The Flood

ptgd1st · Jan 18, 2005

Remus said:
Four times it is stated in four different ways. I think that's enough to satisfy any judge that everything except what was on the ark died.

When i heard this i just cracked up. It is about as solid and arugument that one can be. Awesome. I love this conclusion. I laughed because it was so simple. Right on

gluadys · Jan 19, 2005

California Tim said:
Angular unconformities

First, for those unfamiliar with angular unconformities, the observable facts:
"The sedimentary rocks, which were originally deposited horizontally in accordance with the Law of Original Horizontality have been deformed by structural forces, tectonics, uplift, and then erosion has taken over, truncated and cut off the edges. Later, the seas return and new layers were deposited on top.

While reading extensively on this topic, mostly from the evolutionist point of view, one theme resonates over and over. There is not enough time to account for the original layers and subsequent erosion prior to deposition of sediment on top of the "unconformities" thus "proving" that there was no recent flood.

I have highlighted three issues the Bible directly addresses: fountains of the deep "broken up" indicating a cataclysmic event on the crust of the earth, waters prevailing "exceedingly" on the earth , indicating enormous potential for erosion and deposition and finally, all the mountains covered by water.

There is one basic problem this sort of explanation of the flood runs up against time and time again: heat.

Breaking up the fountains of the deep through some sort of catastrophic effect on the earth's crust implies two things: there was enough water held under the crust in the first place to contribute significantly to the flood.

Something happened to break up whatever was keeping it under the crust. This implies significant earth movement.

Water under pressure (like most anything under pressure) gets hot, very hot. Water that has been kept under pressure, emerging through a newly-created fissure, would emerge as very hot steam. Enough of it would raise the temperature of the atmosphere enough to steam-broil every living thing on earth including whatever was in the ark.

Any catastrophic effect on the earth would only add to the heat.

This scenario would contribute to the extinction of all life on earth, not just terrestrial life, but ocean life as well, and would include everyone in the ark among the victims.

Now I have one final potential fomula supporting the literal flood. First - what the Bible says happened:

Now if this flood actually happened as written, then population statistics should also reasonably coincide with a re-population beginning with the family of Noah - the survivors of the flood. Do they hold up under scrutiny?
Lets' take a look:

Yes let's.

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/noahbun.htm
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie019.html

California Tim · Jan 19, 2005

gluadys said:
Yes let's.

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/noahbun.htm
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie019.html

Did you actually read these articles? Using rodent population to disprove human population calculations is as absurd a rebuttal as I could ever dream up. Think about it. Even now, in a little under 100 years, the USA cities would be a mile deep in rats if those populations did not have checks and balances built in. The reason the human population grows relatively steadily is for two reasons. First we are special in God's eyes and second, we are nowhere near the limit of sustanability of the planet to support and limit the population.

The second article presumes to know exactly when the flood happened in relation to the building of the pyramids - another as yet resolved issue. Sometimes the desperation and fervor of the anti-creation mentality is mind-boggling. Virtually every fact supporting the possibility of the flood is dismissed, reinterpreted or flat out denied - many times for no other reason than to disallow ANY possible contradiction with evolution even when such exists.

Let me help you along. Read this more professionally and scientifically engineered study where actual population statistics and formulas are used instead of baseless rhetoric:
http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

Vance · Jan 19, 2005

Tim, now you see why I suggested that you take the specific scientific issues and start new threads with them. There are dozens of scientific reasons why the global flood could not happen, and eventually we should address all of them in a scientific manner, and see which arguments hold water (no pun intended). This can not possibly be done without confusion in a single thread. So, I am going to pull out your angular nonconformity argument and start a new thread with it.

California Tim · Jan 19, 2005

Vance said:
Here is a thread dealing with the impossibility of their having been a worldwide flood within the last 10,000 years. None of these issues have really been addressed adequately by any YEC, but if any YEC here would like to give it a go, feel free. If not, it is at least educational regarding the issues involved:

http://www.christianforums.com/t95378

Perhaps it would be a good idea if, in the future you start a targeted thread rather than challenge us to "address these (multiple) issues". The link provided listed numerous issues and challenges.

Vance · Jan 19, 2005

Will do, if you would rather do it that way. I thought you might want to choose your topics yourself.

