Evidence for God from Science

jenwat3 wrote:In Genesis 6:17 "And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life, everything on the earth shall die." Why is there a question whether the flood was global or local when God plainly states EVERYTHING ON THE EARTH, not "everything your area".

This has been covered many times over... The Hebrew words "kol" and "erets" are modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

jenwat3 wrote:Are you questioning what God plainly states?

Questioning whom? The English translators of the Bible or the original Hebrew words?

There have been many local floods over the course of history. To declare that Noah's flood was local and then to read in Genesis that God promised not to flood the world again makes scripture false. If indeed Noah's flood was local and scripture promises not to do it again then we have a big problem. Are you saying that He promised not to do a local flood in that area? Are you saying He will not use the same mechanism? I know that when things start getting too complex I have strayed from reality. The correct analysis is more than likely the obvious one. There was a world wide flood.

frankbaginski wrote:There have been many local floods over the course of history. To declare that Noah's flood was local and then to read in Genesis that God promised not to flood the world again makes scripture false.

Not if you understand as in 2 Peter 3:6 that it was "the world of that time", obviously in reference to all of humanity, that "was deluged and destroyed." (2 Peter 3:6)

God did not promise not to flood the world again, but rather that he would not flood the world again to destroy humanity and every living creature with them.

• Genesis 9:12-15 (KJV):
  12And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you... [notice it is all creatures with humanity]
  15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Why do you think this was put here? Notice the "All Flesh" part of it?

Here is an interesting read.

frankbaginski wrote:There have been many local floods over the course of history. To declare that Noah's flood was local and then to read in Genesis that God promised not to flood the world again makes scripture false. If indeed Noah's flood was local and scripture promises not to do it again then we have a big problem. Are you saying that He promised not to do a local flood in that area? Are you saying He will not use the same mechanism? I know that when things start getting too complex I have strayed from reality. The correct analysis is more than likely the obvious one. There was a world wide flood.

Astute observation. Bravo.

Also if you say that the flood is local God is the most illogical person ever. Since why would you make a man make a huge boat gather 2 of every animal from over the whole earth on to it. God could have said just move to here, out of the region I'm gonna flood so you won't die. Why would you move all the animals into the area of the flood to put on a boat, i don't get it. Also there must have been some people out of the flood region since your saying it's local flood, there must be parts that wouldn't get affect, big parts. Some humans must have been able to escape it by simply being out of the area of the flood waters.

Also if your on a big boat in a local flood surely after at least 40 days you would have happened to venture out of the flooded area and found, accidently dry land. Again another point it says the in Gen7: 17 'as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth'. Yeah high could mean anything but high must be quite high. How would the high water be contained in one area surely it would spill over into the surrounding ground flooding other parts of the earth and the ark would get destroyed by beaching it'self on the lower flooded areas.

Also am I reading Gen correctly when it says that Gen7:19 'all the high mountains under the ENTIRE heavens were covered'. What much more could the author have put in to point out the the flood was a worldwide event. Wat extra passages could the author have wrote to put emphasis on it being a worldwide flood.

It says in Gen7: 21 all the birds died why did they have to have, they could have flown to the vast areas of land not flooded.

I know stuff is lost in translation ect but translators aren't dumb and if the hebrew version clearly states that it isn't a worldwide event why did they translate Gen7:19 as entire heavens when they could have said an area of the hevens.

God also said He would destroy ALL life. Surely there was life in other areas than just that local area.

alot of action since I was last here!

GMan: the pictures and episode you post is exactly what I saw on that episode (you probably saw the same one). I don't see how people could look at the actual evidence on the Earth today and not see the sense behind it. The local flood explanation makes so much sense it's ridiculous.

