PDA

View Full Version : Biblical arguments against "Flood Geology"



Kbertsche
11-15-2015, 08:41 AM
Conservative Christianity has been infected with the disease of "Flood Geology" ever since Morris and Whitcomb published "The Genesis Flood" around 1960. Most rebuttals of Flood Geology focus on the science. But I believe that the view has biblical problems as well.

Here I will focus on a few verses in Gen 8 and show how they are in conflict with fundamental claims of Flood Geology. I would appreciate any responses from those committed to Flood Geology (Jorge or others) as to how they get around these problems. I would also appreciate any additional biblical problems that people see with Flood Geology. I hope this to be primarily a biblical discussion, but since it relies on the "scientific" claims of Flood Geology, I believe this discussion belongs in a science forum.

(I would appreciate input from TEs as well if the moderators can allow it. But I do not want input from non-Christians, which is why this is not in the Natural Science section.)



Gen. 8:8 ¶ Then Noah sent out a dove to see if the waters had receded from the surface of the ground.
Gen. 8:9 The dove could not find a resting place for its feet because water still covered the surface of the entire earth, and so it returned to Noah in the ark. He stretched out his hand, took the dove, and brought it back into the ark.
Gen. 8:10 He waited seven more days and then sent out the dove again from the ark.
Gen. 8:11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there was a freshly plucked olive leaf in its beak! Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth.


First argument:
Note verse 9: "water still covered the surface of the entire earth". The Hebrew is "kal ha-aretz", "all of the earth" or "all of the land". This is the same grammatical construction used repeatedly for the Flood, which covered "all of the high mountains" and killed "all flesh". There is a tendency for us (especially YECs) to read "all" with a modern mindset and treat it as an absolute "all". But this is not how the Hebrews thought.

We can show this from the text itself. We do not need to rely on Hebrew scholars to tell us how the Hebrews thought; we can see it straight from the text. Just look a few verses earlier in the account:


Gen. 8:5 The waters kept on receding until the tenth month. On the first day of the tenth month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
When Noah sent the dove out, the mountains were visible. (This is presumably why Noah sent out the dove, he saw the mountains and wanted to know if the waters had receded enough for the humans to leave the ark.). Thus, water did not cover the entire surface of the land when Noah sent out the dove in v. 8.

So why does the text say that water covered "all the land" in verse 9, when mountains were visible above the water? Clearly, "all" here is not used as an absolute "all". It is "all" from the perspective of the bird. the bird can presumably even see the mountains, but they are too far away for it to reach. From the bird's perspective, all of the land that it can possibly fly to is covered with water, so "all the land" is covered. "All" is from the perspective of the character in the story (the bird).

If this is the usage of "all" at the end of the Flood account, what about the beginning? I believe that this usage, in the context of the same account, should inform our interpretation of "all" at the beginning of the story as well. When water covers "all the high mountains" and kills "all flesh", I argue that we should read this as "all" in the eyes of the characters in the story, I.e. Noah and the people around him.

comments?

Mor
11-15-2015, 08:53 AM
Maybe the prototype of the story is not about water at all, but about hydrogen (or something different). And "the whole earth" is much bigger than or planet Earth. Our planet Earth is one of the mountains.

Kbertsche
11-15-2015, 09:20 AM
Second argument:

Gen. 8:8 ¶ Then Noah sent out a dove to see if the waters had receded from the surface of the ground.
Gen. 8:9 The dove could not find a resting place for its feet because water still covered the surface of the entire earth, and so it returned to Noah in the ark. He stretched out his hand, took the dove, and brought it back into the ark.
Gen. 8:10 He waited seven more days and then sent out the dove again from the ark.
Gen. 8:11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there was a freshly plucked olive leaf in its beak! Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth.
Gen. 8:12 He waited another seven days and sent the dove out again, but it did not return to him this time.


Here we see a progression: first, the mountains are visible, but all land that the dove can reach is still covered with water. Second, the dove is able to pluck an olive leaf from a tree; the implication is that the water has receded enough to uncover some tree branches. Third, the dove does not return; the implication is that it has found a place to nest.

The implication is that trees have been covered by flood water, and as it recedes these trees are visible once again. These trees have not been buried under thousands of feet of sediment as Flood Geology teaches. The same trees that were growing before the Flood are still growing.

This seems to be a clear conflict between Flood Geology and the biblical text.

Comments?

37818
11-15-2015, 09:27 AM
Our current mountains are post Biblical flood (Genesis 7:19).

2 Peter 3:5-7,
. . .For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. . . .

Kbertsche
11-15-2015, 09:54 AM
Our current mountains are post Biblical flood (Genesis 7:19).

2 Peter 3:5-7,
. . .For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. . . .
Gen 7:19 says that "all of the high mountains were covered". How do you get "Our current mountains are post Biblical flood" from this verse?

And I don't see how this addresses either of my two arguments or the text of Gen 8.

Can you please explain in more detail?

theophilus
11-15-2015, 02:44 PM
Gen 7:19 says that "all of the high mountains were covered". How do you get "Our current mountains are post Biblical flood" from this verse?
It is found in these verses:


You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.
(Psalm 104:6-9 ESV)

Kbertsche
11-15-2015, 05:49 PM
It is found in these verses:


You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.
(Psalm 104:6-9 ESV)
Sorry, but I have two major problems with this.

