Noah: worlds first zoo keeper

[Philip]

You know, it is never bothers me so much that YECs have a problem with OEC views, scientifically speaking. They believe God is our Father and so do we. Fine. But it's when they assert or imply that YEC views are somehow so much more spiritual or the only measure of an "authentic" or sincere Christian viewpoint, or that their views of Scripture are so much "higher" than those views of OECs. Or when they insist that OECs are propping up or endorsing evolution. Obviously, YECs believe that their views are much more in line with the Biblical creation accounts and related Scriptures. But they also seem to think that unless the "days" of Creation were literal 24-hour ones, that somehow God's creative endeavors don't seem quite as spectacular or as miraculous. But truly, they are hung up over the difference between 13.7 billion years or so and 7,000 - 10,000 years or so, which is but a blink of the eye on God's timeline. I truly hate this debate between brothers. What would seem much more important than WHEN God did it (as that's never gonna be perfectly figured out), but the fact THAT God did it and that only the existence of God can explain our existence!

[dayage]

Bovey,

Ivellious brings up some good points. Between 600 and 800 Mya the earth went through two or three snowball earth events, in which the whole planet froze. These lasted millions of years and the only things living were single celled.

Also, there is a problem with the use of the term min (kind). Young-earth creationists say that it means ancestral types of creatures that no longer exist. An example would be some type (kind) of cat that contained all of the genetic information to evolve into domestic cats, lions, tigers, cheetahs, Leopards (all which when crossbred, produce sterile young) saber toothed cats, etc. But this is not how the Bible itself defines the term. In Lev. 11:13-30 and Deut. 14:12-18 min (in the singular) is used to define genus and/or species not something more encompassing. For example, see how many owl "kinds" are listed. Young-earthers need min to mean something like family. So, we can see that the Bible’s definition of min is different than that of Y. E. creationist’s.

[Ivellious]

Good point about "min." That seems to be a common complaint about the arguments for YEC on this site. That is, taking today's English definition of a word and using it to mean the same as Hebrew. For instance, just because we translate "min" as "kind" in our Bibles, that doesn't automatically mean "min" means the same exact thing as "kind" means to us today.

[Calum]

For a local flood model, you don't need to go to tremendous lengths taken by YECs to ensure all animals got on the ark.

You just need a big boat that can float,
enough animals to repopulate the region (which would have been rather small)
enough food (rather small in comparison)
Caspian sea drainage basin to Flood
voila, the world is flooded.
then, a wind helps the waters dissipate.

For the global flood model:

You must somehow put modern technology in ancient times to explain how:
the ark could survive raging torrents
could survive earthquakes and asteroid impacts
would solve wastage issues (seriously, the YECs go overboard with this and suggest pumps and such)

gain enough food to feed animals
find ways to acquire selective food animals can only eat
squeeze 'kinds' into the ark (this argument is faulty)
Huge stores of water under continents (no evidence) to explode and flood the earth
use hydrologic sorting, ecologic sorting, biogeographic zonation, etc (all demonstrated to be false) to explain away faunal succession
8 people taking care of thousands of animals each day
voila, the world is flooded.

How do the floodwaters recede? I don't know the YEC explanation for this. A 'wind' would not work, as the water wouldn't really have anywhere to go.
After, within a few hundred years the 15,000 'kinds' diversify into several million. The ice age doesn't fit well into it, as it wouldn't really pressure animals to diversify. It would only make them adapt for colder conditions.

The global flood model is so faulty YECs go out of their way to make the global flood view possible in the light of all evidence pointing AGAINST their very arguments.
The things they do to make 'erets' mean a global catastrophe is absurd! It's senseless and irrational. All sources of YEC claims are - or most are, anyway.

[jlay]

Calum,

I'm curious then why the Bible records the dimensions of the Ark as being so massive. What's the point?

How do the floodwaters recede? I don't know the YEC explanation for this. A 'wind' would not work, as the water wouldn't really have anywhere to go.

