The Flood

[SBG]

How do theistic evolutionist deal with every Church Father, the Apostles and Jesus Christ teaching a global flood?

If you like I can list every Church Father that believed in a literal, historical, global flood. I can give you references for those who don't believe me. These Church Fathers taught it by saying Scripture clearly teaches a global flood.

Since Augustine seems the preference of choice on this board, let me quote him 'City of God':

"...no one, however stubborn, will venture to imagine that this narrative was written without an ulterior purpose; and it could not plausibly be said that the events, though historical, have no symbolic meaning, or that the account is not factual, but merely symbolic, or that they symbolism has nothing to do with the Church. No; we must believe that the writing of this historical record had a wise purpose, that the events are historical, that they have a symbolic meaning, and that this meaning gives a prophetic picture of the Church."

How do theistic evolutionists who want to be in correct doctrine, reconcile this?

 

[notto]

I accept that the flood was historical and affected most of the known world of the writers. It was historical but the scope was not worldwide.

There is no physical evidence of a worldwide flood. Those that used scriptures as their base to assert it was worldwide had no way of knowing this so of course they repeated the story as told in scripture. They had no reason not to.

The flood not being worldwide doesn't change the sybolism or the prophetic nature of them. The flood did indeed affect the whole world of the writers.

 

[lin1235]

I accept that the flood was historical and affected most of the known world of the writers. It was historical but the scope was not worldwide.

There is no physical evidence of a worldwide flood. Those that used scriptures as their base to assert it was worldwide had no way of knowing this so of course they repeated the story as told in scripture. They had no reason not to.

The flood not being worldwide doesn't change the sybolism or the prophetic nature of them. The flood did indeed affect the whole world of the writers.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[SBG]

I accept that the flood was historical and affected most of the known world of the writers. It was historical but the scope was not worldwide.

There is no physical evidence of a worldwide flood. Those that used scriptures as their base to assert it was worldwide had no way of knowing this so of course they repeated the story as told in scripture. They had no reason not to.

The flood not being worldwide doesn't change the sybolism or the prophetic nature of them. The flood did indeed affect the whole world of the writers.

So you need physical evidence to believe what is written in the Bible?

Is your claim that every Church Father, the Apostles, and Jesus Christ all were wrong in their understanding of Scripture?

To name just a few Church Father:

Philo = global flood
Josephus = global flood
Justin Martyr = global flood
Theophilus of Antioch = global flood
Tertullian = global flood
Gregory of Nazianzus = global flood
John Chrysostom = global flood
Augustine of Hippo = global flood


Are you also aware that it is the Greek philosophers that claimed it was a local flood? The Church Fathers openly refuted them.

Theophilus of Antioch rejected Plato's argument that Noah's flood was local. You can find this for yourself in Theophilus' Autolcycus.

Even Origen taught his congregation that it was a global flood.

Each of these Church Fathers said you cannot come away from the Scriptures and say it wasn't a global flood if you are to interpret correctly.

So is everyone of them wrong and you are right?

Matthew 24:37-39
"37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

The Greek is a very precise language and here Jesus Christ talks about how the flood wiped out everyone.

Is everyone who built the early Christian Church with Jesus Christ as the capstone wrong about their interpretation of the flood as a global one?

How do you rectify that all of the early Church believed this and you claim they are all wrong and you are right? That is if you care about being in correct doctrine.

 

[notto]

So you need physical evidence to believe what is written in the Bible?

Is your claim that every Church Father, the Apostles, and Jesus Christ all were wrong in their understanding of Scripture?


Is everyone who built the early Christian Church with Jesus Christ as the capstone wrong about their interpretation of the flood as a global one?

How do you rectify that all of the early Church believed this and you claim they are all wrong and you are right? That is if you care about being in correct doctrine.

No, I don't need physical evidence to believe what is written in the Bible, but when physical evidence observed directly in the creation conflicts or falsifies with what is written, I'm sure that it is the interpretation of the Bible that is incorrect.

