Flood: Global or Local

[Socrates]

Could I abandon the day age view that Ross holds yet still believe in an old earth and Framework and not be considered playing "fast and loose" with scripture? IOW is it any other view than the 24 hour view that doesn't "play fast and loose with scripture?"

Yep. Because only the ~24-hr view is a deduction from the text of Scripture alone, as opposed to trying to fit uniformitarian "science" into Scripture.

I think if you said yes, you are really isolating yourself from Christianity and may be falling into an unreasonable mindset. There are *plenty* of Bible scholars who accept other views than 24 hour view--are you saying that they are *all* playing "fast and loose with scripture" because they do not accept the 24 hour day view?

Yep. The framework nonsense was unknown till last century, which indicates that it's not in the text but is instead a dodge to fit millions of years into the Bible. Leading frameworker Meredith Kline is explicit that his aim is to rebut YEC and make the Bible fit evolutionary "science".

All the compromise views such as day-age, gap theory and framework hypothesis violate the maxim that anything in theology that's good is not new, and that anything new is not good.

I am sincerely asking. Perhaps is it just the day age view in your estimation that "plays fast and loose". I want to know what you think about others who hold other view beside the 24 hour view, like: Francis Shaffer, C.S. Lewis, Greg Koukl, Gleason Archer, Walter Kaiser, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, J.P. Moreland, John Ankerburg--do you say *all* these men "play fast and loose" with scripture?

Of course -- I have documented that they believe in an old earth because of "science" not Scripture. Many admit that Scripture at face value teaches just what YECs say. Many of them are inconsistent as well and don't see the consequences of their ideas. Archer believed in a global flood, and Geisler believes that God originally created all animals to be vegetarian.

[Socrates]

So if you also quote an atheist in any context, are you, by definition, "yoking" with him??

Don't be silly. But I would be if I took an atheist's character assassination of believers at face value from a book where the charges had been shown to be completely false, and not tell my Christian readers of the man's anti-Christian bigotry and dishonesty.

Why doesn't Charleen concede for a change that Ross is out of line on something, e.g. citing a proven liar like Plimer and mocking cartoons of Ussher.

[Socrates]

I threw out the publication in disgust. All I remember is that it was on shiny paper, the words appeared as a caption underneath a color inset photo of the night sky, in an article authored by Dr. Sarfati. Are you saying it said "ostensibly Christian apologetics ministry"? That is still claiming it is not a Christian ministry and my objection stands. If that has AiG's approval, I will seriously have to further resonsider my support of AiG.

You're right -- it is poorly worded, even though it seemed to be in the context of the principal article citation "The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross", showing that it was the apologetics that was ostensible. I'm used to reading YEC works in the broader context, e.g. AiG's very clear statements that they consider Ross and OECs in general to be genuinely saved.

So you are correct in the wording. But my objection remains. If RTB had called AiG that, you would be up in arms. The funny thing is here that I don't personally care for or buy into RTB's claims. In the noninflammatory sense of the word, I do think they "compromise" - however, the extreme bile that is flung against them is unnecessary IMHO and that is reciprocal. We can show they are wrong, and even compromising perhaps in different ways.

What would you suggest?

I also take issue above with "unorthoox" - which may be true in a very broad sense of the word, but that carries the connotation of being something that puts one outside the faith. I know it does not necessarily mean that, but in this volatile area we need to be cautious and very precise.

What word could be substituted? Heterodox seems worse because that seems more "official". In any case, "heretical" is the usual term for people outside the faith, and I doubt that AiG calls Ross that. They seem to reserve it for people like Spong.

Why are you so obsessed with Ross?

Why do you ask leading questions?

Furthermore, "he started it" didn't fly in kindergarten and it doesn't fly now. If you wish to take this up in the Locker Room, be my guest. It is perturbing that each cosmogony thread you participate in (almost without exception) turns into this.

Takes two to tango.

[A Beautiful Truth]

For anyone who does not own a copy of Denton's book let me say that he does not mention the 24 hour view in his first chapter.

What Denton does in that chapter is to trace the history of the evolutionary movement and the resistence to it by Christians who believed in the fixity of species. It was the idea that species (whatever that is) were fixed and the equating of the term species with the biblical kind that eventually caused many who had accepted the fixity of species to doubt the biblical account, although the trend toward assigning vast ages to geological structures undoubtedly was equally important.

Denton simply gave a history lesson that nobody doubts is true history, and was not engaged in any overt attempt to discredit Christians and their beliefs.

Shame on you Charleen for posting such a distorted version of Denton's book.

I should have double checked that before I posted but I have been unable to locate my copy. It's been years since I read it. I remembered the first chapter was titled something like, "Genesis defeated" or something like that. Rebuke taken, I should have double checked, I deleted that post.