Really? One explanation has to do with rapid continental drift. Everyone agrees with Pangea.
For example, if you took out the highest mountain peaks, and the lowest ocean valleys, the earth would be covered with over 2 kilometers of water. So, let's say the Marianas trench was formed from more rapid tectonic movement. The upshift of the continents and the formation of the trench would accomodate a lot of water. I've seen secular science models that show much lower ocean levels than today. So much that it would require little distance between Australia and Indonesia. Where did the water go in those secular models? Nearly everyone agrees with Ice Ages. One that would have even resulted in a 2 mile ice shelf over southern Canana and down to MIchigan. Where did the H2O come from? Where did it go? Why is it perfectly acceptable to have most of the northern hemisphere covered in frozen water up to two miles deep, but a global flood is so unthinkable?
-Our current mountain ranges would require more rapid and violent tectonic activity than what we see today.

[dayage]

jlay,

I'm curious then why the Bible records the dimensions of the Ark as being so massive. What's the point?

A lot of animals had to fit on board, but this has nothing to do with whether the flood was global or not. The animals required to be saved in a global flood would not fit. The Bible is clear on the definition of "Kind" and it does not fit the Y.E. view.

Really? One explanation has to do with rapid continental drift. Everyone agrees with Pangea.
For example, if you took out the highest mountain peaks, and the lowest ocean valleys, the earth would be covered with over 2 kilometers of water. So, let's say the Marianas trench was formed from more rapid tectonic movement. The upshift of the continents and the formation of the trench would accomodate a lot of water.

This has been discussed before. At least four accounts of creation day three say that when God caused dry land to arise, He set it up as a barrier and gave a command that the water could never return to cover the whole earth.

Job 38
4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,
8 "Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;
10 And I placed boundaries on it, And I set a bolt and doors,
11 And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop'?

Pslam 104
5 He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.
6 Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains.
7 At Thy rebuke they fled; At the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away.
8 The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which Thou didst establish for them.
9 Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over; That they may not return to cover the earth.

Proverbs 8
29 When He set for the sea its boundary, So that the water should not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;

Jeremiah 5
22 'Do you not fear Me?' declares the LORD. 'Do you not tremble in My presence? For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea,
An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it.

[jlay]

Dayage,

Yes, this says God set the boundry. The boundry that THEY may not transgress His command.
However, the water is at the will of a soveriegn God. I'd say this is a decree of the natural course of things.

[dayage]

jlay,

"An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it."

Peter indicates that the flood was local. II Peter 3:5 refers to the creation of the heavens and the exposing of the earth. This is obviously referring to when God gathered the seas and made dry land rise up/appear (creation day 3). In verse 7 he says that the same heavens and earth will be destroyed by fire.

2 Peter 3:5-6 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

Unlike what many Y.E. creationists say, this is not a contrast between a global judgment by water and a global judgment by fire. The only comparison Peter makes is that the creation of the heavens and earth and their destruction was controlled by God’s word (verses 5 and 7). What God flooded in between had nothing to do with it.

The word for earth in verses 5, 7 and 10 is the Greek word Ge. But, what Peter says was flooded is the Greek word Kosmos. He used this word earlier in chapter 2 verse 5 to describe the flooding of the people. Both places are referring to the people, not the planet.

The main Hebrew word describing the extent of the flood is erets, but this word can mean a number of things. The context is the key to its meaning.
Planet – Gen. 1:1, 2
Continents – Gen. 1:10, 24
Region/country – Gen. 2:11, 12 and 13; 4:16
People – Gen. 11:1 (see 11:6 - What had the same language?)

Three other words are also used:
Har – It can mean mountain or hill. Even some Y.E. creationists believe that Gen. 7:19-20 is referring to hills. They claim that mountains were formed towards the end of and after the Flood.

Charabah – Gen. 7:22 it means dry land/ground

Adamah – land/ground. It is used interchangeably with erets in Gen. 7:21-22, 7:23, 8:7-8 and 8:13.

Here are places in the Flood account where both erets and/or adamah are defining a clearly local area – Gen. 8:7, 8, 11 & 13.

Given that the main word for the floods extent (erets) often means a local region and that it is used interchangeably with words having a more limited geographic meaning, within this text, there are really no good linguistic reasons to see the flood as global, even in the main flood text.

Combine these with the land barrier texts and I believe we forced to conclude that the Bible teaches a local, but universal (to humanity) flood.