First:
Psalm 104 is generally classed as a "creation Psalm". Verses 1-2a seem to be talking about Day 1 of Genesis 1, verses 2b-5 about Day 2, and verses 6-9 about Day 3. Most commentators agree that vv6-9 are talking about creation; only a small minority believe this is talking about the Flood. When I studied this Psalm a few years ago, I found only one paper in a major theological journal which interpreted this as the Flood (and the author was not a theologian or a language scholar, but a hydraulic engineer named Henry Morris).

Second:
The Hebrew is somewhat ambiguous here. But after studying it myself from the Hebrew and looking at the arguments, I believe the NIV translation is preferable:


Psa. 104:6 You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
Psa. 104:7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
Psa. 104:8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.
Psa. 104:9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.

This translation fits the Hebrew grammar slightly better, and it continues the poetic theme of God as a warrior-king defeating His enemies. The waters are described poetically as a fleeing army which goes up the mountains and down the valleys in retreat.

37818
11-15-2015, 07:43 PM
Gen 7:19 says that "all of the high mountains were covered". How do you get "Our current mountains are post Biblical flood" from this verse?

And I don't see how this addresses either of my two arguments or the text of Gen 8.

Can you please explain in more detail?

Well first Genesis 7:19-20, ". . . And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. . . ."
The pre-flood interpretation is prior to the flood the mountains where under 15 cubits in height. As a result of the flood the mountains as we know them today were formed.

Understand this is an argument of interpretation. What is presented as the geological time scale is the flood record interpreted in such way to deliberately rule out the flood. For how the geological time scale is dated using radiometric dating see the McGraw Hill Science and Technology Encyclopedia. Only one sample is assigned for each strata age. The sample location and method is given. [As I remember.]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d75yN4rjxmY

Kbertsche
11-16-2015, 01:57 AM
Well first Genesis 7:19-20, ". . . And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. . . ."
The pre-flood interpretation is prior to the flood the mountains where under 15 cubits in height.
Yes. And we can see in ch 8 that "all" is not being used as a universal term, but as a relative term. So in the context of the same Flood account, we must not insist that "all" in ch 7 is used as a universal term. It is more likely a relative term as well. This is the crux of my first argument.


As a result of the flood the mountains as we know them today were formed.
Where does Scripture say or imply this? Why would 15 cubits of water on top of mountains form new mountains?



Understand this is an argument of interpretation. What is presented as the geological time scale is the flood record interpreted in such way to deliberately rule out the flood.
But if the geologic time scale is due to the flood, all trees would have been buried under thousands of feet of sediment. Where could the dove have found a tree to pluck an olive leaf or branch from in ch 8? This is the crux of my second argument.



For how the geological time scale is dated using radiometric dating see the McGraw Hill Science and Technology Encyclopedia. Only one sample is assigned for each strata age. The sample location and method is given. [As I remember.]
No, establishing the geologic time scale is more complex than this, and many samples are taken.

theophilus
11-16-2015, 05:28 AM
Psalm 104 is generally classed as a "creation Psalm". Verses 1-2a seem to be talking about Day 1 of Genesis 1, verses 2b-5 about Day 2, and verses 6-9 about Day 3.
You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.
(Psalm 104:6-9 ESV)

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
(Genesis 1:11-13 ESV)

There is no way these can be talking about the same event.

Kbertsche
11-16-2015, 05:40 AM
You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.
(Psalm 104:6-9 ESV)

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
(Genesis 1:11-13 ESV)

There is no way these can be talking about the same event.
Agreed. There were two creative events on Day 3. Ps 104:6-9 corresponds to the first event (Gen 1:9-10), not the second (Gen 1:11-13).


Psa. 104:6 You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
Psa. 104:7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
Psa. 104:8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.
Psa. 104:9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.


Gen. 1:9 ¶ And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.
Gen. 1:10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

37818
11-17-2015, 06:17 PM
Yes. And we can see in ch 8 that "all" is not being used as a universal term, but as a relative term. So in the context of the same Flood account, we must not insist that "all" in ch 7 is used as a universal term. It is more likely a relative term as well. This is the crux of my first argument.So then it does not really mean Noah did "all" the LORD commanded him (7:5). It is the same term. It is related to a word meaning "compete" or "perfect."



Where does Scripture say or imply this? Why would 15 cubits of water on top of mountains form new mountains?The water was 15 cubits deep and the top the mountains were covered. Are mountains under 15 cubits today?



But if the geologic time scale is due to the flood, all trees would have been buried under thousands of feet of sediment. Where could the dove have found a tree to pluck an olive leaf or branch from in ch 8? This is the crux of my second argument.It is called coal. And besides those geological time scale sediment layers are world wide and distributed upon whole continents.



No, establishing the geologic time scale is more complex than this, and many samples are taken.I would think the latter to be the case. Even so, only one sample from one location for each age were assigned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Samples are claimed, but locations are very general and no method used for listed samples are cited.

Maybe you can find some better examples for dating of the Geological Time Scale. And post the link or links.

I found this table: http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/tab2-07a.jpg
11476
And this table: http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/tab2-07b.jpg
11477

Kbertsche
11-17-2015, 06:47 PM
Yes. And we can see in ch 8 that "all" is not being used as a universal term, but as a relative term. So in the context of the same Flood account, we must not insist that "all" in ch 7 is used as a universal term. It is more likely a relative term as well. This is the crux of my first argument.
So then it does not really mean Noah did "all" the LORD commanded him (7:5). It is the same term. It is related to a word meaning "compete" or "perfect."
First, the grammatical construction is not the same. Gen 8 has "kal-ha-aretz", "all of the earth". The constructions "all of the high mountains" is the same.

