Is Evidence of a Local Flood Absent?

[franktalk]

I believe that the flood was not a natural event. Because of that cause, I would think the evidence of the event would not be interpreted by man in any correct fashion. At the same time a supernatural event may not leave evidence at all. I admit that my belief is a "God did it". Now the interpretation of the earths layers by naturalist is consistent within their rules of naturalism. I don't doubt that many are truly convinced that they are right. But the issue is one of a global flood and evidence, that is the op. In my opinion God does not leave a trail of data crumbs for us to follow on some events. I have to refer to 2Peter where he says that the earth that was perished. Since we do not know what exactly that means I have always assumed it to mean exactly what it says. So with this in mind I allow for no evidence or evidence that can not be interpreted by man. I have placed my faith not in the interpretation of a pile of rocks but in the Word of God. I ask myself, "How can a pile of rocks make God a liar?." My answer is always, "They can't." Others will try and fit what we see into scripture and will twist both in order to make a fit. This is human nature and I do it myself from time to time. But I know that I am to live in faith, not faith as supported by evidence. In Romans we are told that the only evidence we need is the creation itself. I accept that. If we study the creation and start placing layer and layer of assumptions and theories into our interpretation then we have placed our study above the Word of God. This drives God into a place that is smaller and smaller as we embrace more and more theories of man. If continued to its conclusion we replace God with the creation. This I will not do.

[greentwiga]

[QUOTE=franktalk;2715141]I believe that the flood was not a natural event. I have to refer to 2Peter where he says that the earth that was perished. Since we do not know what exactly that means I have always assumed it to mean exactly what it says. So with this in mind I allow for no evidence or evidence that can not be interpreted by man. I have placed my faith not in the interpretation of a pile of rocks but in the Word of God. [/QUquestion scientists interpretation.OTE]

The problem is that you do not consider whether you are using a wrong interpretation of scripture though you are quick to suggest that scientists are not using the right interpretation. Take for example 2 Peter. Peter says God created the heavens and earth, He destroyed the earth in the flood and He will destroy the earth in fire. For the creation and for the destruction by fire, Peter uses Ge, which means the whole earth. For the destruction by the flood, he uses the word cosmos which is a word meaning organized. If the flood was over the whole earth, Peter would have been better to use Ge again. Maybe science and the Bible are both right that there was no world wide flood. After all, the miracle the Bible claims is God saving Noah from the flood (whether it was regional or worldwide.)

[fm93]

Hello franktalk,

A few comments I have about your post, if I may.

I agree that some people have embraced disgustingly liberal views toward the Bible, because they have tried, using all sorts of mental gymnastics, to wrench together skeptical ideas and Scripture. Some people think the Flood was figurative, and not a real event. Others thought that Jesus' resurrection was spiritual. Some even think that the Bible can contain blatant errors and still be the trustworthy, written word of God. That, I agree, is very unfortunate, because if the Bible is wrong, then how can we continue to follow what is supposed to be inspired from the God of truth? We cannot accept the Bible and something that blatantly contradicts the Bible. Thus, I simply cannot accept a figurative Flood, because the Bible clearly speaks of it as a historical, real event.

At the same time, though, we must be very careful not to let ourselves be so traditional that we misread the text. For example, many people in the Church in earlier centuries believed that the Earth was flat because they thought that the Bible declared that the Earth was flat. We know, of course, that the Earth is not flat, and that while the Bible has a few verses that SEEM to indicate a flat Earth, it actually does not teach that, and instead has statements that suggest a round Earth. However, it seems that the early believers ignored the clear facts of science to embrace a view that the Bible actually did not declare. Defending Scripture was and is noble, of course, but reading something into the text that isn't there, and being so stubborn as to not change that view, is not noble.

Likewise, while we should never let something that blatantly contradicts Scripture be held with Scripture, we should also first check whether they actually contradict or not. The theory of evolution seems to contradict what Genesis says, BUT, theistic evolution is actually rather compatible with Scripture. For example, one passage states something like "[God said] "Let the land produce vegetation." It doesn't say that God directly, instantly created vegetation. So, evolution and Scripture are not contradictory.

