Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Kurieuo »

Jac3510 wrote:Your point? There were all kind of fantastic ideas floating around. All that shows was that somebody saw the same "sons of God" connection in Job and Genesis and built a myth out of it. And I've already pointed out the Qumran interpretation.

K, it's ridiculous.
I'm not denying it is ridiculous, it has always felt ridiculous to me, and that whole Enoch book is ridiculous.
However, as ridiculous as it is, it does set a precedence for what some Jewish people thought, the very people who were the more immediate audience of the text.

Jac, my understanding is the Seth interpretation has an origin about second or third century? It feels like there's been some attempt to tell another story, once those who believed started being challenged about such a fanciful sounding story.

I've looked into the Seth/Cain interpretation, and intend to do so more fully. There is also thought from earlier Jews who repudiate associating "sons of God" with angels. Perhaps there is a third or forth or fifth alternative, which is pushing things for a "dichotomist" like me. ;) I just don't see it with the Seth/Cain explanation, it feels more like a convenient interpretation.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Jac3510 »

And to offer one point of retraction, I said above:
  • No, it does not tie perfectly. "Fall" in this context means "attack," not to lose one's status. "To fall upon", not "to fall." The original interpretation of "giant" was based on a mistaken etymology that we now know is a mistake (and we have for a long time -- see Gesenius' entry https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 5303&t=KJV).
Let it be clear I overstated this case. There is a meaning of nafal (the root in question) that has the idea of falling to the ground. The etymological point about the connection with giants, however, remains true, and the idea of "falling upon" fits the context of violence much better. And when we do semantics, when we pick a gloss, we always pick the one that fits the context the best. The entire passage is about violence filling the world, so for one to propose a "fallen one" interpretation and then apply that to fallen angels when angels aren't mentioned in the text (except for a term "son of God" which can't be read as "angels" except one refers to an outside, unrelated text) doesn't come anywhere NEAR passing the sniff test. Sure, it "can" be grammatically translated. But just because something is logically possible doesn't make it feasible or probable. I had someone suggest to me once that aliens stole Jesus' body and impersonated Him over the next several weeks. Is it possible? Of course! Is there any reason to take it seriously? Absolutely not. And that's where views like this offend my sensibilities . . . not because it's about a supernatural story. But because it actually suggests that just because this view can be shoved into the text because it is grammatically allowed that somehow it deserves a hearing. That's absolutely ridiculous, and we owe it to ourselves and to the text to be more serious interpreters than that.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Jac3510 »

Kurieuo wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:Your point? There were all kind of fantastic ideas floating around. All that shows was that somebody saw the same "sons of God" connection in Job and Genesis and built a myth out of it. And I've already pointed out the Qumran interpretation.

K, it's ridiculous.
I'm not denying it is ridiculous, it has always felt ridiculous to me, and that whole Enoch book is ridiculous.
However, as ridiculous as it is, it does set a precedence for what some Jewish people thought, the very people who were the more immediate audience of the text.

Jac, my understanding is the Seth interpretation has an origin about second or third century? It feels like there's been some attempt to tell another story, once those who believed started being challenged about such a fanciful sounding story.

I've looked into the Seth/Cain interpretation, and intend to do so more fully. There are also Jews who repudiate associating "sons of God" with angels. Perhaps there is a third or forth or fifth alternative, which is pushing things for a "dichotomist" like me. ;) I just don't see it with the Seth/Cain explanations, it feels more like a convenient interpretation.
In the first place, just because a Jew in 300BC (or whenever that portion of Enoch was written) proposed an idea that was rejected by the rest of the religious community, it doesn't follow that such an interpretation is anything like what the author of the text itself meant 1000+ years earlier. My point is that Enoch has NOTHING to do with it. It carries absolutely ZERO weight.

Second, the Sethite interpretation is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It wasn't offered as a rebuttal to Enoch.

Third, even if it were, it remains true that the Sethite view is NOT a modern invention to calm the skeptics fears. It is a very, very ancient view, at least as ancient as the mythological interpretation (that, again, I remind you was rejected by the Jewish religious community), and that takes all the wind out of the sails of your claim. The point is that people have been saying that the Sons of God were the Sons of Seth for two thousand years . . . that's long before modern skeptics came around. And therefore, the view cannot be regarded as a reaction against modern skepticism/bias against the supernatural.

I mean, honestly, the fact that anyone would appeal so heavily to an apocryphal text written a thousand years after the fact should tell you something about the strength of the view.
Last edited by Jac3510 on Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Kurieuo »

Jac3510 wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:Your point? There were all kind of fantastic ideas floating around. All that shows was that somebody saw the same "sons of God" connection in Job and Genesis and built a myth out of it. And I've already pointed out the Qumran interpretation.

K, it's ridiculous.
I'm not denying it is ridiculous, it has always felt ridiculous to me, and that whole Enoch book is ridiculous.
However, as ridiculous as it is, it does set a precedence for what some Jewish people thought, the very people who were the more immediate audience of the text.

Jac, my understanding is the Seth interpretation has an origin about second or third century? It feels like there's been some attempt to tell another story, once those who believed started being challenged about such a fanciful sounding story.

I've looked into the Seth/Cain interpretation, and intend to do so more fully. There are also Jews who repudiate associating "sons of God" with angels. Perhaps there is a third or forth or fifth alternative, which is pushing things for a "dichotomist" like me. ;) I just don't see it with the Seth/Cain explanations, it feels more like a convenient interpretation.
In the first place, just because a Jew in 300BC (or whenever that portion of Enoch was written) proposed an idea that was rejected by the rest of the religious community, it doesn't follow that such an interpretation is anything like what the author of the text itself meant 1000+ years earlier. My point is that Enoch has NOTHING to do with it. It carries absolutely ZERO weight.

Second, the Sethite interpretation is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It wasn't offered as a rebuttal to Enoch.

Third, even if it were, it remains true that the Sethite view is NOT a modern invention to calm the skeptics fears. It is a very, very ancient view, at least as ancient as the mythological interpretation (that, again, I remind you was rejected by the Jewish religious community), and that takes all the wind out of the sails of your claim. The point is that people have been saying that the Sons of God were the Sons of Seth for two thousand years . . . that's long before modern skeptics came around. And therefore, the view cannot be regarded as a reaction against modern skepticism/bias against the supernatural.
Here is what Chuck Missler says of the Sethite view:
  • Origin of the Sethite View

    It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)

    Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Nicki
Senior Member
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Western Australia
Contact:

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Nicki »

Jac3510 wrote:It effects the doctrine that creation fell with mankind and is looking to be liberated along with mankind. That effects a very specific view of the imago Dei, in which man is understood to be the visible representation of God on earth. That, in turn, effects the exegesis of the commandment not to make idols or graven images, and all of that effects one's understanding of the Incarnation and Christ as the Image of God and the Second Adam. In fact, it takes away a pillar of interpretation of Genesis 1-11, in which the Fall is broadly understood as a separation between God Elohim ruling over the world through His Omnipotence and God Yahweh ruling over the world through His image (mankind) and the whole purpose of Israel being restorative of that brokenness.

Just to name a few.
Guys -

affects = influences
effects = makes (something) happen

I think it's quite possible that God (the God of Israel) was only dealing with the people in that part of the world at the time; that he wanted to purify them via a local flood and much later he began using his people to reach the whole world. I was liking Kurieuo's idea of a local flood killing all of humanity at the time (except Noah and family) but the timing is awkward when it comes to the spread of people through the world and the rise of agriculture - it seems that the former definitely came first. So I'm still undecided. y:-?
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Jac3510 »

I don't pay a lot of attention to Missler. He tends to be really fantastical in his interpretations, anyway. But he's just wrong (as he often is). To give you only one example (of several I could site), the Sethite view is not only found in the writings of Shimon bar Yochai, but he pronounces a curse on anyone teaching the "angel" view (probably because he recognized the foolishness of Enoch). And if you don't know, he's a second century Jewish source, and if you know anything about Jewish interpretation, you should know that implies it's already an old tradition.

Beyond that, there's no question early church apologists urged a Sethite reading against the stupid angel reading. That doesn't mean they INVENTED the Sethite reading anymore than OECs INVENTED the idea that yom = "undefined period of time" in order to satisfy skeptics today . . .

Oh wait. Bad example. But I'm sure you can think of an example yourself of a passage you have offered a correct interpretation of--an interpretation you did not invent--when challenging a skeptics use of a plainly stupid and uncharitable interpretation of that same text. Surely you would object if someone later assumed you invented the more reasonable interpretation so as not to embarrass yourself . . . so why assume anything different of early apologists? If anything, all this shows is that the Sethite view was already much older than them and that the ridiculous "angel" interpretation is taking sides with people who have a proven track record of not only misunderstanding but ABUSING the Bible in order to try to prove it wrong. Wrong side to play on, ya know?

And AGAIN, I'd just point out that what you've done is rather than talk about the text of Genesis, you've moved the conversation to a discussion about a 1000 year old late interpretation. That should tell you how weak the angel interpretation actually is. It simply has NOTHING to commend it.
Last edited by Jac3510 on Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5020
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by abelcainsbrother »

Jac3510 wrote:Your point? There were all kind of fantastic ideas floating around. All that shows was that somebody saw the same "sons of God" connection in Job and Genesis and built a myth out of it. And I've already pointed out the Qumran interpretation.

K, it's ridiculous. You are literally appealing to a myth written over a thousand years later to try to make a serious interpretation of text. REALLY?!?! And further, Enoch wasn't even recognized as canonical by Jews! They read it. They thought it was stupid and rejected it. So why should we take it seriously? I've taken the time to offer some serious thoughts on the actual text and you are going to return with this rubbish? I expect that from ACB, but you know better. You been drinkin' tonight, buddy? ;)
The thing about it though is you are just giving your opinion and blending personal attacks into it to imply people are silly for actually going by what the bible says.You're problem is you read the bible as if it only applied to the people of that time like when Genesis was written,so you remove revelation from God that is revealed over time when all scripture applies to all believers.

Leave your opinions at the door and stop acting like you have biblical knowledge nobody else knows and we must just believe you because you claim these new Hebrew scholars have finally got the proper understanding but yet you don't even show how,you just expect us to believe you.I can tell you that in a lot of cases bible theologians have terrible interpretations of the bble.All those years in seminary messes them up somehow. You have yet to show biblically why you''re interpretation is right.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Jac3510 »

Nicki wrote:Guys -

affects = influences
effects = makes (something) happen
I usually don't make that mistake. :P
I think it's quite possible that God (the God of Israel) was only dealing with the people in that part of the world at the time; that he wanted to purify them via a local flood and much later he began using his people to reach the whole world. I was liking Kurieuo's idea of a local flood killing all of humanity at the time (except Noah and family) but the timing is awkward when it comes to the spread of people through the world and the rise of agriculture - it seems that the former definitely came first. So I'm still undecided. y:-?
Sure, and this is why I think the whole local flood theory knocks itself out (along with the whole OEC model). The local flood theory only works if you have it killing a few dozen people, a special people of God in the vast swaths of humanity already filling the whole world. Of course, that's hardly what the text seems to picture, but let that pass. Massive theological implications for THAT view . . .

Anyway, the supposed selling feature of the local flood is that scientifically acceptable, that we should accept it because it doesn't make us look stupid to skeptics. But it doesn't pass that test at all. And not only does it look stupid, it looks desperate. So now we're going to posit that 50,000 years ago there was a flood in some unspecified place that killed off all of modern homo sapien sapiens, well, all except eight, and that before the migrated to the whole world. I mean, really? That's supposed to make the flood story more palatable to atheists? That takes care of all the problems? Could a human 50,000 years ago have built an ark like the Bible describes? What about Noah living to 600 years old? And if you have 120 years to build it, and if the flood is only local, why not . . . I don't know . . . just walk the good folk away? The whole thing is just ridiculous. The whole point of the global flood is that the judgment was universal and inescapable--not just ignored, but inescapable--an idea totally undermined by this view we're talking about now.

Look, tons of people can point and laugh at the global flood model. And they'll say that it's even more at odds with the scientific evidence than the local flood model. But I hardly think they're going to be impressed with the latter, especially when it can't even sell its own main feature (given the distribution problem). Add to that the general look of desperation, and I think you are, ironically, giving non-believers cover for rejecting the Bible: "well, if they have to constantly look for new meanings for their special book, then why believe it at all? they obviously don't believe what it says, so why should I?"

It's all very sad, so says I.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Kurieuo »

Nicki wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:It effects the doctrine that creation fell with mankind and is looking to be liberated along with mankind. That effects a very specific view of the imago Dei, in which man is understood to be the visible representation of God on earth. That, in turn, effects the exegesis of the commandment not to make idols or graven images, and all of that effects one's understanding of the Incarnation and Christ as the Image of God and the Second Adam. In fact, it takes away a pillar of interpretation of Genesis 1-11, in which the Fall is broadly understood as a separation between God Elohim ruling over the world through His Omnipotence and God Yahweh ruling over the world through His image (mankind) and the whole purpose of Israel being restorative of that brokenness.

Just to name a few.
Guys -

affects = influences
effects = makes (something) happen

I think it's quite possible that God (the God of Israel) was only dealing with the people in that part of the world at the time; that he wanted to purify them via a local flood and much later he began using his people to reach the whole world. I was liking Kurieuo's idea of a local flood killing all of humanity at the time (except Noah and family) but the timing is awkward when it comes to the spread of people through the world and the rise of agriculture - it seems that the former definitely came first. So I'm still undecided. y:-?
Hi Nicki, I believe you've crossed threads from the Ark encounter one ;)

But, that's alright because that thread there, was my impetus for re-examining the Nephilim passage in Genesis 6 I've been just now discussing with Jac.

Since many from within science say DNA sequencing show that us modern humans had mixed (i.e., had offspring) with other "homo" species (i.e., Neanderthals and us Homo sapiens) -- I was interested to more closely re-examine the Nephilim passage to see whether it could be interpreted in light of such.

You know, such is the depraved nature of humanity, that we'll screw anything that moves it seems. If we're living alongside other species who look like us, then why not? Whatever makes you happy. Especially if you're a man, and you see some beautiful female who won't necessarily talk back to you. :P Then I was thinking that God saw this, what we His chosen image bearers ("sons of God"), were doing by defiling ourselves and taking advantage of other human-like creatures ("daughters of men"). Then the Nephilim are offspring from such encounters.

Read over Genesis 6:4:
  • There were nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
That they were considered "of old" and the like, seems interesting, since "behaviourally modern humans" are very recent (like within 40k range according to modern science). HOWEVER, I don't know, can't see, any way to reconcile another species with being "men" (adam).

In light of Genesis 5 which goes through the genealogies extending forward from Adam and Eve with the introduction in Genesis 6:1 is "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them." -- seems that the men being spoken of are definitely modern humans. UNLESS one wishes to say that Adam may not have been a part of homo sapiens sapiens (us modern humans), but interbreeding eventually lead to us being like we are today, then I don't see that we can go there.

"Sons of God" could possibly refer to us, God's image bearers, but unless one allows other homo species to be pulled under an umbrella of "men" (adam), then it just doesn't work i.e., "Sons of God sleeping with daughters of men."

I've dropped such an idea because I can't make it work in a satisfying way. Which leaves open other interpretations like the Sethite one or "sons of God" being angels.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by hughfarey »

RickD wrote:
hughfarey wrote:Well, I've told you what I understand the Catholic doctrine to be. I don't think I can go further than that. I'm really more of a scientist, and I'll happily go to the wall on that!
Fair enough. You don't know of any doctrine affected.
Given my successive and quite detailed posts on the matter, you know that to be untrue. Not being able to dot every i and cross every t is not the same as total ignorance.
Then really, I'm not sure what your issue is. You seem like a lot of "I don't knows" make up what you believe. At least that's how it's coming across. It all seems kinda vague with you.
That is also quite specifically untrue. I feel you're being over defensive here. Still, let's see what my "issue" is.

1) The early chapters of Genesis have universal significance and refer to mankind and the world rather than groups of people or local areas.

2) The stories around which this theology is expounded may or may not have historical roots, but it doesn't matter to the stories whether they do or not.

3) There is no extra-biblical evidence to support a hypothesis that there was ever any flood that wiped out all mankind, global or local, and much to demonstrate that it is a reductio ad absurdam.
Mallz
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:34 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Mallz »

There was a global flood, and the Nephilim are offspring of angels having sex with humans. :mrgreen: y[-(
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Kurieuo »

Jac wrote:Sure, and this is why I think the whole local flood theory knocks itself out (along with the whole OEC model). The local flood theory only works if you have it killing a few dozen people, a special people of God in the vast swaths of humanity already filling the whole world. Of course, that's hardly what the text seems to picture, but let that pass. Massive theological implications for THAT view . . .

Anyway, the supposed selling feature of the local flood is that scientifically acceptable, that we should accept it because it doesn't make us look stupid to skeptics. But it doesn't pass that test at all. And not only does it look stupid, it looks desperate. So now we're going to posit that 50,000 years ago there was a flood in some unspecified place that killed off all of modern homo sapien sapiens, well, all except eight, and that before the migrated to the whole world. I mean, really? That's supposed to make the flood story more palatable to atheists? That takes care of all the problems? Could a human 50,000 years ago have built an ark like the Bible describes? What about Noah living to 600 years old? And if you have 120 years to build it, and if the flood is only local, why not . . . I don't know . . . just walk the good folk away? The whole thing is just ridiculous. The whole point of the global flood is that the judgment was universal and inescapable--not just ignored, but inescapable--an idea totally undermined by this view we're talking about now.

Look, tons of people can point and laugh at the global flood model. And they'll say that it's even more at odds with the scientific evidence than the local flood model. But I hardly think they're going to be impressed with the latter, especially when it can't even sell its own main feature (given the distribution problem). Add to that the general look of desperation, and I think you are, ironically, giving non-believers cover for rejecting the Bible: "well, if they have to constantly look for new meanings for their special book, then why believe it at all? they obviously don't believe what it says, so why should I?"

It's all very sad, so says I.
The thing is Jac, many people look at the "global flood" and consider it as ridiculous as angels coming down and having sex with our women and producing offspring. If you're honest, I think you'd admit that the "angel" position of the Nephilim affronts your natural sensibilities too much, which is why you think it completely stupid and ridiculous. Well, then, so too does a global flood which is just naturally unsustainable, it is of the same calibre to those like Hugh, Audie and many local flood proponents.

As for timings, the thing is, the science is confusing itself as to human origins. So this isn't so much a foundational problem with a local flood theory as it is a problem with a scientific understanding of human origins and lay people like myself trying to make sense of it all. If the flood in based in real Earth history, then we must look to such history given Scripture doesn't give a year for when it all occurred.

Additionally, you always tend to make the mistake that the reason for wanting a Day-Age interpretation or local flood is to make modern science or Atheists happy, and that just isn't true. As you say, they'll never be happy! They're just a sad bunch of people! :P Seriously, your revisionist ideas of re-interpretation to suit science is just an irrelevant accusation like perhaps the suggestion that the Sethite interpretation of the Nephilim is a revisionist interpretation. What we're after at the end of the day is truth, and the fact is the Bible often deals with truths of a real historical nature. Our knowledge of the real world is just always increasing and such can impact our understand from other sources of knowledge which may appear to claim something contradictory about real world.

Hugh for example (sorry to always talk of you in third person Hugh), is a perfect illustration of someone who'll never be happy unless perhaps the ark is uncovered, an exact time is given through scientific dating methods, and then much more physical scientific evidence is given. He doesn't care whether such a story is merely physically possible, what he wants is evidence, physical evidence. Merely having it as naturally possible doesn't cut it, so proving that it is a possibility isn't going to impress any scientist or physically-minded people who always demand to see physical evidence rather than merely have the mere possibility of something.

Now more on timings, which you Nicki also made mention of. They are complicated in a local flood theory, because the science of human origins is itself very confusing. The language used, requires understanding. For example, you might think homo sapians are us, but no, we're classified as a sub-species of homo sapiens sapiens. Earlier hominins like Australopithecines are also often referred to as human. So then, when Christians claim Adam was the first human to walk the face of the Earth, to what species a scientist might ask are we referring -- one that walked around 500k+ years ago?

Now, "anatomically modern humans" marks the dawn of homo sapiens sapiens, considered to be us. They are said to arrive on the scene 200k years ago, though I think more reliable recent studies suggest around 125k give or take 10k. That's when "we", creatures biologically identical to us, apparently arrived on the scene. Oh, but hang on. There's an issue. Behaviour we associate with us human beings doesn't appear until much later. It comes in dribs and drabs, and then more fully at around 40,000-50,000 years ago.

So guess what? Science now makes a distinction between anatomically modern humans AND behaviourally modern humans. So now, as a compatibilist Christian trying to understand Scripture with real world data uncovered by scientific investigation, do I place "Adam" at the earlier anatomic modern human stage, or "Adam" at the later behavioural modern human stage? This is a fair question and one I don't have an answer for.

But wait, there's more! Because this is further complicated by the fact the FULL HUMAN BEHAVIOUR isn't evidenced until about 17,000 years ago when "homo sapiens sapiens" developed all the major representational techniques including painting, drawing, engraving, sculpture, ceramics, and stenciling. Working on stone, ivory, antler, and occasionally clay, they created imaginative and highly complex works of art.

And then again, there is still more because agriculture and farming crops and animals isn't evidenced until around 12,000 years ago.

So now, where should Adam and Eve be placed? If we place them at say 12k years ago, well then, there were anatomically modern humans also in the Americas 15,000 years ago -- are these really just a different behavioural species? When did the real behavioural modern humans arrive and the scene and where were they located? All relevant questions. Questions I haven't fully explored and don't really have strong beliefs on.

The difficulty with timing is because Scripture doesn't give the exact timing. Yes, some try to extrapolate this and that time, like DBowling in the other thread, but we're not clearly given any particular year. So we must try and match up the real world, with the text, and come to a compatible understanding -- that is, if Scripture indeed touches upon historical truths in our actual world.

Finally, and I'm almost reaching the end here now... IF timing is an issue, then there is always the possibility that God could have caused many localised flooding events. I wonder if even you might have considered such in a global flood scenario Jac, given there just isn't enough water to cover all of the earth at one and the same time?

Perhaps like Audie often accuses us of, we're thinking too either/or dichotomy-like, and there is actually third way which is the flood was worldwide where humanity was located all over the world, the flood is global in extent but God caused many local natural disasters and flooding events all over the world.

This possibility came to me in my recent readings of some mythical flood stories which name real locations, for example, an Australian Aboriginal flood story which told of a major flood in their particular location with similar undertones of bad humans and some spirit god or the like being angry. Noah's story, just perhaps details what happened in Mesopotamia and hence it became the Jewish story. Here, I am just floating possibilities.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Kurieuo »

Mallz wrote:There was a global flood, and the Nephilim are offspring of angels having sex with humans. :mrgreen: y[-(
Well that's just double ridiculous! Remind me never to pay mind to anything you say again. :P
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Mallz
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:34 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Mallz »

y=P~ y>:D<
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5472
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: Local flood, not all humanity killed?

Post by Jac3510 »

I've already told you why I think it is ridiculous, K. I suppose you can keep calling me a liar, that if I were honest I'd admit that my arguments are just smokescreens and it really isn't about hermeneutics at all, and then just conveniently ignoring my arguments if you like. But the bottom line will remain the same: What I really think the angelic view is patently stupid because it has absolutely no hermeneutical or textual basis. It is a conspiracy theory based on a text that dates over 1000 years after the Genesis story was first penned. Following standard interpretational principles, you come to the Sethite view. (And a global flood, and YEC, by the way. I've no interest in what is ridiculous from a scientific or naturalistic or sensibilities perspective (except where those sensibilities refer to interpretational principles). My question is only what the text says. You simply cannot begin to try to reconcile or even answer questions related to how God and science relate if you won't be honest about what God says in the first place.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
Post Reply