River Channels in the Geologic Column Disprove Global Flood

[grmorton]

I hold that "haa'aarets" is the planet earth, and that "'erets" is the dry land. Genesis 6-9 that you refer to uses "haa'aarets". For a more in-depth study on this and how it relates to the Global Flood, please see http://www.genesistruth.org/documents/earth.pdf .

BTW, I am not a YEC. I am a YBC, which means I believe in an ancient universe, and primordial earth and that all the biology was created by God some 6,000 years ago. A narrative of Genesis 1 and how this relates to the YBC view can be found at http://www.genesistruth.org/Genesisday1_4.htm .

THanks for the clarification. I have a good friend, Art Chadwick, who holds that YBC view. He and I used to go to dinner and disagree happily together. I miss those dinners with him.

I will look into that view about haa'aarets and get back to you. I do like it when people teach me something new.

 

[keyarch]

I do like it when people teach me something new.

So do I. I pray that we can both learn from each other to discern the TRUTH. Amen.

I'm sure you have a lot more to teach, but maybe I can contribute a little.

 

[California Tim]

Since Christianity is an observationally based religion (the observation that a dead man arose) we dare not go down a path that diminishes observational data. It must be dealt with or we risk undermining the entire resurrection. Thus, Christian must believe what he sees (barring hallucinations), even if it is contradictory of the interpretation one places on the Bible.

I know this is a bit off topic although a very remote relationship might be established between this statement and other Bible-based beliefs. It just sounds totally bizarre to me to label Christianity an "observationally-based religion". Maybe I misunderstand, but Christ himself said:

"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)​

In fact, the ratio of believers who witnessed of the resurrection to believers who did not witness it must be infinitesimilly small. The underlying message of the Gospel is founded on individual faith - not proof. Christ even clarified that issue:

Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Him asked that He would show them a sign from heaven. He answered and said to them, "When it is evening you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red'; and in the morning, 'It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Hypocrites! You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of *the prophet Jonah." And He left them and departed. (Matt. 16:1-4)​

So I suppose in much the same way, many seek physical evidence of the miracle of a young earth creation. Any hope of clinging to a literal translation of the Genesis account is washed away in a sea of doubt based on the supposed lack of evidence (signs) to "prove" that's how God did it. Ironically, the evidence is there, it is just misrepresented IMO.

 

[Vance]

Or possibly YEC's are insisting on evidence of creation via evolution?

Which group is more often saying "there is no evidence, we just have theories and things 'not seen'"?

No, TE's are not asking for evidence that proves a young earth. The problem is that we have evidence, and lots of it, that is inconsistent with a young earth. It is not as if we have an absence of evidence and just don't accept the miraculous nature of creation. We would gladly accept any miracle of God, regardless how dramatic and contrary to nature. No, the problem lies not with seeking a sign, but with the existing evidence itself which speaks of a very different timing of creation than young earth creationists are proposing.

 

[grmorton]

I know this is a bit off topic although a very remote relationship might be established between this statement and other Bible-based beliefs. It just sounds totally bizarre to me to label Christianity an "observationally-based religion". Maybe I misunderstand, but Christ himself said:

"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)​

In fact, the ratio of believers who witnessed of the resurrection to believers who did not witness it must be infinitesimilly small. The underlying message of the Gospel is founded on individual faith - not proof. Christ even clarified that issue:

One can never get rid of faith. But faith that there is an easter bunny or Santa Claus is a misplaced faith. IF that is all Christianity is, then it is meaningless. I have faith that George Washington existed. I can't prove it even if you show me all the documentation created during his life. It is unprovable that he existed. One believes. But faith that GW existed is not misplaced faith.

We have faith in the resurrection BECAUSE it is an observed event, not because we have no observations of it. It would be silly to believe in things about which we have no observations. That would lead us to say dumb things like: I believe in beings who live in the center of the sun. I believe our universe is the head of a pin in another universe. That is what faith without evidence is like. Christianity is nothing like that.

Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Him asked that He would show them a sign from heaven. He answered and said to them, "When it is evening you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red'; and in the morning, 'It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Hypocrites! You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of *the prophet Jonah." And He left them and departed. (Matt. 16:1-4)

So I suppose in much the same way, many seek physical evidence of the miracle of a young earth creation. Any hope of clinging to a literal translation of the Genesis account is washed away in a sea of doubt based on the supposed lack of evidence (signs) to "prove" that's how God did it. Ironically, the evidence is there, it is just misrepresented IMO.

IMO the YECS are seeking a sign. They are trying to prove the Bible, but they are doing it against a flood tide of data which says their interpretation isn't true and which isn't misrepresented. If it is, please start explaining the arguments I have amassed which can be accessed via http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm

 

[California Tim]

We have faith in the resurrection BECAUSE it is an observed event, not because we have no observations of it.

Actually according to Paul, Abraham's faith was in the unobserved - and it was counted as righteousness.

He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore "it was accounted to him for righteousness."
Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification. (Romans 4:20-25)​

 

[Vance]

Actually according to Paul, Abraham's faith was in the unobserved - and it was counted as righteousness.

I would agree that we can, and should, have faith in the unobserved, and I think Glenn is saying the same thing in that he believes in George Washington without having ever seen him. But we, just like Abraham, have information to work with: God's statements to us, which we believe, the observation of God's power, which we can often see and experience, and our own spiritual experience. We do not have faith in a vacuum.

Again, the point is WHO is asking for a sign? Who is asking for proof? I sure am not.

 

[California Tim]

I would agree that we can, and should, have faith in the unobserved, and I think Glenn is saying the same thing in that he believes in George Washington without having ever seen him. But we, just like Abraham, have information to work with: God's statements to us, which we believe, the observation of God's power, which we can often see and experience, and our own spiritual experience. We do not have faith in a vacuum.

Again, the point is WHO is asking for a sign? Who is asking for proof? I sure am not.

Perhaps we agree then, that faith comes by "hearing" (not seeing), and hearing by the Word. I might add and reemphasize, Abraham did not have the benefit of an eyewitness account.... he only had a promise and he believed God would carry out the promise. No physical proof whatsoever in his lifetime or before.

 

[Vance]

Perhaps we agree then, that faith comes by "hearing" (not seeing), and hearing by the Word.

Yes, but remember that faith coming from the Word, as Paul put it, meant the Logos, the Wisdom, of God: Jesus. He was presenting Christ's Gospel message orally, presenting the Word of God. Those gentile Christians had faith based wholly and solely on that Word, without any written Scripture at all.

But, even faith which comes from Scripture depends on the proper interpretation of that Scripture, which gets us back to the hermenuetical point.

 

[California Tim]

IMO the YECS are seeking a sign. They are trying to prove the Bible, but they are doing it against a flood tide of data which says their interpretation isn't true and which isn't misrepresented. If it is, please start explaining the arguments I have amassed which can be accessed via http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm

I'll start with the very first evidential article as an example - titled "Time Sequence in Pebbles-Conglomerates in Conglomerates". In this article you claim the following:

The sediment marked by the green arrow was then lithified and eroded. That pebble was then deposited in the Devonian Old Red Sandstone, 360 million years ago.

There it sat where it was lithified long ago but eroded sometime within the past 2 million years during the glacial age. That cobble then was deposited in a new conglomerate being formed today along the shores of Ireland (Brandon Bay).​

I wondered how you arrived at these astronomical figures for the ages represented, until further in the article I saw a clue as to why you accept these periods as factual with no question as to authenticity. Shortly afterwards, you claim the following based on your personal sample:

One can clearly see the rounded pebbles contained inside my cobble. These rocks are all volcanic and are very very hard. But the rounding shows that these pebbles spent considerable time being bounced along a river bed, being chipped until they were round in shape.​

You assume the age is verified by the physical state of the rock - which of course presumes and frankly depends upon uniformity of erosion. I submit to you this is a flawed system as the following excerpt from a US geological article demonstrates:

Qfy
Young alluvial-fan deposits (Holocene)--Stratified gravel, sand, silt, and clay presently accumulating in fan-shaped deposits at the mouths of drainages. West of Sevier River, alluvium is derived from hills made chiefly of epiclastic volcanic fragments (units Tse and Td) and basalt (units Tb and Tbcc). Gravel is mostly round to subround pebbles, but 10-20 percent cobbles and small boulders. Gravel is hard, finely crystalline and porphyritic basalt and andesite, black (N1), medium dark gray (N4), and light bluish gray (5B 7/1). Contains sparse thin beds of gravelly mudstone, probable debris flow deposits; also sparse to common beds 5-10 cm thick of pale-brown (10YR 6/3) pebbly sand that is very fine to coarse grained. Excellent source of mineable aggregate. In the quadrangle, Panguitch is located on the largest fan deposit, deposited by sporadic floods of Panguitch Creek. Possible future flooding in parts of the town area is suggested by the large size of the deposit and its young age (less than about 10,000 years) together with the relatively large watershed of Panguitch Creek (the area downstream from the dam at Panguitch Lake) and a summer climate characterized by sporadic cloudburst storms (Butler and Mundorff, 1970). Thickness exposed in ravines is 1-3 m, but gravel pits (sec. 14, T.35 S., R.5ÿW. and SE¬,NE¬,NW¬ sec. 28, T.34 S., R.5 W. at northeast edge of Panguitch town) reveal that some deposits are 10-15 m thick http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1995/ofr-95-0009/pang.txt​

So as you see, many factors must be considered before assuming the "roundness" of your samples indicated a "considerable amount of time being bounced along a riverbed". You assume it to be true and thus use it to date the material accordingly. That is precisely the kind of misinterpretation of the evidence by subjective reasoning I am convinced is practiced on a massive scale. I live in California near the Mojave Desert. Having spent MANY a day walking about on alluvial fans I can produce plentiful eroded and smooth rocks from fans that are clearly very very young. There was not a lot of water involved at any time. There was on the other hand wind and sand to help speed up the process so the time apparent time scale is skewed. They bely the age of the fan.

I will look at a few more of your articles when time allows.

 

[grmorton]

Actually according to Paul, Abraham's faith was in the unobserved - and it was counted as righteousness.

He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore "it was accounted to him for righteousness."


Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification. (Romans 4:20-25)

​

I am not so sure of that. Abram had several visitations from God, which surely must have impressed him mightily. That too is evidence and would have affected his ability to believe. At least it was evidence for him personally

 

[California Tim]

I am not so sure of that. Abram had several visitations from God, which surely must have impressed him mightily. That too is evidence and would have affected his ability to believe. At least it was evidence for him personally

I don't think Abraham saw the Savior, yet he believed God's promise nonetheless.

 

[grmorton]

I don't think Abraham saw the Savior, yet he believed God's promise nonetheless.

Gee, that isn't what Genesis 12:7 says:
And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

Emphasis mine. It seems to me that in order to hold the opinion you expressed you are reduced to believing that Gen 12:7 is false. If it is true, I would think that such an experience would have a profound effect on my ability to believe, so I don't think Abe is an example of faith sans evidence.

 

[California Tim]

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:
it is the gift of God: (Eph 2:8)

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

 

[grmorton]

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:
it is the gift of God: (Eph 2:8)

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

I agree that we are saved through faith. Abe still had to have faith, if you haven't thought about it. He could have said some time after the vision, "that was just a hallucination, a piece of undigested cheese" But he didn't. Faith is not believe in the absences of all reason to believe.

Are you seriously trying to say that Abraham didn't see God as the Bible clearly says? Are you seriously trying to say that such an experience wouldn't change or affect in anyway ABraham's ability to believe? Remember this, the faith we have is not our own. Jesus is the AUTHOR of our faith, thus it is even his faith

Hebrews 12:2: Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.

Thus, since he has seen it all, it is not faith sans knowledge.

 

[California Tim]

Are you seriously trying to say that Abraham didn't see God as the Bible clearly says?

No. I am demonstrating that saving faith has little to do with external evidence, or as you earlier stated "observed events". While god was gracious enough to assuage some doubt by providing witnesses, even if he had not He would still be the same sovereign Lord and we would have to believe on that which we personally have not seen. -Just like all those who lived prior to Christ's birth, death and resurrection.

 

[grmorton]

I hold that "haa'aarets" is the planet earth, and that "'erets" is the dry land. Genesis 6-9 that you refer to uses "haa'aarets". For a more in-depth study on this and how it relates to the Global Flood, please see http://www.genesistruth.org/documents/earth.pdf .