I would also like to comment on a statement: "But I know that I am to live in faith, not faith as supported by evidence."

I'd like to point out that the word "faith" as used in the Bible means something like "loyalty and trust based on evidence." It was a rhetorical term for forensical proof. Furthermore, the Bible contains several passages emphasizing the importance of evidence, such as the Bereans, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, etc. If what you believe directly contradicts the facts, then either the facts are wrong, or you are wrong.

I was previously young Earth creationist, but I now have to conclude that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old. Luckily, though, Scripture allows for this view, and so I do not have to wrench reason and faith together, trying to make them both fit. They fit of their own accord. Thus, we can keep our faith in both the Bible and science.

PS I agree that creation itself is sufficient evidence of a Designer.

[franktalk]

fm93 ,

When I made the statement about faith I was referring to a faith in a creator. What ever trace evidence is left over from times past will be interpreted by man using some accepted rules. From a naturalist view that means to exclude any supernatural event. This means the evidence will be viewed and pieced together with a rule set that I think is limiting. On the other hand one can just say "God did it" and ignore all of the evidence. Many people fight in the ground between those two extremes. Personally I think God has set the stage for us not to have an evidence trail to Him. At the same time I do not think God is a trickster and has set false evidence for us to find. I agree that a correct interpretation of scripture and the world around us will never cause scripture to be false.

So are we the faithful or do we need to place our fingers into the wounds of Jesus? When I said I need no evidence this is what I was talking about. The evidence all around us in rocks and star light is very interesting to study. I have spent many hours doing just that. But there are some leaps of theoretical faith I will not make.

[greentwiga]

I agree with fm93 and you that each and every word of scripture is inspired, and that Jesus died on the cross. Only the people who accept his free pardon by faith will be saved. My only disagreement is with interpretations. I am convinced that if you analyze the scriptures very carefully, one can see a regional flood. All the scientific evidence can be true and not challenge one word of scripture. Thus I have no problem if the KT boundry was the only cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs or if the Deccan traps were erupting for millions of years before and the KT event was just the coup de gras. (sp?) Though I am a fundamentalist, they would not upset my interpretation of the Biblical flood in any way. The events are a great challenge if you insist that the flood was a world wide event. There are many other scientific challenges to the traditional interpretation, which I have dealt with on my website.

[franktalk]

greentwiga ,

I have a drive to know things which are not knowable. It is very hard to accept that some things I will never figure out. It is this awareness that now guides me. Major parts of scripture I will never know for sure what the correct intrepretation is. I know I will never figure out the correct past of the earth. It was very hard for me when I realised I live with these limitations. It was much easier to toss the conclusions of other men once I accepted that I could not do what they were claiming to have figured out. Do not get me wrong I love to study God's creation, I just won't tell Him how He did it.

[greentwiga]

I don't try to tell science what it means but look at the facts and try to let it tell me what it means. I don't try to tell God or His word what it means, but try to let his word tell me what it means. I believe each and every word of scripture is inspired, but I do not believe Luther's, the Pope's, Scofield's, mine, or any one else's interpretations are inspired by God. Keep some simple rules. If a man's ideas clearly conflict with scripture, do not accept the idea (ie, if someone says Jesus did not die on the cross, it conflicts with scripture.) If twoo ideas seem valid, hold them both as possible and wait. /After all, If I say the Exodus happened in 1410 BC and another man says it happened in 1200 BC, one may fit scripture better, but the other may have a valid point also. In either case, it will not affect your salvation. In the same way, accept science. As people duke it out, it will begin to agree with scripture. Sometimes scientific interpretation is wrong. Sometimes scriptural interpretation is wrong. We can just wait and watch and glorify God. Keep studying Bro'

[krissmith777]

There's an interesting suggestion that the flood was around the Caspian sea:

http://www.answersincreation.org/art...d_location.htm

[fm93]

Thanks for the link; it's an interesting article.