Non-ape Jase · Jan 19, 2005

Vance said:
To me, it is very clearly telling a figurative story to convey truths about God and His relationship with Mankind.

Vance,

Is there anything in the text that suggests that it is figurative?

Vance · Jan 19, 2005

Non-ape Jase said:
Vance,

Is there anything in the text that suggests that it is figurative?

Well, sure, as I have discussed in numerous threads.

First, there is the structure of the text itself, which fits a typological and symbolic style of writing as well as a great deal of poetics. It simply does not read at all the way Chronicles or Acts reads, which are historical writings. It is only our modern prediliction for historical writings about the past which cause anyone today to read it as literal history.

Second, there is the clear inconsistencies between the two creation accounts. If we both agree that the Bible is telling us the truth, then both of these stories must be reconciled. The "workarounds" provided by the literalists are just not very convincing and, indeed, have not convinced ANYONE other than those who insist that it must be literal. I think it is much more likely that the two are both true because they are not meant to be read as literal history, in which case the chronological and detail inconsistencies do not effect their "truth" at all. The same thing with the Cain problem. If literalist reading of Genesis 1 and 2 and the genealogies are correct, then you are immediately faced with the age old questions of who Cain married and who were all these people he was afraid of. The workarounds here are even more unconvincing and, again, only seem probable to those wedded to a literal reading. With a figurative reading, there is no problem with Cain whatsoever.

Of course, the fact that this figurative reading is also completely consistent with the literary and cultural elements of the ancient near east, and the fact that the figurative reading also happens to agree completely with the evidence from God's OTHER work for us: His Creation, are just additional support.

But the real question is WHY would we read it as literal history? Why is this somehow a default or preferred reading approach? Since God can tell us True and Holy things in any literary style He likes, and does throughout Scripture, why does literalism become some type of assumption unless there is a clear indication otherwise. This really makes no sense to me. I think we should start with no assumption regarding literalness at all, and just let the text itself, as well as all the other factors that are proper for exegesis to help us determine how God is talking to us.

California Tim · Jan 19, 2005

Vance said:
First, there is the structure of the text itself, which fits a typological and symbolic style of writing as well as a great deal of poetics. It simply does not read at all the way Chronicles or Acts reads, which are historical writings. It is only our modern prediliction for historical writings about the past which cause anyone today to read it as literal history.

I believe you are in error on this issue and you continue to repeat it. For your consideration:

The plain sense of the first chapter of Genesis 1s that God created the heavens and the earth in six days of normal duration and rested on the seventh day. As Hasel points out in his article, all the major lexicons of the Hebrew language demonstrate that the term "day" of Genesis 1:5 and elsewhere "is meant to communicate a 24-hour day, respectively, a solar day." In order to reject the simple sense of the meaning of this term, one must reject the clear and unambiguous research and findings of the best of the Hebrew scholars. Grammatically and linguistically, the term "yom" in Genesis lacks any signal for us to understand it as a figure of speech. When the Scripture uses the term figuratively, there are always linguistic signals, such as those akin to the English "as" or "like." So Psalm 90:4 teaches "a thousand years are LIKE yesterday." Or in the New Testament, when Peter makes his point, he uses the Greek particle for a figure "with the Lord, one day is AS a thousand years" (1 Pet. 3:8). The term "yom" does have figurative meaning in many passages of the Old Testament, but each time the term is used as a figure it has syntactic and linguistic signals to let us know. As Hasel points out again, "the extended, non-literal meanings of the term 'yom' are always found in connection with prepositions, prepositional phrases with a verb, compound constructions, formulas, technical expressions, genitive combinations, construct phrases, and the like." http://stjohnsrcus.inetnebr.com/page16.htm

In fact, as Hasel points Out in "the literary structures, the language patterns, the syntax, the linguistic phenomena, the terminology, the sequential presentation of events in the creation account, Genesis 1 is not different from the rest of the book of Genesis or the Pentateuch for that matter."

In a word, Genesis 1 is prose. There is no system of relations hidden beneath the literal text. The light, the darkness, the day, the night, the water, the land, the sun, the moon, the stars, the plants, the animals, and man are just that: light, darkness, day, night, water, land, sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and Adam.

