Noah-Lots of Water in the Oceans and Subterranean Oceans

[HarleyER]

The scientists from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois have discovered a reservoir of water that is three times the size of all of Earth's oceans, deep beneath the planet's surface. This underground water supply rests some 700 km beneath our feet.

This hidden ocean, concealed within a blue rock known as ringwoodite, dares our understanding of where Earth’s water came from. The size of this subterranean sea is triple the volume of all the planet’s surface oceans combined. If this subterranean ocean were to be combined with our present ocean, it would cover the entire planet except for a few mountain peaks.

This new discovery not only enthrals with its scale but also proposes a new theory about Earth’s water cycle. It recommends that instead of arriving via comet impacts, as some theories have posited, Earth’s oceans may have slowly seeped out from its very core.

Genesis 7 states “11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.”

Some would like to say there wasn’t enough water to cause a worldwide flood. This seems to run counter to what scientists from Northwestern University have discovered.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not an ocean, or even liquid water. It's chemically bound to ringwoodite (a rock formed from olivine) and exists as OH- not H20. It can only be converted back to water, if the rock (which is in the mid-mantle, about 900 miles down) is brought up to the crust (at a few centimeters a year) and the water can be remade and released. This is replaced by water carried down in the mantle at subduction zones, keeping the amount of trapped water fairly constant. If the process was speeded up, it wouldn't change the balance much, and the additional friction would boil the seas.

Some would like to say there wasn’t enough water to cause a worldwide flood. This seems to run counter to what scientists from Northwestern University have discovered.

You'll need a different source. Some creationists suppose there was a "water canopy", but that also has some consequences that would kill off most living things on Earth. We can talk about that, if you like.

 

[HarleyER]

It's not an ocean, or even liquid water. It's chemically bound to ringwoodite (a rock formed from olivine) and exists as OH- not H20. It can only be converted back to water, if the rock (which is in the mid-mantle, about 900 miles down) is brought up to the crust (at a few centimeters a year) and the water can be remade and released. This is replaced by water carried down in the mantle at subduction zones, keeping the amount of trapped water fairly constant. If the process was speeded up, it wouldn't change the balance much, and the additional friction would boil the seas.


You'll need a different source. Some creationists suppose there was a "water canopy", but that also has some consequences that would kill off most living things on Earth. We can talk about that, if you like.

HA! The scientists from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois is hardly a "creationist" source. One can't know the forces that were in play during the flood.

How the flood happen is unknown except that it came from above and below. But, as the scientists of NWU discovered, there was enough water to drown the entire planet. All God had to do was squeeze the rocks hard enough.

 

[The Barbarian]

HA! The scientists from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois is hardly a "creationist" source.

You merely added your own assumptions to their findings. They don't deny the facts I showed you, and they certainly don't suppose that all that chemically-combined OH was suddenly coverted to water and brought to the surface. As I said, the energy required would have boiled the seas. Would you like me to show you that?

One can't know the forces that were in play during the flood.

Actually, we can, because they would have physical effects that would leave evidence.

But, as the scientists of NWU discovered, there was enough water to drown the entire planet. All God had to do was squeeze the rocks hard enough.

No. Squeezing wouldn't work. You'd need a chemical, not a physical change.

 

[HarleyER]

You merely added your own assumptions to their findings. They don't deny the facts I showed you, and they certainly don't suppose that all that chemically-combined OH was suddenly coverted to water and brought to the surface. As I said, the energy required would have boiled the seas. Would you like me to show you that?


Actually, we can, because they would have physical effects that would leave evidence.


No. Squeezing wouldn't work. You'd need a chemical, not a physical change.

We don't have any physical evidence that Christ rose from the grave. We only have witnesses who are long gone.

As far as squeezing not working, then don't you think that God could have produce a chemical change?

 

[The Barbarian]

We don't have any physical evidence that Christ rose from the grave. We only have witnesses who are long gone.

