Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Biblical arguments against "Flood Geology"

  1. #31
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    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.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  2. #32
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    878
    Amen (Given)
    57
    Amen (Received)
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    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.)
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

  3. #33
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,325
    Amen (Given)
    156
    Amen (Received)
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    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?

  4. #34
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    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).
    Last edited by 37818; 12-09-2015 at 12:52 AM.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  5. Amen theophilus amen'd this post.
  6. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,042
    Amen (Given)
    41
    Amen (Received)
    103
    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.

  7. #36
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Missourah, USA
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,274
    Amen (Given)
    3116
    Amen (Received)
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikeenders View Post
    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.

  8. #37
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41,683
    Amen (Given)
    913
    Amen (Received)
    15920
    Quote Originally Posted by klaus54 View Post
    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.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  9. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,042
    Amen (Given)
    41
    Amen (Received)
    103
    Plus he already knows I am OEC. this thread is about Flood geology not the age of the cosmos.

  10. #39
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    179
    Amen (Given)
    80
    Amen (Received)
    66
    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?)
    Last edited by logician bones; 01-02-2016 at 07:17 PM.

  11. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  12. #40
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,325
    Amen (Given)
    156
    Amen (Received)
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikeenders View Post
    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.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •