A list of "God did its"

[versastyle]

2. If the flood was global, how did it recede? Why didn't the oceans (Atlantic, Pacific, etc.) recede? This would be like dipping water out of one end of a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end. The level would be remain unchanged!

3. How did the plants, trees, etc. survive with the salt water that covered the whole earth. Remember that the flood took place over a year. That would be impossible.

4. How did the animals arrive in Australia? What about those Sloths (those animals that depend on the trees and live in South America. They cannot walk on the land). I could go on with a list of different animals from different environment, climate, etc.

5. If the whole planet was covered with water, how did it drain away or evaporate in 164 days? This could not have taken place in 100 years. I also found something about mathematics which supports a local flood which you will see shortly.

6. One cannot deny the existence of archeological evidence that many great civilizations existed in various parts of the world at the time of the Flood and continued through it.

7. "All" does not always mean all mankind. Did Christ die for "all" mankind?

8. If the flood covered the highest mountain (Mt. Everett), how would they survive in extremely cold and thin air for over a year?

9. Would people who lived in Europe, North and South America, Australia, etc. have heard Noah's message about God's judgment? Suppose Noah had gone on an evangelistic campaign: by what sign could he have convinced them? Merely to mention that his family at home was constructing an ark would hardly have carried much weight. In other words, the building of the ark was a testimony only to those who could actually see it or have first hand knowledge of it. People can hardly have been scattered to the ends of the earth if this was to be a testimony to them.

10. Even fish life would suffer in a universal catastrophe. The mingling of the salt and fresh water could be fatal to many of them. 11. What about in Genesis 6:4, "There were giants [nephilim] in the earth in those days; and also after that...the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Also in Numbers 13:33, "And there we saw the giants [nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants:" "Giants" is the same Hebrew word #5303. Why weren't they destroyed during the flood? I think this is a stumbling block for those who hold there was a global flood.

The entire article can be found here http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html

Yes, you can add a "God did it" into each one of these, but doesn't that make you look desperate?

 

[Remus]

2. If the flood was global, how did it recede? Why didn't the oceans (Atlantic, Pacific, etc.) recede? This would be like dipping water out of one end of a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end. The level would be remain unchanged!

God did it... at least that's what the Bible says.

3. How did the plants, trees, etc. survive with the salt water that covered the whole earth. Remember that the flood took place over a year. That would be impossible.

They didn't. They died as well.

4. How did the animals arrive in Australia? What about those Sloths (those animals that depend on the trees and live in South America. They cannot walk on the land). I could go on with a list of different animals from different environment, climate, etc.

From that ice age bridge. Don't know what Sloths were like back then so I can't answer that. Perhaps they used to walk on the ground like the sloths that are now extinct.

5. If the whole planet was covered with water, how did it drain away or evaporate in 164 days? This could not have taken place in 100 years. I also found something about mathematics which supports a local flood which you will see shortly.

I'd have to see the numbers and the initial assumptions to comment on this one.

6. One cannot deny the existence of archeological evidence that many great civilizations existed in various parts of the world at the time of the Flood and continued through it.

Then assume that the dates for one or both sides are wrong.

7. "All" does not always mean all mankind. Did Christ die for "all" mankind?

Gen 7:23
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.
Which "All" is he referring to?

8. If the flood covered the highest mountain (Mt. Everett), how would they survive in extremely cold and thin air for over a year?

Even if the highest land was that high back then, I don't think the air would have been thin. I'll have to give it some thought, but I'd guess that the air would have been somewhat close to what it is at sea level today.

9. Would people who lived in Europe, North and South America, Australia, etc. have heard Noah's message about God's judgment? Suppose Noah had gone on an evangelistic campaign: by what sign could he have convinced them? Merely to mention that his family at home was constructing an ark would hardly have carried much weight. In other words, the building of the ark was a testimony only to those who could actually see it or have first hand knowledge of it. People can hardly have been scattered to the ends of the earth if this was to be a testimony to them.

Who said it was a testimony to them?

10. Even fish life would suffer in a universal catastrophe. The mingling of the salt and fresh water could be fatal to many of them.

I'm sure fish life did suffer. And I'm sure many of them died.

11. What about in Genesis 6:4, "There were giants [nephilim] in the earth in those days; and also after that...the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Also in Numbers 13:33, "And there we saw the giants [nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants:" "Giants" is the same Hebrew word #5303. Why weren't they destroyed during the flood? I think this is a stumbling block for those who hold there was a global flood.

It is too much of a stretch to assume that these two peoples were the same.

Yes, you can add a "God did it" into each one of these, but doesn't that make you look desperate?

