• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Seems that a global flood was real. Sorry Noah, you're simply not happening in this scene.

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
The article referenced it as magma oceans. Rest assured, they were quite hot at the time.
Right, so now have a look at what you wrote:

"The 'land' was still a sphere of molten magma thousands of miles deep. When water did start appearing on the surface it was a piping hot magma ocean and yep it would have certainly boiled Noah and his family alive like a lobster, but lucky for him no life forms had ever ever appeared much less any type of trees and animals. "

You didn't make it clear you were joking but made it look as if you thought the "flood" in the bible was supposed to be billions of years ago.

heh heh. Only trying to save you some grief on that.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
That was approx 3 billion years ago.

A new study suggests a primordial Earth still in the process of forming, clearly well prior to any life-forms first appearing. The 'land' was still a sphere of molten magma thousands of miles deep. When water did start appearing on the surface it was a piping hot magma ocean and yep it would have certainly boiled Noah and his family alive like a lobster, but lucky for him no life forms had ever ever appeared much less any type of trees and animals. ;0)

3 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests | Live Science

The Bible is still not a science book or even historically accurate on events for that matter.

Facepalm.

Do you know what biological memory is?

You see, before Noah, they had Utnapishtim in Mesopotamia. And in other countries all over the world, they all remembered when Earth was flooded. What you're talking about with magma and such was the Hadean period. But there wasn't as much water as steam then. The real flood of the Earth was during the Silurian period.

No, the Bible is not a science book. People have told you this before.

Do you actually know what a myth is? It's not "something that isn't true".

A myth is a way of encoding data in a story. The data is nor always "scientifically accurate" because " scientists " themselves are not always "scientifically accurate." Here's an example. Before the Big Bang theory, scientists used to believe ( in conflict with Genesis) that the universe always existed. Now they don't. So whether something is scientific or not is like a fashion trend. Who cares? A myth, or the other hand, tends to focus not on scientific accuracy, but rather in conveying other truths. For example, many of the myths of Coyote refer to specific animals being around. Guess what? These are constellations. You can pin down dates by these stories. Likewise, the story of Osiris (was it) being divided into pieces and then becoming whole matches the number of phases in the moon, with him becoming completely gone, and completely whole at the end. But while these talk about the natural world, that same story talks about the notion of resurrection.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
They didn't. The account from Genesis places life and land on the earth well before the flood.
...

Sorry, I was not speaking about the flood. Bible tells that before the flood and before there was dry land, the planet was covered by water.

Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Genesis 1:2

To him that stretched out the earth above the waters:"
Psalms 136:6

So, “science” is apparently catching up what Bible already knew.

Are you a disciple of Jesus?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sorry, I was not speaking about the flood. Bible tells that before the flood and before there was dry land, the planet was covered by water.

Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Genesis 1:2

To him that stretched out the earth above the waters:"
Psalms 136:6

So, “science” is apparently catching up what Bible already knew.

Are you a disciple of Jesus?
Actually the account is pretty incomplete.

The surface of the Earth was initially a massive hellish land of volcanic activity and magma to which the water was introduced afterwards that can only be described as a magma ocean.

When you see the verse where the Bible says he stretched out the land above the oceans, that strongly suggests people at that time thought the continents/land mass floated*.

The Bible is far far from catching up with science. That's why I say the Bible is not a science book because you can't use it to contest science.

A book of mythology sure.

A book of science or at least a book to contest the validity of the findings of science. A resounding nope.

* Like Guam floated from representative Hank Johnson's descriptive account that it could tip over.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
So the evidence says. When will you guys learn that science never "just says" anything.
Hmmmm, you guys? Was his primordial world scenario presented about the times of Noah?

Evidence leads to conclusions. Evidence is subject to interpretation.

I don't know if Noah and the flood was literal or figurative, the conclusions drawn are the same either way.

Modern science through it's history has interpreted evidence wrongly many times.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, “science” is apparently catching up what Bible already knew.
Not really as a literal rendering of the Creation accounts (1:1 & 2:4) simply do not add up to what the evidence suggest. However, taken as allegory, the Creation accounts become extremely valuable and important as they appear to be a refutation of the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian creation narrative that's polytheistic.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Actually the account is pretty incomplete.

The surface of the Earth was initially a massive hellish land of volcanic activity and magma to which the water was introduced afterwards that can only be described as a magma ocean.

Sorry, I think that is not physically/scientifically possible.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Hmmmm, you guys? Was his primordial world scenario presented about the times of Noah?

Evidence leads to conclusions. Evidence is subject to interpretation.

I don't know if Noah and the flood was literal or figurative, the conclusions drawn are the same either way.

Modern science through it's history has interpreted evidence wrongly many times.
The evidence for the primordial flood three billion years ago can't possibly be Noah's flood. Even a cursory reading of the post lets you know that.

There are limits to interpretation. Boundaries. There is no way science can accommodate the literal story of Noah's flood.
 
Top