OEC and Local Flood

[hisgrace26]

This question is for theistic evolutionists, assuming you believe in an old earth with the biblical flood being a local event. How do you reconcile a local flood with an old earth view? To me there are two problems.

1. If the flood was local why have Noah build an ark and stay for one year long? This doesn't make any sense.

2. If the flood was local, then God break His promise to Noah, because we got local floods all the time. This means you have a very different God. A God who is deceitful.

So if your God lies, why should you trust the rest of your bible? You cannot.

Look, I'm not trying to be mean here. I just get worry at people believing this local flood stuff. Come on, stand up for the truth of God.

 

[Keachian]

Look, I'm not trying to be mean here. I just get worry at people believing this local flood stuff. Come on, stand up for the truth of God.

The Truth of God is not dependent on viewing the Bible as historical fact, sorry it just isn't, the Truth of God firmly rests on the Resurrection, from what we know of other Messianic movements the one with Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah is completely atypical of them all, see when their Messiah claimant died, 50 days later they are proclaiming that he is not dead in the ground but alive and at the right hand of God. To a first century Jew, this is simply a ridiculous claim and only helps to show the radicality of the early Christian movement, of course then we need to go through scriptures and make our understanding of what happened from there and I'd put it to you that the Gospel message which to my mind is apparent in Genesis 1 is important, the Gospel message that flows through out scripture is more important than any historical "facts" that you want to drag it down with. All of the Old Testament points forward to the life, death and resurrection of Christ. All of the New Testament points backward

 

[granpa]

2. If the flood was local, then God break His promise to Noah, because we got local floods all the time. This means you have a very different God. A God who is deceitful.

the flood was local but it was a flood of unusual size.
nothing like it has happened since.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7652577/

 

[Schroeder]

the flood was local but it was a flood of unusual size.
nothing like it has happened since.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7652577/

why does it speak of destroing ALL flesh then. ALL those who inhabit the earth. I suppose ALL peoples could have been in just a small part of the the earth and not inhabited over all of it. But it doesnt say. the earth shows that water covered it all at one point. there are dead sea life in every part of the earth. this would concluded a whole earth flood to me. gen. 6:6-7,13.

 

[ALoveDivine]

If the flood was local why have Noah build an ark and stay for one year long?

God rarely sends judgement without warning. I think God had Noah build the ark, rather than flee, so as to warn the inhabitants of the land of the judgement to come. The bible also calls Noah a preacher of righteousness, so this preaching combined with the ark-building provided a powerful testimony to the people of the coming judgement. And yet, they did not repent. Plus, God wanted to preserve the animals in the region, hence having Noah take them on the ark.

If the flood was local, then God break His promise to Noah, because we got local floods all the time.

It was a cataclysmic local flood that wiped out all of humanity except for Noah and his family. I would estimate the date of the flood at about 30-40 thousand years ago. At this time all of humanity was concentrated in the mid-east/Mesopotamian region. So the flood was local, but universal in effect, wiping out that sinful generation. God promised to never again destroy humanity by means of a flood, he has kept that promise.

 

[freezerman2000]

God rarely sends judgement without warning. I think God had Noah build the ark, rather than flee, so as to warn the inhabitants of the land of the judgement to come. The bible also calls Noah a preacher of righteousness, so this preaching combined with the ark-building provided a powerful testimony to the people of the coming judgement. And yet, they did not repent. Plus, God wanted to preserve the animals in the region, hence having Noah take them on the ark.


It was a cataclysmic local flood that wiped out all of humanity except for Noah and his family. I would estimate the date of the flood at about 30-40 thousand years ago. At this time all of humanity was concentrated in the mid-east/Mesopotamian region. So the flood was local, but universal in effect, wiping out that sinful generation. God promised to never again destroy humanity by means of a flood, he has kept that promise.

^this^

 

[freezerman2000]

This question is for theistic evolutionists, assuming you believe in an old earth with the biblical flood being a local event. How do you reconcile a local flood with an old earth view? To me there are two problems.

1. If the flood was local why have Noah build an ark and stay for one year long? This doesn't make any sense.

2. If the flood was local, then God break His promise to Noah, because we got local floods all the time. This means you have a very different God. A God who is deceitful.

So if your God lies, why should you trust the rest of your bible? You cannot.

Look, I'm not trying to be mean here. I just get worry at people believing this local flood stuff. Come on, stand up for the truth of God.

You say that you are not trying to be mean,yet, you are doing a good job of it, coming on here and basically mocking us and questioning our faith.
You need to learn some tact!

