TEs/OECs interpretation of The Flood

[Jorge]

.
This thread was inspired by a CMI July 2016 article published in Creation Prayer News.

TEs/OECs most often do not believe/accept the exceedingly-clear biblical text of a Universal (worldwide) Flood (UF). Their number one alternative view is the "Local Flood" (LF) interpretation. The LF simply says that the "Flood" did in fact occur but it was only a geographically-local flood, not a UF.

If you read their LF theory it may at first seem "plausible" UNTIL you ask some fairly basic, child-level questions - questions that they NEVER adequately answer.

Here are just six of these questions:

1. Why does the narrative (Genesis 6-9) so many times use terms like "all" and "every" (instead of "some") thereby emphasizing the universal (not local) nature of the Flood?

2. The UF killed all but eight people (2 Peter 2:5). God's purpose was to destroy ALL other land animals and people on earth (Genesis 6:17). How could a LOCAL flood realize God's purpose? Related to this: what part of these biblical passages is unclear in its meaning?


3. ALL the high mountains were covered by 15 cubits (Genesis 7:19-20). How could a LOCAL flood do this?

4. If the Flood was going to be only LOCAL, why didn't God simply tell Noah to MOVE with his family?

5.God promised to never send another UF to cleanse the earth (Genesis 9:8-17). Yet there have been many - thousands! - LOCAL floods since Noah's days. There is only one way for God to have spoken truth and that is if the UF was universal (worldwide), not local. Isn't that right?


These aren't the only questions, but they are a good start for those denying God's clear message on this matter.

I have read some attempts by TEs/OECs to answer these questions but they fall flat on their face when examined with sound common sense. But, of course, fanatical belief will always trump everything, including good sense.

Maybe the TEs/OECs here will surprise me with something other than fanatical nonsense.
If you believe that then there's are a couple of bridges that you will surely be interested in.

Jorge

[Roy]

[A bunch of stuff that is completely unrelated to Natural Science deleted]

Wrong forum, welcher.

[Wally]

What Jorge has succeeded in doing, is to formulate an argument that the Old Testament is false.

If you can't construct an interpretation that doesn't conflict with reality, then it must be false.

[oxmixmudd]

.
This thread was inspired by a CMI July 2016 article published in Creation Prayer News.

TEs/OECs most often do not believe/accept the exceedingly-clear biblical text of a Universal (worldwide) Flood (UF). Their number one alternative view is the "Local Flood" (LF) interpretation. The LF simply says that the "Flood" did in fact occur but it was only a geographically-local flood, not a UF.

If you read their LF theory it may at first seem "plausible" UNTIL you ask some fairly basic, child-level questions - questions that they NEVER adequately answer.

Here are just six of these questions:

1. Why does the narrative (Genesis 6-9) so many times use terms like "all" and "every" (instead of "some") thereby emphasizing the universal (not local) nature of the Flood?

2. The UF killed all but eight people (2 Peter 2:5). God's purpose was to destroy ALL other land animals and people on earth (Genesis 6:17). How could a LOCAL flood realize God's purpose? Related to this: what part of these biblical passages is unclear in its meaning?


3. ALL the high mountains were covered by 15 cubits (Genesis 7:19-20). How could a LOCAL flood do this?

4. If the Flood was going to be only LOCAL, why didn't God simply tell Noah to MOVE with his family?

5.God promised to never send another UF to cleanse the earth (Genesis 9:8-17). Yet there have been many - thousands! - LOCAL floods since Noah's days. There is only one way for God to have spoken truth and that is if the UF was universal (worldwide), not local. Isn't that right?


These aren't the only questions, but they are a good start for those denying God's clear message on this matter.

I have read some attempts by TEs/OECs to answer these questions but they fall flat on their face when examined with sound common sense. But, of course, fanatical belief will always trump everything, including good sense.

Maybe the TEs/OECs here will surprise me with something other than fanatical nonsense.
If you believe that then there's are a couple of bridges that you will surely be interested in.