I don't think that anyone was wrong with their interpretation of scripture. They simply taught what the scriptures said and didn't have an understanding of the physical creation we have now. They had no reason to think otherwise and it really didn't impact the message the scriptures convey. The Bible isn't a science book and they didn't use it as one. We are working with a framework of knowledge they didn't have. The earth is not flat, the sun doesn't not revolve around the earth, animals don't spontaneously arise from rotting meat, and demons don't cause weather and disease. The chruch fathers simply were not aware of what we are now and if they were alive today, I doubt they would hold some of the views they did.

 

[SBG]

No, I don't need physical evidence to believe what is written in the Bible, but when physical evidence observed directly in the creation conflicts or falsifies with what is written, I'm sure that it is the interpretation of the Bible that is incorrect.

Evidence doesn't conflict. Interpretations of evidence conflict. This is true unless you can prove that these sediments can speak with words on their own. Interpretations come about based on world views that the scientists have.

Here you state it is the interpretation of the Bible that is incorrect, which claims everyone - Jesus, Apostles, Church Fathers - are wrong in this subject.

Augustine said 'the Scripture . . . has paramount authority, . . . to which we yield assent in all matters.' Well this is a matter that is in dispute and conflict with the Bible and Augustine is not the only one to share this view. All Church Fathers shared this view.

I don't think that anyone was wrong with their interpretation of scripture. They simply taught what the scriptures said and didn't have an understanding of the physical creation we have now. They had no reason to think otherwise and it really didn't impact the message the scriptures convey. The Bible isn't a science book and they didn't use it as one.

You stated above that their [Church Fathers] interpretations were incorrect. They had every reason to think it wasn't otherwise and they argued against the Greeks who claim it was a local flood, just as you do.

Not one person here is stating the Bible is a science book, this is complete non-sense that theistic evolutionists like to bring up when they cannot explain their position and why it goes against the early Church position.

I have been reading a lot on the Greeks and you would be surprise how much you and they agree on these issues of origins. Church Fathers refuted them on all accounts.

 

[Calminian]

No, I don't need physical evidence to believe what is written in the Bible, but when physical evidence observed directly in the creation conflicts or falsifies with what is written, I'm sure that it is the interpretation of the Bible that is incorrect.

Physical evidence cannot contradict anything. Only an interpretation of that evidence can. Observing creation through the scientific method is not like reading a book. Many assumptions go into it (like naturalism). If one rejects a modern scientific theory he is not rejecting evidence, but rather a particular interpretation of that evidence. And don't you realize that interpretations of evidence change all the time? How may interpretations of evidence did the scientific community hold 100 years ago that they reject now?

It's not the evidence. It's the naturalistic philosophy you don't want to let go of.

 

[Calminian]

Evidence doesn't conflict. Interpretations of evidence conflict. This is true unless you can prove that these sediments can speak with words on their own. Interpretations come about based on world views that the scientists have.

Here you state it is the interpretation of the Bible that is incorrect, which claims everyone - Jesus, Apostles, Church Fathers - are wrong in this subject.

Augustine said 'the Scripture . . . has paramount authority, . . . to which we yield assent in all matters.' Well this is a matter that is in dispute and conflict with the Bible and Augustine is not the only one to share this view. All Church Fathers shared this view.




You stated above that their [Church Fathers] interpretations were incorrect. They had every reason to think it wasn't otherwise and they argued against the Greeks who claim it was a local flood, just as you do.

Not one person here is stating the Bible is a science book, this is complete non-sense that theistic evolutionists like to bring up when they cannot explain their position and why it goes against the early Church position.

I have been reading a lot on the Greeks and you would be surprise how much you and they agree on these issues of origins. Church Fathers refuted them on all accounts.

Sorry SBG. Seems I just restate what you already said.

 

[SBG]

Please don't apologize. These issues must be brought to light, otherwise what the Church Fathers, the Apostles and ultimately what Jesus taught will be confused and devisively altered.