We have eleven men who spent their time as close friends with him, who underwent painful deaths, rather than recant their conviction that He rose again from the dead, walked and ate and talked with them. I find that convincing. You should, too.

As far as squeezing not working, then don't you think that God could have produce a chemical change?

If you get to invent a non-scriptural miracle to cover up problems with your new doctrines, than any story you come up with is equally likely. Why not just accept it God's way?

 

[HarleyER]

You merely added your own assumptions to their findings. They don't deny the facts I showed you, and they certainly don't suppose that all that chemically-combined OH was suddenly coverted to water and brought to the surface. As I said, the energy required would have boiled the seas. Would you like me to show you that?


Actually, we can, because they would have physical effects that would leave evidence.


No. Squeezing wouldn't work. You'd need a chemical, not a physical change.

I would suggest that you are adding your assumption. You have absolutely no evidence of what the composition of the earth was at that time. As far as the energy boiling the seas, we know rain in great quantity was falling as well. The rain could have had a cooling effect as the water was coming up, especially if the rain came from high in the atmosphere. But I wasn't there, nor do I plan on taking a position on exactly how the flood happened.

How the forces of the flood occurred is unknown. But a popular negative position is that there was simply not enough water to cover the entire earth. Well, yes there was as scientists have discovered.

 

[HarleyER]

We have eleven men who spent their time as close friends with him, who underwent painful deaths, rather than recant their conviction that He rose again from the dead, walked and ate and talked with them. I find that convincing. You should, too.


If you get to invent a non-scriptural miracle to cover up problems with your new doctrines, than any story you come up with is equally likely. Why not just accept it God's way?

On one hand you completely dismiss miracles records such as the flood, the creation of man, etc. all in the name of "scientific" evidence. Yet you are convinced of the unscientific resurrection based on 11 men.

If I underwent a horrible death, would that convince you of the great flood?

 

[The Barbarian]

On one hand you completely dismiss miracles records such as the flood

I'm pointing out that the flood didn't need your extra unscriptural miracles. You need more confidence in God; He's a lot smarter than you seem to think.

Yet you are convinced of the unscientific resurrection based on 11 men.

You have to admit that 11 men willing to go to terrible deaths rather than deny their experience with a risen Christ, is pretty convincing. On the other hand, you put your faith in man's revision of God's word.

If I underwent a horrible death, would that convince you of the great flood?

Were you there? Remember, these men, who willingly died for their faith, included one who had denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed. How was he changed to a willing martyr for God? Have some faith in God.

 

[The Barbarian]

I would suggest that you are adding your assumption. You have absolutely no evidence of what the composition of the earth was at that time.

Geology makes that clear. And you could add one more man-invented miracle; "Oh, but God changed it to make it work they way I want it to."
But it really doesn't help you, does it?

As far as the energy boiling the seas, we know rain in great quantity was falling as well.

So now, you want another miracle to set aside thermodynamics. The amount of water in rain would be a tiny fraction of the water in the seas. And if it was heated to steam by the boiling seas, it would have cooked all life on Earth.

especially if the rain came from high in the atmosphere.

High up in the atmosphere, it's much hotter than it is on the surface.
The temperature of the thermosphere gradually increases with height and can rise as high as 1500 °C (2700 °F)

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How the forces of the flood occurred is unknown. But a popular negative position is that there was simply not enough water to cover the entire earth.

Since God never said it was global, that's not a problem, assuming you accept it as it is, without YE revisions.

 

[HarleyER]

I'm pointing out that the flood didn't need your extra unscriptural miracles. You need more confidence in God; He's a lot smarter than you seem to think.

You have to admit that 11 men willing to go to terrible deaths rather than deny their experience with a risen Christ, is pretty convincing. On the other hand, you put your faith in man's revision of God's word.

Were you there? Remember, these men, who willingly died for their faith, included one who had denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed. How was he changed to a willing martyr for God? Have some faith in God.

