Noah's Flood- Where Did The Water Come From?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp

What are the “fountains of the great deep?” This phrase is used only in Genesis 7:11. “Fountains of the deep” is used in Genesis 8:2, where it clearly refers to the same thing, and Proverbs 8:28, where the precise meaning is not clear. “The great deep” is used three other times: Isaiah 51:10, where it clearly refers to the ocean; Amos 7:4, where God’s fire of judgement is said to dry up the great deep, probably the oceans; and Psalm 36:6 where it is used metaphorically of the depth of God’s justice/judgement. “The deep” is used more often, and usually refers to the oceans (e.g., Genesis 1:2; Job 38:30, 41:32; Psalm 42:7, 104:6; Isaiah 51:10, 63:13; Ezekiel 26:19; Jonah 2:3), but sometimes to subterranean sources of water (Ezekiel 31:4, 15). The Hebrew word (mayan) translated “fountains” means “fountain, spring, well.”1
Fountains of the deep scene taken from "The World That Perished"

So, the “fountains of the great deep” are probably oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water. In the context of the flood account, it could mean both.

If the fountains of the great deep were the major source of the waters, then they must have been a huge source of water. Some have suggested that when God made the dry land appear from under the waters on the third day of creation, some of the water that covered the earth became trapped underneath and within the dry land.2

Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the flood began, there was a “breaking up” of the fountains, which implies a release of the water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. The waters that had been held back burst forth with catastrophic consequences

Well, now...Check This Out:

I'm not even sure, in the truest sense of the word, that this is fathomable:

​‘Underground oceans’ potentially have 3 times more water than surface - study

Read that again real slow and let it sink in.  Three time the water of all the world's oceans combined may be under the Earth's mantle.

rt.com/news/165756-underground-ocean-discovered-water/

A scientific study has revealed an enormous reservoir with three times the volume of all the oceans combined in Earth’s mantle. The discovery could shed light on the origin of the planet’s oceans and seas.

Scientists have long pondered where Earth’s seas and oceans originated. Some geologists believe water was brought here on the back of comets that struck the planet millions of years ago, but this new discovery gives credence to an altogether different theory.

"It's good evidence the Earth's water came from within," Steven Jacobsen of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, who co-authored the study in Science journal, told the New Scientist. “I think we are finally seeing evidence for a whole-Earth water cycle, which may help explain the vast amount of liquid water on the surface of our habitable planet.”

The research appears to back up the idea that Earth’s oceans gradually oozed out from the planet’s interior.

“We should be grateful for this deep reservoir,” said Jacobsen. “If it wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out.”

The study revealed the water itself is actually hidden away 700km under the surface in a rock known as ringwoodite. The substance lies in the mantle – a layer of hot rock that separates the Earth’s surface from its core.

Jacobson suggests that this layer might act like a buffer for the world’s oceans and may explain why they have stayed the same size for millions of years.

To find Earth’s inner ocean, Jacobson and his team used 2,000 seismometers to measure the seismic waves produced by over 500 earthquakes.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Nice one, Paul. Further evidence that God is being revealed through science.

Jesus said, "Learn the meaning of the creation which surrounds you, and you will perceive the mysteries hidden from your sight, for Eternal Truth is recorded on all that exists. I tell you the truth when I say that there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed to the person who can read the creation of the Elohim."

[truthbound]

If the story is true, it was a local event. The water would have come from the same sources that any other flood comes from.

[Virgil Showlion]

I read a story closely related to this back in March.

Rare Diamond Reveals Earth's Interior is All Wet

The Fountains of the Deep uncovered.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 14, 2014 0:18:05 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Nice one, Paul. Further evidence that God is being revealed through science.

Jesus said, "Learn the meaning of the creation which surrounds you, and you will perceive the mysteries hidden from your sight, for Eternal Truth is recorded on all that exists. I tell you the truth when I say that there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed to the person who can read the creation of the Eloheim."

Where is it recorded that Jesus said that, Ham?

It's not familiar to me and I can't find any references to the quote online.

Also, "Elohim" is spelled incorrectly.

As Christians we should be extremely careful about our testimonies on what Christ did and didn't say.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 14, 2014 3:42:34 GMT -5 truthbound said:

If the story is true, it was a local event. The water would have come from the same sources that any other flood comes from.

