The Flood

[JohnR7]

The evangelicals only read books by their fellows, are taught by their fellows, and preach to their fellows.

Maybe they should quit reading books and start to read the Bible. I went into a christian bookstore once and I looked for a long time and could not find even one book that truely represented the Bible. For the most part they were the thoughts and opinions of man and not of God.

When Jesus returns we shall all be like Him, because we will have the mind of Christ and we will have the righteousness of God. He is doing a work in us to perfect us & fitly join us together in Him.

Ephes. 2:20-21
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; [21] In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

 

[Vance]

Maybe they should quit reading books and start to read the Bible. I went into a christian bookstore once and I looked for a long time and could not find even one book that truely represented the Bible. For the most part they were the thoughts and opinions of man and not of God.

Well, of course they read the Bible. We all read the Bible, I read it through every year, not to mention the more detailed study on particular subjects as I do my daily devotionals and independent study. But there is a reason for all those other books, and it is found right in Scripture. Paul said that among the Brethren "teachers" should be appointed, and "teaching" is listed as one of the gifts of the Spirit. How, who are these people supposed to "teach"? Fellow Christians, of course. This is why we require our ministers to go to Seminary and obtain degrees. Do you think they read Scripture alone, or do they also read commentary, exegesis and other sources?

As the Westminster Confession stated in the 1600's, not everything in Scripture is clear, other than those things necessary for salvation.

 

[California Tim]

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.

For a more objective view on what a "fundamentalist" is:

Evangelicals, Pentecostalists, and Fundamentalists share a high view of the authority of the Bible, and place a supremely high value on the individual, much higher than popular stereotypes can account for, and commonly hold a radically individualistic understanding of sola fide, and sola scriptura. For this reason, the term Fundamentalist is sometimes used negatively to imply a backward approach to modernity, a low view of the Christian Church, or a minimalist conception of the Christian faith. In reverse, Fundamentalist Christians refer to their more liberal opponents as Modernists or Liberals with rough equivalence. Source​

Since the basis for "fundamentalism" is in response to liberalism which crept into the church since it's early origins, one may safely say that while the U.S. fundamentalist movement may have had recent beginnings, it is more closely related to the ORIGINAL viewpoints of the earliest church fathers, in stark contrast to our more "liberal" brethren of late. Liberalism is the actual recent phenom in the church, which shifted into high gear when Darwinism gave all Biblical sceptics (even those within the church) an out from having to deal with those difficult issues facing the church today where secular humanists attempted to disprove Biblical reliability. Fundamentalists therefore deal with today's issues in accordance with the messages intended by the original authors of scripture, and without the need for reconciliation with the enemies of Christ.

Now that we both have presented our respective views on the other, I would love to see the matter dropped when discussing individual issues like the flood, evolution and such. My motivation, does NOT affect the facts as they are, any more or less than yours. Further, these descriptions do little to advance the topic, other than to provoke defensive posturing rather than honest discourse. Suffice to say, from my side of the fence, you are every bit as dangerous to the sanctity of the truth of the Bible as you feel I am. However, we should leave that for a separate thread, rather than raise it ad hominim every single time a response to a particular scientific issue is posted.

 

[Vance]

But Tim, the whole point is that it is this new, Fundamentalist approach which is the driving force behind Young Earth Creationism. Without a movement which demands a literal reading of Scripture, we would not have a major young earth creationist movement as well.

A belief in a young earth is wholly dependent upon a fundamentalist approach to Scripture. No one without such a fundamentalist approach would insist upon a young earth. So, it IS important to this discussion.

 

[California Tim]

But Tim, the whole point is that it is this new, Fundamentalist approach which is the driving force behind Young Earth Creationism. Without a movement which demands a literal reading of Scripture, we would not have a major young earth creationist movement as well.

A belief in a young earth is wholly dependent upon a fundamentalist approach to Scripture. No one without such a fundamentalist approach would insist upon a young earth. So, it IS important to this discussion.

