The fountains from the deep

[PotLuck]

Woohoo!!
New Forums!!

In reference to the following verse...

|v11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
(OldT:Genesis 7:11)

So there were vast underground reserves of water before The Flood? So would that mean to say land above was supported by these great underground pools of water or could there have been great pillars under there in much the same manner there are "stumps" in coal mines?

/edit
Sorry. I'm originally from a coal mining area and know what a stump is.
When coal is mined not all the coal is taken. The miners leave some coal behind to hold up the roof and prevent cave-ins.

 

[LynneClomina]

i think its quite likely that the land that was over the reserves collapsed.......

 

[Micaiah]

I wonder if a lot of that water found its way back into the regions from which they came. There is still a lot of underground water for example in Australia.

 

[PotLuck]

i think its quite likely that the land that was over the reserves collapsed.......

That's exactly where I'm going with this. God created the earth. He could create it anyway that pleased him.

I wonder if a lot of that water found its way back into the regions from which they came. There is still a lot of underground water for example in Australia.

Absolutely. And why not? Water seeks it's own level.

Anyway,
Under the immediate landmass the underground structure could have been a honeycomb whose chambers were full of water. Huge amounts of water would have been needed not just from the heavens above but also from under the ground.
I tried to get another discussion going about the absence of rain before the Flood. If there was no rain then that could have meant there wasn't enough evaporation to form rain clouds since there may not have been enough surface water to allow it to happen.
There had to be enormous amounts of water above and below. The release could very well have formed the oceans we know today. If that's the case then I'm thinking we're looking at a global flood and not a local one to get enough water to fill the oceans.

 

[Crayman]

Gen 1:2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water. [GNB]


Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters. [MKJV]







There seems to be a precedent for the presence of oceans, so I have taken that view as a given when looking at the question posted...



(MKJV) In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of the heavens were opened up.



From a scientific point of view there seems to be two sources of water alluded to in this verse. The first is the 'fountains of the great deep' the second is the 'windows of the heavens'. The second is fairly self explanatory, but the first is rather interesting. There are a couple of geological or climatological phenomena that could either explain or contribute to the release of a massive amount of water over a relatively short time.



Now from the rest of the Noah story we know that the water covered the whole earth, that means the oceans, through either a massive addition of freshwater or the massive rise of the oceans. Now the water we would have to assume would have come through either rainfall, subterranean sources (aquifers [underground lakes] artesian bores [wells that tap spongy rocks that store water] or underground rivers] or the break up of the polar ice caps. There is more than enough water in the polar ice caps to create the kind of conditions described in the Book of Genesis. The Hebrew word used for 'broken up' (baw-kah) means 'to cleave; generally to rend, break, rip or open' all generally violent words that could easily apply to the break up of an ice cap [yes I admit it, I am a fan of the ice cap theory] and the word for fountain

'mah-yawn' means a spring, a fountain, figuratively a source. (admittedly it could equally apply to some sort of expulsion of water from an underground source, but the idea of the continents floating on water has a number of large problems with it, as does the concept of numerous continent wide underground aquifers).



Now the second part of the verse is also interesting 'the windows of the heavens were opened up' this as we know refers to massive torrential rain over a large area. Now when we consider what is required for the polar ice caps to melt and worldwide rain storms, there comes the possibility of massive a global volcanic action (either a single massive volcanic eruption or a result of a major shift in the tectonic plates) or the possibility of a meteor impact. Both are plausible and would produce enough particulate matter to result in the trapping of solar radiation (rising the world temperature enough to melt the ice caps) and provide the nuclei in the atmosphere to cause world wide rainfalls (small fine particles allow water to condense on their surface in the upper atmosphere, resulting in rainfall). Now we all know about the idea of the dinosaurs dying as a result of a volcano/meteor impact, and I am suggesting something along similar lines. The main difference and the final hurdle is the timeline. Forty days and nights of rain and 150 days of subsidence (200days approx 2/3 of a year) is short a period for this event to occur if we go with the geological answer. (This is of course if one ignores the fact that a Creator of the universe would be unlikely to have difficulty in just turning the tap on and off - but God usually seems operate within the physical boundaries of His creation) so it is up to us to search for the truth that He wishes to reveal.



Well its late on this side of the planet, so I'll wrap it up for now, if anyone has anything further to add, I'll look forward to your comments. I'll end with this, in my opinion while debating these sort of questions is a lot of fun and very interesting - we must always remember not to lose sight of the real message of these texts, God extends His grace towards us in that He no longer punishes the whole of creation for our miss-deeds. And He loves us His creations.



Well Goodnight

Crayman

 

[PotLuck]

Excellent post!
Well, that certainly gives me something to think about and that could very well be the motivation for posting the topic.

For now I'll simply say I don't think landmasses were floating on water either. In mentioning that I was looking for another means of having huge amounts of underground water. The next part of that thought as I'd suggested was huge pillars holding up the roofs of underground chambers.

I'll be thinking about the polar cap idea too. I've found that sometimes two views may be correct in that the two may have occured at the same time?

Good post

 

[PotLuck]

Ok, I'm thinking about the subject of polar cap ice melting in regard to Crayman's post.