You were much closer to truth when you insinuated that if only taking a Biblical approach, a literal reading is suggested. It is not until you bring in a plethora of extra-Biblical sources (specifically rejection of evidence in light of scripture) that a figurative reading is suggested as an alternative to reconcile the perceived differences between creation and the creation account.

mhess13 · Jan 19, 2005

To read Genesis straight forward or figurative would not even be any issue if it weren't for 2 things
1) mainstream "science" concluding that evolution is a fact
2) the relativism that is so ingrained in today's society. You know how it is, "that may be ok for you, but not for me..." Society today doesn't like absolutes. Much like a TE. Tes believe the bible is true, yet not historically or scientifically accurate.

JohnR7 · Jan 19, 2005

ptgd1st said:
Ok i understand that but we are talking about Genesis 7:4, it still says every living substance of the face of the earth. and in Genesis 7:19 it says all the high hills that were under the whole heaven, were covered. How do you account for that

If you just read your Bible and nothing else, you are most likely going to walk away with the impression that the flood was world wide and covered the whole earth. The problem with this is, that is not what happened. We know enough about the world we live in to know that the flood was NOT a world wide flood. When I first found this out I went back to my Bible and I read it again looking to see if what we know about the world we live in, contradicts the Bible. My conclusion is that a acceptable understanding of the Bible looking at the origional language shows that the flood could have been local. The result is, the word of God is true and it is not contradicted by what we know from science.

If you think that the flood was world wide, then you just have not studied enough to know that it was NOT a world wide flood. Biodiversity alone falsifys the idea that the flood was world wide. There are way to many species of animals in the world to fit on the Ark. Even if they could fit on the ark, how would they get to the Ark? How would the animals from the north pole get to the Ark? How would the Kangaroo from Autstalia get to the ARk. There are 10,000 islands in the Philippines, many of them have animals that are unique to that island they are on. You do not find them anywhere else in the world. How did they get to the Ark, and then back to their island.

There is just no way there was a world wide flood. The evidence simply does not support there being a world wide flood 4300 years ago. The evidence does support Noah as being a historical person that did live 4300 years ago. If there was a world wide flood, then it took place at a different point in time and Noahs flood was a symbolic representation of it. To many people go the opposite direction to try to throw the baby out with the bath water. They say becasue the flood was not world wide then Noah was not a real historical person. That view is wrong also. Noah was a real historical person, with a wife, four sons and four daughter in laws. He was a preacher of righteousness. He tried to get the people in his day to repent. But they would not repent and the floods came and swept them away in a moment of time.

Just as Noah warned the people in his day, so we need to warn people today, that they need to be ready, Jesus is coming soon.

People think they know so much about the world that was here 2500 years ago, how is it they know so little about the world that was here 4300 years ago?

mhess13 · Jan 19, 2005

If we read the Bible and nothing else, we'd get the impression that there was a man who was raised from the dead. BUT we know in real life this doesn't happen...If we only read the Bible we'd get the impression that the angel of the Lord slew the first born of the Egyptions. In real life though, angels don't kill people...
If we only read the Bible we'd somehow believe that a virgin gave birth! Ha! Now we know from science that this is impossible! There must be another explaination!!!!!!!!!!!!!

California Tim · Jan 19, 2005

Vance said:
If you think that the flood was world wide, then you just have not studied enough to know that it was NOT a world wide flood. Biodiversity alone falsifys the idea that the flood was world wide. There are way to many species of animals in the world to fit on the Ark. Even if they could fit on the ark, how would they get to the Ark?

Man ... this just goes deeper and deeper. You continually discount the divine providence of God's hand in post-flood geology and bio-diversity. Apparently, you have not studied to learn the size and capability of the ark, discount the hand of God in gathering the animals to Noah, and seem relegate God to the level of a spectator bound by the laws of nature He created by His own word - (when it fits your interpretation). I mean, why should you take him at His word when that word seems to contradict logic? Like, how could He even predict the flood with uncanny accuracy, or how did He even know for sure Christ would be sacrificed just because He was here?

Vance · Jan 19, 2005

Why did you quote me as saying that? That was JohnR7, one of your fellow Creationists.

ptgd1st · Jan 19, 2005

I still can't see your logic when looking at those verses i stated. They can't be any more straight forward then they are. I recognize no poetry, no intentional imagry, just straight forward facts. I don't even see any symbolism. How can these verses be taken for anything but literal?

gluadys · Jan 19, 2005

California Tim said:
I believe you are in error on this issue and you continue to repeat it. For your consideration:

In fact, as Hasel points Out in "the literary structures, the language patterns, the syntax, the linguistic phenomena, the terminology, the sequential presentation of events in the creation account, Genesis 1 is not different from the rest of the book of Genesis or the Pentateuch for that matter."

