'biblical' problems with a local flood...

[SBG]

On a side note: we can also conclude that John didn't actually write Revelations or his letters, his friend/secretary wrote it. Paul didn't actually write most of his own letters, they were dictations written by another. Peter's letters were dictated.

So what is your point with Moses?

 

[SBG]

Well, let's first take a look at what we have to work with.

Genesis 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."
Genesis 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;
Genesis 7:22 - of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
Genesis 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.

There are a couple more references that we can use, but I think these give us the idea. In your opinion, do you believe that it's possible that the Bible is referring to anything but all the animals that were alive at that time?

Just to mention that Genesis 7:4 is God speaking.

 

[Vance]

Delta, there is no need at all to read the same words in the same way throughout the various texts. The fact that this very phrase "kol erets" is used in dramatically different ways throughout Scripture is proof of that. It is used in places in which it DEFINITELY does not mean the entire planet, so the question is what it means in this text.

 

[BrotherSteve]

You left out a key term here. The flood could not be local and the bible literally true.

It can still be true in any way that really counts i.e for teaching, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. That is how Peter is using it.

While I don't believe that everything in the bible should be taken literally (Jesus spoke in parables, etc), I do believe that Christians need to not compromise on biblical truths. To say that "It can still be true in any way that really counts" is not the intent of 2 Tim 3:16 (I assume that is what you refer to in your comment).

2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The whole bible "really counts" and it was never intended for the Church to pick and choose what they take literally as long as they maintain the usefulness of the bible for teaching, etc.

2 Peter 1:20-21 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Vance]

While I don't believe that everything in the bible should be taken literally (Jesus spoke in parables, etc), I do believe that Christians need to not compromise on biblical truths. To say that "It can still be true in any way that really counts" is not the intent of 2 Tim 3:16 (I assume that is what you refer to in your comment).

2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The whole bible "really counts" and it was never intended for the Church to pick and choose what they take literally as long as they maintain the usefulness of the bible for teaching, etc.

2 Peter 1:20-21 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

But you are acting as if we should start with a default of literalism, as if this is the preferred and most desirable literary style, and we should only read something differently when there is some proof that it was meant non-literally.

Why? I address this very issue in my "Presumption of Literalism" thread.

 

[SBG]

But you are acting as if we should start with a default of literalism, as if this is the preferred and most desirable literary style, and we should only read something differently when there is some proof that it was meant non-literally.

Why? I address this very issue in my "Presumption of Literalism" thread.

You act as if the Bible should start with an allegorical reading as our default, as if this is the most desirable literary style.

Why the Persumption of Allegoricalism?

 

[Delta One]

Hi Vance,

But when the same words are used in the next chapter to describe the flood event, I think you have to other wise you're not being consistent and can just reinterpret the Bible how ever you want to and when ever you want to. Does that sound like the infallible Word of God to you if it's just your interpretation based on your own religious beliefs? Hmm, its no wonder why many people don't believe the claims of the Bible as being the Authorative Word of God when they see Christians just reinterpreting it to fit what the world says. The Bible is meant by God to influence the world, not the world influence it!

 

[Delta One]

Hi gluadys,

You should read my words more carefully. Notice the words "and/or put together the first few chapters of Genesis". It's most likely that the writings were taken onto the Ark with Noah to survive the global destruction.

 

[Vance]

Hi Vance,

But when the same words are used in the next chapter to describe the flood event, I think you have to other wise you're not being consistent and can just reinterpret the Bible how ever you want to and when ever you want to. Does that sound like the infallible Word of God to you if it's just your interpretation based on your own religious beliefs? Hmm, its no wonder why many people don't believe the claims of the Bible as being the Authorative Word of God when they see Christians just reinterpreting it to fit what the world says. The Bible is meant by God to influence the world, not the world influence it!

