Great Explanation of Global Flood Model

Status
Not open for further replies.
My oh my. It appears that my assumptions have proven to be true. When reading Psalms 104, which you, IAC, claim is talking about the flood, I couldn't help but think that it was talking about original creation.

Then I came across this website (which by the way was created by a believer) http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.php:

It states the following:

Psalms 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, parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a stable water cycle (verses 3-5, parallel 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, 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." (Psalms 104:9) Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local.

There are a number of figures of speech used in Psalms 104 that clearly refer to the original creation as opposed to the flood. The reference to the boundaries of the deep are a clear reference to the original creation (Proverbs 8:29, Psalms 33:6-7, Jeremiah 5:22, and Job 38:8-11). There are no references to "boundaries" in any of the flood references. A second figure of speech is the idea of the earth being covered by a garment, which is only found in the creation passages, and never in the flood passages (Proverbs 30:4, Job 38:9). In addition, there are no references to the maintains rising and the valleys sinking (Psalms 104:8) after the flood, although these events could be clearly linked to the setting of the boundaries of the sea as described in Genesis 1 and Job 38.

Biblical commentaries

There are a number of biblical commentaries, nearly all of which support the interpretation that Psalms 104:9 refers to Genesis 1. Most of these commentaries are from Christians who support a young-earth interpretation. The context makes it clear that the subject is the creation of the earth - not its judgment. All the verses before verse 9 clearly refer to the original creation. What do the commentaries say about Psalms 104?

Even though these YEC understand that the verses refer to Genesis 1, they fail to understand the implications of that reality - the Genesis flood must have been local. Both John Gill's commentary and the Treasury of David (Spurgeon) recognize that these verses refer to Genesis 1, but then state that God made an exception to the rule when He flooded the earth. This idea makes no sense, since the verse clearly states that the original waters of the deep would never again cover the earth. In essence, these commentaries state that the verse is false. I can't accept that idea, since I believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures.

Conclusion

Psalms 104 clearly is a discussion about creation, not the flood. Did God stretch out the heavens (Psalms 104:2) in Genesis 6-9 (the flood narrative)? Did God set the earth on its foundations (Psalms 104:5) in Genesis 6-9? If it were talking about the flood, there would be a reference to judgment. There isn't any. There is no reference to the world being destroyed. These are all things that one would expect to see (and does see) in virtually every other biblical passage that mentions the flood.
Click to expand...


Wow, IAC. So you've been lying to everyone this whole time. You've used Psalms 104 to support your global flood model, when Psalms 104 never even mentions a global flood! It clearly is referring to the creation of the earth, and not a global deluge.

So when God created the earth, it was filled with water, and then God moved the water and separated it from the land. Then God set a boundary for that water, which would never be crossed, according to him. Therefore, the flood must have been local, according to the bible at least, or God would have gone against his own word.

Not good, IAC. Not good at all.
 
Last edited:
IceAgeCivilizations said:
For you folks who still are scratching your heads a bit, here is a great synopsis of the young earth creationist position, enjoy.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/
Click to expand...
Wow!!!
Finally conclusive proof, posted on-line in that pseudo-scientific style and with the “appropriate credentials” to seem respectable.
I’ve never seen so much science disproving science in all my life.

You know, IcedAgedunCivilization if you google long enough I bet you can find a “credible” scientific source proving alien abductions and Big Foot sightings.

Are you married?
I’m interested.

That double chin has me wanting….
 
So, IAC, why did you lie to everyone in claiming that Psalms 104 mentions the flood, when it clearly is describing creation (which almost all young earther Biblical commentators will attest to)?
 
Psalms 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, parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a stable water cycle (verses 3-5, parallel 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, 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." (Psalms 104:9) Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local.
 
Psalms 104 is describing creation, not a flood. Many young earther commentators will attest to that.

Now, please explain to all of us why God would tell Moses to write:

"And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided."

If the wind had nothing at all to do with the waters subsiding, then why would Moses even mention it?

If Moses knew about the mid-ocean ridge opening up and wrote about it, then why would he not write about a planet exploding or mountains rising at the close of the deluge?
 
NDS, if you can't be intellectually honest enough to say that the Bible describes a Global Deluge at the time of Noah, then we have nothing further to discuss.
 
Google the term "SYMBOLISM."

IAC, if you can't be intellectually honest enough to say that your Global Flood Model directly contradicts the Bible's Model, then we have nothing further to discuss.
 
Nothing in the bible could describe a global event, since the writers were geographically isolated to the Middle East.
 
IAC, why did Moses write that "God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided"?

(and not that the mountains rose and the ocean basins sunk as in IAC's model)
 
Because God made the wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided?

You'd expect serious thermals from all the geophysical activity during and after the Deluge, at least a scientist would.
 
In context, clearly the wind from God was the cause of the waters subsiding. Why do you think God mentioned the wind immediately followed by "and the waters subsided"?

Talk about being ingenuous.
 
No, the word "so" is clearly not needed. Any two year old could see that according to that verse the "wind" was the cause of the waters subsiding.

According to you, they subsided when the ocean basins sunk and the mountains rose.

If Moses was capable of writing about the mid-ocean ridge spewing out water to cause the flood (which he would have no way of knowing), then why wouldn't he make the simple observation that the ocean basins sunk and the mountains rose?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top