WannaLearn wrote:Jac3510 wrote:I appreciate the question, but let me ask you one back, though. How much looking have you done into the matter? I ask because when you so bluntly declare that there is no evidence, that implies that you are done a rather exhaustive search. But in light of that, your question doesn't sound so forthright. I have a strong suspicion that were I to offer some rather common examples, you would move the goalposts.
If you want to have an honest discussion about some of the evidence and why you do or don't think it lines up with a global flood, then just say so plainly. Having hidden agendas lying behind questions isn't conducive do constructive conversation.
I would like you to address the tone in your post. You just declare that there is no evidence for a global flood and then just declare that several components of such a flood are impossible in principle. I'm sure you can hear the less than charitable implications you are directing towards advocates of a global flood. Perhaps it was unintended. But perhaps it wasn't.
What say you, WannaLearn?
Sounds good. And I asked the question that way to see how one would defend their stance and or breakdown that statement.
I have not done much research on the evidence of the flood so convincing me probably wont be that hard.
Well I should hope it's not
easy to convince you, especially if by "evidence" you are referring to scientific data. Lord have mercy, in that case, you'll be changing your mind about what you believe every other day.
As far as evidence goes, the most important is:
- For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. (Gen. 7:17-20, NIV)
Now, OEC advocates and most of the people on this site will argue that the flood was local. Therefore, they will challenge the translation of "earth" and "high mountains" and suggest that they be rendered "land" and "high hills" respectively, such that only the area in which they lived was in view. You can see that argument in some detail here:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html
Let me say a bit as to why I think their linguistic arguments fail.
First, as an appeal to authority, I would point out that absolutely no major English translation renders the words in question as local flood advocates insist. That should tell you something. Go check for yourself. Look at the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, RSV, NRSV, ASV, and NET. The only exception is the KJV/NKJV which render 19 "high hills," but the very next verse renders it "mountains," and
it is the same underlying Hebrew word (Har, if you want to know). Just because a word
can be translated this or that way, it doesn't follow that we should. It is absolutely terrible translation to provide a translation based on convenience for a preexisting view you are trying to defend.
Second, the evidence put forward for the alternative translation is incredibly weak. Take, for instance, the idea that Kol HaAretz ("all the earth") can be translated "all the people." In the first place, there are no instances in the Pentateuch I have seen where such a translation is appropriate. We don't get a clear example of that usage until 1 Samuel. Second, there are many, many instances of the phrase throughout the Pentateuch, and they almost always refer to the entire earth. Even the examples Deem cites (2:11 and 2:13) are not the same phrase in question. He doesn't tell his readers that, of course. Our phrase is, again, Kol [all] Ha-[the] Aretz [earth]. The phrase in Deem's verses is Kol [all] Eretz [earth/land] of Havilah/Cush. So the phrase in Gen. 7 includes the article ("Ha"), and the two "exceptions" in Gen. 2 lack that article
and include a geographical modifier. It would be stupid to translate Gen. 2:13 "all the earth of cush."
But there is still more linguistic evidence for the standard English translations. When God first introduces the fact that He is going to flood the "earth," He pairs it with "the heavens" (Gen. 6:17). That is a clear allusion back to Gen 1:1. Further, in both Greek and Hebrew, one of the ways to clarify one's meaning and one's emphasis is by repetition of words and phrases. That makes for bad English but for great Greek and Hebrew. The rule is that the more often a word or phrase is used, the more the author wants you to see that is a very important idea. With that rule in mind, consider the distribution of the word Kol (all). I did a quick search and found that it occurs in 82 verses in Gen 1-11. Here's the breakdown:
Gen 1 - 7 verses (Gen 1:21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31)
Gen 2 - 11 verses (Gen 2:1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20)
Gen 3 - 4 verses (Gen 3:1, 14, 17, 20)
Gen 4 - 4 verses (Gen 4:14, 15, 21, 22)
Gen 5 - 9 verses (Gen 5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 27, 31)
Gen 6 - 9 verses (Gen 6:2, 5, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22)
Gen 7 - 14 verses (Gen 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23)
Gen 8 - 6 verses (Gen 8:1, 9, 17, 19, 20, 21)
Gen 9 - 11 verses (Gen 9:2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 29)
Gen 10 - 2 verses (Gen 10:21, 29)
Gen 11 - 5 verses (Gen 11:1, 4, 6, 8, 9)
Just a comparison of the numbers is revealing. It occurs in Gen 7 more than any other chapter, and in Gen 9 second only to 7 and tied for second with 2. In fact, of the 82 verses total, 31 of the occurrences (about 38%) of the word are found in Gen 7-9. That is significant in light of the fact that out of the the total 298 verses in Gen 1-11, Gen 7-9 contains 74 verses or 25% of the total verses. So why does a section containing only 25% of the whole text contain nearly 40% of all the occurrences of "kol." And this is all the more outstanding that between Gen. 6:17-7:24 (which accounts for the actual story of the act of the flooding of the earth) contain
19 occurrences. That is, out of 29 verses, the word Kol is found in 19 of them--that's an astounding 65%! By comparison, consider the percentage of verses using Kol vs total verses in each of the rest of the chapters: Gen 1 - 22%; Gen 2 - 44%; Gen 3 -17%; Gen 4 - 15%; Gen 5 - 28%; Gen 6:1-16 - 25%; Gen 6:17-7:24 - 65%; Gen 8 - 27%; Gen 9 - 39%; Gen 10 - 6%; Gen 11 - 16%.
Those numbers should speak for themselves. The part of the story where the flooding happens has a WAY higher percentage of the use of the word "kol" that anywhere else in Gen 1-11. What all this tells us is that Moses is saying as emphatically as he knows how that the Flood was absolutely UNIVERSAL.
The last thing I'd note goes back to the passage I quoted above. The Flood covered all the high hills/mountains
under heaven. There's no getting around that point. Even if you take Har to refer to hills (and no translation does except the (N)KJV, and then it immediately translates it "mountains" as well), the fact remains that the text is in error if only the "high hills" in "the land" were covered, because there are lots of high hills not in "the land" that are "under heaven."
So the bottom line is that there is just no good linguistic argument for reading Gen 6-9 as teaching a local flood. The ONLY way to get there is to start with the idea that it MUST have been local and then look for alternative translations by which we can justify our preexisting beliefs. That, however, is standard eisogesis, and is simply not to be taken seriously. Put differently, there is absolutely NO warrant in Gen 1-11 for reading the text to teach a local flood, but there is significant warrant for taking it to teach a universal flood.
Beyond the biblical evidence, I'm tired of typing, so I'll just refer you to these two videos of an Andrew Snelling (who holds a PhD in geology and is widely published, which is only to say that he can't be accused of ignorance on scientific matters). He works for AiG, which will, of course, make him anathema on this board, but genetic fallacies aside, you might find his arguments interesting:
[youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0[/youtube]
[youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8[/youtube]