Local flood, not all humanity killed?

[Philip]

OK, fellows, cool it down a bit - no need to get testy or personal!

[hughfarey]

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.

Not at all! I'm very happy person! Christians usually are!

He doesn't care whether such a story is merely physically possible

Not quite. I think the story is physically impossible, and have adduced evidence to demonstrate my opinion. If I thought the story was possible but undemonstrated, I would have said so.

what he wants is evidence, physical evidence.

Yup.

Merely having it as naturally possible doesn't cut it ...

It would be better that nothing.

... so proving that it is a possibility isn't going to impress any scientist

Who knows? No such proof has been offered.

... people who always demand to see physical evidence rather than merely have the mere possibility of something.

No. If something is possible it will not be rejected as impossible. So, you don't have to prove the flood killed all mankind, only that such a flood was possible. But you haven't got anywhere near that yet, without invoking massive divine intervention. Given that, then of course you can be completely correct, and no scientist could deny it, but we just don't think God works like that.

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

This is getting a teeny bit bonkers, if I may say so. In a thousand years, if we last that long, historians will say that full human behaviour didn't really emerge until the invention of the steam-engine, or electricity, or the internet, and they will be just as correct as saying that human behaviour was 'full' at the invention of cooking, or farming, or painting.

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.

Good.

The difficulty with timing is because Scripture doesn't give the exact timing. [...] 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.

I don't think it does in this case.

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.

Of course, God could have done all these things, but he could just as easily have caused a worldwide flood that destroyed all living things and then removed all the evidence. No need to create intricate scenarios once you call in divine intervention.

[PaulSacramento]

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.

I think that is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

[Jac3510]

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.

I think that is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

*shrug* I certainly couldn't hold the theological views I do on any of those issues if I held to a local flood, whether it called all of humanity it just a portion of it.

[Philip]

Particularly as we consider the ramifications of universal sin and the punishment of not just those in the region of Noah - but of ALL men, wherever they might have spread to, caught in some massive flood that wouldn't scientifically appear to have been global - not if one that occurred in the time frames typically banded about - well, the global flood SEEMS impossible. There are so many strange variables, it just is difficult for US to come up with a narrative that is in sync with both Scripture AND science. I mean,how old is man, really? And what were early humans and what what were some other human-LIKE creatures? It is all totally baffling. But one thing I know, SOMEHOW, the story of the flood, the ark and Noah are true - because it's not just a symbolic story, because their are minute details of instructions, Ark plans with precise measurements, etc. The entire thing is God's work - a God Who created a universe out of nothing. We just have to trust Him, at His word, and per it. The more I think I know about this issue, the more I realize I do not. One thing is certain, none of us will ever be able to match science perfectly to Scripture, nor will we be able to convince people of God and Christ per how well we can show Genesis can match up with current scientific knowledge.

Other thoughts:

In Psalm 19, we read: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork."

So, the heavens are another testimony - as are the details of the earth. But what is the TESTIMONY that "His handiwork" meant to reveal? Details of how, or how old, or whatever all science or Hugh Ross, etc. might reveal? Romans has the answer: What they reveal are "His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." Again, the Bible is NOT a science book. And we shouldn't try to read it as such. It was written for pre-scientific age people, and per THEIR simple understandings. And just as God didn't try to correct the original audience's (Moses wrote for) scientific understandings, neither does it inform US about science - much to the contrary, Hugh Ross, etc. So, that's what gets us in trouble - trying to parse Genesis with science.

One last thought: Psalm 104:9 - DOES it eliminate the global flood possibility? Appearing to speak of the original creation, and the waters, it states: "You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth."

Rich Deem wrote about the above: "There are a number of figures of speech used in Psalm 104 that clearly refer to the original creation as opposed to the flood. The reference to the boundaries of the deep are a clear reference to the original creation (Proverbs 8:29, Psalm 33:6-7, Jeremiah 5:22, and Job 38:8-11). There are no references to "boundaries" in any of the flood references. A second figure of speech is the idea of the earth being covered by a garment, which is only found in the creation passages, and never in the flood passages (Proverbs 30:4, Job 38:9). In addition, there are no references to the mountains rising and the valleys sinking (Psalm 104:8) after the flood, although these events could be clearly linked to the setting of the boundaries of the sea as described in Genesis 1 and Job 38."