Second, do you think ch 7 means that Noah was sinless? That he did absolutely everything perfectly?





Where does Scripture say or imply this? Why would 15 cubits of water on top of mountains form new mountains?
The water was 15 cubits deep and the top the mountains were covered. Are mountains under 15 cubits today?
No, but this doesn't answer my question. Why do you believe that new mountains were formed under this 15 cubits of water? Why couldn't it be that the original mountains were simply covered with water and then uncovered?





But if the geologic time scale is due to the flood, all trees would have been buried under thousands of feet of sediment. Where could the dove have found a tree to pluck an olive leaf or branch from in ch 8? This is the crux of my second argument.
It is called coal. And besides those geological time scale sediment layers are world wide and distributed upon whole continents.
Are you saying that the dove found an olive leaf in coal?!? (My question is where the dove found the olive leaf if all the trees were buried under thousands of feet of sediment.)



I would think the latter to be the case. Even so, only one sample from one location for each age were assigned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

I can't see where this link says that "only one sample from one location for each age" was used. Can you please point this out with a direct quote?

Mor
11-17-2015, 09:58 PM
No book is intended as an evidence or an argument. (But it can help to remember something you know from your birth, as well as certain places on Earth can resemble another planets and help you remember something from your past. Maybe this is why children like fairy tales more than even the Bible?) About the pigeon, I can only imagine what the prototype is. Maybe it is a robot? All the more, it can even be named pigeon. E.g., do you know what is black shark? It is a helicopter.

37818
11-18-2015, 06:49 AM
First, the grammatical construction is not the same. Gen 8 has "kal-ha-aretz", "all of the earth". The constructions "all of the high mountains" is the same. Yes. But the tops of mountains was not the land below them.


Second, do you think ch 7 means that Noah was sinless?You know full well it is not saying that.
That he did absolutely everything perfectly?you also know full well Noah correctly followed God's instructions on that matter.



No, but this doesn't answer my question. Why do you believe that new mountains were formed under this 15 cubits of water? You do not comprehend ramifications of the whole earth literally being under water. And ". . . the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up . . . ." (7:11).


Why couldn't it be that the original mountains were simply covered with water and then uncovered? OK. Then we need to read the text to mean 15 cubits "above" the highest mountains. Covering the whole earth, that would be even more water. As it is ocean bottom fossils are on the tops of most all the worlds mountains.



Are you saying that the dove found an olive leaf in coal?!? Of course not.
(My question is where the dove found the olive leaf if all the trees were buried under thousands of feet of sediment.) New plant growth.



I can't see where this link says that "only one sample from one location for each age" was used. I was referring back to the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology not the following link.

Can you please point this out with a direct quote?I would have to go to a Library that has the set. The library I had gone to has long since closed. It has been a number of years.

Kbertsche
11-18-2015, 10:52 AM
No, but this doesn't answer my question. Why do you believe that new mountains were formed under this 15 cubits of water?

You do not comprehend ramifications of the whole earth literally being under water. And ". . . the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up . . . ." (7:11).
But where does Scripture say that new mountains were formed under this 15 cubits of water? I am trying to get a biblical discussion here. (I understand the claims of a certain prominent hydraulic engineer who had no training in either geology or theology. I reject them.)





Why couldn't it be that the original mountains were simply covered with water and then uncovered?

OK. Then we need to read the text to mean 15 cubits "above" the highest mountains. Covering the whole earth, that would be even more water. As it is ocean bottom fossils are on the tops of most all the worlds mountains.
But isn't this what the text says? It says that water covered "all of the high mountains", the same grammatical construction as water covering "all of the earth" in ch 8. And we know from the context that this "all" in ch 8 is a relative"all", not an absolute "all".






Are you saying that the dove found an olive leaf in coal?!?

Of course not. New plant growth.
Are you saying that this olive tree grew in less than a week? Or that it grew underwater? Remember that Noah had sent the dove out a week earlier and it saw that water covered "all of the earth".

37818
11-21-2015, 02:33 PM
But where does Scripture say that new mountains were formed under this 15 cubits of water? It does not. Where does the Scripture say there would not be ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains?

Where does the Scripture say the flood did not cover the whole earth under heaven?



I am trying to get a biblical discussion here. Really?


(I understand the claims of a certain prominent hydraulic engineer who had no training in either geology or theology. I reject them.)OK. Let's keep real evidence of the flood out of this.



But isn't this what the text says? It says that water covered "all of the high mountains", the same grammatical construction as water covering "all of the earth" in ch 8. And we know from the context that this "all" in ch 8 is a relative"all", not an absolute "all".No. The context does not support this. You seem to think it does. Because while the whole ground was still covered, the tops of mountains were no longer under the water. In the Scripture the tops of mountains and the ground are referred to separately. Genesis 7:19 then 7:20. The distinction is made.




Are you saying that this olive tree grew in less than a week?No. I said new growth. Olive trees from a seed takes about a month to have leaves. And existing olive tree can grow leaves getting sun while yet underwater. But that is not relevant. The scripture says what happened.