Who said anything about interpreting however you want to, so that it fits your own religious beliefs? Are you choosing to interpret it to mean the entire planet (when there is more than one possible interpretation) just because it fits with your "global flood" belief? No, we must set aside our presumptions of whether it is global or local and go from there. Where is there a usage of "kol erets" in the story that you think MUST be the entire planet? And even if there was, is it possible for you to use the word "land" in a given story in more than one meaning? Of course.

Our goal is to seek to determine what God is telling us in these passages, what the appropriate interpretation is.

Now, just to remind you, I am pointing out the arguments why the text can just as easily be indicating a local flood as a global one (actually more so, in my mind), but as I have said many times in threads on this subject, I don't think that what the author meant by "kol erets" is ultimately the decisive anyway.

Just as I believe that the human writer of Genesis one meant 24-hour periods by "YOM", but simply meant the whole story as a figurative representation of events, I think that is equally possible with the human author of the flood account. This is a story, and presentation of a past event, but in the form of a story, with no intent to provide strict historical details. When people in that culture told stories about their past, their only intent was to pass on the essential truths about the event, and would tell those truths in the most entertaining, powerful, impactful manner possible. Neither the teller or the hearer was expecting the story to be a strict historical narrative.

Look at the chiastic structure of the story. You can see it here:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

In figure 3, about 2/3 of the way through the document. Does that look like the structure of a story meant to convey strict literal history?

 

[SBG]

I have seen this article before, presented by TEs. I will try to make some time to read it fully, as I have read some of it and skimmed the rest.

What struck me is this line:

"[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In particular, this view of origins asserts that humanity evolved from primate ancestors, and during this natural process the Image of God arose and sin entered the world."

[/font]Does anyone see this as a possible problem for non-believers? "the Image of God arose and sin entered the world."

Shall we now blame God for sin because we were created in His Image? That is how it looks to be presented to me.

 

[Delta One]

Hello shernren,

That's precisely what I'm talking about. Either there were no deep-sea vent ecosystems before the Flood (due to there being no deep-sea vents before the flood) or the deep-sea vent ecosystems were completely and catastrophically destroyed by this process. Then, we have the complete evolution of an entire ecosystem from scratch (to worms that can withstand 50+ degrees temperature difference between their heads and their tails, for example, mind you) that is completely suited to its environment, within 6000 years. And you say macroevolution is impossible?

Meh? I understood the first part, but when you went on to talk about the worms you lost me. I'm not sure what any of this has got to do with evolution. The very fact that all these events as outlined by Isaiah and explained by AiG happened so quickly supernaturally is evidence against geological evolution, which says that things have been going on as they are today for billions of years - known as the geological principle (some really weird name that I can't spell).

Now, firstly, if I read this "at face value". I would assume that you think I don't know how to read, and that would be a very grave insult.

How did you get that by reading at face value, i.e. reading it as it appears? Firstly my statement was a question; and secondly, yes I was hinting at your lack of knowledge of what "face value" is (not that you can't "read", which is what you commented on) - which you have just proven then. You totally reinterpreted my sentence to say something that it did not say or imply something that it couldn't imply.

Secondly, to read the Bible "at face value" as you imply, you have to know Hebrew and read the original scrolls. Oops.

The Bibles that we have today are the same as the Hebrew writtings - they are just translated into a different language and different era, which in some situations can be extremely hard to do given that some words have different meanings.

Thirdly, there is no such thing as just reading something at face value.

Just simply reading it as it appears...

There will always be an underlying first interpretation through which information must pass before it makes any sense. The only reason you think it is "at face value" is because you are reading it through underlying first interpretations that have been so completely ingrained that they seem like second nature to you.

I find it interesting how TEs and evolutionists in general avoid stating that they have unprovable starting faiths in an argument about creation/evolution, yet they for some unknown reason acknowledge it for other parts when it suits them and aids their case. Very weird.

No, I'm just reading it as it appears, take Exodus 20:11 for example where it says that in six days God made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that in them and He rested on the seventh day. A straight forward reading as it appears tells us that God created everything in six days and that He rested on the seventh day. That is reading it at face value.