[shunyadragon]

There's an interesting suggestion that the flood was around the Caspian sea:

http://www.answersincreation.org/art...d_location.htm

I would agree with Glen Morton cited in this article that the deposits in the Caspian Sea Basin do not have any flood deposits that would support the Noah flood happening in this region. Glen Morton is very active posting on this site. Some of the sediments around the yellow area on the map are deposited in a larger ancient sea.

[greentwiga]

The site referred to made a mistake about Mesopotamia. The lower area is a flood plain. Flood plains stay flooded for 6 months in an average year. they can dry out in 3 months in a dry year and stay flooded all year in a wet year. In a very wet year like one that rains for 40 days and nights. the snow would build up in Turkey. All summer, the rivers would flow at very high levels. The levels would drop but never really dry out. So, when the Bible says that after 40 days, the waters began receeding, and after 150 days it had dropped enough for the ark to come to rest, this would fit. The mountains visible on the 10th month. On the first of the new year, the ground was "dry" which means muddy as all get out. then, 1 year and 10 days after the flood started, the land was completely dry. The mud had dried. Mesopotamia is known for its drastic changes from year to year. The Nile is a much more reliable river.
One other point, if the springs of the deep are reference to a tsunami, It would have pushed the ark far inland. Once water has covered the land, usually the first wave, the subsequent waves can push much farther inland, as happened in Indonesia. Sumer would have had the marshes flooded all the way to Baghdad by the rising river. A tsunami caused by a landslide triggered by the excessive rain would be much bigger than Indonesia. See the Latoya Bay slide/Tsunami in Alaska. It could have pushed the Ark very far inland. Therefore, that sites rejection of Mesopotamia is not thought out scientifically.

[Moksha]

I would agree with Glen Morton cited in this article that the deposits in the Caspian Sea Basin do not have any flood deposits that would support the Noah flood happening in this region. Glen Morton is very active posting on this site. Some of the sediments around the yellow area on the map are deposited in a larger ancient sea.

Back in 2001 Ian Wilson published a book which suggested that the Noah story may have been based upon flooding that occured with the inundation of the Black Sea basin by the waters of the Mediteranean some 7500 years ago.

[greentwiga]

Ian Wilson based his book on Noah's Flood by Ryan and Pitman. They were not Bible Scholars but Scientists that discovered the amazing Black Sea flood. Great science, but it never receded like the Bible says. It took a year to flood, so if the greatest stretch flooded is 100 miles, it flooded 1/3 mile per day, hardly enough to kill anyone.

[shunyadragon]

Ian Wilson based his book on Noah's Flood by Ryan and Pitman. They were not Bible Scholars but Scientists that discovered the amazing Black Sea flood. Great science, but it never receded like the Bible says. It took a year to flood, so if the greatest stretch flooded is 100 miles, it flooded 1/3 mile per day, hardly enough to kill anyone.

Though it took some time for the flood to cover what is called the Black Sea. The initial flood caused by the breakout at the Bosperous Straits was likely quite catastrophic, and preserved by oral legends by those that survived.

This is commonly the case in all the cultures of the world where local and regional catastrophic events, especially after the last glaciation, are in some way found in the legends and myths of the cultures today.

The bottom line is that these possible natural explanations do little or nothing to justify a God caused world flood in the Biblical framework.

[greentwiga]

These are two different questions. What type of flood was it and is there evidence? "Was God justified in the flood?" is a question outside this thread. I believe that there were many different floods causing many different flood stories. Santorini caused tsunamis, the Black Sea flooding, and the inundation of the land between France and England would each cause their own flood myths. Yes, the sudden stream into the Black sea would have caused the death of a few people, but not all the people in the region. The Biblical one is best understood to be a flood local to Sumer. If we use that interpretation, all the details in the Bible become scientifically possible.