Or that it grew underwater? Olive trees can grow leaves while yet underwater. The Scripture is silent on this.

Remember that Noah had sent the dove out a week earlier and it saw that water covered "all of the earth".Yes.

Kbertsche
11-22-2015, 10:26 AM
It does not. Where does the Scripture say there would not be ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains?

Where does Scripture say anything about "ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains?" Nowhere, so far as I know. This is extrabiblical speculation.


Where does the Scripture say the flood did not cover the whole earth under heaven?

Doesn't it say that the flood did cover the "whole earth" or "whole land"? The question is what this means.


Really?
OK. Let's keep real evidence of the flood out of this.

I'm looking for real, biblical, textual evidence of the flood, not sci-if speculation by non-scientists.


No. The context does not support this. You seem to think it does. Because while the whole ground was still covered, the tops of mountains were no longer under the water. In the Scripture the tops of mountains and the ground are referred to separately. Genesis 7:19 then 7:20. The distinction is made.

So you are reading "eretz" here as "ground"? If by this you mean "land", this is a good way to read it. (The word is often translated as "earth", which is correct if we understand this as "land". But "earth" also has connotations of "planet earth" or "globe", which would not have been in the mind of the author of his audience.)


No. I said new growth. Olive trees from a seed takes about a month to have leaves. And existing olive tree can grow leaves getting sun while yet underwater. But that is not relevant. The scripture says what happened.
Olive trees can grow leaves while yet underwater. The Scripture is silent on this.
Yes.
So you seem to be saying that the trees were covered with floodwater and still alive. As the water receded, the trees were uncovered and new leaves grew. Do I understand you correctly?

If this is your position, it rules out the extrabiblical Flood Geology notion that the flood covered the land with thousands of feet of sediment.

37818
11-22-2015, 07:31 PM
Where does Scripture say anything about "ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains?" Nowhere, so far as I know. This is extrabiblical speculation.No, it is not speculation. But is an extrabiblical fact of geology.



Doesn't it say that the flood did cover the "whole earth" or "whole land"? "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. " -- Genesis 7:19.



The question is what this means.". . . Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: . . ." -- 2 Peter 3:6.


I'm looking for real, biblical, textual evidence of the flood, not sci-if speculation by non-scientists.You do not believe the plain text of the Bible. Are you a scientist? I'm not.



So you are reading "eretz" here as "ground"? If by this you mean "land", this is a good way to read it. (The word is often translated as "earth", which is correct if we understand this as "land". But "earth" also has connotations of "planet earth" or "globe", which would not have been in the mind of the author of his audience.)So what?



So you seem to be saying that the trees were covered with floodwater and still alive. As the water receded, the trees were uncovered and new leaves grew. Do I understand you correctly?How do you explain the olive tree branch?



If this is your position, it rules out the extrabiblical Flood Geology notion that the flood covered the land with thousands of feet of sediment.That is how you want it.

Kbertsche
11-23-2015, 11:29 AM
Where does Scripture say anything about "ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains?" Nowhere, so far as I know. This is extrabiblical speculation.

No, it is not speculation. But is an extrabiblical fact of geology.
Sorry, my statement above is very misleading when removed from the previous context. I should have been clearer. The "extrabiblical speculation" is the idea that there are "ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains" due to a single, worldwide inundation.

There is scientific evidence for fossils in many places, but deposited at widely different times in different events. There is textual biblical evidence that the Flood covered "all the land" (whatever this means), but no mention of fossil deposition. The "extrabiblical speculation" is associating the fossils with the Flood.





Doesn't it say that the flood did cover the "whole earth" or "whole land"? The question is what this means. I'm looking for real, biblical, textual evidence of the flood, not sci-if speculation by non-scientists.

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. " -- Genesis 7:19.

". . . Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: . . ." -- 2 Peter 3:6.

You do not believe the plain text of the Bible. Are you a scientist? I'm not.
Why do you accuse me of not believing the plain text of the Bible? I agree with you on what the text says. The question is what it means. As I showed in the OP, there is evidence in the Flood account itself that "all" is not used as a universal term.

(BTW, I am a scientist, with graduate degrees in both science and theology. I DO believe the biblical text; I believe that Scripture is inerrant in its original manuscripts.)





So you seem to be saying that the trees were covered with floodwater and still alive. As the water receded, the trees were uncovered and new leaves grew. Do I understand you correctly?

How do you explain the olive tree branch?
Pretty much the same way as I summarized above. This seems to be the implication of the text.





If this is your position, it rules out the extrabiblical Flood Geology notion that the flood covered the land with thousands of feet of sediment.

That is how you want it.
Whether I want it or not is irrelevant. This seems to be the clear implication of the biblical text.

theophilus
11-24-2015, 04:52 AM
There is scientific evidence for fossils in many places, but deposited at widely different times in different events. There is textual biblical evidence that the Flood covered "all the land" (whatever this means), but no mention of fossil deposition. The "extrabiblical speculation" is associating the fossils with the Flood.
When could the fossils have been deposited except during the flood? Through the fossils God has given us scientific evidence to support the story of the flood.

Do you have any evidence for your statement that the fossils were deposited at different times and in different events?