Now, a person may decided not to believe it and then they use their bias and underlying assumptions or starting beliefs to reinterpret it such that it aligns to their position; or since it doesn't not go at all with a person's underlying assumptions they just reject it fullstop. On the other hand, a person may chose to believe it as written and how it appears and that therefore forms a position believed out of faith to be true. As you can now see, it is the TEs who reinterpret the verses based on their different starting positions and faiths, while the literalists take it as it appears and believe it to be true out of faith.

What I'm trying to get across (in this extremely reductionist manner) is that there are many different viewpoints. There is no such thing as having "no viewpoint" i.e. being "completely objective". That position doesn't exist.

Agreed, I have never disputed this point before and have in fact, been trying to get many evolutionists to believe that there are many different interpretations of the same evidence to very little effect although when I challange them, they remain strangely silent.

They assume that the Bible is God's Word, that it is infallible, that it has a salvation message, that it is unique. But that's biased!

Yes it is! It is a position based on faith - the above should form the basis of a Christian's thinking and everything else should be compared to that. Atheists have a similar foundation to their thinking - that the Bible is not God's Word and is fallible and that we don't need God because we are not sinners.

That's a completely unfair way to look at the Bible! Theology should be done by people who read the Bible at face value: they must be people who don't assume anything: i.e. don't assume that it is the Word of God, don't assume that it is infallible... if you insist on "reading the Bible at face value" that's what you'll get.

Anyone of any religion and any belief can read the Bible as it is written or as it appears on the paper and tell you what the Bible is saying. Take for example Exodus 20:11. Other beliefs about what that verse means are simply based on fallible assumptions that are heavily influenced by people's starting faiths or presuppositions.

To return to my vocab: Since the best observer is an objective observer, then theology shouldn't be done by Christians, because Christians are not objective, by definition. They "don't take it at face value": they take it as truth, and that's wrong. Theology should be done by atheists! They are the only objective ones, the ones who really "read the Bible at face value" instead of assuming there is a God behind it.

What?? And atheists are objective?? You've gone mad! They are 100% biased that God does not exist and that the Bible is not His infallible Word. They will of course read it as it is usually, although they will never believe that the event happened and will most likely scoff at it because it goes against their one absolute truth, i.e. no God exists and therefore, there could have been no global flood produced by supernatural means because there is no God. Anything that goes against their belief is a "lie" in their eyes.

As I have said close to a million times in this post already, reading the Bible at face value is just simply reading and taking it as it appears. This does not require any faith. This is contrasted by asking "What do you think it means?" which does require faith and a person's underlying starting beliefs.

If you really took the Flood "at face value", without having to assume that it was literal truth, you'd dismiss it as just another cult myth.

Considering that most other religions and indigenous peoples around the whole world also tell of a time when the whole world was under water, I guess that you'd have to accept it as it was a historical event. But notice that after you've read it literally, what you make of it depends on your underlying faith and presuppositions. An atheist will obviously disregard it as a lie because since it can't be formed naturally the event requires the supernatura, which an atheist by its very defintion can't accept.

 

[shernren]

Okay Delta, about the worms thing:

You know that there are robust and highly adapted ecosystems on the deep ocean vents right?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/exploring.html
http://www.ocean.washington.edu/people/grads/scottv/exploraquarium/vent/intro.htm

Question: are these ecosystems older than the Flood, or younger?

If these ecosystems are older than the Flood, that means the overall tectonic structure of the sea-bed remained unchanged during the Flood. Furthermore, it means that the overall tectonic structure of the sea-bed that supports these ecosystems has been around before the Flood, and therefore that the seas were deep instead of shallow pre-Flood. So there goes your main source of water and the most comfortable explanation of "founts of the deep".