 

[gluadys]

It was a cataclysmic local flood that wiped out all of humanity except for Noah and his family. I would estimate the date of the flood at about 30-40 thousand years ago. At this time all of humanity was concentrated in the mid-east/Mesopotamian region. So the flood was local, but universal in effect, wiping out that sinful generation. God promised to never again destroy humanity by means of a flood, he has kept that promise.

Fossil evidence of human habitations indicates there was never a time when all of humanity was concentrated in the Mesopotamian region--especially after the first cities were built and the first technologies initiated (both of which the Bible places before the flood.)

There were human populations throughout most of Africa before there were any human settlements in the Middle East at all. And humans had spread to much of South Asia, Australia and Europe and Central Asia before the beginnings of civilization.

The only continents which might not have been inhabited by humans 30-40 thousand years ago are the Americas. And I wouldn't be too sure of that either.

 

[granpa]

the biggest flood on earth since humans have existed is probably associated with

Australite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The australites acquired their streamlined, aerodynamic forms when they re-entered the Earth's atmosphere while molten and travelling at high velocities

Australasian strewnfield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Australasian strewnfield, covering at least one-tenth of the Earth's surface, is the largest and the youngest of the tektite strewnfields. The 800,000 year-old strewnfield includes most of Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, Southern China, Laos and Cambodia). The material from the impact stretches across the ocean to include the islands of the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Java and reaches far out into the Indian Ocean and south to the western side of Australia.

 

[Assyrian]

This question is for theistic evolutionists, assuming you believe in an old earth with the biblical flood being a local event. How do you reconcile a local flood with an old earth view? To me there are two problems.

1. If the flood was local why have Noah build an ark and stay for one year long? This

And God always explains his reason to you? If you can't understand it, it isn't so? Why create the world in six days when God could create it in an instant? Doesn't make any sense. It doesn't take forty years to walk from Egypt to Canaan, they must have been slaves somewhere else. Why walk around Jericho seven days? Why have a jubilee every fifty years?

2. If the flood was local, then God break His promise to Noah, because we got local floods all the time. This means you have a very different God. A God who is deceitful.

You aren't thinking it through. You are saying local flood but still thinking global. If the flood was local and 'the whole earth' that was flooded simply meant the land that was flooded, then God's covenant with the survivors in the Ark was with them, not people and animals from the rest of the world, and the earth God's promised Noah and everyone in the ark that he would never flood the earth again was about the land they settled after the flood, not the whole world. The promise wasn't even that there wouldn't be any floods, just that a flood wouldn't exterminate all life in that land.

So if your God lies, why should you trust the rest of your bible? You cannot.

Look, I'm not trying to be mean here. I just get worry at people believing this local flood stuff. Come on, stand up for the truth of God.

God doesn't lie, but very often we don't understand him. You know the passage ""For my thoughts are not your thoughts neither and my way yours" says the Lord..." Just because you interpret a passage one way and you think you have God's reasons figured out, doesn't mean your interpretation must be right, that God's couldn't possibly do anything you can't get your head around.

 

[Dieselman]

As I recall, the ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat. Mountains are rather tall rocky formations that tower thousands of feet above sea level. Mt Ararat, for example, is just under 17,000 feet high. The ark is thought to have come to rest some 13,000 feet atop the mountain.

If it was a local flood, then how did the water rise to 13,000 feet above sea level in one place and not another, since gravity would keep the depth relatively the same unless the water was encapsulated in a perfectly watertight structure? No such structure exists. You have to deny the basic properties of gravity to pretend that a local flood could deposit a floating wooden boat atop a mountain. Frankly, this would have been a greater miracle than a worldwide flood. Funny, though, no less authority than Jesus Christ, who was there at the time, believed that it happened just as the Scriptures detailed. I suppose it's POSSIBLE to be a follower of Christ and think Him a liar, but frankly, if I thought Him to be a liar I certainly would not trust His word about anything.

You can't compromise truth and expect it to remain truth. You can't justify the word of God with the skepticism of man.

On that topic, having seen the Colorado River at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, seeing how slow and shallow it is and understanding that it couldn't have carved through that rock in a hundred billion years because it simply doesn't have the mass, what would convince me would be the enormous delta at the mouth where all the sediment was deposited. Wait... it doesn't exist. Shoot! Another "scientific" theory shot down!