Mor
11-24-2015, 11:08 AM
I think the Bible can't be used as an evidence. Even in the Bible itself, those who relied upon scriptures were among the enemies of Christ. Do you know anything beyond the Bible? The Bible is a good book, but it is worthless if you do not have anything to remember. It is as if a you are looking at a photo, but don't remember that you are a participant. I personally do not understand many things in the Bible, because I was not part of the events, or, at least, I don't remember anything. We are living in the Renaissance era, so many people remember many different things. Just look at contemporary paintings, books, movies, games. They are popular because they inspire and are close to our nature. The Bible is good too (not better, and not worse). If you can't say anything beyond what is in the Bible, I think it is better to leave it as it is, and say that whoever wants to read it, just let them read it themselves. All the more, those things have been misunderstood even in the times of Christ, because not so many people know what the book is really about.

Jedidiah
11-24-2015, 01:41 PM
Mor, I require a response to my last Personal Message.


I think the Bible can't be used as an evidence. Even in the Bible itself, those who relied upon scriptures were among the enemies of Christ. Do you know anything beyond the Bible? The Bible is a good book, but it is worthless if you do not have anything to remember. It is as if a you are looking at a photo, but don't remember that you are a participant. I personally do not understand many things in the Bible, because I was not part of the events, or, at least, I don't remember anything. We are living in the Renaissance era, so many people remember many different things. Just look at contemporary paintings, books, movies, games. They are popular because they inspire and are close to our nature. The Bible is good too (not better, and not worse). If you can't say anything beyond what is in the Bible, I think it is better to leave it as it is, and say that whoever wants to read it, just let them read it themselves. All the more, those things have been misunderstood even in the times of Christ, because not so many people know what the book is really about.

Kbertsche
11-24-2015, 05:15 PM
When could the fossils have been deposited except during the flood?
Most of the aquatic fossils that we find were fossilized after they died and fell to the bottom of the sea. Most of the earth's land mass was covered by seas at various times in the past. If you want to know the details, check any standard historical geology textbook.


Through the fossils God has given us scientific evidence to support the story of the flood.
No, the scientific data doesn't fit a single worldwide flood.


Do you have any evidence for your statement that the fossils were deposited at different times and in different events?
Yes, of course. Many, many fossils have been dated. Many of the events (subsidence, uplift, mass extinctions, etc) have been dated as well. They span hundreds of millions of years. (The "Cambrian explosion", for example, left fossils about 500 million years ago. The K-T extinction left fossils about 65 million years ago.)

theophilus
11-25-2015, 04:10 AM
Most of the aquatic fossils that we find were fossilized after they died and fell to the bottom of the sea. Most of the earth's land mass was covered by seas at various times in the past. If you want to know the details, check any standard historical geology textbook.
Fossilization is only possible when a dead body is buried immediately at death, an event that often occurs in floods but is rare otherwise. Most geology textbooks are written by people who don't consider the Bible a reliable guide to the truth.


Yes, of course. Many, many fossils have been dated. Many of the events (subsidence, uplift, mass extinctions, etc) have been dated as well. They span hundreds of millions of years. (The "Cambrian explosion", for example, left fossils about 500 million years ago. The K-T extinction left fossils about 65 million years ago.)
There is no way to check the accuracy of these dates.

37818
11-25-2015, 11:35 PM
Sorry, my statement above is very misleading when removed from the previous context. I should have been clearer. The "extrabiblical speculation" is the idea that there are "ocean fossils in the tops of the highest mountains" due to a single, worldwide inundation. Understood. I understand otherwise.


There is scientific evidence for fossils in many places, but deposited at widely different times in different events. There is textual biblical evidence that the Flood covered "all the land" (whatever this means), but no mention of fossil deposition. The "extrabiblical speculation" is associating the fossils with the Flood.Yes, there are a lot of facts we know scientifically that the written word of God is silent on. A lot.



You do not believe the plain text of the Bible.
Why do you accuse me of not believing the plain text of the Bible? I agree with you on what the text says. The question is what it means. As I showed in the OP, there is evidence in the Flood account itself that "all" is not used as a universal term.Can you support the Hebrew in a text elsewhere where the "all" cannot mean "all?" Honestly, I do not see in the text in question where "all" cannot mean "all." You are arguing in the context that it shouldn't in the context in question. I do not see it.



(BTW, I am a scientist, with graduate degrees in both science and theology. I DO believe the biblical text; I believe that Scripture is inerrant in its original manuscripts.) OK. Field of science research or PhD? [I'm a tool programmer, CNC Milling. Now the flood theory of geology, I comprehended to be true over 40 years ago, changed my understanding of Genesis 1:3-. Even though I still believe in an old universe, the crust of the earth 4.5 billion years ago, Genesis 1:2. And 6 earth days in Genesis 1:3-. I reject the classic gap theory Genesis 1:2. To OEC I'm a YEC. To YEC I'm an OEC. :shrug:]






Whether I want it or not is irrelevant. This seems to be the clear implication of the biblical text.No it is not clear. The text is understood as the whole earth was flooded. That is clear.

We can go in circles on this. Let us concentrate on your understanding where "all" does not mean "all" from your reading of the text. Step me through this.

Kbertsche
11-26-2015, 02:51 AM
Can you support the Hebrew in a text elsewhere where the "all" cannot mean "all?" Honestly, I do not see in the text in question where "all" cannot mean "all." You are arguing in the context that it shouldn't in the context in question. I do not see it.

...

No it is not clear. The text is understood as the whole earth was flooded. That is clear.

