Flood stratigraphy

[Floodnut]

Sigh... is anyone here willing to present an argument relating to the OT? Anyone? Creationists tend to get upset that their views are not well respected in the science community, yet when their beliefs are put to the test, they are unwilling to back themselves beyond "I let my Bible do my thinking for me." You can't have your creation "science" taught in the schools if nobody's put any thought into the subject!
And yet we'll continue to hear, "evolutionary theory is not science." Well, at least it comes up with some answers.

You don't really care about the Old Testament. You reject the plain sense of the OT in favor of the lies of evolution. I really don't care whether you and the scientific community respect the Bible. That is something you will one day take up with the Author of the Bible. Your beliefs are the ones that are put to the test of the final authority of God's word and come up miserably short of Truth. I for one do not want state schools trying to teach the Bible, any more than I would want you to teach the Bible.

 

[laptoppop]

Flood - I think Mallon meant Original Topic (i.e. the first post in this thread) as opposed to Old Testament.

 

[Mallon]

Flood - I think Mallon meant Original Topic (i.e. the first post in this thread) as opposed to Old Testament.

Indeed, I meant "original topic". The issue here is science, not theology. Creationists don't like evolution because they think the "science is wrong". Well, if that's the case, then I would like to see the better alternative creationist explanation. So far it has become evident, at least in this thread, that there are no creationist alternatives to explaining the details of the rock record -- just "God doesn't want me to think about that; shame on you for asking."
And for the 2,392,549th time, Floodnut, I respect the Bible and believe it to be true. I simply don't agree with your "plain sense" reading of it. And for what it's worth, this...

Your beliefs are the ones that are put to the test of the final authority of God's word and come up miserably short of Truth.

... doesn't seem to jive with this:

know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

We are saved by faith in Christ, Floodnut; not by a belief in a literal Genesis. Your scare tactics won't work here.

 

[laptoppop]

And for the 2,392,549th time...

Are you sure? I could have sworn it was the 2,392,550th time!

 

[Floodnut]

Indeed, I meant "original topic". The issue here is science, not theology. T R U N C A T E D

Whoops, I thought this was the origins THEOLOGY forum.

 

[Mallon]

Whoops, I thought this was the origins THEOLOGY forum.

It may be. But I don't dare go to the C&E forum for serious answers to serious questions.

*crickets*

 

[jereth]

Whoops, I thought this was the origins THEOLOGY forum.

Certainly, but there's been plenty of scientific discussion on this forum as well. Genuine theology always interacts with the real world (eg. science) because the world belongs to God (psalm 24:1).

But since you are so keen on discussing theology: can you give one good THEOLOGICAL reason why the flood narrative cannot be interpreted in local terms?

 

[Floodnut]

Certainly, but there's been plenty of scientific discussion on this forum as well. Genuine theology always interacts with the real world (eg. science) because the world belongs to God (psalm 24:1).

But since you are so keen on discussing theology: can you give one good THEOLOGICAL reason why the flood narrative cannot be interpreted in local terms?

the reason is the simple conservative evangelical, orthodox, fundamental approach to Scripture called the Grammatical/Historical Method of Interpretation.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the reason is the simple conservative evangelical, orthodox, fundamental approach to Scripture called the Grammatical/Historical Method of Interpretation.

there are those who claim to be using exactly this hermeneutic that do contend that the Noahic flood was local, perhaps the best and most accessible is Davis Young, (son of Edward Young) see:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

his book, quoted in the first paragraph, is the best example of conservative scholarship on the issue i am aware of. a truly worthwhile read.

 

[jereth]

the reason is the simple conservative evangelical, orthodox, fundamental approach to Scripture called the Grammatical/Historical Method of Interpretation.

Sorry, but I asked you for a theological reason why the flood cannot be local. This is not a theological reason, it is an appeal to a type of hermeneutic (which, by the way, YECism is not based upon).

In direct contrast to strictly literal interpretations which disregard context, and are often employed by people known collectively as Fundamentalists, the Grammatico-Historical method will never take a surface 'plain meaning' interpretation of a text unless it first qualifies whether or not the text should be read differently within the context that it is found in the Bible, especially regarding Biblical genres such as parables, prophecy, apocalyptic, poetry, wisdom literature, and in regard to figures of speech and idioms.

emphasis mine

Last I checked, YECism "disregards context" and takes the "surface plain meaning interpretation" in total ignorance of context, genre, figures of speech and idiom. That makes them literalists through and through.

 

[Floodnut]

there are those who claim to be using exactly this hermeneutic that do contend that the Noahic flood was local, perhaps the best and most accessible is Davis Young, (son of Edward Young) see:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

his book, quoted in the first paragraph, is the best example of conservative scholarship on the issue i am aware of. a truly worthwhile read.

So? He is wrong.

 

[Floodnut]

It is as Jesus said. You will not believe. Someone was nice enough to invite me here, but it is a waste of time to wade through all the unbelief. If you will to do his will then you will know the truth. You will to believe in evolution and you will nver know the truth. An aptosaurus could waddle up and bite you in the nose and you still would not believe. If you believe not Moses you will not believe though one rose from the dead.

 

[Mallon]

Here's something else Jesus said, Floodnut:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Please do not pass judgment on the strength of our convictions. We are saved through faith in Christ alone, so I fail to see why subscribing to a global Flood or literal Creation account should mean so much to you. I have asked the local creationist camp here to provide an answer to a very simple question, and pretty much all I have gotten in response is, "Shame on you for asking questions; your disbelief disgusts me." I think the inability of the creationist camp to address the original question speaks volumes.

 

[Floodnut]

Here's something else Jesus said, Floodnut:

Please do not pass judgment on the strength of our convictions. We are saved through faith in Christ alone, so I fail to see why subscribing to a global Flood or literal Creation account should mean so much to you. I have asked the local creationist camp here to provide an answer to a very simple question, and pretty much all I have gotten in response is, "Shame on you for asking questions; your disbelief disgusts me." I think the inability of the creationist camp to address the original question speaks volumes.

Here you go judging me. It just does not stop. You have faith in Christ Jesus alone? Who is Christ Jesus and what do your words mean. Are they literal, or a metaphor or a figure?

 

[Mallon]

Here you go judging me. It just does not stop. You have faith in Christ Jesus alone? Who is Christ Jesus and what do your words mean. Are they literal, or a metaphor or a figure?

Sigh... I am not judging you, Floodnut. You quite obviously believe everything the Bible has to say, and I don't doubt your faith.

And for what it's worth, I believe in a literal Jesus Christ who literally saved me from my literal sins.

Now if you're not going to address my original question, please refrain from dragging this thread any further off topic. For the sake of getting this thing back on course, I will ask my question again:

Specifically, which strata were deposited by the Flood?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So? He is wrong.

1. you have no physical evidence for a global flood
2. there exists lots of compelling evidence that it did not happen
3. we have local flood, like the Washington state badlands that do show what an enormous flood can do.

i'll take the evidence over your bare denial. thanks for playing.

 

[Floodnut]

Specifically, which strata were deposited by the Flood?

Most of the ones with fossils.

 

[Floodnut]

1. you have no physical evidence for a global flood
2. there exists lots of compelling evidence that it did not happen
3. we have local flood, like the Washington state badlands that do show what an enormous flood can do.

i'll take the evidence over your bare denial. thanks for playing.

The Bible says the flood was universal. I'll take the Bible over you unbelief and bare denial. And it is not a game.

 

[Mallon]

Most of the ones with fossils.

I can name you several well-known strata from throughout the Phanerozoic that could not have been deposited by the Flood (e.g. Joggins deposits, Coconino sandstone, Djadocta Formation, etc.). Care to be more specific? "Most of the ones with fossils" does not hold water with those who actually study the fossil record.

 

[laptoppop]

I'll bite -- why do you say "could not have been deposited by the flood"? What is there about these deposits that makes that impossible? (not just unlikely)