See Rich's page on this issue of the timing and scope of the flood, here: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html

[PaulSacramento]

No, K, the text stands in pretty strong opposition to that reading if for not other reason than this: the nephilim were on the earth in the days of the flood and also after. So if the idea was to "clean out" the human race as if Noah was the only one who didn't have a messed up blood line, it was a pretty bad plan. And besides, the idea of a corrupted gene pool doesn't mean anything to that time in history. And the idea of trying to corrupt the Messiah's bloodline would be, at best, a 1500 year anachronism.

The most obvious reading of the text is that the "sons of God" was the line of Seth. The nephilim were tyrants of the day. The word doesn't mean "giant." There's absolutely no basis for that interpretation. It means "one who falls upon." And that view makes perfect sense in the context--the entire world had become corrupt and full of violence. Tyrants ruled by the sword. There was no law and no fear of God, and so the need for the flood. In fact, doubly fits because it shows the sin of Cain has permeated all of mankind.

Nope . . . a "fallen angels" view makes absolutely no sense and requires reading WAY too much into the text that isn't anywhere near the text. Take those foreign ideas out that you don't get from the text and there is just no way to get there.

I couldn't disagree with you more and there are a few passages in the NT that would disagree also, BUt that is for another thread.

[PaulSacramento]

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! 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?

This is probably one of the most naive things I have heard.
That Peter And Jude quoted 1Enouch means that they read it and, at least, believed it proper to use it in their letters to groups that would, obviously, understand the references.

I can understand you disagreeing with the view jac, for whatever reasons, but to say something silly like:

They read it. They thought it was stupid and rejected it.

Well, I won't even go there with that can of worms.

[Kurieuo]

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

This is getting a teeny bit bonkers, if I may say so. In a thousand years, if we last that long, historians will say that full human behaviour didn't really emerge until the invention of the steam-engine, or electricity, or the internet, and they will be just as correct as saying that human behaviour was 'full' at the invention of cooking, or farming, or painting.

I agree with your sentiments, though your steam-engine example is going extreme... but you know, should we be able to say they ate and pooped like we do without finding evidence for such?

To be clear, this is what I see happens with a strictly Evidentialist approach, like that which scientists follow. There is much merit to it, because it stops us insinuating things which may in fact be jumping the gun. And all the dates I mentioned are from science, discussed amongst scientists and my references were from reliable source like the Smithsonian Institute.

For us though, how far is too far? When is it simply human knowledge increasing, and how much ought to be just human expression? I suppose one might say cultivating is a knowledge, but it also displays our human ability to transcend nature and make it bend and conform to us. I think that's an important sign of human intelligence and behaviour.

Yet, if the fuller range of human behaviour is displayed at 17,000 years, then well, I'd assume animal farming and the like could have been done, but for whatever reason just wasn't. Perhaps more on simplistic levels right? Or there was just lots to forage anyhow, like natives foraging in the forest.

To be clear also, there is a difference between "anatomically modern humans" and "behaviorally modern humans". I attach more significance to the latter really. It takes loosely 100,000 years after homo sapiens arrive to see behaviour we associate with ourselves.

Timing the flood, no idea. It's a weakness, but then I'll fall back on the 300 or whatever stories* across cultures of the flood which to me feels like very strong evidence something such happened to all of humanity with a flood even if one disregards Noah's story. *This isn't me just plucking 300 out, but rather from an article at the Religious Tolerance site which is really not very friendly towards many Christian beliefs. There's a book referenced there, to do with examining such stories which I wouldn't mind getting and reading: Noah's Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought

[Kurieuo]

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.

I agreed it was ridiculous and I didn't know I called you a liar anywhere.

A lot of my response, the longer one, was not necessarily aimed at you at all. It was rather aimed at a discussion I've had in another thread, which Nicki highlighted a timing issue on and you pounced a little on. I was also indirectly including Hugh, who responded, since he was also participating.

So I was merely trying to unpack and explain where the complication lies with timing for me and what I believe.

Nonetheless, on the Nephilim I've spent time re-examining matters, deeper, and just come back with angels being the most fitting. AiG actually has a detailed and well written article on different positions regarding the nephilim. There, they actually tend to respect the angel interpretation, though lean towards a revised Sethite interpretation.

Then I came across this YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPVRt8HaM68 presenting reasons in favour of the angel view, and against the Sethite. Presents interesting Scripture and evidence. Really, if I'm honest with what I read in Scripture, regardless of my sensibilities being run this way and that, trying to please Atheists or align with modern science , really I feel the weight is on the side of an angelic interpretation.

[Audie]

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.

Not at all! I'm very happy person! Christians usually are!

He doesn't care whether such a story is merely physically possible

Not quite. I think the story is physically impossible, and have adduced evidence to demonstrate my opinion. If I thought the story was possible but undemonstrated, I would have said so.

what he wants is evidence, physical evidence.

Yup.

Merely having it as naturally possible doesn't cut it ...

It would be better that nothing.

... so proving that it is a possibility isn't going to impress any scientist

Who knows? No such proof has been offered.

... people who always demand to see physical evidence rather than merely have the mere possibility of something.

No. If something is possible it will not be rejected as impossible. So, you don't have to prove the flood killed all mankind, only that such a flood was possible. But you haven't got anywhere near that yet, without invoking massive divine intervention. Given that, then of course you can be completely correct, and no scientist could deny it, but we just don't think God works like that.

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

This is getting a teeny bit bonkers, if I may say so. In a thousand years, if we last that long, historians will say that full human behaviour didn't really emerge until the invention of the steam-engine, or electricity, or the internet, and they will be just as correct as saying that human behaviour was 'full' at the invention of cooking, or farming, or painting.

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.

Good.

The difficulty with timing is because Scripture doesn't give the exact timing. [...] 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.

I don't think it does in this case.

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.

Of course, God could have done all these things, but he could just as easily have caused a worldwide flood that destroyed all living things and then removed all the evidence. No need to create intricate scenarios once you call in divine intervention.

For those who want to say the world wide flood could have happened, sure, with divine intervention. But it didnt.
A giant meteor could have wiped out NYC yesterday, but, it didnt.

As for the distinction between human beings and "modern" ones,
we have to this day in remote areas, uncontacted tribes living in the stone age.

Perhaps a review of the writings of European Christians in the days of sail and exploration would be in order for those drifting however unconsciously into
this pernicious bigotry. In the day, they wrote of "Savages" who didnt even have language, but jabbered like monkeys.

[Jac3510]

The "liar" comment is directed at your suggesting that if I were honest I'd say it was my modern sensibilities. I get that is the position you are coming from. I am telling you that it is not the position I'm coming from. My own sense regarding your swing is that you've got a pendulum swining too far in the other direction.

I've no interest in AiG's interpretation. You know that I don't think very highly of their approach, either.

It's a stupid position. I know that's inflammatory. I don't care. It isn't stupid because it's so fantastic or mythological. It's stupid because it violates all rules of interpretation. It is fundamentally unserious. I know you think it is a serious interpretation (even if you think it's ridiculous). We disagree on that assessment. And to the mod comment at the top of this page, this isn't personal, but I will admit to it being a testy issue for me. It's an affront to a serious interpretation of Scripture. To be asked to take such seriously, particurarly when there are serious interpretational issues on the table . . . that's the absurd part. To me, this conversation, it terms of foolishness, ranks up there with the gap theory or one of Origen's allegorys (i.e., the wheels of the pharoah's chariot having hundreds of meanings). There's no reason to talk about it because it isn't based in anything like a serious hermeneutic. It is just dumb. So, yes, I'm testy about it. It is embarrassing that Christians hold this view, not because it is so scientifically ridiculous, but because it is hermeneutically absurd. For me, it is a process issue, and I have less than no respect for the process that people use to support it. (At least if I only had no respect I could be neutral about it, like I am, say, for the Framework hypothesis or the idea that Jephthah didn't actually sacrifice his daughter but only committed her to a lifetime of virginity.)

[Kurieuo]

For those who want to say the world wide flood could have happened, sure, with divine intervention. But it didnt.
A giant meteor could have wiped out NYC yesterday, but, it didnt.

Or how about the universe could have popped into existence, but it didn't. Oh hang on...

[Audie]

For those who want to say the world wide flood could have happened, sure, with divine intervention. But it didnt.
A giant meteor could have wiped out NYC yesterday, but, it didnt.