[reyvin]

Yep. Because only the ~24-hr view is a deduction from the text of Scripture alone, as opposed to trying to fit uniformitarian "science" into Scripture.

1 -The Bible itself tells us to look at nature for evidence of God and His power.
2 - It's a deduction made by YEC, sure. The history of Genesis interpretation is not unanimously 24 hour believers as you'd have us believe.
3 - Sticking scare quotes around the word science doesn't mean you've debunked modern geology and cosmology. I've asked you before and I'll ask again: Why don't you defend your interpretation of such finds in the natural science section since you profess to be a scientist yourself?

Not meaning any of that rude, just a question.

Yep. The framework nonsense was unknown till last century, which indicates that it's not in the text but is instead a dodge to fit millions of years into the Bible. Leading frameworker Meredith Kline is explicit that his aim is to rebut YEC and make the Bible fit evolutionary "science".

1 - Calling it 'nonsense' from the outset is just plain ridiculous because you don't agree with it.
2 - This same attack is thrown toward preterists yet the view fits evidence much better than the black helicopter crowd wants to admit.

All the compromise views such as day-age, gap theory and framework hypothesis violate the maxim that anything in theology that's good is not new, and that anything new is not good.

1 - It's no longer held as a hypothesis.
2 - Interpretation of Genesis is as difficult as interpreting Revelations. You've come to Genesis with a preconceived idea and are wearing blinders to everything else it seems.
3 - I've never seen your above quote anywhere in the Bible or in any doctrinal statements.

Of course -- I have documented that they believe in an old earth because of "science" not Scripture. Many admit that Scripture at face value teaches just what YECs say. Many of them are inconsistent as well and don't see the consequences of their ideas. Archer believed in a global flood, and Geisler believes that God originally created all animals to be vegetarian.

1 - Archer indeed did believe in a global flood although he believed in an ancient cosmos and that there was no problem whatsoever with the OEC stance. Since you like his flood standing, I don't happen to notice you rushing to his side to defend this extremely well respected hebrew scholar when he makes statements about creation. Hm...not picking and choosing now are we?
2 - Geislers comment (which AiG threw out of whack) was directed toward the Garden. Here it is: "God did not appoint animals to be eaten in paradise, and animals weren't eating each other". Hmmmm. Interesting.....it says in paradise. Meaning, the GoE. Context, context.

[wienerdog]

The constant mentioning and belittling of Ross is old. Guess what? He could be Adolf Hitler and still be right on some things. This gunning ceaselessly for another Christian is senseless. He is a Christian. And RTB is a Christian ministry, despite the words of one AiG publication in which RTB was called an "ostensibly Christian ministry."

We don't need to be so viscious towards each other.

They will know we are Christians by our age of the earth doctrine, by our age of the earht doctine.....


Oh that isn't how it goes is it?

Yeah, and doesn't 1 Peter 3:15 tell us to "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with obnoxiousness and a mean spirit."

And wasn't this thread supposed to be about Noah's flood or something?

[BurningBush--U]

You force scripture to make the flood global

agreed

[serapha]

agreed

Well... If we are going to resurrect this posting after two years ... then ... sobeit.


The biblical flood was world-wide... the evidence is: Water naturally flows to the lowest point on earth...

While we don't know the elevations of the mountain ridges before the flood, we can be certain that Mesopotamia wasn't an area isolated on all sides by mountains. It was the center for trade.... being isolated by mountains would have been a deterent to being a great trading center.


~serapha~

[BurningBush--U]

Well... If we are going to resurrect this posting after two years ... then ... sobeit.


The biblical flood was world-wide... the evidence is: Water naturally flows to the lowest point on earth...

While we don't know the elevations of the mountain ridges before the flood, we can be certain that Mesopotamia wasn't an area isolated on all sides by mountains. It was the center for trade.... being isolated by mountains would have been a deterent to being a great trading center.


~serapha~

ok

and the world was once covered with water before the noahs flood

[serapha]

ok

and the world was once covered with water before the noahs flood

Hi there!




No argument here...

~serapha~

[xtreem5150ahm]

Happy Easter all!!

I didnt read the whole thread so incase this was already pointed out, then sorry...

It seems to me that if God's Word says that He made a rainbow as a sign that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood, it would be a strong indicator of one of two possibilities:

either:
1. the Bible is false

or

2. it was a global flood

because the earth does see local floods on occasion ;)

[BurningBush--U]

Happy Easter all!!

I didnt read the whole thread so incase this was already pointed out, then sorry...