BTW, I am not a YEC. I am a YBC, which means I believe in an ancient universe, and primordial earth and that all the biology was created by God some 6,000 years ago. A narrative of Genesis 1 and how this relates to the YBC view can be found at http://www.genesistruth.org/Genesisday1_4.htm .

I told Keyarch that I would check out what he said. I am now in a position to respond to his claim that ha'erets means planet earth, and that thus the flood MUST be a global flood. I disagree with that but KeyArch put an interesting spin on the argument for a global flood by his claim above. It was worth checking out.

A minister I know has a program which can find all occurrences of ha'erets. And I can assure you all that it does not mean planet earth everywhere. I will make some fun off the interpretation and I hope that KeyArch, who seems to be a really nice guy takes it in the spirit it is intended. The first document above says:

"Now, with regard to the flood of Noah’s day, let’s look at the language and see how it compares. In Genesis 6:11 thru 15:18 "earth" is used exclusively for the planet. (haa'aarets). Keeping this in mind, here are some of those passages that refer to the flood and God’s judgement. (my comments in blue)"

Let's look at Genesis 12:1. The printout from that program says that ha'erets is in that verse.

1 Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father’s house, To the land which I will show you;

So, this means that Abe was told to leave the planet. He didn't therefore the only logical conclusion is that Abe is disobedient, or if he did leave his planet, then he is a Martian.

ha'erets also appears in Genesis 12:7


Genesis 12:7

7 The Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him.

I guess the descendants of Abe own America.

The program pointed out that eretz almost never appears without the ha'. That also argues agains the concept that ha'erets means planet earth and erets means land.

Under this interpretation of ha'eretz, Egypt is its own planet:

Genesis 41:30

30 and after them seven years of famine will come, and all the abundance will be forgotten in the land of Egypt, and the famine will ravage the land.

And Moses promised to take the Hebrews to another planet
Exodus 6:8

8 ‘I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you for a possession; I am the Lord.’ ”

And Israel conquored all the planet of the Amorites
Judges 11:21

21 ‘The Lord, the God of Israel, gave Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they defeated them; so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country.

From this it is very clear that ha'erets doesn't mean planet earth. And thus it is an open questoin whether or not the Bible teaches a global flood at all. In my mind, the Hebrew simply doesn't support that a global flood at all.

 

[gluadys]

From this it is very clear that ha'erets doesn't mean planet earth. And thus it is an open questoin whether or not the Bible teaches a global flood at all. In my mind, the Hebrew simply doesn't support that a global flood at all.

One of the things we should remember when reading the bible, is that none of the authors ever thought of earth as a planet anyway. "Planet" in those days meant "a star that does not have a fixed place in the firmament". The word "planet" is derived from a term that means "to wander". Planets were not thought to be chunks of rock, but wandering stars in contrast to the stars fixed in constellations.

 

[keyarch]

I told Keyarch that I would check out what he said. I am now in a position to respond to his claim that ha'erets means planet earth, and that thus the flood MUST be a global flood. I disagree with that but KeyArch put an interesting spin on the argument for a global flood by his claim above. It was worth checking out.
A minister I know has a program which can find all occurrences of ha'erets. And I can assure you all that it does not mean planet earth everywhere. I will make some fun off the interpretation and I hope that KeyArch, who seems to be a really nice guy takes it in the spirit it is intended. …..
And thus it is an open question whether or not the Bible teaches a global flood at all. In my mind, the Hebrew simply doesn't support that a global flood at all.

I appreciate you taking the time to check this out. I haven’t run into many people that do these days, and I have the fullest respect for you as a Christian Brother. I think we both are after the TRUTH from scriptures, and that this is a healthy exercise.

First, let me clear up a misunderstanding. My claim is that “haa'aarets” is the planet earth, not “ha'erets” as you have stated. The “ha” corresponds to the word “the”. I use a ‘BHS transliteration’ in my searches and there are no instances of “ha’erets” in the Old Testament, only “ ‘erets” some 352 times. I found 916 instances of “haa'aarets”. Also, haa'ªdaamaah = ground, dry land.

So now let’s go back to the passages you’ve sited and see which one is used and try to put it into context.