Or how about the universe could have popped into existence, but it didn't. Oh hang on...

You and phil are the same person? When faced with a simple specific thing about the flood having no basis in demonstrable fact, off you both go to the origin of the universe again.

I will take it as a tacit acceptance of inability to do better.

[Audie]

Audie: You respond with a long rather hysterical personal attack, that appears to say that if I cant answer the deepest mysteries of the universe, then i have nothing to say about the 'flood".

Audie, you always respond to your POSITION being critically examined with your "little girl is being attacked by the clueless, heartless mods." Quite your whining and put on your "big girl" pants!

You in no way critically or otherwise examined my position, tho you did there and elsewhere make up "positions" to savage to your satisfaction. Or else you dont look at the topic at all, which in this case was "flood", and off you go into
origin of the universe and all in it.

Also, of course, you are simply lying with what you say I "always", or ever for that matter, do.

My point wasn't about the WHEN or technical questions about many questions concerning the flood. My point was merely that you are always very condescendingly spouting about "the magic God of gappisms,"

See there you go with another lie; I have never said that. If, since you have to make things up in order to find something to 'critically examine", why do you bother?

without realizing that you yourself have admitted you have NO, ZIPPO, ZERO idea of what began the universe or HOW it began.

Another lie, how could I possibly not know what I have said? "Admit" of course is reluctantly confess, which I did not do. I dont to theoretical astrophysics, neither do you. The origin of the universe is completely irrelevant to the subject of a primitive superstition about a flood, something you dont seem to realize; else, why do yo keep bringing it up?

. And that source either had to be eternally powerful and unfathomably intelligent, OR it randomly developed into such power and intelligence

Oh yaeh, I saw this lie about me in another post, that this is what I believe in.

- which is as unscientific as it gets. Leave those rocks in the backyard for vast trillions of years, and at the end of that time, they'll still be dumb rocks.

Really. Once a 'rock" that may have existed for millions of years is exposed to the surface, it virtually explodes. It will be reduced to its smallest constituents chemically and mechanically, and be absorbed by plants, enter the atmosphere, or be washed downstream.

Audie: I do see a lot of what you called, yes, Wild speculation, upon which there is no ability to apply the scientific method to replicating, testing, falsifying - well, just don't call it science, because it is NOT - concerning this "flood".

Of COURSE there is wild speculation. But the wild speculation on the non-theist side seems very unreasonale, immensely and mathematically improbable. But it's not telling lies as to what you believe, Audie, it's stating parameters which you refuse to accept, that nonetheless exist.

I accept that there could be supernatural. Dont see it, but hey.
Now as to things you are capable of accepting? But that is another topic.

Audie, please tell me:

What OTHER possible and necessary certainties must the Cause of the universe include?

This should be good. I predict less detail and more attitude! But I do hope to be pleasantly surprised!

You do love to be insulting and condescending, and, you do so love your irrelevancies.

Remember this exchange?

ME
, Wild speculation, upon which there is no ability to apply the scientific method to replicating, testing, falsifying - well, just don't call it science, because it is NOT - concerning this "flood"

YOU
Of COURSE there is wild speculation. But the wild speculation on the non-theist side seems very unreasonale, immensely and mathematically improbable

You are saying that the non theist (like, say geology) side of looking at whether there was a flood is umreasonable and improbable?

Coz if not, you are, speaking of wild, wildly off topic. I was talking about whether there was a flood, remember? Why do you insist of wildly flying off to the origin of the universe?

I predict it is reflective of an inability on your part, on the part of your bible-reading, to cope with what happens when faced with some hard realities.

[Kurieuo]

The "liar" comment is directed at your suggesting that if I were honest I'd say it was my modern sensibilities. I get that is the position you are coming from. I am telling you that it is not the position I'm coming from. My own sense regarding your swing is that you've got a pendulum swining too far in the other direction.

Perhaps it was missed where I said that's why I find it ridiculous? Don't want to accept it. Would much prefer a Sethite interpretation. Really, I can't see how anyone brought up and living in our modern age influenced by skepticism, rationalism and science in a Western education, how one wouldn't feel a little embarrassed by such a mythical sounding story. That's just me though, not calling you a liar.