To melt ice a sudden explosion won't do it. All that will happen is pieces of ice will be thrown everywhere. What would be needed is a period of constant application of heat. A meteor or comet doesn't fit the bill.
Ever try to melt an icecube even with a Burnz-o-matic torch? It takes quite a while even in view of the flame's heat. Even when using an acetylene torch it takes time. And placing a large firecracker into a block of ice won't melt it.
The amount of melted ice needed to intitate a sudden Great Flood is tremendous. Even a gargantuous solar flare may not melt enough ice to cause a flood so quickly. Besides, it'd burn up much of the earth anyway and fire was never mentioned.

/edit
I also don't think the polar ice caps existed back then anyway. May not have been enough water. It is shown that the caps are layered by snowfall.

 

[PotLuck]

Man, I need to slow down a little but I have an interesting story/experience to tell.

A while back I worked with a company that installed gas sensing systems in coal mines. The most common coal mine left huge pillars of coal 75' x 75' to hold up the roof. The coal was mined between these "stumps", creating a gridwork of tunnels about 15' across and ranging from 8 to 10 feet high. The coal that was mined was probably less than a third of what was there.
The Monterey mine in Illonois, operated by Exxon, used this technique of mining along with another method called "continuous mining". This system required that the land above is flat not like the mines in West Virginia that followed the seams of coal through the folds and contours of the mountainous regions in that part of the state. What they did was mined entire panels of coal 10,000 feet long and 7500 feet wide.

The equipment was brought in after mining in the normal fashion around the border of the proposed panel of coal to be mined. On a chart it looked like a large box with a border around it. The equipment was setup at the far end of the box. Huge clamshell rams each 3 feet wide were used to hold up the roof and were placed side by side for the width of the cut, one long row of rams standing together. From the side these rams looked like a large capital "C" whose height was varied by two 10" hydraulic cylinders. The coal was mined from in front of the rams the entire width of 7500 feet then every other ram was released, collaped, moved forward, again by hydraulics, then expanded again to hold up the roof while the other rams did the same thing. Once all was in place the mining continued. This was really a sight to see. The roof behind these rams collapsed, falling as much as 10 feet. I left footprints where no man will ever walk again.

But there was a problem. The mine had to buy the surface ground which was farmland. In that particular area the main crop was corn. When the coal was extracted 300 feet down the cave-in caused the the corn to slant at as much as 45 degrees or more. It was an odd thing to see to say the least. The ground fell in much like the crust of a pie whose filling had been removed. And there were patterns like snaking rows where the corn grew funny.
Years later I moved to Salt Lake City. During that time I needed to book a round trip flight. At 35,000 feet above the Rockies I looked down and I thought, "I've seen this somewhere before." Minus the corn. I just stared at the scene below. There was a mini-landscape in Illinois that looked just like the landscape I was seeing.
Also at that mini-landscape in Illinios there were also large areas that didn't cave-in right away as the coal was removed causing areas of flat ground surrounded by the shattered landscape.

Now, back to the plane..
On the return trip I got a view of the Rockies and the Salt Lake valley together. Again there was a mini-landscape like the one back in Illinios though this one was on a much grander scale of course. The Salt Lake Valley is a flat expanse of land with the Rockies on one side and the Oquirrh (pronounced "oaker") mountains on the other.
Living here in Salt Lake I can see from my backyard huge slabs of rock that make up as much as half of a mountain almost standing on end. From this viewpoint it looks very much like there was an enormous cave-in deep under those slabs.

Could it be?

Also looking at the Appalachian mountains in Pennsylvania and Virginia I see folds and not the sudden breaks as seen in the Rockies. The Rockies are of a much harder rock, mostly granite whereas the Appalachians are mostly of a much softer rock like sandstone, limestone or rock formed from clays. Removing water from under a softer rock would produce "waves" like that of the surface of hot pudding when the underneath is removed. Yeah, I played with my pudding as a kid to enjoy every bit of fun it had to offer. Especially chocolate. <drools>

 

[PotLuck]

Here are a couple pics I took just moments ago...

http://home.comcast.net/~beloveds/Pics/slab1.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~beloveds/Pics/slab2.jpg

 

[PotLuck]

The two forms of mining I'm talking about...

http://earthsci.org/energy/coal/ugmine.gif
http://earthsci.org/energy/coal/lwmine.gif
From:
http://earthsci.org/energy/coal/coal.htm

 

[Crayman]

Back Again everyone.

A point to clear up about the ice cap idea. The meteor would not need to melt the Antarctic ice cap, it would only need to result in its break up and displacement into the oceans - the ice over Antarctica is kilometers thick in places, which equates to an awful lot of ice suddenly being added to the ocean - more that enough to raise the world-wide ocean level by several meters if I remember correctly. In fact that is precisely what scientists are worried about with Global Warming, if the ambient world wide temperatures rise by too much then the ice shelf over Antarctica will detach and move into the oceans, and then most of the worlds population will need to invest in house boats.

