors told all their great grandchildren the story and they in turn handed the story down to the many many grandchildren, everyone knew the story, some had their own version.

[@Mdebacle]

The dimensions of the Genesis ark are much more seaworthy than the cube-shaped Gilgamesh stuff. Plus all humans have mtDNA from one of the three daughters-in-law.

[@Thomasmollo1964]

I enjoyed Mr Hughs for a short time but really he goes to extraordinary length to defend the fact that he doesn’t trust the Bible. Just read it, it’s not this complicated. If God said He created everything in 6 Days... He did.

[@Jim-yk1ug]

Days has more than one meaning in hebrew

[@vshah1010]

It says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Notice that it says that the earth was there in the _beginning_ . Scientists know that the earth formed billions of years _after_ the the big bang, so the earth was not there in the beginning.