The Flood: Varves

Biliskner · Apr 20, 2005

Vance said:
That is the theological message of the story, and that message-bearing story can be referred to later by any Christian, including Peter. It is perfectly acceptable to refer to a past non-literal event or person in the same manner as you would a literal event or person, and even to compare that figurative event or person to a literal one.

You make sense with that logic, but if you practically apply that to the text you are in some serious stuff that's going to hit the fan, because Peter actually says that 8 people were saved. If you say that the flood is local than this "8 people" is 8 people where? on one continent? on two? three? compared to what? the whole earth? I KNOW this is ALL trivial, but if you take one passage trivially, then all the rest crumbles. I have seen my Christian friend's parents (the Husband) divorce his wife on basis of such un-Scriptural reading of Scripture (YES, on readings that are narrative taken poetically IE: Gen1-11)

You can read it that way if you want, but tread lightly brother...

*for those just listening in, don't get me wrong, the point of the passage is that God is patient and will stretch out the End Days for more people to become Jesus Christ followers, and the point is NOT that 8 people were saved, however, the theological points that stem from this are also that of water, a symbolism to our baptisms when we became Christians... one that stems from a Flood (which, to be politically correct, "I believe" to be a Global Flood.)

SBG · Apr 20, 2005

There is also a theological point that, by a local flood, becomes obscured. Why did the flood happen? Because all men, but the 8 saved, defied God. If a local flood came, these men could have escaped the judgement of God, on their own, without God.

So then the theological message becomes, that when God's Wrath comes again as fire, men will be able to escape it as well, on their own, without God.

Another point for the side that says, who needs God. We have evolution that can explain our origins without a Creator. And if God exists, we can escape His judgement on our own as well.

Is this the message of God, from God, who says you can escape My judgement on your own without Me? I think not.

Vance · Apr 20, 2005

But NO men to whom God sent judgment in the story of Noah, whether local or global, escaped without God. The point of a local flood is that God sent a local judgment. Just like Sodom, all of those in the city other than those God saved were destroyed. You don't need global destruction to make this point.

SBG · Apr 20, 2005

Vance said:
But NO men to whom God sent judgment in the story of Noah, whether local or global, escaped without God. The point of a local flood is that God sent a local judgment. Just like Sodom, all of those in the city other than those God saved were destroyed. You don't need global destruction to make this point.

First, can you show me where the Bible says it was a local flood?

Vance · Apr 20, 2005

SBG said:
First, can you show me where the Bible says it was a local flood?

The phrase "kol erets", translated as "the whole earth" is used hundreds of times throughout the OT. In the vast majority of cases, it is used to refer to something LESS than the entire planet. Very often it is a specific local area, sometimes it is a group of people, etc. In this way, it can be read either way, but if you want to go with the predominate use, you would have to read it as a local area.

At the same time, it is just as likely that the author was taking a story of a literal local flood in which God did, indeed, save a family, and telling it in a larger manner. Since the theology is exactly the same, and the hearers and readers would not be looking at this story as strict literal history in any case, God would have no problem letting the story be told this way. As you point out in another thread, this is a theological work, and it is making a theological point.

I think C.S. Lewis said it best, when talking about the creation stories, which is equally applicable with the flood:

"I have therefore no difficulty in accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical. We must of course be quite clear what "derived from" means. Stories do not reproduce their species like mice. They are told by men. Each re-teller either repeats exactly what his predecessor had told him or else changes it. He may change it unknowingly or deliberately. If he changes it deliberately, his invention, his sense of form, his ethics, his ideas of what is fit, or edifying, or merely interesting, all come in. If unknowingly, then his unconscious (which is so largely responsible for our forgettings) has been at work. Thus at every step in what is called--a little misleadingly--the "evolution" of a story, a man, all he is and all his attitudes, are involved. And no good work is done anywhere without aid from the Father of Lights. When a series of such retellings turns a creation story which at first had almost no religious or metaphysical significance into a story which achieves the idea of true Creation and of a transcendent Creator (as Genesis does), then nothing will make me believe that some of the re-tellers, or some one of them, has not been guided by God.

