Opinions on the Flood

[Assyrian]

How much water damage do scientists need to see from a flood that was on the earth for only a year?

A tsunami in the Bristol channel in the 1600s left a layer of sand inland. You probably heard of the layer of silt Woolley discovered in Mesopotamia. Flood leave very clear evidence behind. A global flood lasting a whole year would be very obvious.

And did it occur to these scientists that a much, much, much greater global "disaster" took place when Pangaea split into 7 continents?

You mean when Pangaea split it wiped out life on earth? There is no evidence for that. But there is evidence for Pangaea splitting.

Perhaps the flood evidence was "washed away" --- LOL.

It would have to wash away to somewhere, but it has completely disappeared. At the end of the flood you would have had massive amounts of water pouring across the land. Have you ever been around after a river burst its banks? The water abating doesn't wash the evidence away. It leaves everything covered in mud.

It doesn't bother me in the least that scientists can't find evidence for a global flood; especially when most of the other stuff they've been looking for they can't find, either.

Like life in outer space, cures for this and that, the "Big Bang", water/polar ice caps on Mars (remember: they thought Mars was criss-crossed with canals).

Scientists kill me - they really do.

Give a scientist a grant, and he'll sniff your armpits for pheromones.

Tell me which do you think it should be easier to find, life on planet on the far side of the galaxy, or evidence of a flood that covered the planet we live on?

So when should they simply say, 'no, there's no evidence, it's not there'. Is evidence for a global flood like the search for life on other planets, you don't give up after looking in just one place. Or is the flood like the canals on Mars, one guy thought they were there, but the scientists looked closely and there was no evidence, they don't exist.

Not my spiritual life they won't. They're more than welcome to find ways to prolong my life here on earth; but they overstep their authority when they trod on holy ground.

I say to scientists: Keep your test tubes in the laboratory where they belong - and your "theories" about the beginning of the universe in your heads, where there's plenty of room.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God. The expanse shows his handiwork.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech, and night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their voice has gone out through all the earth, their words to the end of the world.
If Universe around us is telling the whole world what God made, how is it holy ground scientists should not investigate? Why shouldn't they look at how it was made when it is supposed to proclaim God's handiwork?

If we had medical records confirming this particular person had been blind from birth and a relatively recent examination then the regeneration of a nerve that is never seen to regenerate combined with the ability of the brain to process the information would fit the definition of miracle.

Is there a scientific definition of a miracle

 

[Assyrian]

I would suspect a strong correlation between Evolutionists and Preterists, as well.

2 Peter 3

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.




​

The question "Where is the promise of his coming? is being posed by one group to the other (the scoffing shows ridicule in the question being posed). It seems to me the question is being posed by the Preterist/Evolutionist group to the Rapture/Creationist group, because of the reason they give: "All things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation."

I am not particularly aware of TEs walking after their own lusts more than YECs, and they don't believe all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. The geological record is littered with cataclysms and mass extinctions.

 

[jereth]

Jereth,

LOL --- I have to laugh at myself! I totally forgot we were having this conversation, and I was asking you some simple questions, getting ready to drop a good one on you, and now I've forgotten what it was!

Oh well, God has a sense of humor, too!

Stupid me to try and be so clever with my answers!

Let me know if you remember your points.

I extend to you the right hand of fellowship.

Thanks for your graciousness brother. Let's not allow our differences of opinion destroy our fellowship in Christ!

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell me which do you think it should be easier to find, life on planet on the far side of the galaxy, or evidence of a flood that covered the planet we live on?

Evidence of a flood that covered the planet we live on.

• Billions of dead things buried in water-carried mud and sand.
  Rapid burial and rapid fossilization.
  Rock strata laid down quickly w/o time breaks between them.
  Preservation of animal tracks and ripple marks testifying to rapid covering of features.
  Polystrate fossils.
  Scarcity of erosion, soil formation, animal burrows, and roots between layers.
  Dykes and pipes of sandstone connected to the same material many layers underneath.
  The Morrison Formation: a layer of sedimentary rock that extends from Texas to Canada.
  Limited geographic extent of clear breaks in the sequence of depositions.

So when should they simply say, 'no, there's no evidence, it's not there'.

The problem is not the evidence, it's the mindset of those looking at the evidence.

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Not to mention spiritual deafness.

Is evidence for a global flood like the search for life on other planets, you don't give up after looking in just one place.

Again, how much evidence does a geologist have to see before he concludes a global flood? Many geologists do, but the ones who don't are (IMO) the ones who are getting grant money to "keep looking". Thus if they see something, and they can possibly interpret it otherwise, they'll do so. The love of money truly is the root of all evil.

