Question about Old Earth

[Happy Hearts Club]

Question for OECs, really would like it answered.

I've been meaning to open up a thread on this for quite a bit, the topic is Noah's flood.

What I fail to understand is how such a massive/significant event is taken to be symbolic or generally non-historical, despite the fact that the account is extremely clear in its details --> that every creature on land and in air died, that every hill/mountain found under the heavens were covered. No, it clearly isn't symbolic nor is it a local flood. I didn't think I'd have to mention this, but I see there are those who value their world views to much to actually read scripture honestly and correctly.

Regardless, my question is simply this: if we are to take the flood as literal and global, what does that make of the old earth view?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT: Specifically, if anyone can provide insight in regards to the following question: What would be the ramifications of a literal, global flood on the various dating methods employed by science?

 

[gluadys]

Question for OECs, really would like it answered.

I've been meaning to open up a thread on this for quite a bit, the topic is Noah's flood.

What I fail to understand is how such a massive/significant event is taken to be symbolic or generally non-historical, despite the fact that the account is extremely clear in its details --> that every creature on land and in air died, that every hill/mountain found under the heavens were covered. No, it clearly isn't symbolic...

Sorry, it is not clear to me why the details of the description would make the story not symbolic.

Regardless, my question is simply this: if we are to take the flood as literal and global, what does that make of the old earth view?

It would mean the world around us is a fantasy and the reality exists only in words and not in things. For the words--taken literally-- and the things in the world they supposedly refer to do not conform to each other.

If we take the flood as literal and global, we can no longer take creation as literal and actual.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry, it is not clear to me why the details of the description would make the story not symbolic.

It would mean the world around us is a fantasy and the reality exists only in words and not in things. For the words--taken literally-- and the things in the world they supposedly refer to do not conform to each other.

If we take the flood as literal and global, we can no longer take creation as literal and actual.

I don't quite get it. There might be a hidden conflict on timing. Otherwise, I don't see why not.

 

[Assyrian]

Question for OECs, really would like it answered.

I've been meaning to open up a thread on this for quite a bit, the topic is Noah's flood.

What I fail to understand is how such a massive/significant event is taken to be symbolic or generally non-historical, despite the fact that the account is extremely clear in its details --> that every creature on land and in air died, that every hill/mountain found under the heavens were covered. No, it clearly isn't symbolic nor is it a local flood. I didn't think I'd have to mention this, but I see there are those who value their world views to much to actually read scripture honestly and correctly.

Regardless, my question is simply this: if we are to take the flood as literal and global, what does that make of the old earth view?

Most OECs I have come across take the flood literally, but locally. You are telling OECs to assume a YEC interpretation and asking what would happen to their OEC if they did.

 

[juvenissun]

Most OECs I have come across take the flood literally, but locally. You are telling OECs to assume a YEC interpretation and asking what would happen to their OEC if they did.

One can not take that stand.

Local flood happened, is happening and will happen. But global flood happened once and it will not happen again.

It is an extremely, I mean extremely bold prediction. I can model a global flood based on OEC understanding (not that hard, in fact). But I can not make a model to make it happen the second time. It is the same situation as to make the water on Mars flow again.

The prediction is simply amazing.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Most OECs I have come across take the flood literally, but locally. You are telling OECs to assume a YEC interpretation and asking what would happen to their OEC if they did.

A local flood is out of the question --> for every creature on land and every bird in air to die, it would require a global flood. This much is clear. YEC interpretation? No, it is simply the correct and honest interpretation, it has nothing to do with any YEC proponents.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Sorry, it is not clear to me why the details of the description would make the story not symbolic.

If you think such a significant event that speaks of the death of all living creatures (on earth/in air) is purely symbolic, then you are in denial. An event of this magnitude cannot be symbolic, nor is there any sort of scriptural evidence that points to it being symbolic. What business does anyone have inferring symbolism where there clearly isn't any whatsoever?

One must think really really hard on how God managed to eradicate all life on earth "symbolically".

It would mean the world around us is a fantasy and the reality exists only in words and not in things. For the words--taken literally-- and the things in the world they supposedly refer to do not conform to each other.

So we reject the wisdom of God revealed to us in the scriptures and we accept wholeheartedly the wisdom of men with fancy degrees. For if they say a global flood did not happen, surely they must be right and Noah's flood nothing more than a fanciful myth. It has nothing to do with a global flood being an actual event or not, it has everything to do with the fact that they will not and cannot contemplate the ramifications of a global flood.

If we take the flood as literal and global, we can no longer take creation as literal and actual.

That is in no shape or form a definitive truth, but rather just your subjective, personal opinion.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

One can not take that stand.

Local flood happened, is happening and will happen. But global flood happened once and it will not happen again.

It is an extremely, I mean extremely bold prediction. I can model a global flood based on OEC understanding (not that hard, in fact). But I can not make a model to make it happen the second time. It is the same situation as to make the water on Mars flow again.

The prediction is simply amazing.

But then I would simply ask a question, which is essentially the heart of the topic and main reason why I opened this thread. What would be the ramifications of a literal, global flood on all the dating methods employed by science?

 

[Papias]

Happy wrote:

Question for OECs, really would like it answered.
.........Regardless, my question is simply this: if we are to take the flood as literal and global, what does that make of the old earth view?

Could I ask for a minor clarification? Are you asking only OECs (who hold to an old earth, but deny evolution and common descent), such as Jehovah's Witnesses........

OR are you asking both OECs and TEs/ECs, who are all Christians who hold to an old earth?

Next, assuming you are asking a question including the TEs, I'll answer as a TE:

But then I would simply ask a question, which is essentially the heart of the topic and main reason why I opened this thread. What would be the ramifications of a literal, global flood on all the dating methods employed by science?

Great question! Help me understand exactly what you are asking, again, though. Are you asking:

1. If the earth were 4.5 billion years old, and a global flood happened in ~2350 BC as in a literal reading of genesis, then how would the dating methods be affected?

***OR*** are you asking:

2. If the earth were 6,000 (= 6K) years old, and a global flood happened in ~2350 BC as in a literal reading of genesis, then how would the dating methods be affected?

I've pulled up a list of some of the methods, we can go through them one by one......


Papias

 

[Assyrian]

One can not take that stand.

OECs do. Ask Hugh Ross.

Local flood happened, is happening and will happen. But global flood happened once and it will not happen again.

Was the local area that the flood destroyed flooded again wiping out all life there?

It is an extremely, I mean extremely bold prediction. I can model a global flood based on OEC understanding (not that hard, in fact). But I can not make a model to make it happen the second time. It is the same situation as to make the water on Mars flow again.

The prediction is simply amazing.

Oh it is easy, assuming you are God, just to take some of the water from the firmament outside the universe, enough to cover Mars with a kilometre of water or two, at first the water will boil in the low pressure on Mars until water vapour forms an atmosphere dense enough to keep the water liquid. Let some of the water vapour condense as rain for forty days and nights. Then blow all the water away again. Simples.

You just have to pick the right creationists flood mechanism. Some explanations creationist made up for a global flood are one shot mechanisms, collapsing vapour canopy, stuff like that. Obviously if you pick a one shot mechanism for your first flood you will not be able to repeat it. But if you are going to make up mechanisms and you want a repeatable flood, make up a repeatable mechanism. Mind you the Creationist idea of a one shot system primed to go off at the any time and wipe out all life, raises the question why God created a very good world with a built in kill switch.

 

[Assyrian]

A local flood is out of the question --> for every creature on land and every bird in air to die, it would require a global flood. This much is clear. YEC interpretation? No, it is simply the correct and honest interpretation, it has nothing to do with any YEC proponents.

The word used in Hebrew erets can be translated as 'the earth', but more often in scripture its meaning is 'the land', not all land everywhere, but referring to a particular region or country. A local flood killing all life in that region fits the text just as well as a global flood. A global flood is the interpretation YECs use, but it is not an interpretation the text demands. I suspect the reason YECs are so keen on a global flood interpretation, is that they need some way to explain where all the fossils came from.

So both a local flood and a global one can be read from the text, both are honest interpretations. However OECs interpret the flood locally, while YECs interpret it globally. Which is why I pointed out your OP is expecting OECs to take a YEC interpretation on board.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

The word used in Hebrew erets can be translated as 'the earth', but more often in scripture its meaning is 'the land', not all land everywhere, but referring to a particular region or country. A local flood killing all life in that region fits the text just as well as a global flood.

18The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.
19The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
20The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
21All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
22of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23Thus 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.

Enough said.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

So both a local flood and a global one can be read from the text, both are honest interpretations. However OECs interpret the flood locally, while YECs interpret it globally.

OECs interpret it locally because they are forced to interpret it locally, plain and simple.