Thus something originally merely natural--the kind of myth that is found amongst most nations--will have been raised by God above itself, qualified by Him and compelled by Him to serve purposes which of itself would not have served. Generalising this, I take it that the whole Old Testament consists of the same sort of material as any other literature--chronicle (some of it obviously pretty accurate), poems, moral and political diatribes, romances, and what not; but all taken into the service of Gods word. Not all, I suppose, in the same way. There are prophets who write with the clearest awareness that Divine compulsion is upon them. There are chroniclers whose intention may have been merely to record. There are poets like those in the Song of Songs who probably never dreamed of any but a secular and natural purpose in what they composed. There is (and it is not less important) the work first of the Jewish and then of the Christian Church in preserving and canonising just these books. There is the work of redactors and editors in modifying them. On all of these I suppose a Divine pressure; of which not by any means all need have been conscious."

SBG · Apr 20, 2005

So you are calling all those translators who worked so diligently over this, wrong?

And when Peter refers to the old world meaning kosmos, or the world; the circle of the earth, was wrong as well?

Fact is, I trust Peter more than I trust science, or you.

Vance · Apr 20, 2005

SBG said:
So you are calling all those translators who worked so diligently over this, wrong?

And when Peter refers to the old world meaning kosmos, or the world; the circle of the earth, was wrong as well?

Fact is, I trust Peter more than I trust science, or you.

Did you read the second part of the post? If you wish to reject the Hebrew usage itself, and rely upon the translators, that is fine. But regardless of whether someone uses the global or local alternatives of the Hebrew words, the flood can still have been local, as I (and Lewis) describe. You have still never addressed what Lewis is saying in this regards.

SBG · Apr 20, 2005

Vance said:
Did you read the second part of the post? If you wish to reject the Hebrew usage itself, and rely upon the translators, that is fine. But regardless of whether someone uses the global or local alternatives of the Hebrew words, the flood can still have been local, as I (and Lewis) describe. You have still never addressed what Lewis is saying in this regards.

It is you who rejects the Hebrew usage of the language. If you were to actually look at the usage of 'erets in Genesis 6, it cannot be translated as land. It is more correct, concerning the Hebrew lanuage, to translate it as the whole earth or simply the earth.

Where does Lewis say the flood is local?

Vance · Apr 20, 2005

The majority of instances in Scripture, kol erets does not refer to the entire planet earth. Edit: I have given some examples in the post below.

Look at what Lewis says about the Creation accounts: that it is entirely possible that God took earlier stories and USED them to make his theological points. This could be equally true for the flood. I go a step more toward the traditional view in regards to the flood itself and say that God may not have just used an existing story, but that the ealier story is based on an actual local event in which Noah and his family were saved by God.

Vance · Apr 20, 2005

Examples of the "local" use of kol erets:

* And all [kol] the people of the land [erets] entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground. (1 Samuel 14:25) (The words "the people of" are added to the English, since they are not found in the Hebrew. The actual translation would be "all the land entered the forest," obviously referring to the people and not to the land itself moving into the forest.)
* While all [kol] the country [erets] was weeping with a loud voice, all the people passed over. (2 Samuel 15:23)
* "Is not the whole [kol] land [erets] before you? Please separate from me: if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left." (Genesis 13:9) (The "whole land" was only the land of Canaan)
* And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth. (Genesis 41:57) (The people from the Americas did not go to Egypt)
* Then God said, "Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all [kol] the earth [erets], nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you. (Exodus 34:10) (There would be no need to add "nor among any of the nations" if "all the earth" referred to the entire planet.)
* 'You shall then sound a ram's horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets]. (Leviticus 25:9) (The Hebrews were not required to sound a horn throughout the entire earth)
* 'Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land. (Leviticus 25:24) (The law does not apply only to those who own the entire earth)
* behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken." (Judges 6:37, see also 6:39-40) (kol erets could not refer to the entire earth, since it would not be possible for Gideon to check the entire earth)
* And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, "Let the Hebrews hear." (1 Samuel 13:3) (Obviously, Saul could not have blown a trumpet loud enough to be heard throughout the entire earth)
* For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured. (2 Samuel 18:8) (No, the battle did not take place over the entire earth.)
* So when they had gone about through the whole [kol] land [erets], they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. (2 Samuel 24:8) (No they didn't go through the entire earth, just the lands of Palestine.)
* And all [kol] the earth [erets] was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. (1 Kings 10:24) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans went to see Solomon.)
* Then the fame of David went out into all [kol] the lands [erets]; and the LORD brought the fear of him on all the nations. (1 Chronicles 14:17) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans knew about David.)
* And David said, "My son Solomon is young and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for the LORD shall be exceedingly magnificent, famous and glorious throughout all [kol] lands [erets]. (1 Chronicles 22:5) (The temple was famous to all the lands in the Middle East, but was destroyed before the advent of globalism.)
* And they were bringing horses for Solomon from Egypt and from all [kol] countries [erets]. (2 Chronicles 9:28) (It is unlikely that the Chinese brought horses to Solomon)