Jorge

The scientific side of this is simply that there just isn't any evidence found in the geology of the Earth that is CONSISTENT with a Universal Flood of the sort described if the text of Genesis is taken as literally as you imply is correct. So if one is inclined to lean towards a UF interpretation, one is forced to conclude it happened in such a way as to leave no evidence that would be consistent with such an event, and that there are massive amounts of evidence that directly contradict the idea such an event occurred. This would include genetic evidence found in living creatures and animals.

There are other issues with that interpretation that have long been difficult. Not the least of which are the construction of such a vessel by one man and his family - even if given several hundred years to complete the task - and its sea-worthiness.

If one can live with all that - fine. Just be honest about the aspects of it that can be supported scientifically.

The truth is there are significant issues no matter which way you go (LF/UF) unless your theology allows for the text NOT to be historically literal. As such your points about the problems with local flood are valid, but would be mitigated significantly in the most critical areas if there was something about this specific flood that would be unique to the history of the Earth - or at least the history of the Earth where humankind was present.

That is why I tend toward the belief that this 'local' flood has yet to be discovered, and was the result of something like the proposed Indian ocean impact - a massive Tsunami that wiped out not just a local town or city, but the budding cultural area of the world. This kind of event would answer most of the critical theological questions, but still requires that some elements of the story are written from a phenomenal perspective (the use of 'all' in a observationally relative sense - i.e. all the writer was aware of - and the claims like that the flood rose over the mountains) and that the size of the ark itself is likely not accurate.



Jim

[rogue06]

all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth" (Genesis 41:57). Did starving Australian Aborigines come to Joseph seeking food? How about Inuits? Similarly, the famine predicted by Agabus that "took place in the days of Claudius" was said to have occurred "over all the world" (Acts 11:28).

"And the fame of David went out into all lands, and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all nationswhole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom" (I Kings 19:11).

"And horses were imported for Solomon from Egypt and from all lands"(II Chronicles 9:28).

"All the kings of the earthall the world should be enrolled" (Lk 2:1). In this case "all the world" means only the Roman Empire.

Likewise, when Cyrus declares in II Chronicles 36:23 that God "has given me all the kingdoms of the earth" he meant only the lands controlled by the Persian Empire.

"For they covered the face of the whole earth

[oxmixmudd]

What Jorge has succeeded in doing, is to formulate an argument that the Old Testament is false.

If you can't construct an interpretation that doesn't conflict with reality, then it must be false.

I know. He does that a lot. In so many ways, he is his own worst enemy.

Jim

[HMS_Beagle]

I have read some attempts by TEs/OECs to answer these questions but they fall flat on their face when examined with sound common sense. But, of course, fanatical belief will always trump everything, including good sense.

It takes a complete lack of good sense to ignore the huge amount of physical evidence which conclusively demonstrates a world destroying Flood 4500 years ago did not happen. Empirically verified physical reality trumps your fanatical beliefs.

[rwatts]

.
1. Why does the narrative (Genesis 6-9) so many times use terms like "all" and "every" (instead of "some") thereby emphasizing the universal (not local) nature of the Flood?

Jorge,

You realise that the Bible tells us that modern meteorological science is bunk?

After all, if "yom" means "day" in Genesis, then surely "God said" means that "God spoke" and "God made" means that "God formed'.

Therefore why do verses across the Bible use "God said" and "God made" in the context of the origin of various meteorological phenomena?

[Jedidiah]

.
This thread was inspired by a CMI July 2016 article published in Creation Prayer News.

TEs/OECs most often do not believe/accept the exceedingly-clear biblical text of a Universal (worldwide) Flood (UF). Their number one alternative view is the "Local Flood" (LF) interpretation. The LF simply says that the "Flood" did in fact occur but it was only a geographically-local flood, not a UF.