If, to the contrary, these ecosystems originated after the Flood, the implications are that life (probably) and a few whole new genera (definitely) evolved from whatever was left after the breaking open of the "founts of the deep" destroyed the sea-bed. This means a few new genera were formed within a few thousand years according to your time-scale. Therefore, this constitutes very rapid macroevolution, and as a result you cannot argue anymore that macroevolution does not happen, for we have an entire ecosystem that arose as a result of rapid macroevolution that has been observed!

So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

And I think we've completely missed each other on reading at face value. So let me try a complete restatement and we'll start from there.

If I read the Bible at face value, you know what? I'd think the Bible is impossible. What with all those miracles and prophecies. Fullstop.
So would you. So would anyone of any religion.

But then you argue, "No! You're reading the Bible with an assumption that it should be normal and completely explainable by science!" Then I'd say, "You're reading the Bible with an assumption that miracles happen."

So, Delta's assumption No.1: Miracles happen. (Which is actually a rather unreasonable assumption, considering - though I might be wrong - you have probably never actually seen a physical miracle happen.)

Next:
If I read the Bible at face value, I'd think that it was contradicting itself. Four Gospels with events in different order. Two genealogies of Jesus, two Creation accounts, two Goliaths of Gath being killed by different people...hmm?

But then you argue, "No! You're assuming that the Bible is simply a human book in which mistakes happen!" And I reply, "Why can't I? You're assuming that it is written by God and therefore has divine infallibility."

Delta's assumption No.2: The Bible is written by God, or at least completely under God's direction and control. (Which is actually another rather unreasonable assumption, since you've never actually seen God writing it or directing its writing.)

Next:
If I read the Bible at face value, I'm going to dismiss it out of hand. I mean, laws telling me I can't eat pork and lobster and crab? Or that a bat is a bird? Or that a virgin raped in the city is guilty but a virgin raped in the country is innocent? Telling me not to worship idols? This is the twenty-first century, man!

But then you argue, "No! You're not taking into account that if it is written for us, then we can find the relevant core of whatever is said to previous generations!" And I reply, "Why can't I? You're assuming that whatever is said wasn't just said to some musty old generation lying in the dirt."

Delta's assumption No.3: The Bible is relevant for today's life. (Which, again, can seem rather unreasonable when you realise that many decisions we make today are made completely independent of Biblical principles, such as what color socks, what to buy my friend for her birthday, what to eat for breakfast...)

See what I'm getting at?

You're not reading the Bible at face value. Why should you assume I should?

Don't get me wrong. Assumptions are good. That's my precise point: sometimes people imagine that they can approach a text "without any preconceived notions", "completely objectively", "at face value" and so on, when such a thing is so imaginary. Without assumptions, information wouldn't make sense. Wisdom is just accumulated, God-given assumptions through which we view the world. And all Christians must hold to those three assumptions I've listed above, irrational and unreasonable as they are, because they are the core of the Christian interpretation of the Bible. I hold these assumptions too, and I make no apologies for it. Reading the Bible "at face value", as you call it, (which would actually mean reading it from the atheistic viewpoint, since if there is a God there is good and bad, which is bias of some sort) would make me an atheist and destroy my faith.

When you read the Bible, before everything else you must come with an assumption that these are English words structured in English sentences that have meaning. (Otherwise Genesis 1:1 would just be "I" "n" " " "t" "h" "e"...) The thing is that as our Western ideology is structured, at that "meaning" stage we are preconditioned to believe that the meaning of the written form must be constrained to literal truth. You come with an assumption that these are English words structured in English sentences that have meaning, and that that meaning is a literal meaning as surely as, and precisely because, these are English words structured in English sentences. (It's a little more complex than this, but the point is there.)

Now, what's wrong with approaching the text with an assumption that it has a metaphorical / literary meaning, instead of a literal one? Note I am not adding any assumptions: just changing one.

And by the way, I do agree that there is the supernatural worldview from which to view physical data. But your interpretation of the supernatural worldview is wrong. As far as I understand, if anything falls under a miracle, the data should be acknowledged and then treated as un-usable for further scientific investigation. (This is directly contrary to the materialist / naturalist viewpoint where "miraculous data" is deemed erroneous from the start, and not acknowledged as having some form of validity.) Miraculous data cannot be investigated scientifically because the results of that investigation would yield a "pseudo-science" framework with no predictive power in any other circumstance other than that of the miracle itself. Which is why the creationist scientific movement has it all wrong from the roots. Either it must assume that the miracles are under the same natural laws and see all their theories fall apart, or it must assume that the miracles are under different natural laws and therefore un-investigable within a scientific framework.

 

[shernren]

Delta, before we swish past each other again: what do you mean by "reading at face value"? What pre-assumptions about the Bible would you make when reading at face value?

Remus:

Genesis 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."
Genesis 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;
Genesis 7:22 - of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
Genesis 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.

There are a couple more references that we can use, but I think these give us the idea. In your opinion, do you believe that it's possible that the Bible is referring to anything but all the animals that were alive at that time?

Well, to me it's certainly possible. Don't know about to you, but my reasoning (except from 7:4) is something like this:

Let's say the Flood is recorded from man's perspective. To Noah, "all the world", "all dry land", "all the land" etc. might refer strictly to the areas he knew were populated by man at that time. Was America part of "all the land"? Maybe not, not because it isn't land, but because it was not something Noah knew of when he spoke of "all the world". It's something like asking why Noah didn't mention that all anaerobic bacteria died: not because he knew they'd survived, but because they were outside his domain of knowledge.

I leave the Gen 7:4 one out because it's harder, being a reported statement from God and therefore probably not subject to the human framework.

Then again, I should be clear that it is scientifically impossible for the Flood to have happened the way it is literally told in the Bible as a global Flood (though not supernaturally possible), whereas it is scientifically possible for the Flood to have happened the way it is literally told in the Bible as a local Flood. A global Flood gives me an entire problem passage whereas a local Flood gives me a single problem verse (or two). This is my personal preference and you can attack it if you wish, whereupon I'll have fun exposing your assumptions.

Anyway, I'm half of a mind that the Flood account is non-historical. Heh.

 

[Remus]

This is my personal preference and you can attack it if you wish, whereupon I'll have fun exposing your assumptions.

I am perfectly content to leave it as it is since I have no interest in "attacking" your position. But if you want to make this into a challenge, then we can sure have a go. Personally, I’d rather you deal with these issues as you see fit without my interference. It’s your call. You want to leave our discussion as a friendly discourse, or would you like to see what blood we can collectively draw?

 

[gluadys]

Hi gluadys,

You should read my words more carefully. Notice the words "and/or put together the first few chapters of Genesis". It's most likely that the writings were taken onto the Ark with Noah to survive the global destruction.

According to the evidence available, the first few chapters of Genesis were written for the first time more than 1500 years after Noah died.

I don't think he had them on the Ark with him. Most likely the flood story was passed on orally as most accounts were in those days and only put in writing much later.

 

[gluadys]

On a side note: we can also conclude that John didn't actually write Revelations or his letters, his friend/secretary wrote it. Paul didn't actually write most of his own letters, they were dictations written by another. Peter's letters were dictated.

So what is your point with Moses?

Something dictated to a secretary or scribe is still the composition of the person who dictated it. When a letter is dictated, it is signed, (usually) by the one who dictated it, not by the one who transcribed the dictation. Paul notes at least once that he is signing a letter in his own hand.

Moses, however, neither wrote nor dictated the Torah. It was attributed to him by the post-exilic rabbinical schools. Attribution is not evidence of authorship. The evidence indicates the earliest portions of the Torah (e.g. Gen. 2:4b-4:26) were written during the time of the divided kingdom, and the later portions (e.g. Gen. 1:1-2:4a) around the time of the exile.

 

[SBG]

I leave the Gen 7:4 one out because it's harder, being a reported statement from God and therefore probably not subject to the human framework.

It is hard for the perspective of a local flood because it is now shifted to God's perspective of the earth/land. Does God only see where Noah lives, or does He see all that He created? That poses challenges to your underline system of belief on this matter.