 

[bdfoster]

How do theistic evolutionist deal with every Church Father, the Apostles and Jesus Christ teaching a global flood?

We deal with it the same way we deal with the Mosaic account of the flood. Whatever interpretation is applied to the Mosaic account doesn't change just because it is refered to by Jesus, apostles, church fathers, or my uncle. There are numerous ocasions where New Testament wrters refer to Old Testament passages. So what? Does the fact that they are refered to suddenly change their original context from figurative to literal? New testament writers have refered to passages from non-canonnical literature. Paul quoted Greek literature. Does that make it literally true. Is Jesus a liar because he refers to something that is not literally true? I say that "he loved her like Romeo loved Juliet" does that make me a liar because I'm refering to a fictional work?

Philo = global flood
Josephus = global flood
Justin Martyr = global flood
Theophilus of Antioch = global flood
Tertullian = global flood
Gregory of Nazianzus = global flood
John Chrysostom = global flood
Augustine of Hippo = global flood

These folks didn't even know there was a globe when they were writing. They certainly didn't believe in the global flood you believe in.

Physical evidence cannot contradict anything. Only an interpretation of that evidence can.

This is true. But why do you challange the mainstream geologic interpretations that relate to the flood. Isn't it because they are not consistant with your interpretation of scripture?

Observing creation through the scientific method is not like reading a book. Many assumptions go into it (like naturalism). If one rejects a modern scientific theory he is not rejecting evidence, but rather a particular interpretation of that evidence. And don't you realize that interpretations of evidence change all the time? How may interpretations of evidence did the scientific community hold 100 years ago that they reject now?

The geologic interpretations that preclude a single world wide flood are quite solid, almost pure deduction. Over the last 200 years the stratigraphic record on land has been docummented with meticulous detail. The descriptive details of the stratigraphic record are observational fact. It is not a matter of interpretation that a particular formation overlies another, is composed of sandstone, contains some fossils and not others, etc. There are countless layers within the stratigraphic record that could not possibly have formed under water and must have formed on land, and this makes it impossible that the entire stratigraphic record formed from a single world wide flood. Now the inferrence that these layers must have formed on land is an interpretation of evidence. But it is not based on an assumption of naturalism or any assumptions that are objectionable in any way. It's based on the assumption that if something looks like something then that's what it is. If a surface looks like it has the footprints of air-breathing animals on it then it really does, and must have been exposed to the air. If a surface looks like it has descication cracks then it really does, and must have been exposed to the air.If a surface looks for all the world like a weathered surface with a fossil soil horizon, then it really does, and must have been exposed to the atmosphere for a really long time. All of these are found throughout the stratigraphic record. If they are what they seem to be then it is absolutely impossible that the entire stratigraphic record formed from a single world wide flood. There would have to be a separate flood for each interval between the terrestrial layers. Yes, scientific interpretations change all the time. Flood geology is one of those that the scientific community held over 100 years ago that they reject now. Evidence like that I just mentioned kept accumulating that flood geology just couldn't accomodate.

 

[gluadys]

First, what Notto said. No I do not need physical evidence to believe what the bible says. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and I have no physical evidence to support that.

But when physical evidence contradicts what I have believed the bible says, then I have to rethink what I believe the bible says. And that is the case with Noah's flood being a global flood.

Nor is it simply a matter of interpretation. Evidence cannot, as some creationists seem to think, support any and every interpretation on the basis of the interpreter's pre-suppositions. There are many facts which, as bdfoster points out, simply cannot accommodate a global flood no matter what pre-suppositions you begin with.

Indeed, the only way to deny this evidence is to call into question the very reality of nature. But that calls into question the fact of creation itself.

This comes down to the current bugaboo word "uniformitarianism". Not a term much used in science anymore, but used frequently and negatively by creationists. "Uniformitarianism" btw does not mean "gradually". What it does mean is that we can rely on nature to operate in a predictable manner, such that, if we have figured out the process which causes a certain effect, we can expect that effect to occur whenever the same cause occurs--in the present, in the future and in the past. This applies both to slow processes like plate tectonics and rapid processes like explosions.