If you read their LF theory it may at first seem "plausible" UNTIL you ask some fairly basic, child-level questions - questions that they NEVER adequately answer.

Here are just six of these questions:

1. Why does the narrative (Genesis 6-9) so many times use terms like "all" and "every" (instead of "some") thereby emphasizing the universal (not local) nature of the Flood?

2. The UF killed all but eight people (2 Peter 2:5). God's purpose was to destroy ALL other land animals and people on earth (Genesis 6:17). How could a LOCAL flood realize God's purpose? Related to this: what part of these biblical passages is unclear in its meaning?


3. ALL the high mountains were covered by 15 cubits (Genesis 7:19-20). How could a LOCAL flood do this?

4. If the Flood was going to be only LOCAL, why didn't God simply tell Noah to MOVE with his family?

5.God promised to never send another UF to cleanse the earth (Genesis 9:8-17). Yet there have been many - thousands! - LOCAL floods since Noah's days. There is only one way for God to have spoken truth and that is if the UF was universal (worldwide), not local. Isn't that right?


These aren't the only questions, but they are a good start for those denying God's clear message on this matter.

I have read some attempts by TEs/OECs to answer these questions but they fall flat on their face when examined with sound common sense. But, of course, fanatical belief will always trump everything, including good sense.

Maybe the TEs/OECs here will surprise me with something other than fanatical nonsense.
If you believe that then there's are a couple of bridges that you will surely be interested in.

Jorge

All of those questions have been answered often before. Maybe even on TWeb.

[Jorge]

The scientific side of this is simply that there just isn't any evidence found in the geology of the Earth that is CONSISTENT with a Universal Flood of the sort described if the text of Genesis is taken as literally as you imply is correct.

Jim

... and since "science" trumps whatever the Bible says then the Bible is wrong / must be re-interpreted. QED

Yeah, I get it.

Truth is, I've understood the TE/OEC position for decades.

Uhmmm, while you're at it : present here and now the scientific evidence found anywhere on Earth
that supports the "woodenly literal" understanding of:

- Raising dead people (e.g., Jairus' daughter, Lazarus)
- Talking and having lunch with friends after being dead for three days
- An unaided man walking on water
- Water being instantly transformed into fine wine
- A blind-since-birth man instantly being able to see
- A man paralyzed for decades instantly being able to walk
- Thousands of men, women and children being well fed with just a few loaves and fish
- Instantly healing lepers and other physical afflictions of countless people
- Expelling demons from possessed individuals with just a command
- Instantly causing a weather storm to cease with just a command


That's just a few of the miracles that are also to be understood "WOODENLY LITERALLY".

You either believe in those miracles (1) or you don't (2).

(2) If you don't then thank you for additional proof that your "god" is not the same as the Bible's, your "christ" is not the same as the Bible's and your "bible" is likely not THE Bible at all.

(1) If you do then you are a forked-tongue hypocrite. You accept ONLY those miraculous events that do not interfere with your prized-above-all-beliefs (Evolutionism and Giga-Years) but ANY miraculous event (such as a 6-day creation or a Universal Flood) that does interfere with those prized-above-all-beliefs is discarded, distorted or re-interpreted.

And that is PRECISELY what I've been saying all along.

Go ahead, O-Mudd ... which is it, (1) or (2)? Inquiring minds want to know.

Jorge

[Jorge]

All of those questions have been answered often before. Maybe even on TWeb.

Still with your reading comprehension handicap, I see.

I specifically stated in the OP that I have read "answers" to those questions. Most of those "answers" are embarrassing - they do not stand to even a superficial level of scrutiny.

If you think me wrong then go right ahead - present answers that refute these questions.
If you can't do that then accept the facts - your TE/OEC beliefs are blasphemous heresy.

Jorge

[Jorge]

all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth" (Genesis 41:57). Did starving Australian Aborigines come to Joseph seeking food? How about Inuits? Similarly, the famine predicted by Agabus that "took place in the days of Claudius" was said to have occurred "over all the world" (Acts 11:28).