I think people are afraid to believe something else because it causes them to doubt the Bible and God. I think believing in 90% of the Bible and taking the other 10% as a parable does not cause me to doubt God, Jesus, or any of the people in the Bible. Not to mention that the creation and Flood story reads as a fairy tale while the rest of it read like a history book and an biography of various men. People will find any means to try and find an explanation for things that just couldn't happen that way.
If I were a YEC and everything I said was debunked, I could simply retort by saying "God zapped the flood on the Earth, then drained it into a 4th dimension, and kept all insects and plants suspended in a bubble in the stratosphere, and kept the Ark in a protective coccoon of energy in which the angels of heaven cared for the animals. Then after the flood, God teleported all the animals to their native ranges as well as zapped the continents into being, and protected them from inbreeded by zapping more genetic diversity into their genome". All of this is untestable and a great supernatural explanation. I can't see any difference in intelligence between that explanation and the explanations given by YEC's for this supposed "Pre-Flood World" and the "Global Flood". All of it has no scientific backing in reality, just warped interpretations based on a strong desire for the Bible to be true.

Proof for this bold statement can be found in today's society. You find people of all creeds and races and religions that believe in modern geology, old earth, and even evolution. Since the range of beliefs, or non-beliefs, in the supernatural is so varied, there is no bias involved in these interpretations. If the evidence for the Global Flood was SOOOOO OBVIOUS, wouldn't there be journal articles and documentaries arguing this? Why would old Earth geology even be introduced in the 19th century if the Young Earth evidence was so overwhelming? And since this happened before the introduction of evolutionary timescales, you cannot argue bias.
Another argument against it is that there is a pathetically small number of actual scientists that believe in YEC. You could say "there are hundreds of them", but this is less than 1% of the total number of scientists in the world. Modern biology and geology is all built on old Earth ideas. More importantly, YEC ministries have an AGENDA. All of these "scientists", like Hamm, Hovind, Baugh, etc. all are "born again" and they seek to convert people to Jesus. I'm not saying their goal is wrong by any means, but they find the need to believe the Bible as 100% literal to validate their belief in Jesus. So they make up these theories that are backwards to real science and try to pass them off as science. Most people don't really care about science so they just accept the Bible's explanation for lack of a better alternative. They say "well God is powerful and I want to go to Heaven so the Bible MUST be literal". The majority of everyday Americans don't neccessarily want to be closely related to apes so Creation is more attractive to them. This explains the polls you see for creation vs. evolution

I will handle some of this post-by post later but I want to put this forward for people to chew on. It is a major flaw in the YEC mindset.

YEC: Starts with a stong belief in God and a belief the Bible is 100% literally true. Believer looks at the evidence placed before his/her and interprets it to fit the Biblical story. Basically, he/she has an explantation BEFORE they look at the evidence. There is no progress, just the same explanation.

Non-YEC: Encounters something that is unknown and observes what he/she sees. They develop a hypothesis and test the hypothesis, eventually proving or disproving it. If supported, a theory is created. Any theory is open to later rebuttal if evidence is found. Basically you look at the evidence and make your explanation AFTERWARDS. You also have the advantage of progress as technology and evidence is added in the future. Scientific knowledge is constantly changing and improving. If something better than evolution is discovered, it will be replaced.

Now, I assumed someone will say "the scientist is biased towards evolution" but consider for argument's sake we are talking about your typical 1700's - mid-1800's biologist or geologist. Which approach is better?

The flood of Noah was to wipe out the bad seed caused by fallen angels taking on human form and making giants among men. These were terrible beings that were going to overrun the earth. Noah being perfect in his generations (not mixed with the bad seed) was chosen to make the ark. The angels that took on human form are being held in darkness to be judged later.

This is a common interpretation of the verses in Genesis. If however you take everything in the Bible and make the verses an allusion or parable then man becomes the interpretor. This allows for a wide range of meanings some in direct conflict with others. I can't see this being the way God intended His Word to be used. Now one could argue that all men (and women) are to interpret the Bible for themselves. This would be in direct conflict with the teachings of Christ. We are to have teachers and Bishops and we are to spread the Word. If we are free to all interpret the Bible our own way then we should have been told to just spread the written Word.

