~~The Flood~~ Global or Local???

[dad]

OK, here it a critique of the mechanics of flood geology from another site I frequent. The author is not Christian friendly, but his analysis still stands

Is flood geology consistent with fundamental laws of physics? Once again, absolutely not. .

I have to agree. I do not believe the laws of physics were applicible at the time of the flood.
Neither do I think that the flood was the big factor in the geological record.
Yet, there certainly was a worldwide flood, some 4500 years ago.

 

[dad]

...

Not only this, but the whole idea of a global flood, of 2 of every kind of animal in the whole world fitting, onto a man made arc, harmoniously co-existing for an extended period of time and surviving to pro-create an repopulate the earth is nothing short of impossible in my eyes..

Not two of every type we now see in the world. Two of every kind then in the world. I think a lot of adapting happened after the flood. As for co existing, that is easy. God put it in them to know basically it was a life and death thing going on, overriding the normal instincts.

 

[theFijian]

This message is hidden because dad is on your ignore list.</SPAN>

I knew the day would arrive when dad decided to spread his insanity to the Origins forum, I'd like to see what some of the YECs round here think of his more 'unique' theories.

 

[applepowerpc]

Not only this, but the whole idea of a global flood, of 2 of every kind of animal in the whole world fitting, onto a man made arc, harmoniously co-existing for an extended period of time and surviving to pro-create an repopulate the earth is nothing short of impossible in my eyes..

And thus we get to the real moral crisis here. Do you accept the Bible's authority and God's omnipotent power, or do you take matters in your hands and decide for yourself what is impossible in your own eyes?

As for me, God's Word is God's inerrant authority in my life, and if it says the world was flooded to a height of 20 feet over all the mountains, then it was flooded to a height of 20 feet over all the mountains.

 

[The Lady Kate]

And thus we get to the real moral crisis here. Do you accept the Bible's authority and God's omnipotent power, or do you take matters in your hands and decide for yourself what is impossible in your own eyes?

Pretty much the latter... that is the reason God decided to bless us with the power of reason.

The Bible contains (among other things) some literal histories, and some allegorical tales intended to teach moral truths. Both are infallible, but not in the same way

When something cannot possibly be literal history... as in when that possibility is refuted by God's own actions... then it is neither heresy, blasphemy, nor lunacy to believe that such events are allegorical.

As for me, God's Word is God's inerrant authority in my life, and if it says the world was flooded to a height of 20 feet over all the mountains, then it was flooded to a height of 20 feet over all the mountains.

And have you ever once pondered how such a thing was possible, or why God chose to do it and then erase the signs that He did?

 

[The Lady Kate]

I knew the day would arrive when dad decided to spread his insanity to the Origins forum, I'd like to see what some of the YECs round here think of his more 'unique' theories.

It should make for some interesting discussions... although I do pray it doesn't derail this particular thread.

 

[chaoschristian]

And thus we get to the real moral crisis here. Do you accept the Bible's authority and God's omnipotent power, or do you take matters in your hands and decide for yourself what is impossible in your own eyes?

The moral crisis only occurs if you choose to view scripture only through an indicative interpretation that insists that it is both scientifically and historically correct.

If, instead, you choose to examine scripture through its historical and literary contexts, and against the revelation of Creation through science, then not only is there not a moral crisis, but, I personally believe, you begin to experience the full richness and flavor of these stories as when they were first experienced by the original audience.

As for me, God's Word is God's inerrant authority in my life, and if it says the world was flooded to a height of 20 feet over all the mountains, then it was flooded to a height of 20 feet over all the mountains.

According to scripture pi=3 and insects have four legs. This is error, so is God a liar?

 

[shernren]

And thus we get to the real moral crisis here. Do you accept the Bible's authority and God's omnipotent power, or do you take matters in your hands and decide for yourself what is impossible in your own eyes?

As for me, God's Word is God's inerrant authority in my life, and if it says the world was flooded to a height of 20 feet over all the mountains, then it was flooded to a height of 20 feet over all the mountains.

Now, here is where you have contradicted yourself.

We say that a global flood is impossible because scientifically we'd expect to see a completely different earth if it'd been hit by a global flood.

You say "gee, that's putting science above God's word and doubting His omnipotent power!"

And why do you reject the local flood?

One cannot believe both in a local flood and an inerrant Bible.

Genesis 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

Even if you take the liberal interpretation to mean the tallest KNOWN mountain, in the region, that still leaves Mount Ararat. Elevation 16,000 feet.

You mean to tell me it rained 40 days and 40 nights, and the earth remained flooded 150 days (Gen. 7:24), to a height of 16,000 feet--in a LOCALITY???? What did it rain, jello? Either fundamental physics is wrong, the Bible is wrong, or it was a global flood.

Remember, you rejected a local flood for the exact same reason: because it seems to be scientifically unfeasible to you.

Pot meets kettle.

 

[HypnoToad]

According to scripture pi=3 and insects have four legs. This is error, so is God a liar?

The "error" is thinking that Scripture actually makes those claims.

Scripture NEVER claims "pi = 3". It says they USED 3 as an approximation of pi, but there is never a statement saying 3 is the value of pi.

Insect legs - read http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html

 

[The Lady Kate]

The "error" is thinking that Scripture actually makes those claims.

Scripture NEVER claims "pi = 3". It says they USED 3 as an approximation of pi, but there is never a statement saying 3 is the value of pi.

Similarly, Scripture also NEVER claims that the Earth is 6,000 years old... we have James Ussher to thank for that.

And yet all of YEC is based on that "error."

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The "error" is thinking that Scripture actually makes those claims.

Scripture NEVER claims "pi = 3". It says they USED 3 as an approximation of pi, but there is never a statement saying 3 is the value of pi.

Insect legs - read http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html

read the verses with the same common sense, literal, clear, man in the pew, etc hermeneutic that you read Gen 1-5 with.



"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26




it says pi=30/10=3

 

[HypnoToad]

Similarly, Scripture also NEVER claims that the Earth is 6,000 years old... we have James Ussher to thank for that.

And yet all of YEC is based on that "error."

Irrelevent. The topic is not "YEC", the topic is whether the flood was global or local, which is not impacted by a young or old earth view. Although Scripture may not give an age for the earth, it certainly does present the flood as a global occurence. The debate is at what point between historical and allegorical is the account.

 

[HypnoToad]

read the verses with the same common sense, literal, clear, man in the pew, etc hermeneutic that you read Gen 1-5 with.

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." &#8212; First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

it says pi=30/10=3

Pi is not mentioned anywhere. Since when does approximation equal error? Even today, no matter how many decimal places we take pi to, it is ALWAYS an approximation. To say the Biblical approximation is "wrong" because its approximation goes to fewer decimal places than our approximation today is ludicrous.

 

[Willtor]

Pi is not mentioned anywhere. Since when does approximation equal error? Even today, no matter how many decimal places we take pi to, it is ALWAYS an approximation. To say the Biblical approximation is "wrong" because its approximation goes to fewer decimal places than our approximation today is ludicrous.

Pi is implicit to anything in which a diameter and circumference are mentioned. And, no, it's not always an approximation. Simply use the symbolic notation, pi. One ought to infer that the author didn't know about the complex mathematical nature of pi, and ought not to infer that he was concerned with approximations. Certainly, he was approximating, and the precision of pi wasn't significant to him, but this is the whole point. The value of the passage was never intended to be in math.

We are fortunate that it was never taken to be so. But there are other passages of the Bible that have been taken to have a particular type of value (apart from the one intended) simply because that sort of value is valued by the society that performed the interpretation.

 

[HypnoToad]

and the precision of pi wasn't significant to him, but this is the whole point. The value of the passage was never intended to be in math.

Exactly, which is why it isn't a "lie" or "error". If an engineer is discussing a computation with fellow engineers, he might use "54.7644". If he is telling his wife what he did at work today, he might just say "54" or even "55". Is he "lying" to his wife? No, he's only using an approximated value that is appropriate for his audience at the time.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Pi is not mentioned anywhere. Since when does approximation equal error? Even today, no matter how many decimal places we take pi to, it is ALWAYS an approximation. To say the Biblical approximation is "wrong" because its approximation goes to fewer decimal places than our approximation today is ludicrous.

look at the issue a little closer.
if the diameter is 10 cubits, about 180 inches or 15 ft.
using pi=3.14 means the circumference would be 15*3.14=47.1 ft
the error is 47.1-30*18/12=2.1 FEET.
some approximation!!!
not decimal points. it is a matter of feet off.

which is why the usual argument that it is not an error is about inside and outside dimensions. just a brief, back of the envelope calculations shows that approximations don't come close to explaining. it.



least you think this is trival. look at the arguments about yom in Gen1. and there isn't even a sun for the first 3 days!!!!


shouldn't there be this huge sign:
i'm taking Gen1 literally but not 1Kings 7????


and the precision of pi wasn't significant to him,

hey. that is exactly what we've been saying about Gen 1, the scientific order and historical accuracy is NOT what was significant to the author.......


can you see how inconsistent the YECist hermeneutic is being applied?
the only important issue to them is scientific and historical accuracy until an issue of mathematical accuracy pops up and then poof, it is an approximation.....
how convenient and ad hoc.

 

[HypnoToad]

look at the issue a little closer.
if the diameter is 10 cubits, about 180 inches or 15 ft.
using pi=3.14 means the circumference would be 15*3.14=47.1 ft
the error is 47.1-30*18/12=2.1 FEET.
some approximation!!!
not decimal points. it is a matter of feet off.

Wow, the slopiness in your math reasoning there is substantial. I may have more time later to point out why.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Wow, the slopiness in your math reasoning there is substantial. I may have more time later to point out why.

i don't know if this is a common trait that is encouraged by YECist beliefs or just what. but this type of reply: "you're wrong, i know why, but i don't have the time just now to tell you" is so common here that it really needs a label.

so, i'm going to name this type of posting

Fermat's Last Theorem defense

because that is exactly what he did.
and you are about as likely to return and show the errors as he is to return from the dead and tell us what he was thinking. ....

 

[Assyrian]

Why don't YECs simply believe by faith that pi really was = 3 in the temple?

 

[PaladinValer]

Because unfortunately, many YECs depend too much on text inerrancy instead of doctrine/faith inerrancy.