It seems to me that if God's Word says that He made a rainbow as a sign that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood, it would be a strong indicator of one of two possibilities:

either:
1. the Bible is false

or

2. it was a global flood

because the earth does see local floods on occasion ;)

It is wise if you'd read also the words not just from your translation...

The Earth was at least once and I believe more than once, covered like a blanket, in all areas, with water... that creation scene in Genesis.

Noah's situation did not have to cover the whole Globe as the earth was covered in the creation.

Besides, if the whole Globe in Noa's example was covered with water, are you prepared to explain all the details? That is besides God sayz !

[xtreem5150ahm]

It is wise if you'd read also the words not just from your translation...

The Earth was at least once and I believe more than once, covered like a blanket, in all areas, with water... that creation scene in Genesis.

Noah's situation did not have to cover the whole Globe as the earth was covered in the creation.

Besides, if the whole Globe in Noa's example was covered with water, are you prepared to explain all the details? That is besides God sayz !

Just to get this straight, your main contention with my post is with:

either:
1. the Bible is false

or

2. it was a global flood

right?

I'm thinking that the reason for your contention is that you (and others) think there might be atleast a third option.. am i following you so far?

And you feel this way based on a combination of 'other translations' and 'science sayz' ?

If i understand you correctly so far, would you please point out which translation you prefer? I'll list a few and i'll start with Gen 7:23.. make particular notice of who/what was destroyed and who/what was spared during the Flood (just so you know, i'm using the 'compare' function from the e-sword):

Gen 7:23

(ALT)

(ASV) And every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.

(BBE) Every living thing on the face of all the earth, man and cattle and things moving on the face of the earth, and birds of the air, came to destruction: only Noah and those who were with him in the ark, were kept from death.

(Darby) And every living being was destroyed that was on the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping things, and fowl of the heavens; and they were destroyed from the earth. And Noah alone remained, and what was with him in the ark.

(DRB) And he destroyed all the substance that was upon the earth, from man even to beast, and the creeping things and fowls of the air: and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noe only remained, and they that were with him in the ark.

(EMTV)

(ESV) He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

(GNT)

(HOT) וימח את־כל־היקום אשׁר על־פני האדמה מאדם עד־בהמה עד־רמשׂ ועד־עוף השׁמים וימחו מן־הארץ וישׁאר אך־נח ואשׁר אתו בתבה׃

(ISV)

(JPS) And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; and they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.

(KJV) And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

(KJV+) And (853) every3605 living substance3351 was destroyed4229 which834 was upon5921 the face6440 of the ground,127 both man,4480, 120 and5704 cattle,929 and5704 the creeping things,7431 and5704 the fowl5775 of the heaven;8064 and they were destroyed4229 from4480 the earth:776 and Noah5146 only389 remained7604 alive, and they that834 were with854 him in the ark.8392

(KJVA) And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

(LITV) And every living thing which was on the face of the earth was wiped away, from man to cattle, and to the creeping things, and the fowl of the heavens. And they were wiped off from the earth, and only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

(LXX) καὶ ἐξήλειψεν πᾶν τὸ ἀνάστημα, ὃ ἦν ἐπὶ προσώπου πάσης τῆς γῆς, ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἕως κτήνους καὶ ἑρπετῶν καὶ τῶν πετεινῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἐξηλείφθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς· καὶ κατελείφθη μόνος Νωε καὶ οἱ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ κιβωτῷ.

(MKJV) And every living thing which was on the face of the earth was destroyed, from man to cattle, and to the creeping things, and the fowls of the heavens. And they were destroyed from the earth, and only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.

(Murdock)

(Vulgate) et delevit omnem substantiam quae erat super terram ab homine usque ad pecus tam reptile quam volucres caeli et deleta sunt de terra remansit autem solus Noe et qui cum eo erant in arca

(Webster) And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping animals, and the fowl of heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

(YLT) And wiped away is all the substance that is on the face of the ground, from man unto beast, unto creeping thing, and unto fowl of the heavens; yea, they are wiped away from the earth, and only Noah is left, and those who are with him in the ark;

Now i admit that i can not read the 70, Vulgate, or the Hebrew. Seems to me that every other one translates it as every living thing was destroyed except those that were aboard the Ark.

So, sofar, it seems to me, that there isnt a third option... either the Bible says the truth or it doesnt.... either the whole earth was wiped out (save the ones on the Ark) or it wasnt. And sofar, if the whole world was not wiped out, then the Bible is not God's Word and we should (I Corinthians 15:32).

Now, let's move on to the oath that God made. And just so you know, i have not looked ahead and viewed all the translations (but i have looked at a few in the past.. nothing jumped out at me then)... so i might be putting my foot in my mouth here.. we'll both see.