I guess you missed the part about "three times the volume of all the Earth's oceans combined".  This helps support the Biblical account of a world-wide flood, and perfectly explains seabed fossils in mountain ranges.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

“We should be grateful for this deep reservoir,” said Jacobsen. “If it wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out.”

(from the article referenced in the OP)

[billisonboard]

Didn't it come from forty days and nights of rain? 

[Tennesseer]

How did the koalas of Australia get to where ever the heck Noah built his ark?  Quantas has only been flying international since 1935.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 14, 2014 7:48:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 14, 2014 3:42:34 GMT -5 truthbound said:

If the story is true, it was a local event. The water would have come from the same sources that any other flood comes from.

I guess you missed the part about "three times the volume of all the Earth's oceans combined".  This helps support the Biblical account of a world-wide flood, and perfectly explains seabed fossils in mountain ranges.

Are you suggesting tectonic plate movement had nothing to do with the creation of earth's mountain ranges?  That the mountains of today are as high as they were in Noah's alleged time, and earth's internal reservoir rose up to and over the highest mountain tops on earth and dumped what are today sea fossils on top of them?

[Virgil Showlion]

Didn't it come from forty days and nights of rain?

That occurred during the Deluge, but the Bible also speaks of God opening up "the fountains of the deep" (see the scriptures mentioned in the OP).

It would be an interesting exercise to see whether the latter would induce the former. As in: if the sea levels rose dramatically, would the natural water cycle shift so that rain was constantly falling from the sky?

Jun 14, 2014 8:07:45 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

How did the koalas of Australia get to where ever the heck Noah built his ark?  Quantas has only been flying international since 1935.

That's why science is exciting. If we had all the answers as to how, we'd have no reason to keep looking. One of man's noblest pursuits--the quest for knowledge--would be lost to us.

I personally believe that's one of the reasons the Bible gives us only the barest details of certain events--including the Deluge.

Jun 14, 2014 8:27:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jun 14, 2014 7:48:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I guess you missed the part about "three times the volume of all the Earth's oceans combined".  This helps support the Biblical account of a world-wide flood, and perfectly explains seabed fossils in mountain ranges.

Are you suggesting tectonic plate movement had nothing to do with the creation of earth's mountain ranges?  That the mountains of today are as high as they were in Noah's alleged time, and earth's internal reservoir rose up to and over the highest mountain tops on earth and dumped what are today sea fossils on top of them?

I believe he's suggesting the latter.

[sesfw]

That's why science is exciting. If we had all the answers as to how, we'd have no reason to keep looking. One of man's noblest pursuits--the quest for knowledge--would be lost to us.

I personally believe that's one of the reasons the Bible gives us only the barest details of certain events--including the Deluge.

I read about to oceans in the deep just a day or two ago.  Interesting read.  And I love reading about the finds in the Middle East. .......... So much we don't know.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jun 14, 2014 5:15:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 14, 2014 0:18:05 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Nice one, Paul. Further evidence that God is being revealed through science.

Where is it recorded that Jesus said that, Ham?

It's not familiar to me and I can't find any references to the quote online.

Also, "Elohim" is spelled incorrectly.

As Christians we should be extremely careful about our testimonies on what Christ did and didn't say.

It would be an expansion of the saying from the Gospel of Thomas... "Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.

For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised.]"

By searching the quote above I came across, this, this, and this..

I missed the spelling error, thanks. I think the biggest thing Christians are missing from their faith is something similar to the Talmud. Also, since Christians took it upon themselves to rearrange the Hebrew bible I'm not to worried about interpretations outside the canonized Christian bible. After all, Noha is from the Hebrw bible which I see as more of a historical and scientific text, as opposed to a religious one. Like you said Virg, it's all about the quest of knowledge.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 14, 2014 10:26:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Didn't it come from forty days and nights of rain?

That occurred during the Deluge, but the Bible also speaks of God opening up "the fountains of the deep" (see the scriptures mentioned in the OP).

It would be an interesting exercise to see whether the latter would induce the former. As in: if the sea levels rose dramatically, would the natural water cycle shift so that rain was constantly falling from the sky?