Still, having shown all of that, it does not matter whether the authors, the readers, or later commentators, including Peter, are referring to it in the language of a global flood, since given their culture, it is entirely acceptable to refer to a figurative story in the EXACT SAME WAY you would an historical event. This is not lying or deceitful, it is simply referring to an account of a literal event in the manner God chose to tell about that event, whether that "manner" was strictly literal or not. Look at the chiastic framework of the story and this gives yet another clue that we are not meant to read it in a strictly literal fashion.

grmorton · Apr 21, 2005

Biliskner said:
grmorton, i'd rather squirm like a worm on a hook with not being able to explain your elitist geophysics ( as i have admitted to previously ) than stand before the Judgement Throne of the Lamb and say, "well i had to reinterpret your Apostle Peter's words because... well grmorton told me to!" (we're not even talking about Genesis.. it's Peter's own words.)

My Bible study group at Church is doing Colossians, so here is one for you:

Col. 2:8 See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

You can eat your pollen, and I'll eat the Words of God, like Jeremiah.

Je. 15:16 When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my hearts delight, for I bear your name, O LORD God Almighty.

Do you not think God wants us to uphold the truth? Do you think God wants us Christians to retreat at each and every appearance of scientific data? Your approach says that you are in retreat. But the Bible says that the gates of Hell will not withstand us. How can you be at the Gates of Hell if you are in retreat?

SBG · Apr 21, 2005

grmorton said:
Do you not think God wants us to uphold the truth?

Yes, and that is why I hold the Bible as the Authority in all matters.

grmorton said:
Do you think God wants us Christians to retreat at each and every appearance of scientific data?

That is why I don't jump on the bandwagon with the rest of society, each time science throws out another theory. There is always change, even drastic change within science.

So I don't retreat by hiding within the populance of society that holds to every whim of the scientific community. Rather I stand outside, always being laughed at by people just like in this forum, who are Christians - who also seek support from atheists to further ridicule anyone who does not hold to their elite scientific views.

I have seen the many posts that Christians in this forum make in the all members forum where they ridicule anyone who believes differently than them. Theistic evolutionists and atheists are hand in hand in delivering this ridicule.

grmorton said:
Your approach says that you are in retreat. But the Bible says that the gates of Hell will not withstand us. How can you be at the Gates of Hell if you are in retreat?

You can call it retreat and maybe it is, but it is retreat into God's Word. If you find that to be a horrible thing, then please add into your arguments that we seek the staff that comforts us.

Really, this whole argument boils down to intellectual pride.

Vance · Apr 21, 2005

No, you seek your interpretation of the Staff. One area of arrogance and presumption on the part of all YEC's is that they always refer to their particular interpretation of Scripture as THE Scripture, as THE Word of God, and do it in a way as if THEY are the only ones who are seeking to hold on to Scripture, who are trusting in God's Word.

SBG · Apr 21, 2005

Vance said:
No, you seek your interpretation of the Staff. One area of arrogance and presumption on the part of all YEC's is that they always refer to their particular interpretation of Scripture as THE Scripture, as THE Word of God, and do it in a way as if THEY are the only ones who are seeking to hold on to Scripture, who are trusting in God's Word.

Ah, so now my interpretation of Psalms 23 is in error as well? sigh....

Vance · Apr 21, 2005

No, I was assuming you were referring to the Scripture in the role of the Staff, based on the sentence before. Thus, it would be your intepretation of that "staff" which would be what you were relying upon.

And the only ones that are showing pride in this debate are those who are too proud to admit (even to themselves) that their interpretation of Scripture can be wrong.