We can go in circles on this. Let us concentrate on your understanding where "all" does not mean "all" from your reading of the text. Step me through this.
This is explained in the OP. Gen 8 says that water covered "all of the earth" (kal-ha-eretz), yet the mountains were visible. The "all" is clearly not an absolute "all".

What is unclear about the OP? What needs more explanation?



OK. Field of science research or PhD? [I'm a tool programmer, CNC Milling. Now the flood theory of geology, I comprehended to be true over 40 years ago, changed my understanding of Genesis 1:3-. Even though I still believe in an old universe, the crust of the earth 4.5 billion years ago, Genesis 1:2. And 6 earth days in Genesis 1:3-. I reject the classic gap theory Genesis 1:2. To OEC I'm a YEC. To YEC I'm an OEC. :shrug:]
My PhD is in physics. My professional experience is in particle accelerator physics, electron microscopy, and radiocarbon dating.

I grew up hearing lots of "Flood Geology" presentations, was somewhat skeptical of it, and didn't realize how scientifically erroneous it was until college.

37818
11-26-2015, 12:04 PM
This is explained in the OP. Gen 8 says that water covered "all of the earth" (kal-ha-eretz), yet the mountains were visible. The "all" is clearly not an absolute "all".

What is unclear about the OP? What needs more explanation?The text makes a distinction being made between the mountains and the "earth." Genesis 7:19, 20. So in Genesis 8:5 tops up mountains are seen and the earth is still under water Genesis 8:7. Genesis 8:8 a different word "ground."
You do realize what the common understanding is. How do we press the issue that it must be understood as you are explaining?



My PhD is in physics. My professional experience is in particle accelerator physics, electron microscopy, and radiocarbon dating. Cool. Do you have a copy or seen W. F. Libby's book, Radiocarbon Dating?



I grew up hearing lots of "Flood Geology" presentations, was somewhat skeptical of it, and didn't realize how scientifically erroneous it was until college.Ok. You have an understanding that I am missing here.

You are, I trust, familiar with Dr. Hugh Ross and www.reasons.org then. He is an OEC. He does not believe the flood was world wide.

Now you being a physicist, I have what would be to you a hypothetical question, what would be required and the result of a truly global flood, if one was to have happened? What should be the evidence today if such a thing happened. Say, over 8,000 years ago. Or longer 200,000. Would there not be common world wide sediment layers across continents? Thanks.

Kbertsche
11-28-2015, 12:02 PM
The text makes a distinction being made between the mountains and the "earth." Genesis 7:19, 20. So in Genesis 8:5 tops up mountains are seen and the earth is still under water Genesis 8:7. Genesis 8:8 a different word "ground."
You do realize what the common understanding is. How do we press the issue that it must be understood as you are explaining?
Of course the words "earth" (eretz) and "mountain" (har) are different. To most modern readers, "the whole earth" includes the mountains; the "mountains" are a feature of the "earth". I'm pointing out that in Gen 8:9 the phrase "all of the earth" or "the whole earth" clearly does not include the distant mountain peaks. And if this is the way that the author uses language in chapter 8, it should inform our interpretation in Gen 6-7, also.



Cool. Do you have a copy or seen W. F. Libby's book, Radiocarbon Dating?
Yes. It's pretty old and outdated now, but is still valuable for historical interest.

Modern radiocarbon dating is very different now than it was in Libby's day. I like Erv Taylor's paradigm; we are now into the third radiocarbon "revolution". Libby was the first revolution, tree ring calibration was the second, and AMS was the third. In particular, calibration removes essentially all of the "assumptions" that Libby made (and that YECs routinely attack).



Ok. You have an understanding that I am missing here.

You are, I trust, familiar with Dr. Hugh Ross and www.reasons.org then. He is an OEC. He does not believe the flood was world wide.
Yes, I know Hugh, am a volunteer apologist for RTB, and am an officer in my local RTB chapter.



Now you being a physicist, I have what would be to you a hypothetical question, what would be required and the result of a truly global flood, if one was to have happened? What should be the evidence today if such a thing happened. Say, over 8,000 years ago. Or longer 200,000. Would there not be common world wide sediment layers across continents? Thanks.
Yes, there would be a sediment layer. Its thickness would be highly dependent on local details of flooding and draining, but I wouldn't expect it to be more than a few times thicker than a large regional flood. I certainly wouldn't expect it to make thousands of feet of sediment that magically turns into rock. An 8000 year old flood would be easily detected and measured by radiocarbon; a 200,000 year old flood by other radioisotopes.

37818
11-29-2015, 05:00 PM
First, thank you.


Of course the words "earth" (eretz) and "mountain" (har) are different. To most modern readers, "the whole earth" includes the mountains; the "mountains" are a feature of the "earth". I'm pointing out that in Gen 8:9 the phrase "all of the earth" or "the whole earth" clearly does not include the distant mountain peaks. And if this is the way that the author uses language in chapter 8, it should inform our interpretation in Gen 6-7, also.Understood. The difference is one view argues the "tops of mountains" are included in "all the earth" and the other view contends a distinction is being made. How can we show this second view is wrong?





Yes, I know Hugh, am a volunteer apologist for RTB, and am an officer in my local RTB chapter.Cool.