Jun 14, 2014 8:07:45 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

How did the koalas of Australia get to where ever the heck Noah built his ark?  Quantas has only been flying international since 1935.

That's why science is exciting. If we had all the answers as to how, we'd have no reason to keep looking. One of man's noblest pursuits--the quest for knowledge--would be lost to us.

I personally believe that's one of the reasons the Bible gives us only the barest details of certain events--including the Deluge.

Jun 14, 2014 8:27:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Are you suggesting tectonic plate movement had nothing to do with the creation of earth's mountain ranges?  That the mountains of today are as high as they were in Noah's alleged time, and earth's internal reservoir rose up to and over the highest mountain tops on earth and dumped what are today sea fossils on top of them?

I believe he's suggesting the latter.

Until Noah, it had never rained.  The Bible speaks of God opening up the "windows of Heaven" and the "fountains of the deep".  I believe that until the flood, there was likely one continent-- I do believe in the plates, and continental drift.  I think science helps explain and establish the Bible.  Historians, archaeologists, and others in the scientific realms recognize the Bible for what it is: the most accurate historical book ever composed- this in spite of the fact that numerous authors wrote 66 books over a period of 5,000 years.  And yet, it all fits together quite well.  

The likelihood of the prophecies involving the town of the birth of Jesus, His manner of death, and the fact that no bones would be broken-- those three prophecies alone-- to be accurate, would be like filling the entire State of Texas to a depth of 12 feet with Silver dollars, marking three of them with an "X" and having you pull all three of them out 1, 2, 3 in a row.  

[Tennesseer]

AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP wrote:  Until Noah, it had never rained.

Never in the whole entire world?  Do you have any non-religious/biblical scientific sources which claims no rain fell on the earth from the beginning of time up to the time of Noah and the great flood?

paul also said:

I believe that until the flood, there was likely one continent--...

When exactly did this flood occur and when did the continents start drifting?  Please provide some type of year it began please.

[truthbound]

Jun 14, 2014 7:48:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 14, 2014 3:42:34 GMT -5 truthbound said:

If the story is true, it was a local event. The water would have come from the same sources that any other flood comes from.

I guess you missed the part about "three times the volume of all the Earth's oceans combined".  This helps support the Biblical account of a world-wide flood, and perfectly explains seabed fossils in mountain ranges.

I didn't miss anything including the fact that the inner ocean theory is a theory. No one has actually found anything nor will they since they can't drill that deep. In any case it doesn't support anything as there is no way Noah in his little boat (that could not have held all the animals on Earth) could have known how far the flood extended.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 15, 2014 4:06:40 GMT -5 truthbound said:

Jun 14, 2014 7:48:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I guess you missed the part about "three times the volume of all the Earth's oceans combined".  This helps support the Biblical account of a world-wide flood, and perfectly explains seabed fossils in mountain ranges.

I didn't miss anything including the fact that the inner ocean theory is a theory.No has actually found anything nor will they since they can't drill that deep. In any case it doesn't support anything as there is no way Noah in his little boat (that could not have held all the animals on Earth) could have known how far the flood extended.

Check the article in my first reply. It talks about physical evidence supporting the theory.

As for the ark, there's a good many fascinating theories that purport to explain how it was accomplished. If you take a stock approach of considering every mating pair of animals to be what is called a "species" in modern biological taxonomy, the ark wouldn't have sufficed to hold them all. But beyond commonly acknowledging this truth, the theories are highly variegated.

Looking them up and assessing them is for each of us to do in our own time.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

The diamond article is a good read Virg. I have read a few others over the last few days that describe this layer as a sponge, so to speak. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. It is essentially a "cooling" layer, without it the crust of the Earth would melt. It would also act as a kind of "cushion" for the shifting of the tectonic plates.

[Tennesseer]

AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

"Historians, archaeologists, and others in the scientific realms recognize the Bible for what it is: the most accurate historical book ever composed-..."

 Virgil Showlion said: 

"That's why science is exciting. If we had all the answers as to how, we'd have no reason to keep looking. One of man's noblest pursuits--the quest for knowledge--would be lost to us.

"I personally believe that's one of the reasons the Bible gives us only the barest details of certain events--including the Deluge."