I beg to differ. If you wish to dispute the interpetation of factual evidence, the arguments will stand or fall on their own merit. They will do just fine without the dependence on repetitive questioning of motivation. Let me give you an example:

Let's say a 3rd grade student has never memorized the multiplication table. Hoping to hide this fact, one day, when asked by the teacher to answer what "3" x "3" is, the student takes a blind guess and happens to hit the nail on the head - "9". Now does the fact that this student answered from ignorance negate the fact that the answer was right?

Let me take it one step up the ladder. Let's say the student mentally adds "3" + "3" + "3" rather than properly multiplying "3" x "3" to arrive at the correct answer. Does the improper use of addition or inefficiency of the method negate the correct answer?​

So you see, your argument over the motivation of the individual posting information does not apply to the relevancy of the information offered, especially in the context of a debate where the information is used to support a particular conclusion. Either it will work or it will not REGARDLESS of intent. THAT IS MY POINT.... can we get an "amen" from you on this one .......... please? Let's save the motivation questions for a thread dedicated to that topic alone.

 

[Vance]

No, I am not talking about motivation, I am talking about the basic presumption that leads to YEC'ism. YEC'ism is founded upon a literal reading of Scripture, this is something groups like AiG put on their front page, in their mission statement. This is not just my attaching a label.

The bottom line is that without a belief in a literal reading of Genesis 1, you would not believe in a young earth. So, part of the discussion really needs to be whether that literalism is required.

 

[California Tim]

No, I am not talking about motivation, I am talking about the basic presumption that leads to YEC'ism. YEC'ism is founded upon a literal reading of Scripture, this is something groups like AiG put on their front page, in their mission statement. This is not just my attaching a label.

The bottom line is that without a belief in a literal reading of Genesis 1, you would not believe in a young earth. So, part of the discussion really needs to be whether that literalism is required.

OK, let me try one more story to illustrate the point:

A certain detective has always hated Camaro owners. He finds them repulsive, reckless and untrustworthy. One day he investigates a murder on a cruise ship and in the process of interviewing the first suspect, he discovers the suspect owns a camaro. Even though the murder was on a ship and did not involve a car at all, he decides before even considering all the rest of the suspects the camaro owner is the likely guilty party and focuses in on that person alone based on no other reason than his hatred for camaro owners. After building a circumstancial case, the camaro owner is put on trial, during which time two eye-witnesses eventually step forward to confirm the actual guilt of the camaro owner. Now even though the motivation of the detective was bias against camaro owners, is the guilty man any less guilty?​

Likewise, both TE'ists and YEC'ists do indeed interpret evidence a certain way and from a certain bias, but that evidence can easily be debated regardless of the motivation leading to the conclusion. Often, from both sides, the evidence or conclusion is actually rhetoric. So much the better. It is easily refuted. On some core issues, the differences cannot be easily resolved - for instance the debate on dating methods - rendering a difference of some opinion semi-permanent (agree to disagree). But the motivation is not the determining factor in whether a theory or conclusion will stand up to scrutiny.

For example, one of my responses to the "varve" issue is that the microscopic level of deposition seems inconsistent with an entire year's potential deposition. I do feel that too much of the old-earth conclusions are based on the presumption of old-earth, unformitarianism and gradualism. Nonetheless, my counter-argument is based on the feasability of the minute amount of deposit and will focus on that. I see no point to continually qualify my counter-arguments by prefacing my distaste for the presumptions or motivations of the old-earthers. Either the aged-varve or young-varve argument will be viable rergardless of either of our bias' on the matter. That is what we should focuus on. Can you not see this point? If not, I fear many threads will be derailed in defensive posturing for no good reason.

 

[Vance]

Oh, yes, I agree that when discussing the scientific evidence, what you are saying makes sense. But that is not all that we are doing in this forum. We are also getting right down to whether that detective should be hating Camaro owners in the first place.