It is rather ironic that you're the one telling me to have some faith in God, while at the same time you deny the power of God to create the world in six days or cause a world wide flood. You tell me that I place my faith in "man's revision" of God's word, yet I have no idea what you are even talking about. What do you suggest, that I use your version? And what version tells me man evolved from slime or that only part of the earth was flooded?

Nice try but that duck doesn't fly.

ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι· καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου. (2 Tim 3:5)

 

[HarleyER]

Geology makes that clear. And you could add one more man-invented miracle; "Oh, but God changed it to make it work they way I want it to."
But it really doesn't help you, does it?


So now, you want another miracle to set aside thermodynamics. The amount of water in rain would be a tiny fraction of the water in the seas. And if it was heated to steam by the boiling seas, it would have cooked all life on Earth.

High up in the atmosphere, it's much hotter than it is on the surface.
The temperature of the thermosphere gradually increases with height and can rise as high as 1500 °C (2700 °F)

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Since God never said it was global, that's not a problem, assuming you accept it as it is, without YE revisions.

"Since God never said it was global..."

Let's see:

1) The water rose above the earth: Genesis 7:17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.​

​

2) The earth as it existed was destroyed: Genesis 9:11 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.”​

​

3) God destroyed every living thing on land: Genesis 9:15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh.​

​

4) All the people came out of the tribe on Shem, Ham, and Jepheth: Genesis 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.​

​

5) Peter (you know, the one who denied Christ three times and was one of the witnesses to the resurrection) states the entire world was flooded: 2 Peter 3:6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.​

​

Now I'm not sure how you are defining "global", but I would say all this is pretty global.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Since God never said it was global..."

Let's see:

1) The water rose above the earth: Genesis 7:17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.

The word the Bible used was "eretz" (land). And the Hebrew word for "world" was "tevel." If God had meant "whole world", He would have said so.

Now I'm not sure how you are defining "global", but I would say all this is pretty global.

And now you know why it's not.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is rather ironic that you're the one telling me to have some faith in God, while at the same time you deny the power of God to create the world in six days or cause a world wide flood.

No. Just because God could have done it your way, does not obligate Him to do so.

If you have faith in God, believe Him.

You tell me that I place my faith in "man's revision" of God's word, yet I have no idea what you are even talking about.

More to the point, you seem to have very little idea of what God is talking about.

And what version tells me man evolved from slime

God says that the Earth brought forth living things. You should believe him. Adam was like other animals in the sense that he was brought forth by the Earth, but then God gave him a living soul directly, that made all the difference. Why not just accept it as God tells you?

or that only part of the earth was flooded?

See above. God says land (eretz) was flooded,but He doesn't say the world (tevel) was flooded.

 

[HarleyER]

No. Just because God could have done it your way, does not obligate Him to do so.

If you have faith in God, believe Him.


More to the point, you seem to have very little idea of what God is talking about.

God says that the Earth brought forth living things. You should believe him. Adam was like other animals in the sense that he was brought forth by the Earth, but then God gave him a living soul directly, that made all the difference. Why not just accept it as God tells you?


See above. God says land (eretz) was flooded,but He doesn't say the world (tevel) was flooded.

You haven't stated what Bible you use. I'd be interested since you seem to quote from.

As far as "Adam was like other animals in the sense that he was brought forth by the Earth", this is nonsense according to scripture. He wasn't brought forth by the Earth. He was created by God:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.​

​

Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,​

​

1 Timothy 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.​

This is just a few.

"God says land (eretz) was flooded,"

Duh! If all the land was flooded, what's left that wasn't flooded? The oceans?

May I suggest you invest in a good Bible and an exhausted concordance.

 

[The Barbarian]

You haven't stated what Bible you use. I'd be interested since you seem to quote from.

KJV : Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

As far as "Adam was like other animals in the sense that he was brought forth by the Earth", this is nonsense according to scripture. He wasn't brought forth by the Earth.

What part of "of the dust of the ground" do you not understand?