Yes, there would be a sediment layer. Its thickness would be highly dependent on local details of flooding and draining, but I wouldn't expect it to be more than a few times thicker than a large regional flood. I certainly wouldn't expect it to make thousands of feet of sediment that magically turns into rock. An 8000 year old flood would be easily detected and measured by radiocarbon; a 200,000 year old flood by other radioisotopes.This is great stuff. Give that: Please give an example from geology that explicitly rules out the universe flood view

Also you might explain how coal and oil C14 contamination causes them to date near the 30,000 years ago range. Thanks.

37818
11-30-2015, 06:31 AM
Looking at taking the position the Biblical flood from a global stand point was local. The biblical position would entail that it destroyed the whole human race save Noah and his family.

Genesis 9:10,
. . . And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, . . .
. . to every beast of the earth.
Understanding a distinction between the animals Noah took on the ark from animals elsewhere on the earth.

Kbertsche
12-02-2015, 03:11 PM
This is great stuff. Give that: Please give an example from geology that explicitly rules out the universe flood view
I assume that you mean "that explicitly rules out the global flood view." I (along with Hugh Ross, Bill Dembski, and others) hold to what has been called the "universal flood view", that the Flood killed all mankind. This could have been accomplished with a large regional flood if man had not yet spread over the entire planet.

First, we don't find a thick flood layer everywhere on the planet at the same time. Leonard Wooley thought he had found a very thick flood layer at Ur, but he was mistaken.

Second, we would need a miraculous creation and destruction of water in order to cover the entire globe.



Also you might explain how coal and oil C14 contamination causes them to date near the 30,000 years ago range. Thanks.
The maximum date that one gets from radiocarbon is usually about 40,000-45,000 years. Normal measurement techniques introduce a small amount of modern carbon contamination, and the instruments have a finite background level, all of which equates to about this date.

Even a small amount of extra contamination will cause a sample to date younger. Coal is not a good material for radiocarbon dating; it is like a sponge, and is easily contaminated with modern carbon from groundwater (while buried) or from the atmosphere (after mining). That's why coal usually does not date as old as expected. I'm not familiar with attempts to date oil, but I suspect the situation is similar. (BTW, wood is a very good material for dating and normally does not have these problems.)

Joel
12-08-2015, 03:14 PM
Of course the words "earth" (eretz) and "mountain" (har) are different. To most modern readers, "the whole earth" includes the mountains; the "mountains" are a feature of the "earth". I'm pointing out that in Gen 8:9 the phrase "all of the earth" or "the whole earth" clearly does not include the distant mountain peaks. And if this is the way that the author uses language in chapter 8, it should inform our interpretation in Gen 6-7, also.

I think the point here is that if "earth" means something like soil in this verse, distinguished from mountain tops, then "all" can still mean "all" in this verse. In which case it isn't reason to think the previous uses of "all" in Genesis were restricted. It could only inform our understanding of other uses of "earth".


Now what about God's covenant in chapter 9, "and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh." Sounds like that includes more than humans. Surely God didn't promise that there would never again be a local flood that kills the land animals in the region of the local flood?



First, we don't find a thick flood layer everywhere on the planet at the same time. Leonard Wooley thought he had found a very thick flood layer at Ur, but he was mistaken.

I'm certainly no expert, but the accounts I've read from creation science sites don't seem to predict an equal, thick flood everywhere. They don't predict one deposit of sediment. Rather they say their models have the rising flood waters moving chaotically around the globe, such that in any one place, the flood waters may rise, recede, and rise again many times as the flood rose, over weeks.



Second, we would need a miraculous creation and destruction of water in order to cover the entire globe.

I recently saw in the news a story about someone finding evidence that there are massive reserves of water under the earth. The scientist was quoted saying that it was so much water that if it were all brought up, it would cover the earth.

On the other hand, it seems clear that flood in the Bible is intended to be understood to be a miraculous event. So how would the need for a miracle be a problem?

37818
12-08-2015, 05:48 PM
Joel,

The flood is held by all [surely most] Christians to be universal in that it killed all mankind and all the animals that where on earth with all mankind. The issue is, was the universal flood truly global in scope? I had not really thought about it, until I comprehend what such a flood would have to be. It has been for over 40 years I have been convinced that it was global. That which is called the geological time scale was is really of the world wide flood strata. That understanding allowed me to accept the Genesis account as actual 6 days. Prior to that I held a day age interpretation base on Genesis 2:4 referring the creation of the heavens and the earth as a day - ". . . in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, . . ."

I believe in a very old universe (Genesis 1:1).

Mikeenders
12-17-2015, 09:16 PM
The problem with flood geology for the church is that it ignores the certain fact that there was not just one flood in the Bible but at least two. The only theological construct that even attempted to deal with the oddities in the opening verses of Genesis was and is the gap theory but it fails due to inserting too much unsupported theories. Christians almost never address the issue of a pre creation week flood but jews do and and did hundreds of years before Darwin.

klaus54
12-18-2015, 06:36 AM
The problem with flood geology for the church is that it ignores the certain fact that there was not just one flood in the Bible but at least two. The only theological construct that even attempted to deal with the oddities in the opening verses of Genesis was and is the gap theory but it fails due to inserting too much unsupported theories. Christians almost never address the issue of a pre creation week flood but jews do and and did hundreds of years before Darwin.

How old do you think Earth and the cosmos are?