It is strange to hear Christians opposing uniformitarianism, because it is a fundamentally biblical idea. The bible speaks often about the reliable processes of nature. One of the earliest such references, ironically, is near the end of the story of the flood, as part of the rainbow promise.

"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, day and night
shall not cease."

Because of this promise of God, we can rely on varves and tree-rings and ice-cores which record seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter to be reliable time-keepers. Some corals even record diurnal changes in their shells, keeping track of day and night.

Because the bible proclaims one God, Creator of all, who makes and sustains the order of all nature, we can know and appreciate the harmony of the universe and the orderliness of its processes. And because the bible proclaims one God, Creator of all, who makes and sustains the order of all nature, we can trust the testimony of nature as a witness of God's doings. To do otherwise is to cast doubt on the reality of creation and even on the witness of scripture which is supposedly being defended.

There is no good reason to insist the flood be global given that those who wrote the story did not even conceive that the earth was a globe. It is enough that the "whole world" be the whole of Noah's world and the "highest mountains" be the highest known mountains in that world.

And there is good reason to say that the flood could not possibly have been global because of the facts of the geologic record. Facts that were known to Christians before Darwin was anything more than a student, and understood by Christians to preclude a global flood. Facts which still stand without contradiction more than a century and a half later.

 

[SBG]

First, what Notto said. No I do not need physical evidence to believe what the bible says. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and I have no physical evidence to support that.

But when physical evidence contradicts what I have believed the bible says, then I have to rethink what I believe the bible says. And that is the case with Noah's flood being a global flood.

Nor is it simply a matter of interpretation. Evidence cannot, as some creationists seem to think, support any and every interpretation on the basis of the interpreter's pre-suppositions. There are many facts which, as bdfoster points out, simply cannot accommodate a global flood no matter what pre-suppositions you begin with.

Indeed, the only way to deny this evidence is to call into question the very reality of nature. But that calls into question the fact of creation itself.

This comes down to the current bugaboo word "uniformitarianism". Not a term much used in science anymore, but used frequently and negatively by creationists. "Uniformitarianism" btw does not mean "gradually". What it does mean is that we can rely on nature to operate in a predictable manner, such that, if we have figured out the process which causes a certain effect, we can expect that effect to occur whenever the same cause occurs--in the present, in the future and in the past. This applies both to slow processes like plate tectonics and rapid processes like explosions.

It is strange to hear Christians opposing uniformitarianism, because it is a fundamentally biblical idea. The bible speaks often about the reliable processes of nature. One of the earliest such references, ironically, is near the end of the story of the flood, as part of the rainbow promise.

"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, day and night
shall not cease."

Because of this promise of God, we can rely on varves and tree-rings and ice-cores which record seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter to be reliable time-keepers. Some corals even record diurnal changes in their shells, keeping track of day and night.

Because the bible proclaims one God, Creator of all, who makes and sustains the order of all nature, we can know and appreciate the harmony of the universe and the orderliness of its processes. And because the bible proclaims one God, Creator of all, who makes and sustains the order of all nature, we can trust the testimony of nature as a witness of God's doings. To do otherwise is to cast doubt on the reality of creation and even on the witness of scripture which is supposedly being defended.

There is no good reason to insist the flood be global given that those who wrote the story did not even conceive that the earth was a globe. It is enough that the "whole world" be the whole of Noah's world and the "highest mountains" be the highest known mountains in that world.

And there is good reason to say that the flood could not possibly have been global because of the facts of the geologic record. Facts that were known to Christians before Darwin was anything more than a student, and understood by Christians to preclude a global flood. Facts which still stand without contradiction more than a century and a half later.

Ok, first I would like to see your support for the Church Fathers not knowing or seeing the world as a globe. I have evidence written by the church fathers themselves that say otherwise. Since you asserted first, could you please show your evidence of their writings that say what you say they believed.

Second, show me where the church believed the global flood wasn't true because of the geological record before the time of Darwin.

Lastly, the Church Fathers even recognized there to be a continent on the other side of the earth and still believed they too were covered in water during the flood.

 

[gluadys]

Ok, first I would like to see your support for the Church Fathers not knowing or seeing the world as a globe. I have evidence written by the church fathers themselves that say otherwise. Since you asserted first, could you please show your evidence of their writings that say what you say they believed.

I didn't say that. Most of the Church Fathers were probably sufficiently aware of the Ptolemaic system to believe the earth is a sphere. That does not apply to the authors of scripture, however, as the biblical text is more consistent with a pre-Ptolemaic cosmos featuring a flat earth under the dome of the firmament. That is why I spoke of the biblical writers, not the Church fathers, as not conceiving of the earth as a globe.

Second, show me where the church believed the global flood wasn't true because of the geological record before the time of Darwin.

Are you asking about an official church statement? I don't know of one, only of Christian geologists who bit by bit discovered the geological evidence that no global flood had occurred. But at first the real focus was on the age of the earth. From the time of Hutton through the rest of the 18th century and into the early 19th century, it became more and more obvious the earth was very old, and various schemes of OEC were promoted as a way to harmonize scripture with geology. During most of this period the geologists still assumed that some sediments were remnants of the Deluge, and slowly assigned more and more strata to a pre-Flood era as they were eliminated from a possible connection with the Flood. By the early 19th century it was fairly well-established that only the surface moiraines and gravels could be remnants of the flood. And even that was being questioned--by Christians. John Fleming a Church of Scotland minister for over 25 years became professor of natural history at Aberdeen in 1843. Earlier, in 1826 he questioned the likelihood of a flood as forming most geological features. A decade later, Louis Agassiz made his definitive study of the surface features which showed conclusively that even these were the product of glaciation, not a flood. It was Agassiz' work that finally convinced Rev. Adam Sedgwick, Anglican priest and president of Britain's Royal Society that the flood could not have been global--a conclusion he made public in his last address to the Royal Society as its president in 1845. Sedgwick, of course, held a position of influence in both scientific and ecclesiastical circles, so one could take this as a crucial date of recognition of a local flood. But that is not to say there were resolutions at General Synods or Assemblies affirming (or opposing) his position.

Lastly, the Church Fathers even recognized there to be a continent on the other side of the earth and still believed they too were covered in water during the flood.

But what would they have thought with the geological evidence compiled in the 18th and 19th centuries to consider? Not to mention what has been discovered since. We cannot assume they would have been antagonistic to it or refused to reconsider their position in light of the evidence.

 

[SBG]

But what would they have thought with the geological evidence compiled in the 18th and 19th centuries to consider? Not to mention what has been discovered since. We cannot assume they would have been antagonistic to it or refused to reconsider their position in light of the evidence.

I have just a small bit of time so I wanted to comment on this part. I can confidently say that the Church Fathers - if they knew of the evidence today - would not change their interpretation of the Bible. They would however see how some of what is found can fit with what is literally said within the Bible.

I believe the first error of theistic evolutionists is NOT the belief of evolution, but the fact they it is said the interpretation of the Bible must change to fit with today's science and keep changing as science does. Good theology doesn't keep changing everytime the world says something different.

It is not evolution per say that is the problem, it is the fact that te's say scripture must be ONLY read allegorical (Genesis) and CANNOT be read as history. Every Church Father, Apostle and Jesus Christ would disagree with you. You see, there is actually a way to harmonize a literal historical Genesis - thus not inferring the Bible is wrong - and a good amount of evolution. Man evolving is not one of them nor is death before the fall of mankind. Modern day philosophies that exist behind this theory are the reason why such contemptuous claims are made against the Bible.

My belief is even creationists have it wrong on parts of science. Why I would rather be on their side of the fence is because they uphold the way Scripture was meant to be read instead of insisting that Scripture must change with the times and keep changing accordingly. Vance has freely admitted that if science changes from evolution, interpretation of the Bible must keep changing. I don't believe Paul taught that Scripture keeps bouncing around, never sure of what it is teaching. That the Holy Spirit keeps you going from one belief to another. This flys in the face of what the Bible teaches.