So which is it?  The bible is the most accurate historical book ever composed or the bible give us only the barest details of certain events so that scientists can while away future hours trying to determine if the biblical Deluge is fact or lore?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 15, 2014 15:52:59 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Historians, archaeologists, and others in the scientific realms recognize the Bible for what it is: the most accurate historical book ever composed-...

 Virgil Showlion said: 

That's why science is exciting. If we had all the answers as to how, we'd have no reason to keep looking. One of man's noblest pursuits--the quest for knowledge--would be lost to us.

I personally believe that's one of the reasons the Bible gives us only the barest details of certain events--including the Deluge.

So which is it?  The bible is the most accurate historical book ever composed or the bible give us only the barest details of certain events so that scientists can while away future hours trying to determine if the biblical Deluge is fact or lore?

Both.

The Bible provides a historical record as it pertains to humanity. Genesis covers the Patriarchs from Adam through Abraham very sparsely, then focuses on Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve tribes of Israel in more detail. The Books of Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Judges, Kings, and Chronicles cover certain events in great detail but often absorb periods of tens or hundreds of years into a single verse. The various prophetic books typically concentrate on time periods on the scale of decades.

New Testament history focuses on Christ's ministry and the New Covenant church. It describes events spread over 3/4 of a century, making it the most concentrated contiguous account of events. Numerous books, primarily Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hezekiah, and The Book of Revelation, speak of "the End of the Age"--meaning the time immediately preceding the return of Jesus Christ to the Earth--which is yet to occur (or is starting to occur, judging by the rate at which world events are moving). The four Gospels also talk about the End of the Age. The End of the Age is also called "the latter days" in numerous places.

Hence even from the time of the Patriarch, the Bible leaves a great deal of history to be uncovered. It's not intended to be an omnibus record of all history for all time. That's not its purpose.

Having said that, critics of the Bible have risen up since time immemorial and entire movements have built up around discrediting it. The ancient cities the Bible describes didn't exist and couldn't possibly exist. The cultures and peoples it describes didn't exist. Such and such rulers and kingdoms didn't exist. Conquests didn't happen in the way the Bible describes. Specific events couldn't have happened the way the Bible describes. Et cetera, et cetera, with particularly large pushes by scholars in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. What Paul is saying is that archaeology, history, and anthropology inevitably "catch up" to reality. Critics are forced to abandon their criticism (or in many cases not abandon it, but lose the ability to persuade anybody they know what they're talking about).

Since science is ideally the pursuit of truth, as long as it isn't deeply corrupted by politics, Christians should understand that it will eventually (not quickly, but eventually) confirm all of the historical details the Bible has already given us. A significant caveat is that Christians know precisely what the Bible does and doesn't say. Unfortunately not many do.

Scripture doesn't include instructions on how to send a man to the moon or build a femtosecond pulse laser. It doesn't tell us how to compose a hit song or grow the perfect garden or brew the perfect whiskey. And we should thank God for this because if we already knew everything, what possible good would man's intellectual and artistic pursuits be?

[Tennesseer]

Jun 15, 2014 16:34:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 15, 2014 15:52:59 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Historians, archaeologists, and others in the scientific realms recognize the Bible for what it is: the most accurate historical book ever composed-...

 Virgil Showlion said: 

That's why science is exciting. If we had all the answers as to how, we'd have no reason to keep looking. One of man's noblest pursuits--the quest for knowledge--would be lost to us.

I personally believe that's one of the reasons the Bible gives us only the barest details of certain events--including the Deluge.

So which is it?  The bible is the most accurate historical book ever composed or the bible give us only the barest details of certain events so that scientists can while away future hours trying to determine if the biblical Deluge is fact or lore?

Hence even from the time of the Patriarch, the Bible leaves a great deal of history to be uncovered. It's not intended to be an omnibus record of all history for all time. That's not its purpose.

Paul seems to say otherwise which is why I asked.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 15, 2014 16:38:46 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jun 15, 2014 16:34:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Hence even from the time of the Patriarch, the Bible leaves a great deal of history to be uncovered. It's not intended to be an omnibus record of all history for all time. That's not its purpose.

Paul seems to say otherwise which is why I asked.