Or is the flood like the canals on Mars, one guy thought they were there, but the scientists looked closely and there was no evidence, they don't exist.

There's a difference: the Martian Chronicles was a work of fiction --- the Earth Chronicles, a.k.a. the Bible, is fact.

If Universe around us is telling the whole world what God made, how is it holy ground scientists should not investigate? Why shouldn't they look at how it was made when it is supposed to proclaim God's handiwork?

I don't think God minds them looking --- as long as they're legitimately looking --- but if they look, and find, and report something opposite of what God says --- how long should God welcome that?

Is there a scientific definition of a miracle

Yes --- a singularity.

 

[shernren]

YECs need to read things in context.

Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
(2 Peter 3:1-7 NIV)

And guess what Peter tells them to remember? "Remember that polystrate fossils and rapid deposition prove that the earth experienced a global flood"? "Remember that successful predictions of the magnetic fields of the outer planets in the Solar System indicate a hydrological origin for the Solar System"? Does he remind them that God created the heavens and the earth in seven days? No! Of all things to remind them, he reminds them to avoid literalism:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
(2 Peter 3:8-9 NIV)

(emphasis added)

In other words, "What the Bible calls an 'imminent' return of Jesus, don't understand it to be imminent in human terms, but in divine terms." And this is precisely what TEs do with Genesis 1: we understand it to be a retelling of God's creative works in God's own terms, not according to our human ideas of what a historical work must be.

 

[AV1611VET]

YECs need to read things in context.

Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you.

...

In other words, "What the Bible calls an 'imminent' return of Jesus, don't understand it to be imminent in human terms, but in divine terms." And this is precisely what TEs do with Genesis 1: we understand it to be a retelling of God's creative works in God's own terms, not according to our human ideas of what a historical work must be.

Dear Shernren,

Thank you for your your second letter to us.

With regards to your concern about our interpretation of the soon return of our Lord, I'm sending you an excerpt of one of His disciple's writings:

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 1 John 3:2-3

You are more than welcome to participate.

Thank You,

YEC's

 

[Driver]

I am not particularly aware of TEs walking after their own lusts more than YECs, and they don't believe all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. The geological record is littered with cataclysms and mass extinctions.

Perhaps the "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" refers to divine intervention in the Creation (between its beginning and end, especially) by the Creator.

Is there such a thing as Deistic Evolution? If so, what is the difference between Deistic Evolution and Theistic Evolution? To me, it means the TE must still allow the possibility of divine intervention in the Creation.

 

[shernren]

Dear Shernren,

Thank you for your your second letter to us.

Whoops. I definitely should have made myself clear as to which were quotes and which weren't. but how is the rest of your post relevant to what I said?

Maybe this will make you feel better?

This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:1-9, KJV

Perhaps the "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" refers to divine intervention in the Creation (between its beginning and end, especially) by the Creator.

Is there such a thing as Deistic Evolution? If so, what is the difference between Deistic Evolution and Theistic Evolution? To me, it means the TE must still allow the possibility of divine intervention in the Creation.

Why must God break the laws of nature to decide how things will go? The example I've played to death is WWII. It's obvious that God wanted the Allies to win WWII and stop the atrocities of the Germans and the Japanese. And yet WWII didn't have any miracles in it. The atom bomb was discovered by human ingenuity, the military and civilians of the Allied forces played their parts through sheer human grit. Nothing unexplainable by science or natural history. And yet, if I wanted to thank God that the Allies won, would I be wrong?

TEs believe that God did everything. If He didn't feel like breaking any natural laws in the process, who are we to pick a fight with Him?

 

[Driver]

TEs believe that God did everything. If He didn't feel like breaking any natural laws in the process, who are we to pick a fight with Him?

Of course, Jesus walking on water would break several natural laws, particularly our understanding of H2O. I understand some are proposing Jesus was was walking on ice!

 

[AV1611VET]

...how is the rest of your post relevant to what I said?

Anyone who expects Jesus to come in his/her lifetime has access to a higher level of purity than those who don't think He's coming in their lifetime.

 

[gluadys]

Is there such a thing as Deistic Evolution? If so, what is the difference between Deistic Evolution and Theistic Evolution? To me, it means the TE must still allow the possibility of divine intervention in the Creation.

If there is a Deist who accepts evolution (and I expect most do) then there is such a thing as Deistic Evolution. Since Christians, by definition, are not Deists, it is seldom discussed here as it is irrelevant among Christians.