NT Wright, probably the best Christian theologian of today, gives us an example of humbleness: he said that at least 1/3 of what any Christian believes about doctrine is probably incorrect. The problem is that we don't know which 1/3 it is. The real problem, I would add, is that most aren't willing to acknowledge this truth at all.

Biliskner · Apr 22, 2005

SBG said:
So I don't retreat by hiding within the populance of society that holds to every whim of the scientific community. Rather I stand outside, always being laughed at by people just like in this forum, who are Christians - who also seek support from atheists to further ridicule anyone who does not hold to their elite scientific views.

I have seen the many posts that Christians in this forum make in the all members forum where they ridicule anyone who believes differently than them. Theistic evolutionists and atheists are hand in hand in delivering this ridicule.

"they" need to read Kuhnian's discourse on the change in scientific paradigms. these guys hold it like science is the ultimate know how and the pinnacle of the evolution of humanity. it's like the ppl in my "history and philsophy of mathematics" who say: "mathematics is the only truth, because you can prove mathematics" - lmao? no, not lmao. it's more like: "that's sad mate, real sad" and then weap/pray for them.
the Corinthian Church was not much different, wanting Paul's head on a platter because He speaks Words of the Holy Spirit.

2Co. 10:3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 2Co. 10:4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.

2Co. 10:5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Evolution sets itself up against the knowledge of God - it's naturalistic undertones/metaphysics is destructive. have you read Origins? the Blind Watchmaker? I have. (hurray for me.)

I don't know how the Church can incorporate (even try to incorporate) such destructive philosophies into the bread. Yes, you can say that "God used evolution to make Adam", then again my friend's dad can say: "the Mosaic Law doesn't apply to me, so I can divorce my wife because I don't love her anymore."
gg to all.

1Co. 5:6 Your boasting is not good. Dont you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?

Biliskner · Apr 22, 2005

Vance said:
NT Wright, probably the best Christian theologian of today,

in your opinion.
no one surpasses Moses. And no one can challenge Jesus (which btw. includes his "Counsellor" which we Christians have - whether we listen to Him is a different matter altogether.)

Biliskner · Apr 22, 2005

Vance said:
No, you seek your interpretation of the Staff. One area of arrogance and presumption on the part of all YEC's is that they always refer to their particular interpretation of Scripture as THE Scripture, as THE Word of God, and do it in a way as if THEY are the only ones who are seeking to hold on to Scripture, who are trusting in God's Word.

You read Hebrew?

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm said:
V. LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF CREATION "DAYS"

We shall consider the usage of "day" (Hebrew yôm) along major lines of current scholarship. There are liberal and non-liberal scholars who have concluded that the word "day" (Hebrew yôm) in Genesis 1 must be singularly understood in a literal sense. We will review some of their reasons and provide additional ones.

4. Considerations Based on Semantics

The field of semantics in linguistic study refers to what is called signification.92 It deals with the issue of "the accurate evaluation of the meaning of expressions [words, phrases, clauses, sentences, etc.] which have actually been used."93
Semantics calls for attention to the crucial question of the exact meaning of the Hebrew word yôm. Could the designation "day" in Genesis 1 possibly have a figurative meaning in this chapter? Is it to be understood on the basis of the norms of semantics as a literal "day"? This matter of semantics is particularly important in view of the fact that the Hebrew term yôm in the singular and plural has a large variety of meanings, including extended meanings such as "time," "life time," and so on. Is it possible to import an extended meaning from the Old Testament into Genesis 1? Could this not solve the problem of the conflict of a short creation week and the long ages called for by naturalistic evolution?
The Hebrew term yôm, in its variety of forms, can mean aside from a literal "day" also a time or period of time (Judges 14:4) and in a more general sense "a month [of] time" (Genesis 29:14), "two years [of] time" (2 Samuel 13:23;14:28; Jeremiah 28:3,11), "three weeks [of] time" (Daniel 11:2, 3). In the plural form it can mean "year" (1 Samuel 27:7), a "life time" (Genesis 47:8), and so forth. Any good lexicon will provide a comprehensive listing of the various possibilities.94
It is important to keep in mind that "the semantic content of the words can be seen more clearly in their various combinations with other words and their extended semantic field."95
What are the semantic-syntactical guidelines for extended, non-literal meanings of the Hebrew term yôm? The extended, non-literal meanings of the term yôm are always found in connection with prepositions,96 prepositional phrases with a verb, compound constructions, formulas, technical expressions, genitive combinations, construct phrases, and the like.97 In other words, extended, non-literal meanings of this Hebrew term have special linguistic and contextual connections which indicate clearly that a non-literal meaning is intended. If such special linguistic connections are absent, the term yôm does not have an extended, non-literal meaning; it has its normal meaning of a literal day of 24-hours.
In view of the wealth of usages of this Hebrew term, it is imperative to study the usage of the term yôm in Genesis 1 so that it can be compared with other usages. Does this chapter contain the needed indicators by which yôm can clearly be recognized to have a literal or non-literal meaning? How is this term used in Genesis 1? Is it used together with combinations of other words, prepositions, genitive relations, construct state, and the like, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, which would indicate a non-literal meaning? It is exactly these kinds of semantic-syntactical combinations which inform us about the intention of the meaning of this term.
Let us present the facts of the usage of the term yôm, "day," in Genesis 1 as any scholar who knows Hebrew can describe them:

The term yôm is always used in the singular.

The term yôm is always joined to a numeral. In Genesis 1:5 it is a cardinal and elsewhere in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 it is always an ordinal. We will pay attention to this below.

The term yôm is never combined with a preposition, genitive combination, construct state, compound construction, or the like. It always appears as a plain noun.

The term yôm is consistently defined by a temporal phrase in the preceding sentence, "and there was evening and there was morning." This clause serves in a defining function for the word "day."

The complementary creation account of Genesis 2:4-25 contains a non-literal, figurative meaning of the singular of the term yôm, "day." When the non-literal meaning is intended the semantic-syntactical conventions known from the remainder of the Old Testament for such a meaning are employed. This is the case in the non-literal usage in Genesis 2:4.

Let us note these criteria as they are employed in Genesis 2:4. The noun yôm is joined to the preposition be to read beyôm. Secondly, it is used in a construct relation with the infinitive form of 'asah, "to make." It reads literally, "in the day of making." This combination of the singular with a preposition in construct with an infinitive98 makes this combination a "temporal conjunction,"99 which serves as a "general introduction of time."100
Genesis 2:4b reads literally, "in [the] day of the Lord God making the earth and heaven. Proper English calls for the literal "in [the] day of," which is syntactically a temporal conjunction that serves as a general introduction of time, to be rendered with "when." This sentence then reads, "When the Lord God made ...." This clear-cut case of an extended, non-literal use of yôm in the creation account of Genesis 2:4-25 shows that the contrary usage of yôm in Genesis 1, without any expected qualifier that marks it as a non-literal use, has a literal meaning. The term yôm in Genesis 1 has no prepositions; it is not used in a construct relation and it has no syntactical indicator expected of an extended, non-literal meaning. Thus, in Genesis 1 yôm can mean only a literal "day" of 24 hours.
In short, the semantic-syntactical usages of yôm, "day," in Genesis 1 as compared with semantic-syntactical usages and linguistic connections of this term in other Old Testament passages where it has an extended meaning, does not allow it to mean a long period of time, an age, or the like. The Hebrew language, its grammar, syntax, linguistic structures as well as its semantic usage allows for only the literal meaning of "day" for the creation "days" of Genesis 1.

i've copied and pasted no.4. the considerations they listed are no.1-no.8.
that's 8 considerations of the word yôm in semantic, article, context, Pentateuchal Sabbath Passages, Sequence of Events, 'evening-morning' boundaries, numerical/single usage, dictionary definitions etc. etc.

it's all literal.

the information is all there. you can do what you like with it. I'm a follower of Luther in this area of philosophy. He, Tyndale, the Simeonites all shed blood, tears and sweat to translate the Latin Vulgate into the English Bible for you and for me.

"Each plowboy shall have his own opportunity to interpret the Bible for himself as he reads it."

You can read it however you like.

Vance · Apr 22, 2005

Did I ever say that YOM as used in the creation accounts was meant as anything other than normal, 24-hour days? I am NOT a day-ager.

But, do you think the use of a literal "day" means it must be strict narrative history?

Biliskner · Apr 23, 2005

Vance said:
But, do you think the use of a literal "day" means it must be strict narrative history?

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

The Flood: Varves

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Similar threads