The Flood!

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by mams1559

Joshua 10:11–13 reads:
"And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Beth-horon, that the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died...Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and He said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?2 So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

I'm curious as to how the Hebrews measured time.

Now, people say this can't happen. Others say it's not impossible for God who created everything to slow the rotation of the earth long enough to allow this to happen (one possible explanation). We may not know how God did it, but his Word says he did, and I believe it even if we don't understand the exact mechanisms used to accomplish it.

I think it's a safe assumption that stopping a planet in its tracks, without causing harm to life and without leaving behind any evidence, would require a miracle. I don't believe in miracles, but that doesn't mean they don't occur. The problem I have with supernatural "explanations" is that they can be used to explain anything.

And note the passage indicates the moon was stayed also. So this passage does not support geocentrism. It is an account from Joshua's perspective on the earth, just like we say "sunrise" or "sunset". If it was all about needing extra sunlight, and ancient scientitsts believed the sun moved not the earth, a ficticious account would only need to mention the sun stopped not the moon. Indicating both the sun and moon stopped indicates it is the earth that moves, not the sun (heliocentrism) and supports the authorship of God.

I'm not understanding your point. In a geocentric model, the moon and sun both revolve around the earth. Stopping both does nothing to support a heliocentric model. What would support a heliocentric model would be a verse that states the earth stopped, but that's not what it says.

[mams1559]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

I'm not understanding your point. In a geocentric model, the moon and sun both revolve around the earth. Stopping both does nothing to support a heliocentric model. What would support a heliocentric model would be a verse that states the earth stopped, but that's not what it says.

The verse says the sun and moon both stopped as was written from the person's view on the earth. It would be like you saying "that's a nice sunset". Well, the sun didn't actually set, the sun didn't move -- the earth did.

The verse says the sun and moon both stopped as was written from the person's view on the earth, which we know has to mean the earth stopped/slowed to allow this to happen. I was trying to show if it only said the sun stopped, it could be construed as geocentric, the sun moved/earth didn't, as believed by ancient scientists. But as it mentions both the sun and moon stopped, we know this to mean the earth would had to have been the object stopped/slowed, which supports a heliocentric model.

[swbtoo]

Originally Posted by Art R

You should go back and read from the start and then perhaps you will get it.

Sorry, I didn't know that red was "yelling", only all caps. Anyway, have a ncie life.[/quote]

That's *my* interpretation
Your gracious apology accepted. Thank you.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by mams1559

The verse says the sun and moon both stopped as was written from the person's view on the earth. It would be like you saying "that's a nice sunset". Well, the sun didn't actually set, the sun didn't move -- the earth did.

The verse says the sun and moon both stopped as was written from the person's view on the earth, which we know has to mean the earth stopped/slowed to allow this to happen. I was trying to show if it only said the sun stopped, it could be construed as geocentric, the sun moved/earth didn't, as believed by ancient scientists. But as it mentions both the sun and moon stopped, we know this to mean the earth would had to have been the object stopped/slowed, which supports a heliocentric model.

bold mine

Yes, now I see your point. As the verse does not state only the sun stopped, it is just conjecture, however.

We may know that heliocentrism is the correct model, but simply stating that both the sun and moon had stopped does not shed any light on what the author of the passage knew.

Additionally, we are discussing two unique systems. The moon does revolve around the earth, so we must account for that model in assessing what the author of scripture believed to be true.

[GCSTroop]

WOW look at this response I found on the great website of Answeringgenesis.org

Question: If mountain climbers need oxygen tanks to climb Mount Everest, how were Noah, his family, and the animals able to breathe on the Ark when they were above the mountains (‘ ... and the mountains were covered.’, Genesis 7:20)?

Answer: This question presupposes that Mount Everest was the height it is now (8,848 m = 29.028 feet), and that the air pressure would not have changed at that height above normal sea level with the addition of the flood water.

Mount Everest was not the height it is now during the Flood. Earth’s highest mountains have fossils of sea creatures at their tops, showing they were once under the sea. The possibilities are that the sea rose to cover the mountains, or the mountains were once under the sea and have since risen out of the sea, or a combination of the two.

Many creationist scientists think that mountains such as the Himalayas were probably built by catastrophic movement of the earth’s continental plates during and after the Flood (see Q&A: Plate Tectonics). Measurements indicate that the Himalayas are still rising). The rate of rise now measured is just the remnant of the processes that occurred much faster in the past.

Mountain building occurred as a part of the geologic processes that deepened the oceans to take the waters off the land towards the end of the Flood. Some mountains could have existed before the Flood, but none like the current Himalayas, Alps, or Andes in height. In any case, there is only enough water on all the earth to cover mountains about 3 kilometres (2 miles) high, if all the ocean basins were raised. So, if the waters were not 9 kilometres deep, but much less, the question is no longer an issue.

Even if the flood waters were 9 kilometres deep, would Noah and company have had trouble breathing?

Absolutely not. Air pressure is caused by the weight of air above the point where the pressure is being experienced. If the water was 9 kilometres deep, then the air that was in that 9 kilometres deep volume of what was atmosphere would have been pushed out and would then have sat above the water at 9 kilometers above the earth’s former surface.

However, if we assume the worst case scenario of the radius of the earth increasing by 9 kilometres due to the water, the surface area of the earth plus water would have been greater than the earth so that the weight of air would have been spread over a bigger area so that the pressure would have been less.

How much would the air pressure have been reduced? Less than 0.3%. This is equivalent to standing on top of a 30-meter (100-foot) high building at sea level! There would also have been a negligible effect on the pressure due to changes in the force of gravity (which affects the weight of the air).

It is certain, therefore, that those on the Ark would have had no trouble breathing—without oxygen tanks.


OK, I can answer this question using modern day technology. I am an aircraft mechanic and it just so happens that my specialty is in aircraft avionics. Part of aircraft avionics is altimeters. Both barometric and radar altimeters. So, why is this important? Well, let me explain how a barometric altimeter works. It's quite simple. You see, all you have to do is set your barometric inches of mercury based on the current weather. From the low end of the range to the high end of the range is about a shift of approx. 1000 ft. at the most. Now, the principles of how this work are that the higher you go the thinner the air. As you increase in altitude the air gets thinner. Inside the altimeter is an aneroid (very similar to an accordian). As air pressure is denser (lower to the ground) the aneroid is compressed further and the resulting mechanical action is as the aneroid is compressed it is attached to the needle which then drives downwards. As you go up the air pressure is less dense allowing the aneroid to expand and the needle to drive the opposite direction (upwards). Now, here's what the kicker is.... there need to be two types of altimeters on the airplane. The reason being is that if I only had one telling me my barometric altitude I could very well crash into a mountain. So, they put radar altimeters on airplanes. They basically bounce signals off the ground and the longer it takes to get back the higher they are and that is calculated and represented on an indicator display. Now, if I were flying at 36,000 ft. and going over Mt. Everest guess what my barometric altimeter would read??? Yep 36,000 ft. It has no ground sensing whatsoever. But, guess what my Radar Altimeter would read??? 10,000 ft. Because I am only 10,000 ft from the distance the Radar Altimeter waves have to travel to get to the surface of the earth that is my actual altitude. Does everyone understand this very simple principle of aircraft avionics? Any pilot or mechanic can verify EXACTLY what I told you. People fly thousands of airplanes every day so it obviously must work. The people at answeringgenesis.org are WRONG on this one and I'm afraid on many other things as well.