In a word, Genesis 1 is prose.

Hasel is just making the same presumption---that the literal interpretation is the normative interpretation. But he hasn't explained why it should be. Just because it is prose does not make Gen. 1 or any part of Genesis necessarily literal. The case for literalism has to be made, not assumed, just as the case for a non-literal interpretation has to be made, not assumed.

It is not until you bring in a plethora of extra-Biblical sources (specifically rejection of evidence in light of scripture) that a figurative reading is suggested as an alternative to reconcile the perceived differences between creation and the creation account.

And did God not make our perceptions? our capacity to know the world he made? And did God not make our imaginations? So that when perception gives out, we can use figures to speak of what cannot be perceived? And does scripture itself not point us to the testimony of creation as sound?

There is ample reason why a perceived difference between creation and the biblical account of creation should be taken seriously.

Either it implies that the biblical account is not true

or

it implies that our perception of one or the other is faulty.

Vance · Jan 19, 2005

Not to mention that fact that Tim continues to ignore the fact that I can reach the same conclusion even without extra-biblical sources.

But, that really is the point. WHY LITERAL as the default? Who made up this rule?

JohnR7 · Jan 20, 2005

Vance said:
WHY LITERAL as the default? Who made up this rule?

People with Phd's in theology. That may be rare and not have the meaning that it use to have, but if you go back 100 years there were people who use to really study and know their Bible a lot better than the average christian today.

The problem is that new age theology has crept into our Bible schools and tried to undermine a true and a proper understanding of our Bible.

JohnR7 · Jan 20, 2005

gluadys said:
And did God not make our perceptions? our capacity to know the world he made?

It is more like He made the world knowable, it is by wisdom and knowledge that the world was framed in a way that we are able to understand it.

And did God not make our imaginations?

Our imagination needs to be dedicated to God. It needs to be Holy & Concecrated. A imagination used in a way that does not honor and glorify God can cause a person to be destroyed.

Genesis 6:5
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Vance · Jan 20, 2005

JohnR7 said:

"People with Phd's in theology. That may be rare and not have the meaning that it use to have, but if you go back 100 years there were people who use to really study and know their Bible a lot better than the average christian today.

The problem is that new age theology has crept into our Bible schools and tried to undermine a true and a proper understanding of our Bible."

No, John, actually it is just the opposite. The fundamentalist movement, with its emphasis on literal reading is a 20th century phenomenon, and even now it is still limited to the fundamentalist movement within Christianity. Growing, but not a large majority. I have taken courses on the history of the Church, and have studied it for a very long time. It is one of my primary areas of study. Among the three books I bought myself at Christmas included yet another book on Church history, and I am currently listening to yet another lecture series, this time on the rise of fundamentalism in the United States. While there has been a strain of literalism since the Protestant Reformation, which has waxed and waned, it was never the sole approach to Scripture.

As one who was raised in the evangelical world (my father was a pentecostal pastor), I know for a fact that most within that womb rarely know about Christianity outside of it. When the REST of Protestant Christianity is discussed, they tend to be thought of as "worldly" or "liberal" or "dead" brands of Christianity, not REAL Christianity at all. And don't even mention the Catholics! The evangelicals only read books by their fellows, are taught by their fellows, and preach to their fellows. And since the evangelicals in the US have a lock on the media outlets (when was the last time you saw a Presbyterian service on television Sunday morning), the impression for most evangelicals is that they ARE Christianity.

I went into my pastor's study on Sunday, since we were meeting on some real estate issues I was handling for the Church, and I perused his bookshelves. It reminded me exactly of my father's study before he retired. Books with a lot of polemics, and very little scholarship. Anti-intellectualism is a foundational principal of fundamentalism, when it started in Southern California at the turn of the century and it remains so today. The only difference is that the movement has developed it's OWN seminaries from which people can get degrees in theology and Biblical Studies from an evangelical, anti-intellectual perspective. My father was a product of that process and readily admits it.

The Flood

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Regular Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Legend

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency