Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Gman wrote:Source: http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html

Thanks for the link Gman. Contained some interesting points I had not considered such as the mixing of fresh and salt water, and only people who lived near Noah could have heard Noah's warning of impending judgement.

Thanks Kurieuo... And you brought out some very good points about Genesis 8 too. Now why didn't I think of that? This is the problem that the literalist always face with scripture. I think that many people tend to forget that the Bible is a middle eastern book. It is chuck full of figures of speech, idioms, and orientalisms that make it difficult for the western mind to grasp. It's no wonder why people turn away from these Biblical stories and call them false because it puts things out of any sound scientific reasonings.. And then we are told to "just have faith in it" because God said so... And what about those who don't believe in God in the first place?

I entirely agree.

Regarding the "literalism" issue Canuckster raised, I think it is important to understand two different uses of "literalism" often employed that get equivocated. Consider the differences of its use in the two following statements:

1. John accepts a literal accounting of the serpent in the Genesis as being symbolic of Satan.
2. Peter believes the term "serpent" used in the Genesis story is to be understood literally as a snake.

A "literal accounting" of a passage, is different to accepting the literal meaning of each and every word.

When "literal" is used in the sense of (1), as it is commonly used by Evangelicals, what is literal and what is not becomes very confusing. This became very apparent to me when I debated ttoews over the meaning of a literal interpretation quite a while ago now. In arguing for the use of (1) I ended up confusing myself and getting into all sorts of difficult oxymoronic statements during my attempts to respond like, "yes I believe in the literal meaning of Satan symbolically representing a snake." This does not necessarily mean "literal" still can't be understood in this sense, only that it becomes highly confusing when literal is used in this sense. Since then, I have realised more and more that people tend to tact "literal" to their interpretations as a persuasive way of usurping authority for their interpretation above that of any other acceptable interpretation.

Regarding yom in Genesis, as we all probably know, it in fact means according to the Strong's dictionary: 1) from one sunset to the next; 2) sunrise to sunset; or 3) figuratively as a space of time. Thus, a Day-Age interpretation would still takes a "literal" (actual) understanding of the word yom, although its use is figurative.

]Regarding the "literalism" issue Canuckster raised, I think it is important to understand two different uses of "literalism" often employed that get equivocated. Consider the differences of its use in the two following statements:

1. John accepts a literal accounting of the serpent in the Genesis as being symbolic of Satan.
2. Peter believes the term "serpent" used in the Genesis story is to be understood literally as a snake.

A "literal accounting" of a passage, is different to accepting the literal meaning of each and every word.

When "literal" is used in the sense of (1), as it is commonly used by Evangelicals, what is literal and what is not becomes very confusing. This became very apparent to me when I debated ttoews over the meaning of a literal interpretation quite a while ago now. In arguing for the use of (1) I ended up confusing myself and getting into all sorts of difficult oxymoronic statements during my attempts to respond like, "yes I believe in the literal meaning of Satan symbolically representing a snake." This does not necessarily mean "literal" still can't be understood in this sense, only that it becomes highly confusing when literal is used in this sense. Since then, I have realised more and more that people tend to tact "literal" to their interpretations as a persuasive way of usurping authority for their interpretation above that of any other acceptable interpretation.

Regarding yom in Genesis, as we all probably know, it in fact means according to the Strong's dictionary: 1) from one sunset to the next; 2) sunrise to sunset; or 3) figuratively as a space of time. Thus, a Day-Age interpretation would still takes a "literal" (actual) understanding of the word yom, although its use is figurative.

Kurieuo,

Nice summary.

The heart of the matter for me is where the believer stands in relationship to the text.

Too many believers, in my opinion, look at the text and adopt a "literal" hermeneutic that in effect, dictates how they will interpret and understand the Scriptures. They will seek the simplest meaning and once they decide what that simplest, literal meaning is, all further study and discussion pretty much becomes an exercise in forcing things into this mold. If it doesn't fit it then becomes a matter of faith to be clung to, regardless of anything else. For many, they choose as well to determine that they will do this based upon the English Text and further they choose to treat the text as intended for them personally in the full context of their time frame and culture. Apparently, it saves time.

The irony to me is that they have elevated their hermeneutic over the text itself. This is why, again in my opinion, you have seemingly interminable discussions with YEC proponents and Global Flood adherents and why the claim continually floats that if you don't accept their position, you must be a compromiser who has bowed to science and are simply seeking to reconcile the two at the expense of the inerrency and authority of the Word of God.

They have to see it that way, because they have tied their interpretation to the Word of God in such a manner, that were they to admit otherwise, they believe they would lose the foundation of their faith in all other areas of the Scripture as well.

As a believer, I see my position as under the text; not over it and not beside it. The written word of God and the living Word of God form a union that I in turn am blessed to learn from as I submit myself to it. Part of the role of a disciple is to continually learn and grow. The moment I state I have complete understanding of any element of the Word of God, I cease to learn and I instead elevate myself over the Word of God and in effect subjugate it to my authority, which boils down in the end to pride and idolatry. (I'm pretty sure the Scriptures are against those things, by the way.)

Now, of course, I do this myself in several arenas as do all believers here. I have made determinations and come to conclusions on the Triune Nature of God, the inerrency of the Sciptures themselves, Inspiration etc. I may continually learn and hopefully expand my knowlege, over time, but I've accepted those elements as self-evident and clearly taught within the Scriptures upon their own authority.

Anyway, if one is going to accept the Scriptures literally, then one has to be prepared to place oneself beneath them and further to be willing to surrender oneself to them to accept and follow what they say, as well as being careful not to read something into them that they do not say.

Making a literal hermeneutic a simple exercise in reading the Scripture in its plainest sense without allowing the text itself and all the information surrounding it in terms of history, culture, language, idioms, figures of speech etc. is like trying to read War and Peace by Tolstoy in the same manner you read Dr. Suess. It just doesn't work.

Before I make any specific responses to the global vs. local flood argument - which is what this thread is supposed to be about, allow me to address several points for clarification as I see a lot of labeling going on here. And since there are currently three or four people actively engaged in this debate the casual reader will imply certain positions from the labels.

I do not advocate YEC science or OEC science in so far as either attempt to explain the acts of creation. I think God created the universe in six literal days in a grand series of miracles. I think it is wrong for YEC to manipulate scientific discoveries to match their interpretations of the origin of earth. Likewise, while OEC does not manipulate the science, I personally believe they manipulate the scripture (protest and complain all you want - I am entitled to my belief and I think it is justified). I don't think it is possible to project natural science backward into the days of creation.

About literalism, it is a difficult term to define and I understand how one can easily end up saying seemingly contradictory things like "I believe in the literal intepretation of the nonliteral such and such" or whatever. Most christians are not strict lieralists - not even those uneducated, common people who are just ignorant enough to accept what the words say (facetiousness intended here). Even they apply a certain common sense and cultural spin on the interpretation. This is neither unexpected nor necessarily undesireable. (please forgive my rant but I am very disturbed by intellectual elistism even as canuckster apparently is) God's word is applicable to many generations, cultures and educational levels. If it was not, we would all be practicing orthodox Judaism.

I personally do not consider myself a "literalist" but rather a traditionalist. I support and defend the commonly accepted and traditional translations of the bible as I believe they are made under the best principles of biblical scholarship using the latest available manuscript evidence. It is incorrect, in my opinion to focus on the so-called "english" translations as particularly erroneous as I have I pointed out many many times that the Tanakh (hebrew bible) also agree in translation.

Therefore I personally reject any labels other than saying I am a traditionalist or conservative in my interpretation. Plain and simple. I think it is wrong to apply scientific explanations to miracles. I think it is wrong to apply scientific explanations to miracles. I think it is wrong to apply scientific explanations to miracles.

Each point of view cherry-picks. YEC cherry picks the science (fortunate;y for me there seem to none here willing to speak up for their position let alone protest if I claim they have flaws in reasoning), OEC cherry picks the scriptures (again protest all you like - I see it and so do others) and many problems exist on all sides of the issues. I admit for example, that my position has certain things I can not explain which seem to weaken my position (see bleow). But likewise we can all point out weaknesses in the OEC or YEC positions as well. It is all part of the process of discovering who God is and understanding His nature. I don't hold my position as a way of claiming superiority over other positions. I hold it simply because I call it as I read it. Actually not even the silent YECers will necessarily agree with me on all points. For the time being, I believe my stand allows me to accept natural science as the discovery of what God has wrought, and accept the difficult passages of Genesis 1 and the flood narrative as honest attempts to explain wholly miraculous events.

I say the creation was a literal six day miraculous event and every christian will agree God could have done it the way I claim he did. Every christian will even agree God could have created the universe and earth with apparent age. That is simply acknowledging God can do anything. It becomes now, a philosophic question as to why he would. I personally see no deception if God says look at this thing I have made. Others (ok, specifically OEC and TE types) claim it is deceptive to create an earth which appears to have age and history. (and super-novae, etc. I know the protests.) But on the otherhand, some wonder why would God allow the innocent to suffer, children to die, why does the scripture seem to indicate God created evil, why did he allow men to become corrupt, why are some healed, some not, why are some saved, some not? There are endless philosophical questions which we simply can not answer. (Many attempt to answer these questions - but they can not really be answered well from scripture - they require whys and hows and the details are not given to us.

The same is true for the flood. Again I say there were miraculous events occuring which defy science and explanation. This site makes its case for a local flood. I find it weak. I made a case for a global flood appealing to many evidences even beyond scriptural. Many here find it weak. Once again, YEC science about the flood is horrible. Baumgarder's runaway subduction can not account for the energy required to intiate it, a 150 day flood even six miles deep can not possibly create a multi-mile thick layer of sedimentary rock - its not happening today under miles-deep oceans which have been in existence a lot longer than 150 days. On the otherhand, there is no scientific evidence that men lived clustered into one small region of the earth. Population growth alone mitigates against it. If a herd of animals can strip acres of pasteur land in a few months, how long would it take for a large population of hunter-gatherers and animals to strip all available resources out of a region? Artifacts of men have been found on every continent on this planet including antarctica. Why would a local flood advocate ignore this scientific fact and then claim global flood advocates ignore science in their conclusions? Bottom line, people, all positions are weak and every explanation can be challenged with counter-evidence. The scientific claims become an endless parade of claims and counter-claims. It serves no purpose to say this or that position has science on its side or logic or even scripture. This is why my position is this: God allowed all but eight people to die. I think people were all over the world at the time (as he commanded in Adam's day - be fruitful and fill and subdue the earth) and so, out of necessity, the entire earth was flooded. How do he do it, where did the water come from? I don't know? Is there evidence? We've seen evidence here and there but it usually isn't connected to the flood because no "respectable" scientist wants to risk his career by claiming it is flood related. (scientific elitism is real also). What about the details - how did the animals get to the ark, was the ark big enough, blah, blah? I don't know. Somehow God pulled it off. Cheap answer isn't it? Doesn't satisfy your inquiring, scientific mind, does it? Mine either. But I accept it.



Forgive me for writing a book. I have my position, you have yours, YEC has theirs but please don't misrepresent me in your discussions. Thanks.

Forum Monk.

I appreciate the response and the clearer insight into your position. I'll respond later to some elements to try and understand better.

Bart

It seems to me that if the flood was localized and people were living only in that area, God could have told Noah to take his family and move. He built the arc in not less than 60 years, probably more. I would think a family could move on foot to any area of the earth within 60 years and not have to worry about the flood.

But God told him to build an ark, because there would not be any place in which to move because the flood would be global.

But on the other hand, I also realize that it could be that God said to build the ark because building an ark would have required more faith, especially while his neighbors would have been laughing at him. And if he moved, there might be some that would follow him just out of curiosity.

Forum Monk wrote:Before I make any specific responses to the global vs. local flood argument - which is what this thread is supposed to be about, allow me to address several points for clarification as I see a lot of labeling going on here. And since there are currently three or four people actively engaged in this debate the casual reader will imply certain positions from the labels.

I do not advocate YEC science or OEC science in so far as either attempt to explain the acts of creation. I think God created the universe in six literal days in a grand series of miracles. I think it is wrong for YEC to manipulate scientific discoveries to match their interpretations of the origin of earth. Likewise, while OEC does not manipulate the science, I personally believe they manipulate the scripture (protest and complain all you want - I am entitled to my belief and I think it is justified). I don't think it is possible to project natural science backward into the days of creation.

FM, of course you are entitled to your own beliefs... No one knows exactly what science God deems as lucrative to His creation or for the correct flood theory for that matter. I will say this however if you don't mind, if you believe that God created the universe in six literal days this aligns more with YEC beliefs than OEC IMO. As for manipulating scripture, I do NOT believe that OEC manipulates scripture to meet it's objective (as I will show more later). I don't believe we should compromise God's word to fulfill our own needs or understanding of it..

I think Billy Graham said it best... In his own words he stated the following...

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God. - Billy Graham

Forum Monk wrote:About literalism, it is a difficult term to define and I understand how one can easily end up saying seemingly contradictory things like "I believe in the literal intepretation of the nonliteral such and such" or whatever. Most christians are not strict lieralists - not even those uneducated, common people who are just ignorant enough to accept what the words say (facetiousness intended here). Even they apply a certain common sense and cultural spin on the interpretation. This is neither unexpected nor necessarily undesireable. (please forgive my rant but I am very disturbed by intellectual elistism even as canuckster apparently is) God's word is applicable to many generations, cultures and educational levels. If it was not, we would all be practicing orthodox Judaism.

This may seem a little forward, but don't you think that your stance against YEC or OEC science promotes an intellectual elistism as well? I don't know but it seems like it is a very "safe" position to be in where you can easily pick off the statements, show all the faults and look like a king.. I know that is not what you are trying to do, but when it comes to debating certain subjects it can be a difficult moving target to shoot back at... In other words, I don't even have a target..

Forum Monk wrote:I personally do not consider myself a "literalist" but rather a traditionalist. I support and defend the commonly accepted and traditional translations of the bible as I believe they are made under the best principles of biblical scholarship using the latest available manuscript evidence. It is incorrect, in my opinion to focus on the so-called "english" translations as particularly erroneous as I have I pointed out many many times that the Tanakh (hebrew bible) also agree in translation.

Each point of view cherry-picks. YEC cherry picks the science (fortunate;y for me there seem to none here willing to speak up for their position let alone protest if I claim they have flaws in reasoning), OEC cherry picks the scriptures (again protest all you like - I see it and so do others) and many problems exist on all sides of the issues. I admit for example, that my position has certain things I can not explain which seem to weaken my position (see bleow). But likewise we can all point out weaknesses in the OEC or YEC positions as well. It is all part of the process of discovering who God is and understanding His nature. I don't hold my position as a way of claiming superiority over other positions. I hold it simply because I call it as I read it. Actually not even the silent YECers will necessarily agree with me on all points. For the time being, I believe my stand allows me to accept natural science as the discovery of what God has wrought, and accept the difficult passages of Genesis 1 and the flood narrative as honest attempts to explain wholly miraculous events.

FM, I don't think that OEC is cherry picking scripture as you seem to be implying.. We need to interpret scripture in light of the authors frame of reference, not our modern worldwide understanding of it... Here is another example of "earth" from Genesis..

Quote RTB: "Another Bible story offers a helpful example: Genesis 41:56 tells of the famine that struck while Joseph served as prime minister over Egypt. The KJV reads, "The famine was over all the face of the earth." We understand these words to signify that the famine devastated all the lands of the ancient Near East in and around Egypt. We do not interpret them globally, as implying that Australian Aborigines and American Indians came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph. Likewise, when 1 Kings 10:24 states that "the whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart" we do not conclude that the New Zealand Maoris or the Patagonian natives sent yearly delegations to Jerusalem."

Forum Monk wrote:Therefore I personally reject any labels other than saying I am a traditionalist or conservative in my interpretation. Plain and simple. I think it is wrong to apply scientific explanations to miracles. I think it is wrong to apply scientific explanations to miracles. I think it is wrong to apply scientific explanations to miracles.

Was the flood a complete miracle devoid of any physical implications? I guess this is where we have our differences, because even if the global flood was a complete miraculous event, it would still need the scientific (physical) explanations to back it up. If not, IMO, it wouldn't be miraculous because there would be no proof of it ever existing in the first place. We as human beings I believe are miraculously created, because I know that we exist, I'm just not sure how God did it...

Forum Monk wrote:On the otherhand, there is no scientific evidence that men lived clustered into one small region of the earth.

We don't really know that yet.. Obviously it had a beginning somewhere, whether man clustered in place or not in the beginning may be subjective, but again we really don't know what kind of environment people lived in back then either..

Were they perhaps surrounded by other bodies of water or glaciers that prevented them from moving? Or what about dangerous animals that may have lurked in the surrounding areas? Maybe it was taboo for them to venture out... We simply don't know...

Forum Monk wrote:Population growth alone mitigates against it.

FM, I was going to answer this before but didn't have the time.. I don't think we can base this on population growth back then. I believe we are at around 6.6 billion now with all the science we have been developing to keep us live longer.. Who is to say what the death rate was from all the diseases back then? Also, from scripture I understand that the murder rate was pretty high back then too.. Genesis 6:13

Forum Monk wrote:If a herd of animals can strip acres of pasteur land in a few months, how long would it take for a large population of hunter-gatherers and animals to strip all available resources out of a region? Artifacts of men have been found on every continent on this planet including antarctica. Why would a local flood advocate ignore this scientific fact and then claim global flood advocates ignore science in their conclusions?

There is some archaeological evidence that I can perhaps share from David Rohl's work later if you want... Although is doesn't exactly address striping the land, but then again if you are advocating a huge population growth then that may be an issue perhaps...

Forum Monk wrote:Bottom line, people, all positions are weak and every explanation can be challenged with counter-evidence. The scientific claims become an endless parade of claims and counter-claims. It serves no purpose to say this or that position has science on its side or logic or even scripture. This is why my position is this: God allowed all but eight people to die. I think people were all over the world at the time (as he commanded in Adam's day - be fruitful and fill and subdue the earth) and so, out of necessity, the entire earth was flooded. How do he do it, where did the water come from? I don't know? Is there evidence? We've seen evidence here and there but it usually isn't connected to the flood because no "respectable" scientist wants to risk his career by claiming it is flood related. (scientific elitism is real also). What about the details - how did the animals get to the ark, was the ark big enough, blah, blah? I don't know. Somehow God pulled it off. Cheap answer isn't it? Doesn't satisfy your inquiring, scientific mind, does it? Mine either. But I accept it.

For me, I simply can't accept the global flood based on the grounds that there is no scientific proof of it... Also the other would be is that God does NOT require a global flood to meet his objective, nor do I believe that it twists scripture to promote it as I have been showing earlier..

Forum Monk wrote:Forgive me for writing a book. I have my position, you have yours, YEC has theirs but please don't misrepresent me in your discussions. Thanks.

No problem, again, I don't believe that anyone has all the answers, except God of course..

Cheers..

Gman wrote:FM, I don't think that OEC is cherry picking scripture as you seem to be implying.. We need to interpret scripture in light of the authors frame of reference, not our modern worldwide understanding of it... Here is another example of "earth" from Genesis..

Quote RTB: "Another Bible story offers a helpful example: Genesis 41:56 tells of the famine that struck while Joseph served as prime minister over Egypt. The KJV reads, "The famine was over all the face of the earth." We understand these words to signify that the famine devastated all the lands of the ancient Near East in and around Egypt. We do not interpret them globally, as implying that Australian Aborigines and American Indians came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph. Likewise, when 1 Kings 10:24 states that "the whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart" we do not conclude that the New Zealand Maoris or the Patagonian natives sent yearly delegations to Jerusalem."

Obviously, I also agree that Scripture is not twisted to support a Day-Age perspective, or even a local flood, as FM sees it. In fact, I am amazed that so many global flood proponents fail to consider the events of Genesis 8 where it says that the tops of mountains were seen by Noah while "there was water over all the surface of the earth"! Finding such strong terminology which clearly refers to the surrounding area local to Noah (since the tops of mountains were seen), is a clincher for me that a local flood interpretation is easily accommodated and supported in Scripture. To quote the particular passage of which I am speaking:

• Genesis 8:
  5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
  6 After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark.

Response to Gman's post -

Gman wrote:I will say this however if you don't mind, if you believe that God created the universe in six literal days this aligns more with YEC beliefs than OEC IMO.

My belief aligns with YEC only insofar as we both believe the earth was create din 6 literal days. When? "In the begining" we are told so 6000-10,000 years ago is a claim without scriptural merit.

I think Billy Graham said it best... In his own words he stated the following...

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures... The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God. - Billy Graham

In fact, Billy Graham was an evangelist and not an apologist nor christian scientist nor an acclaimed hebrew scholar (no doubt he was knowledgable in any of these fields). Dr. Graham was interested in souls, and so am I.

This may seem a little forward, but don't you think that your stance against YEC or OEC science promotes an intellectual elistism as well?... In other words, I don't even have a target..

Then I shall prayerfully consider whether I have fashioned an elite, non-committed, point of view. Everyone seems convinced that if science has any truth then it can not contradict the Bible, as the Word is inerrant and yet, as Dr. Graham has said, the Bible is not a science book, rather a book of redemption and revelation. Still, I caution against completely adopting such a view as it easily leads to allegorizing the content as many Theistic Evolutionists seem to do. I think Genesis is a historic narrative and so, must be interpreted more literally than say, the Psalms which is clearly poetic.

I don't think that OEC is cherry picking scripture as you seem to be implying.. We need to interpret scripture in light of the authors frame of reference, not our modern worldwide understanding of it...

What was Moses' frame of reference? No one knows when Moses received these words nor when he wrote them and no one knows the context in which God presented them. In fact, we are not absolutely certain Moses wrote any of the book or parts of it, although authorship is attributed to him. Clearly God was presenting some historical background for the benefit of the Hebrews, but he was also presenting background for the world at large, speaking of the future redemption of many nations and tongues. He was showing the entire world who he was by great signs and wonders and establishing Himself as the one true God by which the entire world could find salvation.

"Another Bible story offers a helpful example: Genesis 41:56 tells of the famine that struck while Joseph served as prime minister over Egypt. The KJV reads, "The famine was over all the face of the earth." We understand these words to signify that the famine devastated all the lands of the ancient Near East in and around Egypt. We do not interpret them globally, as implying that Australian Aborigines and American Indians came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph. Likewise, when 1 Kings 10:24 states that "the whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart" we do not conclude that the New Zealand Maoris or the Patagonian natives sent yearly delegations to Jerusalem."

These kinds of extreme examples are designed to make the opposing view seem absurd but in reality they are ridiculous exaggerations. It would be like me saying "when God said he was going to flood the entire "land" he didn't mean only Noah's neighborhood did he" or "when God said he made the earth he didn't mean just Palestine did he?"

I don't advocate literal translation. I advocate proper translation in light of the context, for example: in the context of universal judgment, references to a global flood make sense from a scriptural point of view, although the scientific evidence is open for interpretation.

Was the flood a complete miracle devoid of any physical implications?

No, as I said, there are probably many physical evidences remaining. The problem, is, they are never associated with the global flood, because science is very clearly biased against believing such a thing is even possible, because science cannot recognize a God of miracles.

We don't really know that yet.. Obviously it had a beginning somewhere, whether man clustered in place or not in the beginning may be subjective... We simply don't know...

The archaeological evidence states otherwise, unless you are willing to down-date the lithics, cave-paintings, and fossilized skeletal remains.

FM, I was going to answer this before but didn't have the time.. I don't think we can base this on population growth back then. I believe we are at around 6.6 billion now with all the science we have been developing to keep us live longer..

The population growth rate sources are based on the scriptural accounts of men living multiple hundreds of years in age prior to the flood. Certainly much longer than our measley 70-80 years and most were fathering children at later ages as well.

For me, I simply can't accept the global flood based on the grounds that there is no scientific proof of it...

It can also be argued there is no scientific proof that a local flood wiped out all of mankind. As I stated, some evidence probably has been found and the flood mythologies from around the world speak of a huge, traumatic event. There is no scientific proof, God created the universe from nothing or man as well. We accept it on faith because there are some lines even the most die-hard OEC advocate is reluctant to cross.

Response to Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:Obviously, I also agree that Scripture is not twisted to support a Day-Age perspective, or even a local flood, as FM sees it. In fact, I am amazed that so many global flood proponents fail to consider the events of Genesis 8 where it says that the tops of mountains were seen by Noah while "there was water over all the surface of the earth"! Finding such strong terminology which clearly refers to the surrounding area local to Noah (since the tops of mountains were seen), is a clincher for me that a local flood interpretation is easily accommodated and supported in Scripture.

Please allow me to quote the entire context without emphasis:

Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

6 After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.

At the time the mountain tops became visible, the water had already begun to recede as explained in verse 1 thru 3. One could imply, that the mountains were covered until the water began to recede. Obviously, no other land was visible as Noah waited for the water to continue receding for another 40 days before testing if it was OK to leave the ark and it wasn't until another 14 days after that, that he realised the surface of the land was dry enough to support life. By this time, he had been in the ark nearly a year. No local flood has ever lasted that long.

Forum Monk wrote:Response to Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:Obviously, I also agree that Scripture is not twisted to support a Day-Age perspective, or even a local flood, as FM sees it. In fact, I am amazed that so many global flood proponents fail to consider the events of Genesis 8 where it says that the tops of mountains were seen by Noah while "there was water over all the surface of the earth"! Finding such strong terminology which clearly refers to the surrounding area local to Noah (since the tops of mountains were seen), is a clincher for me that a local flood interpretation is easily accommodated and supported in Scripture.

Please allow me to quote the entire context without emphasis:

Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

6 After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.

At the time the mountain tops became visible, the water had already begun to recede as explained in verse 1 thru 3. One could imply, that the mountains were covered until the water began to recede. Obviously, no other land was visible as Noah waited for the water to continue receding for another 40 days before testing if it was OK to leave the ark and it wasn't until another 14 days after that, that he realised the surface of the land was dry enough to support life. By this time, he had been in the ark nearly a year.

This is my point. The water had receded (vv.1-3) to the point the ark had come to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v.4), and the tops of the mountain were visible (v.5). Yet, according to verse 9 still, "there was water over all the surface of the earth." Obviously, "all over the surface of the earth" was not intended by the author to mean all over the surface of our planet Earth.

FM wrote: No local flood has ever lasted that long.

I do not see that this matters since no other flood could be compared to this one.

Forum Monk wrote:In fact, Billy Graham was an evangelist and not an apologist nor christian scientist nor an acclaimed hebrew scholar (no doubt he was knowledgable in any of these fields). Dr. Graham was interested in souls, and so am I.

FM, Billy Graham is one of the most revered spokespersons for God among most religious sects whether they are OEC or YEC creationists.. Perhaps we should all take his theology of the Bible and his interests in souls, especially those who have no faith in God to begin with... Looks like he is doing it the right way to me, and others agree (including you)..

Forum Monk wrote:Then I shall prayerfully consider whether I have fashioned an elite, non-committed, point of view.

Well, don't feel too alone.. Let's face it, haven't we all fashioned an elite, non-committed point of view in our own way?

Forum Monk wrote:Everyone seems convinced that if science has any truth then it can not contradict the Bible, as the Word is inerrant and yet, as Dr. Graham has said, the Bible is not a science book, rather a book of redemption and revelation. Still, I caution against completely adopting such a view as it easily leads to allegorizing the content as many Theistic Evolutionists seem to do. I think Genesis is a historic narrative and so, must be interpreted more literally than say, the Psalms which is clearly poetic.

There are many unknowns that will probably never get answered between the Bible and conventional science. Yes, the Bible is not a science book which is why we shouldn't get too hung up on how God did things.. Only that he did create it all..

Forum Monk wrote:What was Moses' frame of reference? No one knows when Moses received these words nor when he wrote them and no one knows the context in which God presented them. In fact, we are not absolutely certain Moses wrote any of the book or parts of it, although authorship is attributed to him. Clearly God was presenting some historical background for the benefit of the Hebrews, but he was also presenting background for the world at large, speaking of the future redemption of many nations and tongues. He was showing the entire world who he was by great signs and wonders and establishing Himself as the one true God by which the entire world could find salvation.

But if the people were gathered in one location as they were in Genesis 11:6, then salvation would only apply to that one area because that is where the people were. Later on they spread themselves out over the world..

Forum Monk wrote:These kinds of extreme examples are designed to make the opposing view seem absurd but in reality they are ridiculous exaggerations. It would be like me saying "when God said he was going to flood the entire "land" he didn't mean only Noah's neighborhood did he" or "when God said he made the earth he didn't mean just Palestine did he?

Again we still have to interpret scripture and creation or the flood in light of the authors frame of reference. Obviously today we understand earth as being the whole world, but back then I doubt if people knew that God had created South America along with the garden of eden in the first years of creation.

But since you liked that one.. Here is another one for you. In Exodus 10:5-15 we read about a plague of locusts "5 And they shall cover the face of the earth (erets), that one cannot be able to see the earth (erets)." In other words, they covered the face of the whole earth.

Forum Monk wrote:I don't advocate literal translation. I advocate proper translation in light of the context, for example: in the context of universal judgment, references to a global flood make sense from a scriptural point of view, although the scientific evidence is open for interpretation.

When interpreting scripture there are many things to consider how the Bible interprets itself.. Among them are in it's verse, in its context, in its previous usage, to whom it was written for, and lastly from the authors frame of reference. As for the scientific evidence, there is still more scientific evidence to back up the local flood than the global flood.

Forum Monk wrote:No, as I said, there are probably many physical evidences remaining. The problem, is, they are never associated with the global flood, because science is very clearly biased against believing such a thing is even possible, because science cannot recognize a God of miracles.