"And the fame of David went out into all lands, and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all nationswhole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom" (I Kings 19:11).

"And horses were imported for Solomon from Egypt and from all lands"(II Chronicles 9:28).

"All the kings of the earthall the world should be enrolled" (Lk 2:1). In this case "all the world" means only the Roman Empire.

Likewise, when Cyrus declares in II Chronicles 36:23 that God "has given me all the kingdoms of the earth" he meant only the lands controlled by the Persian Empire.

"For they covered the face of the whole earth

Golly gee wiz, had I known that Bill Clinton was going to be joining us, I would have rolled out the red carpet and sported my best tuxedo!

Seriously, just one word for you: CONTEXT

Jorge

[TheLurch]

... and since "science" trumps whatever the Bible says then the Bible is wrong / must be re-interpreted.

What would you say to someone with no theological commitment to the Bible - say a Buddhist - when he points out that science appears to contradict something there?

More generally, are you arguing for two types of science? One for those with a commitment to biblical literalism, where when the Bible and reality conflict, the Bible wins; and one for the rest of the world?

[Kbertsche]

.
This thread was inspired by a CMI July 2016 article published in Creation Prayer News.

TEs/OECs most often do not believe/accept the exceedingly-clear biblical text of a Universal (worldwide) Flood (UF). Their number one alternative view is the "Local Flood" (LF) interpretation. The LF simply says that the "Flood" did in fact occur but it was only a geographically-local flood, not a UF.

If you read their LF theory it may at first seem "plausible" UNTIL you ask some fairly basic, child-level questions - questions that they NEVER adequately answer.

Here are just six of these questions:

1. Why does the narrative (Genesis 6-9) so many times use terms like "all" and "every" (instead of "some") thereby emphasizing the universal (not local) nature of the Flood?

The word "all" is often not used in an absolute sense in Scripture. When the NT says that the gospel had gone to "all the earth" do you think it also went to Antarctica? But Rogue answered this issue pretty well in post 5, so I don't need to say more.

2. The UF killed all but eight people (2 Peter 2:5). God's purpose was to destroy ALL other land animals and people on earth (Genesis 6:17). How could a LOCAL flood realize God's purpose? Related to this: what part of these biblical passages is unclear in its meaning?

Yes, the Flood killed ALL mankind. But a local flood is sufficient to accomplish this. Scripture says that humans did not spread out until Babel, when God forced them to do so by confusing their language. So humans would have been grouped together at the time of the Flood, and a local inundation was sufficient.

3. ALL the high mountains were covered by 15 cubits (Genesis 7:19-20). How could a LOCAL flood do this?

See answer 1 above, and Rogue's reply. This is "all" the high mountains known to Noah or Moses, not "all" in a universal sense.

4. If the Flood was going to be only LOCAL, why didn't God simply tell Noah to MOVE with his family?

The ark was a "type" of Christ and salvation. If Noah had moved, it would have destroyed the typology. God wasn't after the "easiest" solution, He was trying to set up a type.

5.God promised to never send another UF to cleanse the earth (Genesis 9:8-17). Yet there have been many - thousands! - LOCAL floods since Noah's days. There is only one way for God to have spoken truth and that is if the UF was universal (worldwide), not local. Isn't that right?

Nonsense. What a stupid objection! There have been NO subsequent floods which destroyed all of humanity except for eight people.

[oxmixmudd]

... and since "science" trumps whatever the Bible says then the Bible is wrong / must be re-interpreted. QED

Why can't you read Jorge? Why can't you comprehend the simplest of concepts? I said quite clearly that IF one is to believe the correct interpretation is the Universal Global Flood, THEN one is forced to simply accept that it CAN'T BE SUPPORTED SCIENTIFICALLY.

Nowhere did I say that 'science trumps the Bible'. Nor did I imply one should necessarily chose a direction based on science itself. I simply said that one must be honest about what science itself will support.