I don't care too much for the term "intervention" when speaking of God acting through nature rather than in a miraculous way. "Intervention" implies that God is sometimes active and sometimes inactive. This makes sense when speaking of miraculous events, as miracles do not happen in the ordinary course of things, but only occassionally for specific purposes.

When speaking of the ordinary course of events in nature, I would prefer to say that God is always actively involved in his creation. God is never absent or inactive in respect to natural events and processes.

This, of course, is the precise opposite of Deism, which holds that God stopped active participation in nature once it was created.

 

[Willtor]

Anyone who expects Jesus to come in his/her lifetime has access to a higher level of purity than those who don't think He's coming in their lifetime.

That's a very strange thing to say. I certainly don't think either is thinking very clearly. But could you back that position up?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a very strange thing to say. I certainly don't think either is thinking very clearly. But could you back that position up?

And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

The secular way to state it is: Live every day as if it were your last.

-or-

If the cat is away, the mice will play.

Would a child be looking at something on the Internet he shouldn't be looking at, if he was expecting his father to show up any second? Of course not; but if he wasn't expecting his father to show up any time soon, he just may go ahead and do it.

 

[Driver]

I don't care too much for the term "intervention" when speaking of God acting through nature rather than in a miraculous way.

So, it is possible for the Flood to have been by a miracle, local or global, with no natural causes.

There was no option in the poll for this possibility among the TE's (as was the case for the YEC's). If the following had been part of the poll, would you have chosen either of them?

TE - Global flood, no natural cause (i.e. 100% miracle)

TE - Local flood, no natural cause (i.e. 100% miracle)

 

[gluadys]

So, it is possible for the Flood to have been by a miracle, local or global, with no natural causes.

Sure, but that's not the whole story.

Floods, natural or miraculous don't just have causes. They also have effects. Even a flood caused by a miracle would have detectable effects in the natural world.

(As an analogy, consider the man born blind whom Jesus healed. The cause of the healing was a miracle. But the miracle also had an effect. The man was now able to see.)

When we speak about the impossibility of a global flood, it is not in reference to its cause, but in reference to:

• the invisibility of its effects, and
• the visibility of effects that ought not to exist if the flood were global.

The second of these is even more telling than the first.

There might be some reason to remove the effects of the flood, though I have no idea what it would be.
But for what reason would God plant new evidence that says a global flood never happened, yet also inspire an account of the flood to be written and placed in scripture.

Does he want us to know a global flood happened or does he want us to conclude that it didn't?

When we look at the flood from the point of view of its effects, it seems clear that scripture can support a local rather than a global flood and that nature confirms that the flood must have been local. So that becomes the option that makes most sense of all the evidence.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The secular way to state it is: Live every day as if it were your last.

-or-

If the cat is away, the mice will play.

Would a child be looking at something on the Internet he shouldn't be looking at, if he was expecting his father to show up any second? Of course not; but if he wasn't expecting his father to show up any time soon, he just may go ahead and do it.

Car crashes happen, tornadoes happen, genetic defects in heart valves happen, our meeting with Jesus will be coming shortly...

 

[Driver]

So, it is possible for the Flood to have been by a miracle, local or global, with no natural causes.

Sure, but that's not the whole story.

Floods, natural or miraculous don't just have causes. They also have effects. Even a flood caused by a miracle would have detectable effects in the natural world.

The geological record is littered with cataclysms and mass extinctions.

Assyrian says the geological record is littered with cataclysms and mass instinctions. Can this be proven not to be evidence of the Flood?

 

[Willtor]

[/COLOR]

Assyrian says the geological record is littered with cataclysms and mass instinctions. Can this be proven not to be evidence of the Flood?

Yes, and in fact there is tremendous evidence of various large, regional floods over the eons. Geologists can tell the difference between a flood and, say, the eruption of a volcano.

 

[Driver]

Yes, and in fact there is tremendous evidence of various large, regional floods over the eons. Geologists can tell the difference between a flood and, say, the eruption of a volcano.

So, your answer discounts one of those "regional floods over the eons" as being "the Flood". Do you believe that "the Flood" was fiction, never actually happened (one of the poll choices)?

What about other evidences for "the Flood", global or local? Can they be disproven?

 

[Willtor]

So, your answer discounts one of those "regional floods over the eons" as being "the Flood".

No.

Do you believe that "the Flood" was fiction, never actually happened (one of the poll choices)?

I poll is public. You can see how I responded.

What about other evidences for "the Flood", global or local? Can they be disproven?

A global flood could and has been disproven AFAIK. There are parts of the world that have never been flooded.