FM, the evidence is there for all to see. There is no conspiracy against the Biblical creationists... Certain aspects of science are factual and are not open to one's own interpretation. In light of the scientific evidence, the global flood theory faces far more obstacles and problems than the local flood theory and actually impedes believers and non-believers from believing the Bible as a true historical event..

Please see the links below..

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

Source: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gflood.htm

Forum Monk wrote:The archaeological evidence states otherwise, unless you are willing to down-date the lithics, cave-paintings, and fossilized skeletal remains.

I wouldn't hang your hat on the supposed lacking archaeological evidence... There is still alot of research that needs to occur in the regions in the northern Mesopotamian areas.. In fact recently in Armenia (the landlocked country between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea) was found to be the place where wine was invented. "An earthenware pot discovered in the Miyandoab plain (where we place both Aratta and Eden) was found to contain a dark residue. Analysis of the remains determined that this was a primitive wine sediment. The context of the find and the pottery style places the manufacture of the container in the sixth millennium BC, which makes its contents the oldest vintage in the world - Chateau Aratta circa 5,500 BC. The passage mentioning Noah's invention of wine comes immediately after the departure from the ark following the recession of the floodwaters. The resting place of the ark, if we are to believe it exists cannot therefore be very far away from the place where wines was first manufactured."

Here are some other interesting quotes to support those claims as well...

"Historically, the ancient city states of Mesopotamia in the fertile crescent are most cited by Western and Middle Eastern scholars as the cradle of civilization. The convergence of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers produced rich fertile soil and a supply of water for irrigation. The civilizations that emerged around these rivers are among the earliest known attempts humanity made at establishing non-nomadic agrarian societies. But it is due to the fact that Ubaid, Sumer, Akad, Asyria and Babylon civilizations all emerged around the Tigris-Euphrates, the theory that Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilizatons might be the strongest. It's also due to the fact that Ubaid (5500 B.C.) the oldest civilization known to exist was in the same area."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Civilization

"Archaeological evidence shows that the earliest known farming settlements of the Fertile Crescent were in this core area. Also, the limited genetic variability of these crops implies that they were domesticated only once rather than by several different cultures at roughly the same time. Evidence of domesticated crops in the core area dates to about 10,000 years ago, while the earliest signs of farming elsewhere are about 9,300 years ago."

Source: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/ararat.html

Forum Monk wrote:The population growth rate sources are based on the scriptural accounts of men living multiple hundreds of years in age prior to the flood. Certainly much longer than our measley 70-80 years and most were fathering children at later ages as well.

Some might have lived longer, but we also need to take into account that there was alot of violence and bloodshed in the earth those days too that probably kept the populations down.. Genesis 6:13

Further backed up in the Book of Jubilees: Chapter 5, verse 2.

2. "all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began to devour each other."

And the Book of Enoch, Chapter 7, verse 4, 5.

4 The giants turned against them and devoured mankind.
5 And they began to sin against birds, and beast, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood.

Forum Monk wrote:It can also be argued there is no scientific proof that a local flood wiped out all of mankind. As I stated, some evidence probably has been found and the flood mythologies from around the world speak of a huge, traumatic event. There is no scientific proof, God created the universe from nothing or man as well. We accept it on faith because there are some lines even the most die-hard OEC advocate is reluctant to cross.

FM, if you still believe in the global flood then you are going to have to explain how all the civilizations would have been destroyed throughout the world before the global flood along with their inventions, language, art and whatever other advancement each unique civilization would have made and then were replaced by a newer or different civilization. History does not reveal gaps or a large void in any of these cultures which would be the natural result of a catastrophic event such as a global flood.

Gman wrote:There are many unknowns that will probably never get answered between the Bible and conventional science. Yes, the Bible is not a science book which is why we shouldn't get too hung up on how God did things.. Only that he did create it all..

If, by this response, you mean, there are unknowns which will never fully resolve the link between science and the Bible, I agree. I think this is because, our natural tendancy is to try to find a "rational" explanation within the scope of our knowledge for things which God does which defy explanation. Of course, I feel the global flood is one of those things. Truth is in the scripture, but how we view it is another thing all together. When one reads the Genesis accounts of the flood and then realizes the scientific difficulties of the narrative, there is a tendency to look between the words so to speak. In my estimation, this is how many errors are perpetrated.

Gman wrote:But if the people were gathered in one location as they were in Genesis 11:6, then salvation would only apply to that one area because that is where the people were. Later on they spread themselves out over the world..

After the flood, the people did tend to stay in one location. If I recall correctly, Josephus and Jasher gives us hints they were fearful of a similar flood and were reluctant to even leave the mountains. But I find problems in taking this same scripture and claiming it applies to preflood civilizations as well. As I will point out later in this post.

Gman wrote:Again we still have to interpret scripture and creation or the flood in light of the authors frame of reference. Obviously today we understand earth as being the whole world, but back then I doubt if people knew that God had created South America along with the garden of eden in the first years of creation.

God mandated the scriptures knowing full well who the audience would be throughout the world and for all the generations of men to the present. Therefore, he did not inspire scripture for the limited frame of reference of the writer, quite the contrary I would say.

Gman wrote:But since you liked that one.. Here is another one for you. In Exodus 10:5-15 we read about a plague of locusts "5 And they shall cover the face of the earth (erets), that one cannot be able to see the earth (erets)." In other words, they covered the face of the whole earth.

Yes. For every word that can have multiple translations, there are examples of each in the scripture. Erets and Yom being most pointed out on this forum. Because, by the context, it obviously means land or region in the cited passages, it does not negate the fact it is properly translated as earth or whole earth in other passages.

Gman wrote:When interpreting scripture there are many things to consider how the Bible interprets itself.. Among them are in it's verse, in its context, in its previous usage, to whom it was written for, and lastly from the authors frame of reference. As for the scientific evidence, there is still more scientific evidence to back up the local flood than the global flood.