 

[Papias]

Happy, did you see my post #9, asking for clarification on the question? Thanks-

Papias

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Happy, did you see my post #9, asking for clarification on the question? Thanks-

Papias

2. If the earth were 6,000 (= 6K) years old, and a global flood happened in ~2350 BC as in a literal reading of genesis, then how would the dating methods be affected?

Number 2 would be the interesting topic to cover, but in general what would be the effects of that much water and pressure on dating schemes. General question, nothing too overly complicated or specific.

 

[Assyrian]

18The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.
19The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
20The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
21All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
22of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23Thus 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.

Enough said.

What exactly contradicts a local flood here? Remember when you are talking of a local flood and erets referring to a particular land all of this description is within the context of that land and what happened in the flood there.

OECs interpret it locally because they are forced to interpret it locally, plain and simple.

Being OECs they don't believe in evolution so I don't see how you can claim anybody is forcing them to interpret scripture one way or the other.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

What exactly contradicts a local flood here? Remember when you are talking of a local flood and erets referring to a particular land all of this description is within the context of that land and what happened in the flood there.


Being OECs they don't believe in evolution so I don't see how you can claim anybody is forcing them to interpret scripture one way or the other.

I thought scripture would speak for itself, but I see you really refuse to see it.

22of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.

Life did not exist exclusively near where Noah had lived in that local environment, it existed on the planet as a whole. Every single creature with the breath of life died, meaning all creatures everywhere on earth (both on land and sky). This is only further proven by...

"...and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark."

...and the entire account in itself, as there would have been no reason to preserve species on the ark if many "survived" due to the flood being strictly local. So yes, arguing a local flood is both incorrect and dishonest. The only reason it is argued is due to bias, the need to justify preferred theologies and world views.

 

[juvenissun]

OECs do. Ask Hugh Ross.


Was the local area that the flood destroyed flooded again wiping out all life there?


Oh it is easy, assuming you are God, just to take some of the water from the firmament outside the universe, enough to cover Mars with a kilometre of water or two, at first the water will boil in the low pressure on Mars until water vapour forms an atmosphere dense enough to keep the water liquid. Let some of the water vapour condense as rain for forty days and nights. Then blow all the water away again. Simples.

You just have to pick the right creationists flood mechanism. Some explanations creationist made up for a global flood are one shot mechanisms, collapsing vapour canopy, stuff like that. Obviously if you pick a one shot mechanism for your first flood you will not be able to repeat it. But if you are going to make up mechanisms and you want a repeatable flood, make up a repeatable mechanism. Mind you the Creationist idea of a one shot system primed to go off at the any time and wipe out all life, raises the question why God created a very good world with a built in kill switch.

I like to talk about this theological question more than the flood.

Would it be a "very good" creation if the creature is able to rebel against the creator? Obviously God calls it :"very good". What is it good about?

 

[juvenissun]

But then I would simply ask a question, which is essentially the heart of the topic and main reason why I opened this thread. What would be the ramifications of a literal, global flood on all the dating methods employed by science?

Very simple and true: Time is not what we think it is.

 

[Assyrian]

I thought scripture would speak for itself, but I see you really refuse to see it.

Have you tried to understand what the passage would say if erets meant the land Noah lived in rather that the whole earth? You seem stuck in the global flood interpretation and criticise a local flood interpretation as though the context of erets was the whole world.

22of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.

Life did not exist exclusively near where Noah had lived in that local environment, it existed on the planet as a whole. Every single creature with the breath of life died, meaning all creatures everywhere on earth (both on land and sky). This is only further proven by...

"...and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark."

Let look at the bit you left out.
Gen 7:22 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the erets. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.
This is talking about life being blotted out from the erets, everything on the dry land that needed air to breath died. Now if erets mean the whole world that certainly refers to everything on the planet. However if erets only meant the land Noah lived in, then that is the context of the dry ground where people drowned, it is talking about the dry ground in Noah's own land. Not the Kalahari or Gobi deserts.

...and the entire account in itself, as there would have been no reason to preserve species on the ark if many "survived" due to the flood being strictly local.

It is a pretty weak argument when the text itself support a local flood, the fact you don't understand why God would do it that way is no indication he didn't.

So yes, arguing a local flood is both incorrect and dishonest. The only reason it is argued is due to bias, the need to justify preferred theologies and world views.

If you don't understand the local flood exegesis yourself and can't seem to see past you own global flood preconceptions, you are hardly in a position to judge the integrity of people who do interpret the flood that way. It would be much better to offer some solid exegetical arguments against a local flood rather than calling your fellow believers dishonest.