The question remains, do you really care about having good theology and being in sound doctrine? If you did, you would uphold the Bible as the Authority in ALL matter and would not come out and say that the Bible is wrong if it is read how Church Fathers read it, or how the Apostles read it or how Jesus taught it. There is not one Church Father, Apostle, or Jesus Christ who didn't believe the flood was global. It was not based on science or the philosophy of the day, but because Scripture is very clear in this teaching. That is the belief these men held.

Again, do you really care about theology? Do you really care about being in sound doctrine that doesn't go back and forth in conflicting teachings? Do you?

 

[notto]

I believe the first error of theistic evolutionists is NOT the belief of evolution, but the fact they it is said the interpretation of the Bible must change to fit with today's science and keep changing as science does. Good theology doesn't keep changing everytime the world says something different.

It isn't good theology or interpretation if it directly conflicts with the actual creation of God.

 

[Jatopian]

The Church Fathers were wrong. They were wrong on several issues. Get over it.

 

[SBG]

It isn't good theology or interpretation if it directly conflicts with the actual creation of God.

So you admit that good theology and sound doctrine are when they change with the views of science and whatever else you believe in that is popular in the day?

Notto, can you show me where creation spoke to tell about its history or can you admit it is the interpretation of scientists that say what they believe creation says?

This is always the statement by theistic evolutionists that somehow someway creation speaks on its own and tells its history and how old it is and what it has seen without any man or woman giving their own interpretation on this. I haven't heard the rocks under my feet jump up and speak to tell me they saw evolution happen yet.

One day I am hoping that theistic evolutionists can be honest enough to say that scientists give their interpretation of evidene and evidence alone says nothing.

 

[SBG]

The Church Fathers were wrong. They were wrong on several issues. Get over it.

You know they have been wrong, I suppose that makes them human. But you know what is funny, they all agreed on the flood being a global one. And why? Because Scripture clearly tells it to be so.

Japtopian, do you care about good theology and sound doctrine?

 

[notto]

So you admit that good theology and sound doctrine are when they change with the views of science and whatever else you believe in that is popular in the day?

I don't think the theology and doctrine need to change at all. The theological impact of the flood don't change whether it was global or regional. The bible isn't a science book and it's doctrine and theology shouldn't be used as one.

We can study the creation and learn from it just as we can study the bible and learn from it. You seem to not accept this. I think that creation reflects an honest set of evidence that man can come to honest conclusions about. I have no reason to think any differently.

 

[SBG]

I don't think the theology and doctrine need to change at all. The theological impact of the flood don't change whether it was global or regional. The bible isn't a science book and it's doctrine and theology shouldn't be used as one.

We can study the creation and learn from it just as we can study the bible and learn from it. You seem to not accept this. I think that creation reflects an honest set of evidence that man can come to honest conclusions about. I have no reason to think any differently.

Theology of the flood is two-fold:

• Literal History. -- shall we discuss if it is a local flood how people could have escaped God's wrath by getting away from the area?
• What does Christ say here. -- Augustine argued that the flood account represented the Church and its people today.

You don't want to answer if creation alone gets up and speaks or do scientists tell us what they believe creation says? Can you answer that, or would you like to avoid that?

Do you think all scientists are honest? How about the 20 some year secrecy of the dating on human fossil remains that became publically known? Was that scientists being honest by hiding this for so long? Sure we found out, and that is good, but this was not just some recent thing but something that lasted for over 20 years.

Again, do you even care about theology and sound doctrine? It is one thing that you are determined to believe evolution at the expense of the Biblical teachings, but can you atleast be honest that theology and sound doctrine are not that important to you. If they were, they wouldn't need to change to keep up with the times.

And remember theology and sound doctrine don't only concern themselves with allegory, but with what truly and literally happened.