I am curious, you say it is harder because it is a reported statement from God. Have you looked closely at Genesis 1-3? They are also reported statements from God.

 

[SBG]

Something dictated to a secretary or scribe is still the composition of the person who dictated it. When a letter is dictated, it is signed, (usually) by the one who dictated it, not by the one who transcribed the dictation. Paul notes at least once that he is signing a letter in his own hand.

Moses, however, neither wrote nor dictated the Torah. It was attributed to him by the post-exilic rabbinical schools. Attribution is not evidence of authorship. The evidence indicates the earliest portions of the Torah (e.g. Gen. 2:4b-4:26) were written during the time of the divided kingdom, and the later portions (e.g. Gen. 1:1-2:4a) around the time of the exile.

Are you positive Moses didn't write nor dictated what is in the Torah?

Mark 10:5
Mark 12:19
Mark 12:26
Luke 20:28
John 1:45
Acts 28:23
Romans 10:5
1 Corinthians 9:9
2 Corinthians 3:15

 

[shernren]

I am perfectly content to leave it as it is since I have no interest in "attacking" your position. But if you want to make this into a challenge, then we can sure have a go. Personally, I’d rather you deal with these issues as you see fit without my interference. It’s your call. You want to leave our discussion as a friendly discourse, or would you like to see what blood we can collectively draw?

I was alluding to Delta's "at face value" and the idea that we can read the Word without pre-suppositions. I'm coming clear with my presupposition that the current state of science deserves merit when considering my interpretation of the Word. If anyone wants to say that isn't reading it "at face value" I'm going to have fun showing how little they read it at face value either.

But I'm glad and pleasantly surprised that you see fit to leave me as is with my interpretations. After all, this is such a small quibble to quibble over. Don't worry though, I'm sure others will have fun attacking me where you hold back.

It is hard for the perspective of a local flood because it is now shifted to God's perspective of the earth/land. Does God only see where Noah lives, or does He see all that He created? That poses challenges to your underline system of belief on this matter.

I am curious, you say it is harder because it is a reported statement from God. Have you looked closely at Genesis 1-3? They are also reported statements from God.

It's called intellectual honesty, if you think it is something to be respected, heh. Of course all positions have their weaknesses and strengths. But as I've said, I'd prefer one problem verse to three problem chapters, y'know. Is that wrong?

 

[gluadys]

Are you positive Moses didn't write nor dictated what is in the Torah?

Mark 10:5
Mark 12:19
Mark 12:26
Luke 20:28
John 1:45
Acts 28:23
Romans 10:5
1 Corinthians 9:9
2 Corinthians 3:15

As sure as I can be without becoming an expert in OT linguistics myself. When the NT was being written, the tradition that the law had been written by Moses was well established and so these texts were written from within that tradition.

And, of course, without access to evidence that would not be developed until over a millennium and a half later, it is a perfectly logical tradition. Moses is the chief character in the Torah. The law was given to Israel through Moses. Moses may even have written some of it down, though it appears any text that can be traced right back to him has disappeared.

No doubt, given that the vast majority of the Israelites were illiterate (and that includes the leadership) Moses spent many hours teaching them the Torah orally. I have no doubt that when P wrote out the extensive sacrificial and medical rituals in Leviticus, he was setting in writing practices he and other priests had committed to memory during their training and which he believed came directly from Moses himself. So, in a sense, he was writing what Moses would have written if Moses had put this in writing.

Much the same applies to D who wrote Deuteronomy. It is cast as a farewell speech by Moses. And the writer is probably setting in writing what he believed would have been Moses' farewell speech if something like this had been written at the actual time. (Compare Luke's rendition of Peter's Pentecost sermon.) You might think of the actual writers as Moses' posthumous ghost-writers.

So I don't think the rabbis were wrong in saying the Torah was given through Moses. It is just that the actual scenario is a bit more complicated than Moses himself putting pen to paper.