And a point on Potluck's sloping rock strata around Salt Lake city. Not being a US resident I can't say this with any authority as I havent studied US geology (but it would be easy to check with your local library or university's geological maps and survey data which would tell you for sure) but usually when you see this type of rock formation it is the result of deformation (the compressing or breaking up of rock deposits after they originally form by the shifting [moving up or down when newer rock is extruded from the mantle] or collision of the continents - the problem causing all the earthquakes in California on the San Andreas fault line).

All I can add is that if the surrounding landscape had been formed by compaction when underground aquifers collapsed, there would be some evidence in the geological history record that would have been documented by now - consider how much time and money is devoted exclusively to geological surveys each year world wide by both private companies, governments and universities. If something that big had happened there would have to have been traces left. (This is the downside to being a scientist and a Christian - you are always looking for empirical evidence, which can be fun, but is often frustrating).



Cheers
Crayman

 

[PotLuck]

Yes, I can see now the point of a break up of the ice and the resulting displacement of water. And that is certainly something to think about.



But God says from the deep...
And fountains. Not huge waves like tsunamis.

|v11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
(OldT:Genesis 7:11)

|v2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
(OldT:Genesis 8:2)

So I'm looking to support the scripture.

As far as "sloping rock strata around Salt Lake city"...

The problem is that all documents will reflect an evolutionist's view in it's presentation and what data has been collected. Even in your post there's an underlying willingness to accept long term geological explanations. The view is so deeply embedded that it's accepted as a fact...
But is there another way to view it? If all the scientific resources used to prove an evolving earth over vast amounts of time were pointed instead to presenting another theory could those resources also collect and present the data necessary to point toward that other viewpoint? I think it could very well do so. Unfortunately the goal of most science is not to prove the bible but to prove an evolving earth without God's presence. The secular presentation of data or even what data is collected is pointed toward a godless formation of earth.
If I set out to prove an idea I will collect and present the data to support that idea, not to dispell it.

Is there another explanation? Is there other data missed solely because it wasn't being sought for? With the same effort and money can I prove the bible?

Maybe we're looking in the wrong direction. It's been known to happen.

 

[Null-Geodesic]

The problem is that all documents will reflect an evolutionist's view in it's presentation and what data has been collected. Even in your post there's an underlying willingness to accept long term geological explanations. The view is so deeply embedded that it's accepted as a fact...
But is there another way to view it? If all the scientific resources used to prove an evolving earth over vast amounts of time were pointed instead to presenting another theory could those resources also collect and present the data necessary to point toward that other viewpoint? I think it could very well do so. Unfortunately the goal of most science is not to prove the bible but to prove an evolving earth without God's presence. The secular presentation of data or even what data is collected is pointed toward a godless formation of earth.
If I set out to prove an idea I will collect and present the data to support that idea, not to dispell it.

Is there another explanation? Is there other data missed solely because it wasn't being sought for? With the same effort and money can I prove the bible?

Conspiracist!

 

[Crayman]

You are quite right, I do subscribe to a theistic evolution school of thought, but its kind of goes with the territory with me, I am a freshwater ecologist by trade, so much of what I do on a daily basis has to accept the evidence that points to long term ecological processes driving the changes that I map out. This however doesn't preclude the guiding hand of a creator - the more I studied science the more conviced I was that there was Gods hand in every facet of it, however I cant ignore empirical evidence which indicates the animals I am studying have slowly changed over thousands upon thousands of years.
Please don't subscribe to the view the science is trying to prove the bible wrong - while there are many scientist who do deride Christianity, the are equally many of us who see the hand of the Creaator in all we study - the only thing we really differ on is our interpretation of Genesis. Personally I believe that the first chapter of Genesis doesn't refer to a specific day/night timeline but rather tries to point out to us that the creation process was ordered and sequential in nature and totally ordained and controlled by God.
Cheers
Crayman

 

[Crayman]

With respect to the same amount of effort being used to 'prove the Bible right' there is web site you might like to check out. It is called the Institute for Creation Research (just put 'icr.org' in to google and you'll find it) have a look it might be what you are after. I personally don’t agree with everything they have come up with, but it does make interesting reading.

Hope that helps

Cheers

Crayman

 

[PotLuck]

Yes, thank you. I know of ICR.
And I certainly don't dispell movement of earth crust as producing earthquakes and such. But I just don't see any mountains coming out of my backyard at the moment.

Look fellas, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool creationist. I believe Genesis to be a matter of history and not myth. I'm not a geologist nor do I subscribe to a thought or idea that the earth is thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years old. If I look at things differently or don't believe the conclusions drawn, opinions presented or accept the new and improved views of the world then it simply testifies to my freedom of thought. There is always another way to look at things, to come to a decision based on what is presented and not how it's packaged.

They used to burn people at the stake and you can bet I'm darn glad they quit doing that.

Defending the historical view of the bible isn't easy. I believe it's an historical record. Period.

 

[Crayman]

Me too!! I'm the kind of person they used to burn - Always asking too many questions.

Crayman

 

[PotLuck]

LOL!
Cool.
Wanna help me look for a little underground water?

 

[Crayman]

Sure I'll check out some geological texts and I'll get back to you in a day or two.

Cheers
Crayman