Again, in my opinion, it is important to remember the Bible was written for all generations and the last 3000 years of intepretation has been solidly in agreement with a global flood (I am speaking of how people have interpreted and written in their commentaties, and discourses of the scriptures). The idea of a local flood is based on evidence of events of which occur with some regularity and different timeframes throughout the years. There is evidence of local floods all over the world and some were huge. But there is NO evidence of a flood which wiped out all humans in a local region either. Charles Hapgoods, "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings" is an interesting read and supports a globally active human population.

Gman wrote:FM, the evidence is there for all to see.

Such as?

Gman wrote:Certain aspects of science are factual and are not open to one's own interpretation.

But science does not trump scripture no matter how far apart the two seem to be.

Gman wrote:I wouldn't hang your hat on the supposed lacking archaeological evidence...

I have a hood, not a hat.
I am not claiming a lack of evidence, but rather a wealth of evidence to support the idea that men were scattered all over the earth according to conventional dating, for a minimum of 40,000 years. Human occupation in North and South AmericaI is at least 11,000 years old and new discoveries are pushing that back into 10's of thousands of years. It is local flood enthusiatists who claim they stayed in a localized region which the archaeological evidence challenges this idea.

Humans in Europe 700,000 years ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4526264.stm
Into Indai and Australia 45 - 60,000 years ago: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... india.html
A human unearthed in China from 39-42,000 years ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6518527.stm

In order to claim a local flood, killed all humans one must also ignore the scientific evidence that Homo Sapien apparently evolved in Africa approximately 200,000 years ago, and spread across southern Asia, into India, southeast Asia, China and Australia, and another wave spread northwards, through Palestine, the Caucasus region and eventually Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Africa_theory

These scientific claims are backed by genetic evidence as well.

Although plenty of research is still being conducted, it appears that he Out ofAfrica (OOA) theory has the most support from the genetic evidence. Aninternational study of Y chromosomal DNA shows that the modern day EastAsians' ancestors (Eurasians) migrated out of Africa. It also goes on to statethat little or no interbreeding of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, as suggestedby the multiregional theory, occurred. Researchers looked at DNA samples frommore than 12,000 male (the Y chromosome remains the same when passed fromfather to son) individuals from around Asia for specific mutations at threelocations on the Y chromosome and found that every one of the more than12,000 samples carried one of the three polymorphisms. Therefore it is verylikely that the early African man emigrated to North Africa and made the leap toEurasia and then spread to the different corners of the earth.

http://fp.bio.utk.edu/botany/Botany_cou ... Africa.pdf

I could link 100s of well researched and referenced links supporting the conventional scientific view which must be conveniently overlooked in order to claim that all humans lived in a local region when the flood of Genesis occurred. This theory has no more scientific validity than the global flood. So if neither local or global seems to withstand scientific evidence to the contrary, why not believe the bible as it has long been interpreted?

Gman wrote:FM, if you still believe in the global flood then you are going to have to explain how all the civilizations would have been destroyed throughout the world before the global flood along with their inventions, language, art and whatever other advancement each unique civilization would have made and then were replaced by a newer or different civilization. History does not reveal gaps or a large void in any of these cultures which would be the natural result of a catastrophic event such as a global flood.

Your own statement further supports the view that these civilzations were all over the earth. Certainly strong cases can be made for Egypt, Sumer, India, and perhaps China.
We don't know when the flood occurred. I personally don't agree with the 4004BC dating scheme of Bishop Ussher. The evidence you cite seems to suggest uninterrupted civilization for about 3000-4000 years in these places (although human habitation in these palces is much older and these traces of evidence may in fact, be evidence from the pre-flood world). Perhaps the flood was prior and we have no other evidence because it was mostly destroyed. Clearly God wanted to start over. We know the Sumerians were at least aware of the flood as they wrote it into their King's Lists showing a clear division in time. Such annals do not always been found in other civilizations.

The local flood theory as put forth on this site and as claimed by many has no merit unless either science is ignored, or scriptural evidence to the contrary is ignored. For this reason, I ignore the science altogether, accept the traditional view, and state, "I don't know how God did it, but He says He did".

Forum Monk wrote:The local flood theory as put forth on this site and as claimed by many has no merit unless either science is ignored, or scriptural evidence to the contrary is ignored. For this reason, I ignore the science altogether, accept the traditional view, and state, "I don't know how God did it, but He says He did".

I now better understand your line of argument for accepting a global flood which I see a being two-fold:

1. Science contradicts both global and local flood positions, and thus science is a mute point for either position.
2. As Science is made mute for both positions, the global flood position ought to be accepted because it is the traditional position.

I am left unsatisfied with this reasoning, and so in what follows I will tackle each point in an attempt to show why I am not satisfied.

(1) Firstly, the science is in no way as decisive on human origins as you may think, and if anything, the evidence for human orgins actually fits with Day-Age Creationist beliefs and specifically a local flood. For example, the Out of Africa (OOA) theory is evidence supportive that humans were located in one area as Day-Age Creationists believe. The quote you cite even says:

• An international study of Y chromosomal DNA shows that the modern day East Asians' ancestors (Eurasians) migrated out of Africa. It also goes on to state that little or no interbreeding of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, as suggested by the multiregional theory, occurred.

In other words, this is evidence against the multiregional theory. Rich (owner of this site) in fact looks at the scientific data for human origins in his slide show at http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld022.html. The results of studies examining human genetic diversity using mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosomal DNA, linkage disequilibrium, and microsatellites lend support to the theory that modern humans arose 40-100 thousand years ago (for more information on this I would recommend reading Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology). He also notes, like the article you cite, that "the most genetically diverse populations are from Africa, suggesting an origin at or near that locale."

Furthermore, the BBC article you cite which places "humans" in Europe about 700,000 years ago is not actually meaning us modern day humans. As Chris Stringer points out, "We don't know for sure what species it was, but my bet is it's an early form of Homo heidelbergensis or Homo antecessor." In the article A Scientific and Biblical Response to "Up from the Apes. Remarkable New Evidence Is Filling in the Story of How We Became Human" (which I note in the hope it will be read for although it is a long read, it is a good read!) it is noted: "It is the practice of some paleoanthropologists to refer to all Homo species including Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis / "Archaic" Homo sapiens, Homo neandertalensis as Homo sapiens." The Homo species being referred to as "homo sapiens" and even "human" likely represents a bias towards a naturalistic view of modern humanity's origin. The more technical term of modern humans is actually Homo sapiens sapiens.