There, I added "God did it" on only one and that one is because the Bible said it. Do I look desperate if I reiterate what the Bible says?

The real question isn't was the flood local or global, the real question is were all the people killed except for those on the ark.

 

[versastyle]

Remus:

All of your objections are refuted in the entire article. Check the link out.

If all the plants died, that would mean there would be no plants to eat once they got off the ark. All the bugs that life off of plant life would be extinct, yet we still have them today. Why? Because God did it, right?

So in the sloth question, are we accepting macro-evolution "post-flood"?

We are to just assume the dates are wrong because they contradict scripture?

Noah's family held the genetic code to create 9 ft giants?

"God did it" makes much more sense then trying to twist scripture to fit the illogical.

 

[Remus]

Remus:
If all the plants died, that would mean there would be no plants to eat once they got off the ark. All the bugs that life off of plant life would be extinct, yet we still have them today. Why? Because God did it, right?

No, there were plants before they left the ark. Otherwise the dove would not have been able to bring back an olive leaf. It wasn't like the entire earth was covered with water one day, then not covered the next.

So in the sloth question, are we accepting macro-evolution "post-flood"?

Define "macro-evolution".

We are to just assume the dates are wrong because they contradict scripture?

No, we should assume that the dates from both should line up. There could be errors in the dates assumed for the "great civilizations" or in the calculations of when the flood is assumed to have happened.

Noah's family held the genetic code to create 9 ft giants?

Sure. Why wouldn't he? Do you know how tall Noah was? Goliath was over 9 ft. so he would have to have had it.

"God did it" makes much more sense then trying to twist scripture to fit the illogical.

Are you saying that I am "trying to twist scripture" in any way?

 

[United]

Hi Remus,

I understand the worldwide flood is central to YEC theory as it is used to explain the geological column. But just for a moment, assume it wasn't a central part. Would you still hold to it passionately? A local flood still provides a good literal interpretation & doesn't confict with the evidence.

 

[Remus]

It doesn't matter to me if it was local or global as long as "every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth". Could this have been done with a local flood? I suppose, but that would mean that all of man and animals would still live in a relatively small area. Again, I suppose this would have been possible (although it’s becoming more of a stretch), but this too would conflict with the so-called “evidence” so it kind of defeats the purpose of this interpretation. So I’m left with no reason not to believe that the flood was global.

 

[Vance]

It doesn't matter to me if it was local or global as long as "every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth". Could this have been done with a local flood? I suppose, but that would mean that all of man and animals would still live in a relatively small area. Again, I suppose this would have been possible (although it’s becoming more of a stretch), but this too would conflict with the so-called “evidence” so it kind of defeats the purpose of this interpretation. So I’m left with no reason not to believe that the flood was global.

But what is the meaning of the term "kol erets", which is translated as "the whole earth" by most translators? The large majority of the time when it is used in the Bible, it does NOT mean the entire globe, but a particular local area, as in "the entire land". So, try replacing "the whole earth" with "the entire land" meaning a local, say Mesopotamian, area. No, what if God was angry at that particular group (think Sodom) and chose to destroy it with a great flood, but save Noah, etc. The flood narrative still works in a literal reading.

Or, you could read it as a conflation of what was originally a local flood INTO a description of a global flood. Why would God do this? Why would God let it be written in a way that would cause confusion? Well, He obviously is not too concerned about THAT since the whole Bible has been read in so many different ways by so the thousands of Christian denominations over the centuries. If God had wanted all these details to be crystal clear, He could have made it so, but for some reason chose not to.

The ways of God are a mystery at times.

 

[Remus]

Recap:

United: It could be a local flood and still be literal.
Remus: It doesn't matter if it was local or global. The important thing is that everybody except Noah and his family died.
Vance: It could be a local flood and still be literal.

You're a little behind Vance.

"If God had wanted all these details to be crystal clear, He could have made it so..."

And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.

This seems "crystal clear" to me. Are you going to argue that everyone except Noah's family didn't have to die and the flood story still be read as literal?

Besides:

But what is the meaning of the term "kol erets", which is translated as "the whole earth" by most translators?

Only one place in the story is the phrase "whole earth" used (unless you want to count Gen 9:19 as well). I know it's a common tactic to try to pull one verse and try to make it fit what you want it to, but to attempt to make this argument, you also have to deal with the other verses that indicate that the flood was global. One example is Gen 7:19. Can you twist that one into a local flood?

 

[Vance]

Recap:

United: It could be a local flood and still be literal.
Remus: It doesn't matter if it was local or global. The important thing is that everybody except Noah and his family died.
Vance: It could be a local flood and still be literal.

You're a little behind Vance.

No, my point was the "everybody" need not have been everybody on the planet, but everydody within a specific local area.

