In an earlier post, Restin mentioned some books which have been written about the flood, to which I responded:

"The Adventist Book Center has several very good books concerning the Noachan flood, from the SDA standpoint. And they are surprisingly scientific and well researched, amply able to stand up to evolutionary theories."

The books I have read about the flood point out that the flood began by water exploding from the depths of the ocean and rising to the atmosphere. A theory is that something like tectanic plate opened up and water went gushing up from the ocean to the atmosphere, which came back down to the earth as rain. Has anyone read something like this? (end of Restin's post and my response)

The books I have read about the flood, agree with EGW's description. It appears that God used natural means to cause the flood; He made use of water which was beneath the earth's crust the whole time, water He was aware of, but man wasn't.

Sin is far more destructive then most people recognize. Just look at the moon, for example. How did it get that way? Did God get angry at the moon and curse it? Or is it the result of sin upon God's creation?

There are black holes which ravage in the universe. Did God create these things as well? Or could this be the result of sin?

Stars are dying all the time. It's a bit much to suppose that God would have created stars that would die, had sin not come upon the scene. Every where in the universe, even among inatimate objects, we see death and destruction.

Now consider this earth. When sin entered, the whole of creation was affected. Paul tells us that creation groans. God did not create carnivores, yet after sin, few animals can feel safe, because death is just around the door. God did not create poisons, yet because of sin one must be careful what to eat.

Sin has a thousand ways to destroy us, and God is constantly at work protecting His children from disaster.

Given that all nature was affected by sin, if it were not for God's protective hand, we would all be destroyed. It is He who keeps the earth on its course, and sustains and controls the forces of nature.

Consider the earth's crust. Before the flood, there were tremendous amounts of water beneath it. God opened the earth's crust, and water came from beneath, and that's how the flood came about. This agrees with the Biblical description, that waters came from beneath, and with EGW's description. It also agrees with the theories of creation scientists.

There are two possibilities regarding the water beneath the earth's crust. One possibility is that God was sustaining the earth, keeping the pressures of these faults to open in tact, not allowing the powerful forces to erupt which would cause worldwide destruction. When His Spirit was persistently and finally rejected, for 120 years, God finally and sadly withdrew His protection, which caused the flood to occur. This idea agrees with God's character revealed elsewhere in inspiration, and agrees with the Bible record, which states that God repented that He had made man. No doubt God was stricken with inconsable grief that His children had so thoroughly rejected Him, that the only possible way to keep the race from instinction was to allow the flood to occur.

As the Spirit of Prophesy points out, the flood occured out of mercy. It was Satan's plan to destroy the race (always has been), and God counteracted Satan's plan by allowing the flood to occur, and providing an ark for salvation.

OK, back to the other possibility. That would be that the earth was in no danger at all, until God cam on the scene, and out of anger or whatever opened the earth's crust. In this view, God is the destructive force, and to be feared, rather than sin. In this view, God is not a protector or Savior, but rather a destroyer, one to be feared, who will wreak vengence upon those who would dare to act in defiance to His will.

Back to the first view. Assume the earth was in danger the whole time. This would be in accordance with God's character, and also inspiration, which reveals that God is constantly at work protecting us from the danger which sin imposes upon us.

If God were keeping the forces of the earth's crust in check, and then released His hand, what would this look like to one who was seeing this transpire in vision? This is the only way to see what happened in the flood, right? By vision? So God revealed what happened by a vision, and what would one see, whether Moses or EGW or whoever? One would simply see the earth opening up by the power of God, and the waters of the earth erupting and the flood occuring. The most natural way to describe such a scene would be as God destroying the world by a flood. How else would one describe it?

So the question boils down to whether, before God acted, was the earth in a position of peril, or one of safety? Did God as destroyer, or cease acting as protector?

I suggest that God was acting as proctector and sustainer, and is still acting in such a role today. It is our ignorance of what He does to protect us, and of His character, which causes us to view Him inaccurately.

quote:

---

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan.(GC 36)

---

The same principle applies to nature. God not only protects us from the power of Satan, but also from the power of nature.

