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

[SaintAugustine]

If the flood had been local...Noah and Co. would have just walked out of the area.

 

[dad]

...
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?...

Are you saying the measurement of the thing was wrong?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If the flood had been local...Noah and Co. would have just walked out of the area.

so no one has ever drowned in a flood, if they were able to walk? faulty reasoning. people actually drown in a molasses tank collapse in boston.

The Boston Molasses Disaster (also known as the Great Molasses Flood or The Great Boston Molasses Tragedy) occurred on January 15, 1919, in the North End neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts. A large molasses (treacle) tank burst and a wave of molasses ran through the streets at an estimated 35 MPH (60 km/h), killing twenty-one and injuring 150 others. The event has entered local folklore, and residents claim that the area still sometimes smells of molasses.

from the wiki

and we KNOW how slowly molasses moves *grin*

 

[shernren]

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. ....

Thanks for that little incredible bit of humour, I never thought I'd ever see a math joke in OT. Although I'm rather put off by the comparison. Fermat's Last Theorem was a piece of brilliant guessing, even if it took a few centuries to prove, and it's spun off immense vistas of mathematical research. The man who proved it in the 1990s, Andrew Wiles, in the process proved a conjecture (the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture) which nearly the entire field of modular forms had been built on in the 1960s and practically saved it from waking up one day to find that its foundational guess was plain wrong.

By comparison, YECism is an ad-hoc, intellectually shallow attempt to squeeze Genesis 1-11 into a modernist Scientism box.

Drawing any comparison between the two feels like a deep insult to Fermat.

(and yes, I think it's something inbuilt into YECism. YECism encourages a formidable degree of individualistic relativism in both scientific and Scriptural endeavors, hence the frequent arguments from personal incredulity.)

 

[Dannager]

If the flood had been local...Noah and Co. would have just walked out of the area.

[sarcasm]You're right, that explains why no one dies in cataclysmic flood events these days![/sarcasm]

 

[LoG]

[sarcasm]You're right, that explains why no one dies in cataclysmic flood events these days![/sarcasm]

They likely didn't have a 100 year advance warning.

 

[The Lady Kate]

They likely didn't have a 100 year advance warning.

They also likely weren't 600 years old. Them old bones aren't as quick as they once were.

 

[HypnoToad]

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. ....

See, there's this thing called "work" where people usually have to leave their homes and go to another place where they perform some kind of service for an "employer" who then compensates the "employee" financially so that he/she can buy food, pay for a home, etc.

So, excuse the heck out of me for having a job. Feel free to go ahead and throw your little theorem into the trash now.

Your little math post is wrong because it overlooks some things that should be obvious. First, you are only guessing how long a cubit is. Second, a cubit, being based on arm length, would vary depending on who is doing the measurement. Third, pi only works out accurately on PERFECT circles - something that doesn't exist in the real world. Any imperfections in the shape of the basin would change the ratio. All of these will cause variations and lead to calculations that aren't mathematically perfect.

Further, pi is a ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter. it will ALWAYS be approximately 3:1 (or 3.1:1, or 3.14:1, etc., depending on how precise you want to go). So, to have a circumference of about 30 units (ANY unit of measurement - inches, feet, yards, centimeters - it doesn't matter) the diameter MUST be approximately 10 units. And that is EXACTLY what Scripture presents.

As for the rest of your post -

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!!!!

So? What is the point of that? Are you suggesting the omnipotent Creator NEEDS a sun to have light?

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

I'm taking BOTH literally. Approximations aren't "metaphors" or "allegories".

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.......

1Kings is still a valid and literal approximation. And I fail to see the relevence of interpretations of Gen.1 since we're talking about the flood.

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.

And, as already shown, I'm taking BOTH literally. Quite consistent, contrary to your statement.

 

[TexasSky]

They also likely weren't 600 years old. Them old bones aren't as quick as they once were.

I don't think age was an issue for Noah.

He built the ark, alone, with ancient tools.

Odds are no one alive today is as healthy as he was at 600.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I don't think age was an issue for Noah.

He built the ark, alone, with ancient tools.

Odds are no one alive today is as healthy as he was at 600.

this is one of the things that bug me the most about Bible reading.
there is no reason to believe that he built it by himself. his sons are included in the ark, in the promises, etc. they were probably included in the construction itself.

but to say so confidently that "he built the ark, alone" betrays an attitude typical of such reasoning. an attitude that permeates the YECist community. the Bible is plain and simple.

where does it say he built it alone?
where in the face of numerous mentions of his sons is it a legitimate line of reasoning to think he did it without their help?

 

[TexasSky]

There is absolutely no water underneath the crust.