 

[JohnR7]

Now even though the motivation of the detective was bias against camaro owners, is the guilty man any less guilty?

It all depends on if the detective planted a bloody glove from the crime scene in his back yard or not. Or on second thought, maybe it depends on if Johnnie Cochran is defending him or not.

 

[California Tim]

It all depends on if the detective planted a bloody glove from the crime scene in his back yard or not. Or on second thought, maybe it depends on if Johnnie Cochran is defending him or not.

It might work in the real world that way, but we all know he was no less guilty.

 

[California Tim]

Oh, yes, I agree that when discussing the scientific evidence, what you are saying makes sense. But that is not all that we are doing in this forum. We are also getting right down to whether that detective should be hating Camaro owners in the first place.

Why? As we both agree, the conclusions can be debated indepently of the motivations leading to them. So what is the point of attacking the motivation, other than to derail a topic into a circular argument of a peripheral issue?

 

[Vance]

Why? As we both agree, the conclusions can be debated indepently of the motivations leading to them. So what is the point of attacking the motivation, other than to derail a topic into a circular argument of a peripheral issue?

For the very obvious reason that if you did NOT have a literalist reading, you would abandon your YEC position. It is simply getting to the root of the issue. The scientific arguments are just the branches of YEC'ism, the trunk and roots are entirely literalism. Without literalism, YEC is a non-starter.

So, if people come to see that their literal position is not only unecessary, but most likely incorrect, they would have no reason to cling to YEC'ism whatsoever, thus causing all the science arguments to become moot.

On the other side, literalism is continually an issue because YEC's always fall back on it, and say "well, I just believe what the Bible tells me", which entirely assumes a literalist reading. So, if this is going to be the basic fall-back argument for most YEC's then we need to address that very issue: what is the Bible telling you?

 

[California Tim]

I can see now the futility of arguing this point further with you - and the resignation has begun to set in that we may expect more of the same from you for the duration. So be it. (this concludes my comments on the issue and I will leave you with this quote from an agnostic science writer: )

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” (Jastrow, p. 116).​

 

[Vance]

Right, and those theologians almost assuredly read Genesis figuratively! :0)

 

[California Tim]

Right, and those theologians almost assuredly read Genesis figuratively! :0)

Right up until they learned and accepted the truth of the historical nature of the accounts within.

 

[keyarch]

The Bible does not say there was a "global" flood. The Bible say that the land of "Adamia" was flooded. There would be a different Hebrew word used: "erets" if it was a global flood.

Maybe you need to go back and read your Bible again. Because as you say: The Bible says it, we believe it and that settles it.

I put together a little study of the words used and the passages that relate to the flood. I have to give a URL because it's too hard to insert the Hebrew script in this format.

www.genesistruth.org/documents/flood.pdf

I don't how Scripture backs up your "land of Adamia" statement.

 

[rednoc]

YECs have repeated dealt with the global flood. The Bible says it, we believe it, and that settles it

 

[keyarch]

Also this would explain the use of the word: replenish:

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 9:1-2
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. [2] And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

= and fill.
Even thought the KJV has this word as "replenish", most translations including the NKJV have used "and fill". Even the KJV in Genesis 1:22 has translated the same exact word as "and fill". In addition, the same word (in the Hebrew script) appears in Ezekiel 43:26 and is not translated replenish.

 

[Non-ape Jase]

2 Peter 3:5-7 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.


I can't wait for that localised day of judgement!

 

[Vance]

false dichotomy.

Option 1: Local flood - local flood story - global flood story - evolution of global flood story - God using global flood story to tell essential truths about his relationship with Man - Peter applies that essential truth to what will happen in the future. See C.S. Lewis on this point.

Option 2: Local flood - destroys all life in that "kol erets" or "entire land" (which has been misleadingly translated to "whole earth") - conflated into a story which can be read as either local or global - God uses that story to tell essential truths, etc.

The fact that it could have been a global flood within the last 10,000 years is just not really an option.