 

[Assyrian]

As I recall, the ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat. Mountains are rather tall rocky formations that tower thousands of feet above sea level. Mt Ararat, for example, is just under 17,000 feet high. The ark is thought to have come to rest some 13,000 feet atop the mountain. If it was a local flood, then how did the water rise to 13,000 feet above sea level in one place and not another, since gravity would keep the depth relatively the same unless the water was encapsulated in a perfectly watertight structure? No such structure exists. You have to deny the basic properties of gravity to pretend that a local flood could deposit a floating wooden boat atop a mountain. Frankly, this would have been a greater miracle than a worldwide flood.

Mount Ararat only got the name around the 1st century BC or AD. It could refer to the kingdom of Urartu north of Assyria from the 13th century, but even that would be long after the flood is supposed to have happened. An alternative is that it refers to an unidentified region. If the name is Hebrew it could come from arar meaning curse, but the name could just as easily be from another language. The word har doesn't only mean a mountain it also refers to a hill. Basically the ark came to rest in the hills of a region called Arrt.

Funny, though, no less authority than Jesus Christ, who was there at the time, believed that it happened just as the Scriptures detailed. I suppose it's POSSIBLE to be a follower of Christ and think Him a liar, but frankly, if I thought Him to be a liar I certainly would not trust His word about anything.

Jesus didn't say anything about the flood being global or how high the waters were. He doesn't even say the flood was literal, instead he used the flood story as a warning of judgement the same way he used the parable of the tenants.

You can't compromise truth and expect it to remain truth. You can't justify the word of God with the skepticism of man.

On that topic, having seen the Colorado River at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, seeing how slow and shallow it is and understanding that it couldn't have carved through that rock in a hundred billion years because it simply doesn't have the mass,

Did you see the Colorado River before or after Hoover Dam and the Glen Canyon Dam were built?

what would convince me would be the enormous delta at the mouth where all the sediment was deposited. Wait... it doesn't exist. Shoot! Another "scientific" theory shot down!

Given the 120m sea level rise at the end of the last ice age, wouldn't the delta be under water now? Since the Grand Canyon has been forming over 17 million years while the Gulf of California which the Colorado flows into is only 5.3 million years old, what would that do to the delta?

 

[Philonephius]

1. If the flood was local why have Noah build an ark and stay for one year long? This doesn't make any sense.

Why did God command Abraham to kill Isaac? By your logic, that wouldn't make any sense, either. But from a Biblical perspective, both were tests of faith.

Why did God command Joshua and his army to march around Jericho?

2. If the flood was local, then God break His promise to Noah, because we got local floods all the time. This means you have a very different God. A God who is deceitful.

It is difficult to say where and when the flood of Noah occurred, exactly, but there was a flood that occurred around the Black Sea around the time of Noah. I believe this is probably the flood of Noah, and it would explain the resting place of the Ark (Mt. Ararat).

Look, I'm not trying to be mean here. I just get worry at people believing this local flood stuff. Come on, stand up for the truth of God.

Now that I've answered your questions, perhaps you could address some of the problems with the global flood idea, including: why fossils are sorted neatly in distinct sedimentary layers; why the most basic organisms (all extinct) appear in lower strata with increasingly complex organisms appearing in higher strata; the presence of surface features such as beaches, footprints, riverbeds, raindrop impressions, wind-blown sediment, and meteor craters throughout the layers; why human artifacts are found only in the uppermost strata. A very common YEC counter argument is that organisms were sorted during the flood based on their density and ability to escape the rising waters. This, however, is preposterous. There are numerous problems with the idea, including: why some types of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in several layers; why large animals such as elephants and dinosaurs aren’t found in the same layers; why tiny organisms dominate the lowest strata (logically, we'd expect them to rise to the top); and why various plant species are sorted neatly throughout the strata.

The global flood would also fail to explain why some species live where they do, in addition to the fact that it would be impossible to fit such an inordinate number of animals on the Ark to begin with. Furthermore, a global flood would require an inordinate amount of water. Where did it all go after the flood?

Now I will present what I believe to be a reasonable Biblical explanation for the flood:

"First of all, the Hebrew kol erets, meaning whole Earth, can also be translated whole land in reference to local, not global, geography. The Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer explains that the Hebrew word erets is often translated as Earth in English translations of the Bible, when in reality it is also the word for land, as in the land of Israel. Archer explains that erets is used many times throughout the Old Testament to mean land and country. Furthermore, the term tebel, which translates to the whole expanse of the Earth, or the Earth as a whole, is not used in Genesis 6:17, nor in subsequent verses in Genesis 7 (7:4, 7:10, 7:17, 7:18, 7:19). If the intent of this passage was to indicate the entire expanse of the Earth, tebel would have been the more appropriate word choice. Consequently, the Hebrew text is more consistent with a local geography for the flood. Moreover, in this period of history, people understood the whole Earth as a smaller geographical area. There is no evidence to suggest that people of this time had explored the far reaches of the globe or had any understanding of its scope."

[FONT=&quot]How should we interpret the Genesis flood account? | BioLogos



[/FONT]

 

[Philonephius]

As I recall, the ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat. Mountains are rather tall rocky formations that tower thousands of feet above sea level. Mt Ararat, for example, is just under 17,000 feet high. The ark is thought to have come to rest some 13,000 feet atop the mountain.

If it was a local flood, then how did the water rise to 13,000 feet above sea level in one place and not another, since gravity would keep the depth relatively the same unless the water was encapsulated in a perfectly watertight structure? No such structure exists. You have to deny the basic properties of gravity to pretend that a local flood could deposit a floating wooden boat atop a mountain. Frankly, this would have been a greater miracle than a worldwide flood. Funny, though, no less authority than Jesus Christ, who was there at the time, believed that it happened just as the Scriptures detailed. I suppose it's POSSIBLE to be a follower of Christ and think Him a liar, but frankly, if I thought Him to be a liar I certainly would not trust His word about anything.

You can't compromise truth and expect it to remain truth. You can't justify the word of God with the skepticism of man.

On that topic, having seen the Colorado River at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, seeing how slow and shallow it is and understanding that it couldn't have carved through that rock in a hundred billion years because it simply doesn't have the mass, what would convince me would be the enormous delta at the mouth where all the sediment was deposited. Wait... it doesn't exist. Shoot! Another "scientific" theory shot down!

Your understanding of geology is flawed and simplistic. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false. I do not understand string theory, but that doesn't make it false. It simply means that I lack proper training in the field of physics.

How the Grand Canyon was formed has already been explained by geologists, a theory that 99%+ of geologists and other experts on the subject accept. If that doesn't float your boat, fine, but flaunting your ignorance on the subject accomplishes nothing. Even if we set aside the evidence for how the GC was formed, we'd have to explain away other evidence for an old earth/universe, such as: the various radiometric dating methods, all of which cross-verify one another; distant starlight (Dr. Jason Lisle, perhaps the one YEC that has a legitimate PhD has offered an interesting explanation, but it ignores other evidence for an old universe); coral growth; petrified forests; dendrochronology; lunar retreat (it has been demonstrated that the Moon was once much closer to Earth, such that it would require recession by approximately 1 mile per year to fit within a 6,000 year time frame. The Moon retreats by around 4cm annually); ice layering; permafrost; etc. The bottom line is that the evidence for an old Earth/universe is overwhelming. This is why virtually all scientists -- minus the few PhD engineers and other "experts" over at Answers in Genesis -- accept that the Earth and universe are very old.

 

[Dieselman]

Your understanding of geology is flawed and simplistic. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false.

On the contrary. I understand their argument very well. I just don't believe it.

How the Grand Canyon was formed has already been explained by geologists, a theory that 99%+ of geologists and other experts on the subject accept.

Of course, the issue with that is that we have a very complete chronology of our history from Adam to Jesus, and we know what happened from there. That chronology is what shifted my views from OEC to YEC. In younger days I never paid much attention to "the begats" because I didn't see how they had any relevance. Now I realize that there is a reason God is telling us the age of the world.

flaunting your ignorance on the subject accomplishes nothing.

I'm afraid the ignorance is yours. Rejecting a theory is not the same as being unaware of the theory. You presume incorrectly that I haven't heard the scientific explanation a hundred times over. I find asanine the notion that a supernatural God would be limited to and confined by natural laws. I further understand that while science may determine a natural explanation for a supernatural event, if the event was indeed supernatural then the explanation cannot be correct.

 

[Philonephius]

On the contrary. I understand their argument very well. I just don't believe it.

Of course, the issue with that is that we have a very complete chronology of our history from Adam to Jesus, and we know what happened from there. That chronology is what shifted my views from OEC to YEC. In younger days I never paid much attention to "the begats" because I didn't see how they had any relevance. Now I realize that there is a reason God is telling us the age of the world.

I'm afraid the ignorance is yours. Rejecting a theory is not the same as being unaware of the theory. You presume incorrectly that I haven't heard the scientific explanation a hundred times over. I find asanine the notion that a supernatural God would be limited to and confined by natural laws. I further understand that while science may determine a natural explanation for a supernatural event, if the event was indeed supernatural then the explanation cannot be correct.

The ignorance is mine, and yet you made no attempt whatsoever to refute a single piece of evidence that I presented. Interesting...

 

[Dieselman]

The ignorance is mine, and yet you made no attempt whatsoever to refute a single piece of evidence that I presented. Interesting...

What makes you think that an omnipotent God would be bound by the natural laws of the world He created? For that matter, why would the Grand Canyon need to be carved at all? It COULD HAVE been carved by receding flood waters, or it could have been created as it is because God wanted it that way. The thing about being omnipotent is that you don't have to follow any laws but your own. You notice that everything was created in it's mature state. Adam was not a baby. The trees were created in bloom. Fish and whales were already adults when they were spoken into existence. If God created a mature world, capable of supporting life, how could there be any evidence of a young world?

The light from a star can take a thousand years to make it to earth, yet the light from that star was visible the instant it was created. Why? Because God made it that way.

 

[Papias]

Dieselman wrote:

Of course, the issue with that is that we have a very complete chronology of our history from Adam to Jesus, and we know what happened from there. That chronology is what shifted my views from OEC to YEC. In younger days I never paid much attention to "the begats" because I didn't see how they had any relevance. Now I realize that there is a reason God is telling us the age of the world.

It's important to remember that scripture interprets scripture. God's word itself tells us that those geneologies are to be taken figuratively, by showing that they can't all be literally true, because they contradict each other. For instance. Luke and Matthew disagree (if read literally) on who Joeseph's grandfather, great grandfather, etc. were.

Similarly, Mt openly removes names from a geneology he got from Cr, telling us (well, the Holy Spirit telling us) that they are figurative.

You can see this by comparing the same geneology in Mt and Cr:
Mt Gen# .....................Gospel of Matthew has.............................. 1st Chron. Has:
1....................................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, .................Solomon's son was
2 ....................................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,............... Rehoboam
3 ....................................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son
4....................................Asa .....................................................Asa his son,
5 ....................................Jehoshaphat ....................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6.................................... Jehoram ....................................Jehoram his son,
....................................Skipped....................................Ahaziah his son,

....................................Skipped ....................................Joash his son,
....................................Skipped ....................................Amaziah his son

7..........................Uzziah the father of Jotham, ......Azariah his son

8.................................... Jotham ....................................Jotham his son
]
9 ....................................Ahaz ....................................Ahaz his son,
10.....................Hezekiah ....................................Hezekiah his son,

11.................................... Manasseh ....................................Manasseh his son,
12 ....................................Amon ....................................Amon his son,
13.................................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ..............Josiah his son.



Papias

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What makes you think that an omnipotent God would be bound by the natural laws of the world He created? For that matter, why would the Grand Canyon need to be carved at all? It COULD HAVE been carved by receding flood waters, or it could have been created as it is because God wanted it that way. The thing about being omnipotent is that you don't have to follow any laws but your own. You notice that everything was created in it's mature state. Adam was not a baby. The trees were created in bloom. Fish and whales were already adults when they were spoken into existence. If God created a mature world, capable of supporting life, how could there be any evidence of a young world?

The light from a star can take a thousand years to make it to earth, yet the light from that star was visible the instant it was created. Why? Because God made it that way.

This is what we call "last-Thursdayism". In short, if you propose this, you might as well say that God created the world last Thursday. The arguments are identical.

As for the Colorado River delta, it actually does have one. It's not quite on the scale of the Mississippi delta, but it's still pretty big (21 miles across vs 33 miles for the Mississippi). Have a look on Google Earth. There are multiple reasons for this, which I can enumerate if you wish, but suffice to say that it is there.

 

[Philonephius]

What makes you think that an omnipotent God would be bound by the natural laws of the world He created? For that matter, why would the Grand Canyon need to be carved at all? It COULD HAVE been carved by receding flood waters, or it could have been created as it is because God wanted it that way. The thing about being omnipotent is that you don't have to follow any laws but your own. You notice that everything was created in it's mature state. Adam was not a baby. The trees were created in bloom. Fish and whales were already adults when they were spoken into existence. If God created a mature world, capable of supporting life, how could there be any evidence of a young world?

The light from a star can take a thousand years to make it to earth, yet the light from that star was visible the instant it was created. Why? Because God made it that way.

What you're saying doesn't hold water when it comes to the fossil record and radioactive decay. Furthermore, it lacks the ability to be falsified, as there would be no difference between an old universe and one that is created to appear old... well, except that the latter would make God a trickster of astronomical (literally) proportions. God is not the author of confusion.