Where do you get that idea from? Hebrew cosmology? Not from science; the only thing under the crust is molten rock and a core mostly of iron

Actually, I got it from a secular scientific website on the makeup of the earth's makeup. Then I cross checked it with other websites.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5625/1556

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12791988&dopt=Abstract

http://minmag.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/69/3/229

http://www.jstor.org/view/1364503x/ap000008/00a00180/0

http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/5561/1885

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030102224030.htm

This is my favorite source though: http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2401&archives=true

By what processes is seawater turned into this remarkable fluid that emanates from black smokers?
The answer lies beneath the seafloor, within the oceanic crust. The mid-ocean ridge system, which forms where the earth’s tectonic plates are spreading apart, is volcanically active and the site of numerous heat sources, which induce seawater to circulate through the permeable oceanic crust. It is estimated that the equivalent of an entire ocean’s worth of water circulates through the mid-ocean ridge hydrothermal systems every 10 million years or so.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

snip snip to address just one point:

Your little math post is wrong because it overlooks some things that should be obvious. First, you are only guessing how long a cubit is. Second, a cubit, being based on arm length, would vary depending on who is doing the measurement. Third, pi only works out accurately on PERFECT circles - something that doesn't exist in the real world. Any imperfections in the shape of the basin would change the ratio. All of these will cause variations and lead to calculations that aren't mathematically perfect.

Further, pi is a ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter. it will ALWAYS be approximately 3:1 (or 3.1:1, or 3.14:1, etc., depending on how precise you want to go). So, to have a circumference of about 30 units (ANY unit of measurement - inches, feet, yards, centimeters - it doesn't matter) the diameter MUST be approximately 10 units. And that is EXACTLY what Scripture presents.

As for the rest of your post -


So? What is the point of that? Are you suggesting the omnipotent Creator NEEDS a sun to have light?


I'm taking BOTH literally. Approximations aren't "metaphors" or "allegories".


1Kings is still a valid and literal approximation. And I fail to see the relevence of interpretations of Gen.1 since we're talking about the flood.
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

And, as already shown, I'm taking BOTH literally. Quite consistent, contrary to your statement.
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

you said
Wow, the slopiness in your math reasoning there is substantial. I may have more time later to point out why.
in post 57

what you wrote says nothing about the math sloppiness you said was substantial (odd since there is simply no substantial math in my posting), but is a defense of approximation. which is exactly my point. the approximation is not even CLOSE ENOUGH.

again the big point is hermeneutical principles.

no sun, means that the definitions of day, morning, evening are not the same for day's 1,2,3 as they are for all subsequent time. this is an IMPORTANT point for it shows that the days of Gen 1 are NOT our normal days, at least until the creation of the sun.


likewise this verse in 1 Kings leads us to understand that mathematics is likewise culturally dependent. numbers mean something different to the ANE then they do for us. interestingly they have ungone the same process of desacralization that Gen 1 achieves over the surrounding polytheist neighbors of the Israelites.

but like the sun after light, YECists miss it all because of their extraordinary desire to shoe horn Scripture into a modern scientism and historicism box.


sad. God expects better of us.

btw
the solution to the apparent problem in 1Kings re: pi, probably lies in the difference between inner and outer diameters. not "this is an approximation", although the usage of numbers in the Bible is always suspect from our viewpoint because their relationship with numbers is much closer to numerology than to our modern scientific desacralized views.

So? What is the point of that? Are you suggesting the omnipotent Creator NEEDS a sun to have light?
this really deserves it's own thread....i'll search and see what has been discussed in the past first.

 

[TexasSky]

Definately local in my opinion. There is just too much scientific evidence that points to there not being a global flood (as many people have posted here in a far better fashion then I ever could).

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.

Just my opinion of course

Blessings to you all

I find this post the interesting from a purely Christian perspective.

Do you think God is limited by the constraints of man?
That He is not capable of solving issues such as "co-exiting"?

Most of all, does any Christian really believe that Noah's ark was "totally man made" without the assistance of God?

 

[HypnoToad]

what you wrote says nothing about the math sloppiness you said was substantial (odd since there is simply no substantial math in my posting), but is a defense of approximation. which is exactly my point. the approximation is not even CLOSE ENOUGH.

Not "close enough"?? Rubbish.

FACT: if measured semi-accurately, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter (pi) MUST be about 3:1.

Therefore, if the diameter is 10 units, the circumference MUST be about 30 units. If you want to go to one decimal point, 31.4. Want to go to two decimal places, 31.41. There is absolutely NO reasonable objection to 30 being an approximation of 31, 31.4 or 31.41.

no sun, means that the definitions of day, morning, evening are not the same for day's 1,2,3 as they are for all subsequent time. this is an IMPORTANT point for it shows that the days of Gen 1 are NOT our normal days, at least until the creation of the sun.