This could result in a productive discussion, provided more than opinion is brought forth.

rogue06
12-18-2015, 07:06 AM
How old do you think Earth and the cosmos are?

This could result in a productive discussion, provided more than opinion is brought forth.
This area is for creationists (either OEC or YEC) only.

Mikeenders
12-18-2015, 09:26 AM
Plus he already knows I am OEC. this thread is about Flood geology not the age of the cosmos.

logician bones
01-02-2016, 12:06 PM
To the argument in the first post, I've thought of the basic idea before that "all" there might not mean literally global, though not your specific justification. But the issue is that earlier the perspective does appear to be God's, and this, too, is normal in the Bible. The fact is it often goes back and forth between God's POV and humans (here, as you rightly point out, the dove's, briefly -- but even this doesn't help show that only one perspective is in the account, as surely the whole account isn't from the dove's point of view!).

The biggest problem is that a specific measurement is given for how much over the mountains the water was.

While I could think of some ways out of this (perhaps it just meant Noah thought that was the depth at which he couldn't see any mountaintops if he happened to go over one), we also shouldn't deny that it could be God revealing this, just like he reveals his personal thoughts both before and after this (after being at Babel). Certainly we cannot justify Noah motoring the ark over known mountain locations by GPS and doing depth finding at every single one!

Another problem is that it's repeated with so much emphasis so many times.

Showing that some cases of "all" aren't literally all cannot mean that all cases aren't (if you'll pardon the pun), and we would have to look to the context to tell the difference. I applaud your attempt to show one from the context that argues against it, and that's a fair point, but the repeated emphasis is a common way to show it means the opposite.

Also, the phrases are different. Previously it says that "all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered", but later just " the waters were still on the face of the whole earth". And the fact that it already told us the mountains were visible can mean the exact opposite of how you're taking it -- that in this case the context is there that tells us they meant it one way, but previously (before the water had started to go down), there's a different context that tells us that there it's meant universally.

I've noticed a similar mistake, for example, being made by those that argue that because the context of Genesis 2:4 defines the word for "day" there as clearly longer than one Earth-rotation, this could justify ignoring the context of day in its previous two uses (daylight and one earth-rotation time period). But really the way the language worked was that the presence of context in both cases (all three cases in this example) was so readers would know three different uses were in play.

Your argument in fact looks almost identical to the fallacy used in that case. You're pointing to the context of a later usage, but instead of looking at the context of the earlier, it looks like you're just saying "so maybe it meant this earlier too". Maybe so, but we need to pay close attention to both.

In any event, I don't really know what difference it makes if some mountaintops far away from any humans were still visible (would have been if anybody'd seen them). Unless you want to invoke a "waterstacking" miracle here (which is admittedly possible but not implied in the text as far as I can tell), all major places that most animals lived in would be devastated by that too.


To replies:


To the debate around Psalm 104, first, notice that this Psalm is talking about the present-day (or at least is not limited to the creation event):


The young lions roar for their prey,
seeking their food from God.

(Relevant because of the end of Genesis 1 saying animals ate plants pre-Fall, if you take that literally anyway.)


Man goes out to his work
and to his labor until the evening.

(This one rules out at least that the whole song is talking about creation before humans, and certainly looks more present-day than anything else.)

However, I'm still not sure this Psalm is valid to use either way. If you already believe that there was a global Flood, then it makes sense this has to refer to it (so saying water won't cover the earth again is alluding to the second time it did; the Flood). If you assume that Flood wasn't global, then you could try to argue they somehow weren't thinking of it (although that does seem unlikely since it was recorded in their Scriptures as apparently all-encompassing as the topic starter argued; even if it wasn't, would they know that -- and this is a poetic book anyways, who says they mean it literally here either?), and this Psalm could be made to fit as the first water covering everything in creation.

I think all things considered, it's probably talking about the Flood (it sounds like the promise not to send another like it is in mind), but it doesn't make that crystal clear.

Anyway, if the catastrophic plate tectonics model is correct, and it has a lot of evidence, mountains like Everest would not have existed prior to the Flood, whether this Psalm is meant to include examples like that (through inspiration) or not.



To Mikeenders:

"The problem with flood geology for the church is that it ignores the certain fact that there was not just one flood in the Bible but at least two."

I've never seen any biblical creationists arguing that water wasn't covering the whole earth at the start of creation week. But if that was how God started things out originally, it's not really a "flood" in the same sense as the one of Noah's time, which covered something previously dry. Peter, after all, describes this as "the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished."

So, the first 'flood' is seen as God creating earth originally with no land visible, and then making land appear, and later flooding the land during Noah's time. This isn't ignored.

Now, some say there was land prior to this that was flooded, but it appears to be speculation. (Also, it's not really clear how the number of Floods prior to the one God promised wouldn't be followed by others is relevant; how does it create any problem for Flood geology?)

Joel
01-06-2016, 11:03 AM
The problem with flood geology for the church is that it ignores the certain fact that there was not just one flood in the Bible but at least two. The only theological construct that even attempted to deal with the oddities in the opening verses of Genesis was and is the gap theory but it fails due to inserting too much unsupported theories. Christians almost never address the issue of a pre creation week flood but jews do and and did hundreds of years before Darwin.

I recall reading answersingenesis articles talking about a model in which the lowest geologic layers and fossils are said to have been laid down during the cataclysmic events of the creation week. (And they consider it as a normal week of 24 hr days.)