For example:

quote:

---

It is not by inherent power that year by year the earth yields its bounties and continues its march around the sun. The hand of the Infinite One is perpetually at work guiding this planet. It is God's power continually exercised that keeps the earth in position in its rotation. It is God who causes the sun to rise in the heavens. He opens the windows of heaven and gives rain. (MH 416)

---

Imagine what would happen if God were to withdraw His hand, even for a moment, from the earth. It would lose its position in rotation, and very likely instantly destroy all higher forms of life, and probably most lower forms as well. Maybe all life, who knows. Similarly if God withdraws His sustaining hand, draught results, and it is by God's hand that rain comes.

We are accustomed to viewing things in a wrong light, as if the blessing of nature just "happen" without God's intervention. But this is not the case. It is only by God's positive action that we live.

quote:

---

The mechanism of the human body cannot be fully understood; it presents mysteries that baffle the most intelligent. It is not as the result of a mechanism, which, once set in motion, continues its work, that the pulse beats and breath follows breath. In God we live and move and have our being. The beating heart, the throbbing pulse, every nerve and muscle in the living organism, is kept in order and activity by the power of an ever-present God. {MH 417.1}

---

There are two principles to keep in mind. One is that sin has a thousand ways to destroy us, from which God is constantly and graciously protecting us, which we should acknowledge and give thanks for. Secondly, not only does God protect us, but He sustains us and all nature.

If God removes His sustaining or protecting hand, terrible things happen. These are seen as things which God does, and in a sense, this is true. God did destroy the world by a flood. This cannot be denied. But what was His role? Was it one of removing His staying hand? Or was it one of He Himself causing peril and disaster where no danger would have existed had God just left well enough alone?

R: What I don’t understand is why you can’t see God as an active agent in removing life and at the same time merciful.

Tom: What I don't understand is why you can't see God's protective and sustaining hand as necessary for the preservation of life. If God simply removes His hand, then death results. What's wrong with looking at things in this way?

Sin is a destructive force, which requires the hand of God to protect us. This is true in both the moral realm, and the natural realm. When His protection is refused, then ruin results.

R: God suffered beyond what any language can express as He saw men whom He had created and for whom He would give His life, destroying themselves and inflicting pain to one another, sunk in such immorality and cruelty that they had become worse than brute beasts. God gave them 120 years of opportunity, but they mocked His offering of salvation. There was nothing more He could do to save them. If He allowed them to continue existing, they would continue to be a curse to themselves and a menace to others, and the knowledge of God would end up by being extinguished from the earth. He sent the flood in mercy, to put and end to the miserable existence of those creatures and to preserve His knowledge on earth.

Tom: I agree with this. The only difference between our positions, as far as I can tell, is that I believe God was acting the whole time to prevent the earth from destruction. I pointed out the quote from the MH which shows that it is God who keeps the earth in its proper place. What would happen if God removed His guiding hand on our little orb? Life would be instantly destroyed, correct?

Inspiration tells us God has fixed the limits of how high bodies of water can come. What would happen if God were to remove those limits?

I gave many examples of how destructive sin is. Look at the moon. Look at black holes. Look at dying stars. Sin is an incredibly destructive force, both in the moral and natural realm. It is only the protecting and sustaining hand of God that allows us to live, both morally and naturally.

If God removes His hand, ruin results. Do you disagree with this? Is there any problem with what you think if you discovered that God removed His protecting hand, and this is what caused the waters of the deep to burst forth and cause the flood? Couldn't this as well be described as God causing the flood as if He opened the bowels of the earth Himself, assuming everything would have been just fine had God not acted to destroy?

quote:

---

Satan's power over the human agents is great to destroy. The Lord in his great mercy is a restorer, the very opposite of Satan.(1888 Mat. 1145)

---

Letting someone die may be more cruel than killing.

No, because both the opening and the closing of the sea were artificial and arbitrary acts.