There's no basis for such a claim. Our "day" is based on the earth's rotation, not the sun. The sun is only the reference. You'd have to demonstrate that either God didn't know how long 24 hours was without a sun, or that the absence of a sun means the earth rotated at a different speed.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Not "close enough"?? Rubbish.

FACT: if measured semi-accurately, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter (pi) MUST be about 3:1.

Therefore, if the diameter is 10 units, the circumference MUST be about 30 units. If you want to go to one decimal point, 31.4. Want to go to two decimal places, 31.41. There is absolutely NO reasonable objection to 30 being an approximation of 31, 31.4 or 31.41.


i will try one more time to get the idea through. you may have the last word.

there is a substantial VISIBLE difference if you use the numbers given in 1Kings.

image you are:
using a knotted cord to measure the diameter, 10 cubits(knots).
use the same cord to measure the outside diameter. it will be 31.4 cubits not 30, a gross visible difference, you will see a cubit and a half difference, a knot plus 1/2 the distance between knots, it is not a minor approximation. it is a gross visual difference, therefore the answer is not to call it an approximation, the readers of 1Kings would have been able to detect and see this difference. period.

that is why, if you read the online essays dealing with the topic that the approximation argument has been abandoned in favor of a difference in width of the vessel and a resulting inner and outer diameter.

but my point is that YECism doesn't detect these problems because of the ad hoc nature of it's hermeneutical principles which stem from a modern viewpoint not an ANE contextual one.

there was an interesting discussion here about the Bible as a love letter from God. YECists seem to think the Bible as a love letter is addressed to them, but TE's often see it as reading someone else's mail, addressed as it is to the ancient Hebrews not to us, we are metaphorically reading it over their shoulders. And as a result have to try to read it through their eyes, not ours.

that is why this verse in 1Kings is a good practice for your hermeneutical principles before they tackle the difficulties in Gen 1-5

a strict, literal, modern, common sense, man in the pew viewpoint fails in 1Kings on the issue of pi as it fails to understand Gen1, its pattern of the Sabbath and the kingdoms and kingship and the play on the neighbors gods.

....

 

[PaladinValer]

Actually, I got it from a secular scientific website on the makeup of the earth's makeup.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

Read what I said.

 

[TexasSky]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

Read what I said.

I read what you wrote.
I also posted numerous links that refer to water under the crust.

Did you read them?

 

[HypnoToad]

i will try one more time to get the idea through. you may have the last word.

there is a substantial VISIBLE difference if you use the numbers given in 1Kings.

image you are:
using a knotted cord to measure the diameter, 10 cubits(knots).
use the same cord to measure the outside diameter. it will be 31.4 cubits not 30, a gross visible difference, you will see a cubit and a half difference, a knot plus 1/2 the distance between knots, it is not a minor approximation. it is a gross visual difference, therefore the answer is not to call it an approximation, the readers of 1Kings would have been able to detect and see this difference. period.

Whoever claimed they wouldn't be able to see the difference?? What they "detected and saw" is irrelevent, we're concerned with what they WROTE. Again, the engineer from post #55 who tells his wife "54" - are you saying he never realised the actual measurement was 54.7644? That would be ridiculous. Obviously he was aware of the actual measurement. But he had absolutely no reason to be so precise when relating it to his wife. Likewise, there's absolutely no reason to assume the people in 1 Kings could not tell the difference between 30 and 31. But there was simply no reason for such precision in the account that was written. Besides, how do you know the diameter wasn't 9.5 cubits, and just rounded to 10? That would yield a circumference of 29.8 cubits, and then rounded to 30. There is simply no reason to "abandon" an estimation viewpoint. It is common, everyday practice to use round figures in normal conversation. There is no reason to expect any different from the Hebrews.

a strict, literal, modern, common sense, man in the pew viewpoint fails in 1Kings on the issue of pi

Again, this is preposterous. An approximation IS literal. It is not a "metaphor" or an "allegory". An approximation is not a figure of speech. And, as should be obvious, approximations are WELL within the boundaries of "common sense".

as it fails to understand Gen1, ... and the play on the neighbors gods.

The ten plagues of Egypt were each targeted towards specific Egyptian gods. So, I suppose you believe those also never happened either?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So, I suppose you believe those also never happened either?

as a Christian don't you think how you argue is important and reflects on your faith?

 

[chaoschristian]

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

SO, as a neo-creationist, who derives your theology from an indicative interpretation of scripture you are

1. arguing that the error in pi is not an error, but simply needs to be understood as an approximation, even though there is nothing in the text itself that would indicate that an approximation is intended

2. arguing that the error in the number of legs an insect has is not an error because I'm taking into account the original context and understanding of the original author and readers of this passage, even though that text itself plainly described insects as having four legs.

That along with your failed duel with rmwilliamsll has served well to prove my point.

Thank you.