He wasn't brought forth by the Earth. He was created by God:

So were all other living things. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

The word the Bible used for flooding was "eretz" (land). And the Hebrew word for "world" was "tevel." If God had meant "whole world", He would have said so.

If all the land was flooded,

"Eretz" can mean "my land", "hereabouts", "a given nation or region" or other things. But only "tevel" means "entire world." I get that this doesn't work for your new doctrines. But God is not required to comply with your expectations.

May I suggest you invest in a good Bible and an exhausted concordance.

Perhaps your "exhausted" concordance would have been less exhausted if it considered the meanings of Hebrew in these verses.

 

[Semper-Fi]

God gave him a living [soul] directly, that made all the difference.

You do know you are basing your doctrine on a
[wrong translation] from Hebrew to English here.

A wrong foundation makes the rest wrong.
Maybe You should consider the meanings of Hebrew in that verse.

 

[The Barbarian]

You do know you are basing your doctrine on a
[wrong translation] from Hebrew to English here.

Show us that. Perhaps you don't know what "nephesh" means. Show us your evidence that the Bible has it wrong.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Show us that. Perhaps you don't know what "nephesh" means. Show us your evidence that the Bible has it wrong.

I never said the bible had it wrong,
I said you are using a wrong translation into English.

The Hebrew Bibles definition of Soul ?
The Hebrew nephesh merely means a breathing animal.

Animals are called nephesh in: Genesis 1:20, “moving creature”
(Hebrew, nephesh); Genesis 1:21, “great whales, and every living
creature” (Hebrew, nephesh); Genesis 1:24, “living creature”.

The translators in translating into the English language used the
English word “creature [but in Genesis 2:7] they translated the
same nephesh into the English word “soul”.

A bad translation from Hebrew into English like I said.

The word nephesh literally means “life of animals,”
referring to physical life and not spirit.

“[T]he soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4).
Again : “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (verse 20).

Adam was a soul, and God said to him, in regard to the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, “ in the day that thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:17).

But Satan denied this, and Adam and Eve believed Satan.

 

[The Barbarian]

Show us that. Perhaps you don't know what "nephesh" means. Show us your evidence that the Bible has it wrong when it translates that as "soul."

The Hebrew Bibles definition of Soul ?
The Hebrew nephesh merely means a breathing animal.

The Hebrew word nephesh or nefesh (נפש, pronounced “neh-fesh”) in the Hebrew Bible generally translates to “soul”.
...
As we notice the other uses of nephesh, the picture becomes a little clearer. In the Bible, nephesh is also translated into English as: living being, life, creature, mind, desires, heart, appetite, persons.

What does that tell us? We get the sense that nephesh is the inner, living being of a man. And it speaks of the very essence of a person. This understanding comes into focus when we examine Deuteronomy 6:5, the first and chief commandment given to the children of Israel:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul (nephesh) and with all your might.

The New Testament reiterates this commandment:

Love the Lord your God with every passion of your heart, with all the energy of your being, and with every thought that is within you. (Matthew 23:27, TPT)

The Meaning of Nephesh: Hebrew Word that Grips the Soul

English Bibles translate nephesh to soul, living being, life, creature, heart and more. What does that tell us about this Hebrew word?

firmisrael.org

Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎ nép̄eš) is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible. The word refers to the aspects of sentience, and human beings and other animals are both described as being nephesh.[1][2] Bugs and plants, as examples of live organisms, are not referred in the Bible as being nephesh. The primary meaning of the term נפש‎ is 'the breath of life' instinct in the nostrils of all living beings, and by extension 'life', 'person' or 'very self'. There is no term in English corresponding to nephesh, and the (Christian) 'soul', which has quite different connotations is nonetheless customarily used to translate it. [3] One view is that nephesh relates to sentient being without the idea of life and that, rather than having a nephesh, a sentient creation of God is a nephesh. In Genesis 2:7, the text is not that Adam was given a nephesh but that Adam "became a living nephesh."

Nephesh - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org