Gen 9:11

(ALT)

(ASV) And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

(BBE) And I will make my agreement with you; never again will all flesh be cut off by the waters; never again will the waters come over all the earth for its destruction.

(Darby) And I establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood, and henceforth there shall be no flood to destroy the earth.


(DRB) I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth.

(EMTV)

(ESV) I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."

(GNT)

(HOT) והקמתי את־בריתי אתכם ולא־יכרת כל־בשׂר עוד ממי המבול ולא־יהיה עוד מבול לשׁחת הארץ׃

(ISV)

(JPS) And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.'

(KJV) And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

(KJV+) And I will establish6965 (853) my covenant1285 with854 you; neither3808 shall all3605 flesh1320 be cut off3772 any more5750 by the waters4480, 4325 of a flood;3999 neither3808 shall there any more5750 be1961 a flood3999 to destroy7843 the earth.776

(KJVA) And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

(LITV) And I have established My covenant with you, and all flesh shall not be cut off again by the waters of a flood; nor shall there ever again be a flood to destroy the earth.

(LXX) καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐκ ἀποθανεῖται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἔτι ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι κατακλυσμὸς ὕδατος τοῦ καταφθεῖραι πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. --

(MKJV) And I will establish My covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood. Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

(Murdock)

(Vulgate) statuam pactum meum vobiscum et nequaquam ultra interficietur omnis caro aquis diluvii neque erit deinceps diluvium dissipans terram

(Webster) And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

(YLT) And I have established My covenant with you, and all flesh is not any more cut off by waters of a deluge, and there is not any more a deluge to destroy the earth.'

In everyone of the translations that i'm able to read, i still see ALL flesh and waters destroying the earth.

In the next 2 verses, God tells them (and us) what He will use for a sign of this oath... we can look at that if you want, but i think the point still stands... either it was a global flood or it wasnt... if it was not, that means the Bible is not God's Word.


NOW before we go on, i just want to point out that i am making an assumption... I assume that you are Christian.. the reason for my understanding is that, if memory serves, tweb-protology is for Christians (i might be wrong)... no big deal, doesnt really matter to me..well, i mean i hope you are Christian but i dont care if protology is exclusive or not.


Which brings us to, "Besides, if the whole Globe in Noa's example was covered with water, are you prepared to explain all the details? That is besides God sayz!"

My answer to this is, no I am not prepared to explain all the details. In fact, that is not what i am supposed to do. No Christian is required to defend God or His Word.. God is quite able to do that, and to the degree that He desires. However, i think my reponsibility lies in my being prepared to give an answer for my faith... (1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: KJV).... I'll do my best with God's help...

So how would you like to continue?


On an aside.. since i dont memorize verses,
while i was looking up 1 Peter 3:15, i ran across 2Peter 2... in particular, verse 4 and 5... please take the time to read the whole chapter, it is very interesting. But for now, i just want to point out:

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2Pe 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
2Pe 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

Seems even Peter took these accounts to mean what they say. As to the wording "Noah the eighth person", check out the commentary by Gill... sorry, just trying to prevent a forestfire...

God Bless,
johnny

[serapha]

NOW before we go on, i just want to point out that i am making an assumption... I assume that you are Christian.. the reason for my understanding is that, if memory serves, tweb-protology is for Christians (i might be wrong)...


God Bless,
johnny

Hi there!




Just for the record... I'm posting on the right forum... I am a Christian.



BurningBush--U:

The Earth was at least once and I believe more than once, covered like a blanket, in all areas, with water... that creation scene in Genesis.

Most biblical scholars believe that there was a canopy of water that covered the earth, not phyically touching the land, but a canopy in the atmostphere OVER the earth. The only flooding described in the Bible is the Great Flood in which the Word of God does say... "every" aka ALL

Besides, if the whole Globe in Noa's example was covered with water, are you prepared to explain all the details? That is besides God sayz !

"God sayz" is good enough for a fundamentalist. I believe that it was a global flood, and the question that I put forth which has never been answered.... if water naturally flows to the lowest point, how was the biblical flood held in a local area?


~serapha~

[xtreem5150ahm]

Hi there!




Just for the record... I'm posting on the right forum... I am a Christian.


~serapha~

I hope this:

NOW before we go on, i just want to point out that i am making an assumption... I assume that you are Christian.. the reason for my understanding is that, if memory serves, tweb-protology is for Christians (i might be wrong)... no big deal, doesnt really matter to me..well, i mean i hope you are Christian but i dont care if protology is exclusive or not.

did not cause BurningBush--U to avoid responding...

The reason i mentioned it, was because, my Christian-to-Christian post is different than my Christian-to-unbeliever post.... just a different tack (or jibe ??)