Science and theology are not in conflict with each other. It has never been in conflict. Even the example of Galileo is twisted into something it is not. He got in trouble when he wrote a book about two people having a discussion and one of them was the Pope named Simpliton (spelling?). Take me for instance, I am a young earth creationist but have no problem with any data coming from science. I love to find out about God's creation. I do have problems with man's interpretation of the data. Now most people in the United States consider themselves Christians, around 80% or so. Now most professors in the universities consider themselves atheist or nonbelivers of some type. So why would I accept a theory from someone who may find it objectionable to even consider that God exist? To see the world from my eyes means I view all the data and let the data be my guide. At the same time my belief in the Word of God allows me to see relationships that may fit the history of the Bible. A typical college professor goes out of his way to avoid seeing any relationship that would support the Bible in any way. So just who is limiting their view of the data of science?

Just in case, anyone is interested, most of these very same arguments were discussed recently in my thread "The Case for the Global Flood" posted here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=6&t=3105

Either side of the debate may find some interesting ideas or links in that thread.



FM

IRQ Conflict wrote:15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Why do you think this was put here? Notice the "All Flesh" part of it?

Here is an interesting read.

Not so fast there... This was already covered in another post so I'm going to copy and paste it in.

You need to look ahead to the next few verses to get the explanation... In the hebrew, it actually backfires on the "all flesh" english meaning.

"The key is in Genesis 6:12: And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. (KJV)

The purpose of the flood was to wipe out this corruption. The main meaning for the Hebrew word for "flesh" in the Flood chapters, bâsâr, is person or man. The Hebrew dictionary doesn't even make it possible to extend this to animal flesh. God is not talking about the corruption of the animal kingdom, but about man's corruption. This is corrected in some other translations (NIV=“people”; Amplified=“humanity”). The purpose of the flood was to wipe out man, not animals. Yes, animals in the flooded locations would be killed, but they are not the target of God."

Source: http://www.answersincreation.org/broken_promise.htm

Not an expert on flood stuff, but i notice this right away:

God never did destroy "all flesh" in a literal way since Noah and his immediate family were saved.

Not sure if that was mentioned earlier, but there's my 2 cents

Gman wrote:You need to look ahead to the next few verses to get the explanation... In the hebrew, it actually backfires on the "all flesh" english meaning.

"The key is in Genesis 6:12: And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. (KJV)

The purpose of the flood was to wipe out this corruption. The main meaning for the Hebrew word for "flesh" in the Flood chapters, bâsâr, is person or man. The Hebrew dictionary doesn't even make it possible to extend this to animal flesh. God is not talking about the corruption of the animal kingdom, but about man's corruption. This is corrected in some other translations (NIV=“people”; Amplified=“humanity”). The purpose of the flood was to wipe out man, not animals. Yes, animals in the flooded locations would be killed, but they are not the target of God."

Hi Gman,
So I see you discard, the other guy's english translation in favor your own english translation which surprising supports your point of view.

Just my 2 cents.

FM

Himantolophus wrote:I think people are afraid to believe something else because it causes them to doubt the Bible and God. I think believing in 90% of the Bible and taking the other 10% as a parable does not cause me to doubt God, Jesus, or any of the people in the Bible. Not to mention that the creation and Flood story reads as a fairy tale while the rest of it read like a history book and an biography of various men. People will find any means to try and find an explanation for things that just couldn't happen that way.

Exactly right Himantolophus... In fact I would go so far to say that some people are simply terrified to question the english translation of the Bible. How dare we question the validity of the Bible (English version that is). No offense to those belonging to the common wealth.

Himantolophus wrote:Most people don't really care about science so they just accept the Bible's explanation for lack of a better alternative. They say "well God is powerful and I want to go to Heaven so the Bible MUST be literal". The majority of everyday Americans don't neccessarily want to be closely related to apes so Creation is more attractive to them. This explains the polls you see for creation vs. evolution

I couldn't have said it better myself. Like the ship is sinking but I will hang on and go down with the ship because I stand for God and I'm cool, look at me and my faith... It's no wonder why most people believe that the Bible is unbelievable.