Gen. 12:1

Yes, this does have the planet in it. But what is it actually saying? If you look at the definitions of the surrounding words, then a better translation would be:

“Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, ‘Get yourself out of your country, and from your relatives and from your house, to your Father’s place on the planet I will show you.’ ”

It’s like if you were being kicked out of the country and you will be shown later where on earth you will live.

Genesis 12:7 Yes, this says the planet. And to Abraham’s seed He gave the planet. And thence (sham) he built an Alter.

[sham (shawm); a primitive particle [rather from the relative pronoun, OT:834]; there (transferring to time) then; often thither, or thence:]

Gen 22:18 “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth (planet) be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”

Genesis 41:30 - This is saying that all their abundance will perish by famine from the planet. In Gen. 41:34 – The Pharaoh is appointing officers upon the earth (planet, probably in a figurative sense); a fifth of which were to be in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 6:8 “And I will bring you to the place (‘el-) on the planet which I did swear to give…”

'el (ale); (but only used in the shortened constructive form 'el (el)); a primitive particle; properly, denoting motion towards, but occasionally used of a quiescent position, i.e. near, with or among; often in general, to:

Exodus 3:8 – This is saying that He will bring them up and out of the earth (planet, figuratively) and into the land (‘erets) of milk and honey (where the Amorites among others are).

Judges 11:21- The Israelites took all the land of the Amorites that inhabited the world (planet); all the extents of their lands from Arnon to Jabbok and even to Jordon.

 

[grmorton]

I appreciate you taking the time to check this out. I haven’t run into many people that do these days, and I have the fullest respect for you as a Christian Brother. I think we both are after the TRUTH from scriptures, and that this is a healthy exercise.

First, let me clear up a misunderstanding. My claim is that “haa'aarets” is the planet earth, not “ha'erets” as you have stated. The “ha” corresponds to the word “the”. I use a ‘BHS transliteration’ in my searches and there are no instances of “ha’erets” in the Old Testament, only “ ‘erets” some 352 times. I found 916 instances of “haa'aarets”. Also, haa'ªdaamaah = ground, dry land.

The source I used is not a transliteration, but the Hebrew text. The Ha' is a mark that means, 'the'. And there is no difference between erets and aarets. the word is H776 so your claim that there is some sort of differentiation between erets and aarets is not correct. Hebrew uses no vowels and the only place you have a difference is in the vowels someone decided to insert into the word.

So now let’s go back to the passages you’ve sited and see which one is used and try to put it into context.

Gen. 12:1

Yes, this does have the planet in it. But what is it actually saying? If you look at the definitions of the surrounding words, then a better translation would be:

“Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, ‘Get yourself out of your country, and from your relatives and from your house, to your Father’s place on the planet I will show you.’ ”

It’s like if you were being kicked out of the country and you will be shown later where on earth you will live.

But that is my point. You say haa aarets (as you have spelled it in English I prefer a shorter sequence of English letters for the same word) means country here. But you said that it meant planet. Abraham didn't leave the planet, thus the word can't mean planet. I don't understand at all what you are saying here.

[quote]Genesis 12:7 Yes, this says the planet. And to Abraham’s seed He gave the planet. And thence (sham) he built an Alter.[/quote]

Israel will be glad to hear this. That is a much larger territorial claim than what the Bible actually says God gave Abraham. Genesis 15:18 says:

"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:"

That is the claim the strict literalists in modern Israel are basing their ownership of the land upon. Note, that it doesn't include the entire earth. Just a portion of it.

Judges

11:21- The Israelites took all the land of the Amorites that inhabited the world (planet); all the extents of their lands from Arnon to Jabbok and even to Jordon.

Wouldn't a better translation be 'land of the Amorites that inhabited the land(meaning the land of promise)?

It isn't my contention that there are no cases where erets means planet. There are some (althought I am not sure you cited any of them in your note) It is my contention that there are so many cases where erets (ha'erets in particular) means country, or local land. Given that, one can not logically assume that the only possible interpretation of that word in Genesis 1-11 is planet earth. It is an open question, open to our interpretation.

I come back to the point, Abraham did not engage in interplanetary travel, erets thus does not have a planetary meaning.