Yeah, I get it.

No - you don't get it. You are illogical and full of inherent contradictions. You say you support science, yet you violate its basic principles with nearly every single supposed 'evidence' for YEC that you present. You could not honestly evaluate the robustness or viability of anything that comes even close to a scientific assessment when it involves YEC. You routinely mangle almost any subject you discuss unless perhaps it is clearly and completely divorced from any connection to YEC.

You also say you support Biblical Inerrancy, and yet you lobby non-stop for an interpretation that if correct proves the text is full of errors. In short, your mind is so completely clouded on this issue you can barely put together a coherent argument of any sort as it relates to this topic.

Truth is, I've understood the TE/OEC position for decades.

Uhmmm, while you're at it : present here and now the scientific evidence found anywhere on Earth
that supports the "woodenly literal" understanding of:

- Raising dead people (e.g., Jairus' daughter, Lazarus)
- Talking and having lunch with friends after being dead for three days
- An unaided man walking on water
- Water being instantly transformed into fine wine
- A blind-since-birth man instantly being able to see
- A man paralyzed for decades instantly being able to walk
- Thousands of men, women and children being well fed with just a few loaves and fish
- Instantly healing lepers and other physical afflictions of countless people
- Expelling demons from possessed individuals with just a command
- Instantly causing a weather storm to cease with just a command


That's just a few of the miracles that are also to be understood "WOODENLY LITERALLY".

We've been over this before. And again, your incapacity to look objectively at anything related to the topic simply leaves you babbling like an idiot.

First, I deny no miracle in scripture. I simply believe the evidence implies that the creation event is not described literally in Genesis.

1) To interpret scripture in a way consistent with TE or OEC is not to deny the possibility of miracles. It is not to say God did not create the universe. It is not to say one believes a 6 day creation 6000 years ago is impossible. It is to simply say that the evidence is not consistent with that short version of creation. The evidence implies God took a different approach than the one you believe the Bible tells you He took.

2) The Scripture describes the creation in a way that lends itself to many interpretations as to HOW God did the work. Even in YEC circles, HOW God did it is routinely speculated upon. All sorts of miracles combined with natural processes are invented to try to reconcile evidence with the YEC interpretation. These speculations are no less modifications or distortions of what the scripture says than any speculation of a TE or OEC as to how to understand the scripture in light of what is known scientifically. The only difference is that the YEC speculation places arbitrary restrictions on which statements in scripture can be 'augmented' to achieve that reconciliation.

3) You have taken the boneheaded position that no evidence, not matter how significant, can cause you to question your interpretive paradigm. And yet even in that mode, you routinely accept modifications where absolutely necessary, such as the Genesis' account of the Raqia/waters above. You just find a way of rendering the Hebrew that no matter how contrary to what is actually said or implied allows you to pretend the obvious conflict with science does not exist. And you then label that reinterpretation (inconsistent with the AJKV by the way) as 'correct'.

You either believe in those miracles (1) or you don't (2).

(2) If you don't then thank you for additional proof that your "god" is not the same as the Bible's, your "christ" is not the same as the Bible's and your "bible" is likely not THE Bible at all.

Stop playing your stupid game. There is only one God, and only one Christ. You routinely violate one of the central tenets of Christian faith in your attempts to try to paint non-YEC's as non-Christians. We all - including you Jorge - confess THE Christ as Lord and Savior. As for belief in the miracles you describe, as I said above, I do not deny any of the miracles of scripture. But I do, just as you do Jorge, try to reconcile the HOW of the miracles with the existing evidence.

I've cut your last bit of vitriol because I have decided I'm not going to let your willingness to wade in the sewer to force me to wade in it with you. While your attacks on TE/OEC deserve a response, your attacks on me personally only serve to provide a window into the darkness of your own soul. I see no reason to force those reading these pages to endure the same view twice.


Jim