"If God had wanted all these details to be crystal clear, He could have made it so..."

This seems "crystal clear" to me. Are you going to argue that everyone except Noah's family didn't have to die and the flood story still be read as literal?

Sure, everyone within a local area, but not in the entire world. Or, alternately, this particularly language quoted above could be due to a conflation of the local flood into a global flood by the author, and God allowed that conflation to take place.

Besides:

Only one place in the story is the phrase "whole earth" used (unless you want to count Gen 9:19 as well). I know it's a common tactic to try to pull one verse and try to make it fit what you want it to, but to attempt to make this argument, you also have to deal with the other verses that indicate that the flood was global. One example is Gen 7:19. Can you twist that one into a local flood?

Sure, why not? Again, it could either be referring to everyone and everything within a local area, or orignally have been a local flood which, by the time the story is told, has grown in the telling to be a global flood. And, since the message God's intends for us to take to heart is the same either way, He could allow this to conflation to happen.

 

[Remus]

I see you've dropped the literal part and are sticking to the conflation idea, although you don't mention anything about what this "local" flood story was conflated with.

Anyway; you can say the flood was local, you can even say the story is a myth. But one thing you can't say is the Bible doesn't say that the flood killed everyone. I don't care how much twisting you do, the fact remains that the Bible is "crystal clear" in what it says about this ... I take that back. You can say it and probably will regardless of the facts.

Gen 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
Gen 6:7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

Gen 6:12 God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
Gen 6:13 Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.

Gen 7:4 "For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made."

Gen 7:21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
Gen 7:22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
Gen 7:23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

Gen 8:17 "Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth."

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

Gen 9:8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying,
Gen 9:9 "Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you;
Gen 9:10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth.
Gen 9:11 "I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth."

Gen 9:19 These three {were} the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.

 

[Vance]

I see you've dropped the literal part and are sticking to the conflation idea, although you don't mention anything about what this "local" flood story was conflated with.

Anyway; you can say the flood was local, you can even say the story is a myth. But one thing you can't say is the Bible doesn't say that the flood killed everyone. I don't care how much twisting you do, the fact remains that the Bible is "crystal clear" in what it says about this ... I take that back. You can say it and probably will regardless of the facts.

No, the literal still works, but the conflation idea is just more likely. For those who insist on a literal reading, or close to it, just substitute "in land of X" or just "the X" for "on the earth", "the land", "the earth". It still basically works. If God had destroyed an entire area because of their wickedness, this is how it might have been written.

But the conflation idea is much more likely, or simply "INflating" a local flood story into a global flood. The conflation would be taking a true local flood story and mixing it up with the global flood myths that were floating around. Or, more likely, a local flood story simply grew over the centuries into a global flood. Just as has been discussed in the other thread on this topic.

 

[Remus]

No, the literal still works, but the conflation idea is just more likely. For those who insist on a literal reading, or close to it, just substitute "in land of X" or just "the X" for "on the earth", "the land", "the earth". It still basically works. If God had destroyed an entire area because of their wickedness, this is how it might have been written.

And now you are guilty of Slothful Induction. And you accuse YEC's of having their head stuck in the sand?

But the conflation idea is much more likely, or simply "INflating" a local flood story into a global flood. The conflation would be taking a true local flood story and mixing it up with the global flood myths that were floating around. Or, more likely, a local flood story simply grew over the centuries into a global flood. Just as has been discussed in the other thread on this topic.

Or, the Bible could just mean what it says.

 

[Vance]

And now you are guilty of Slothful Induction. And you accuse YEC's of having their head stuck in the sand?

But the strength of the inference is not great enough, in my opinion, to absolutely require the inductive conclusion. Yes, I would agree that it is very possible that the human writer of the text intended the words to mean the whole planet. But that is not the only possible reading, especially when the terms used for "the whole earth" means something less than the entire planet about 75% of the time it is used in Scripture.

Still, I will grant that the "plain, straightforward" reading of the text is that of a global flood, but all this means is that this is how the human author wrote it. That does not mean it is how it actually happened, historically. God can just as easily use non-historical adaptions or inflations of a story in order to convey his ultimate truths.

Or, the Bible could just mean what it says.

Or it could mean something other than what you believe it literally says. Is the plainest literal text always what actually happened, or just always what God wants us to learn from?

What we do know is that the Bible can not "mean" that a global flood literally happened because a global flood DIDN'T literally happen, and the Bible can not tell a lie. So, it must "mean" something other than a global flood. The choices are either:

1. The story God uses to convey His message is not tied to any particular historical event.

2. The story IS tied to an historical event, a local flood, but God had the human writer write it as it is.