I'll let him explain himself, then. You have my best speculation as to what he meant.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 15, 2014 16:39:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 15, 2014 16:38:46 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Paul seems to say otherwise which is why I asked.

I'll let him explain himself, then. You have my best speculation as to what he meant.

You are good friend to Paul.  You do that rather often for him.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 15, 2014 16:41:42 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jun 15, 2014 16:39:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'll let him explain himself, then. You have my best speculation as to what he meant.

You are good friend to Paul.  You do that rather often for him.

I'd criticize him more if there wasn't always a lineup.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 15, 2014 16:48:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 15, 2014 16:41:42 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You are good friend to Paul.  You do that rather often for him.

I'd criticize him more if there wasn't always a lineup.

Maybe ìf he heard criticism from someone who (I believe) he respects, paul would be more careful with his 'facts' and commentary.

[truthbound]

Jun 15, 2014 5:55:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 15, 2014 4:06:40 GMT -5 truthbound said:

I didn't miss anything including the fact that the inner ocean theory is a theory.No has actually found anything nor will they since they can't drill that deep. In any case it doesn't support anything as there is no way Noah in his little boat (that could not have held all the animals on Earth) could have known how far the flood extended.

Check the article in my first reply. It talks about physical evidence supporting the theory.

As for the ark, there's a good many fascinating theories that purport to explain how it was accomplished. If you take a stock approach of considering every mating pair of animals to be what is called a "species" in modern biological taxonomy, the ark wouldn't have sufficed to hold them all. But beyond commonly acknowledging this truth, the theories are highly variegated.

Looking them up and assessing them is for each of us to do in our own time.

As I said evidence supporting a theory is not evidence. Until someone actually finds one of these oceans it will be just that, a theory. Claiming that as fact is as silly a saying some guy in the middle east could have been loading Beavers from North America onto his boat when he did not know North America existed.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 16, 2014 3:59:14 GMT -5 truthbound said:

Jun 15, 2014 5:55:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Check the article in my first reply. It talks about physical evidence supporting the theory.

As for the ark, there's a good many fascinating theories that purport to explain how it was accomplished. If you take a stock approach of considering every mating pair of animals to be what is called a "species" in modern biological taxonomy, the ark wouldn't have sufficed to hold them all. But beyond commonly acknowledging this truth, the theories are highly variegated.

Looking them up and assessing them is for each of us to do in our own time.

As I said evidence supporting a theory is not evidence. Until someone actually finds one of these oceans it will be just that, a theory. Claiming that as fact is as silly a saying some guy in the middle east could have been loading Beavers from North America onto his boat when he did not know North America existed.

Beavers are found all throughout Europe and Asia.

The few places they aren't found is where they've been hunted to death.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 16, 2014 6:55:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 16, 2014 3:59:14 GMT -5 truthbound said:

As I said evidence supporting a theory is not evidence. Until someone actually finds one of these oceans it will be just that, a theory. Claiming that as fact is as silly a saying some guy in the middle east could have been loading Beavers from North America onto his boat when he did not know North America existed.

Beavers are found all throughout Europe and Asia.

The few places they aren't found is where they've been hunted to death.

Do you have proof beavers were once indigenous to Saudi Arabia and hunted to death Paul Virgil?

[Tennesseer]

As we are now discussing beavers, here is an interesting religion and the beaver factoid:

"In the 17th century, based on a question raised by the Bishop of Quebec, the Roman Catholic Church ruled that the beaver was a fish (beaver flesh was a part of the indigenous peoples' diet, prior to the Europeans' arrival for purposes of dietary law. Therefore, the general prohibition on the consumption of meat on Fridays during Lent did not apply to beaver meat. The legal basis for the decision probably rests with the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, which bases animal classification as much on habit as anatomy. This is similar to the Church's classification of the capybara, another semi-aquatic rodent."

Beaver

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 16, 2014 8:49:19 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jun 16, 2014 6:55:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Beavers are found all throughout Europe and Asia.

The few places they aren't found is where they've been hunted to death.

Do you have proof beavers were once indigenous to Saudi Arabia and hunted to death Paul Virgil?

It would be Mesopotamia, and as it turns out, I do.

I probably discovered the fact watching a documentary. I enjoy watching nature documentaries and I watch a lot of them.