Thus, the scientific evidence of human origins can currently be accommodated by Day Age beliefs including the local flood. However, for arguments sake, let us say the scientific evidence for human origins did not support a local flood. While YEC and Day-Age OEC both believe humanity arose from one area, it is a category error to assume because Science is to be disregarded in one area (e.g., human origins), that it ought to be discarded in all areas. To restate for clarity: arguing that Science is wrong or to be disregarded in one part, so therefore it is wrong or to be disregarded entirely, is a hastily generalisation and commits a converse accident fallacy.

Unlike Day-Age OEC, YEC much more heavily affronts accepted science including many dating techniques, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the fossil record, geologic strata, and many other aspects. Being more specific to a global flood belief, such a belief contradicts much of the same science. So even if local and global flood proponents who hold to a Biblical flood accounting are both wrong according to science on humanity's origin (as you have reasoned), global flood proponents are inundated a whole lot more with contradictions when placed against accepted science. Thus, it can still be the case that a person is more justified in accepting a local flood over a global flood if science were the only criteria for accepting one over the other.

(2) With this point, I wish to challenge your assertion that as the global flood belief is the traditional position, it ought to be the default position one accepts.

Firstly, there are many beliefs that can be found in tradition, yet this does not mean all traditional beliefs are to be accepted. In addition, if we are to accept Scripture as the ultimate point of reference, then Scripture supersedes tradition in authority. So if we accept all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16), then Scripture is the norm by which even traditional teachings ought to be measured.

Second, I question your very assumption that the global flood belief is the traditional position. I would be certain it would be a traditional position that the flood was accepted as world-wide in extent, but to say that the traditional position is that of a global flood is to say something much more. What evidence can you cite in support of this claim?

Third, you state: "the last 3000 years of inte[r]pretation has been solidly in agreement with a global flood." Was it even traditionally understood 3000 years ago that the Earth was a globe? And if so, is not 3000 years ago a bit of an exaggeration? If you were not simply exaggerating your claims, then what Jewish interpretations are you referring to?

To conclude, I find that your reasons for accepting a global flood scenario instead of a local flood scenario to be unconvincing. After scrutinizing crucial points in your reasoning, I believe such reasoning either breaks down, is unsupported, or irrelevant to one accepting a global flood over a local flood. Now if you wish to accept the global flood scenario by ignoring a large amount of scientific contradictions and despite there being a Scriptural fit for a local flood, then I really have no qualms and wish you well in your walk with God. Christ ought to be the real focal point of us both as Christians. And while it is certainly possible God could have created a global flood contrary to scientific observations which attempt to shed light on the past, I am unable to move in my belief for I see that a local flood best fits both Scripture and Science.

Kurieuo wrote:...In other words, this is evidence against the multiregional theory....it is a category error to assume because Science is to be disregarded in one area (e.g., human origins), that it ought to be discarded in all areas....

This thread is a rebuttal of the global flood and the hypothesis that mankind was all living in one place at the time of the flood. It really has nothing to do with the origin of the universe and many other unrelated fields of scientific study. Within the context of this thread I make no comments about the age of the universe or its size, evolution or ID, etc.

I further disagree with the multiregional theory as do you because the Bible tells us of several migrations, one before the flood, under Gods command to be fruitful, fill the earth and subdue it and the other after the flood following the attempted erection of the tower of Babel - this time a forced disaspora due to rebellion against God's command.

We don't know where Eden was as the rivers which defined its location are no longer in existence or their course may be radically differnet than they were in the preflood world. Therefore we do not know where man truly originated according to the Bible. The scientific evidence suggests Africa. Fine. Eden was in Africa. The scientific evidence also suggests a series of migrations from Africa around 50,000 BP. (roughly speaking) It is even suggested the migrations first followed an eastern path through India and south Asia and later northward through the middle east and Caucasus. So, if this evidence is to be accepted, then it must be claimed according to yours and Rich's reasoning that the Noah flood occured in Africa sometime prior to 50,000 BP, the population of Homo Sapien was reduced to 8 individuals and then flouished again in the mountains of Ararrat. Which of course means the local flood would have included what ever region homo sapiens lived in 50,000 years ago, plus the entire Nile Valley, plus the Middle east, Golan Heights, Syria and parts of Turkey.

To claim the homo sapiens originate in or near the head waters region of the Euphrates, Caspian Sea, Mesopotamia, or any other locale, requires discarding the present Out of Africa hypothesis.

Any way you look at it big problems exist with the local flood theory. Not because local floods were not possible (let's for now, ignore the rainbow covenant!) but because the theory requires that all but 8 human beings be destroyed in order to be compatible with current biblical interpretation. Herein lies the rub for progressive creationsists and local flood adherents. The science must show that all humans lived in region X, region X was flooded and all but a few died, and those few restarted in the area of the southern Caucasus mountains. Good luck proving it.

...I would be certain it would be a traditional position that the flood was accepted as world-wide in extent, but to say that the traditional position is that of a global flood is to say something much more. What evidence can you cite in support of this claim?

Many times it has been stated on this forum that Geneis was written to a particular group of people for a particular time in their emergence as a nation. Well, that group of people belived tha flood was global and all encompassing and the apostle Peter believed it too, comparing it to the judgment to come:

• 2 Peter 2:4-6 (New International Version)
  4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

So lets say as an early Christian father, I had the idea the world was no bigger than my backyard. It is not unreasonable for me to believe that God flooded the entire world and I would teach it. If I assumed the world was as big as Europe, I still would not think it beyond all possibility that God flooded the entire world. Afterall, there is no scientific evidence in my day as an early church leader, to contradict that belief.

Only recently (<200 years) has the church and judaisim been considering something less than global destruction under pressure from scientific circles. You know what I say is correct Kurieuo although there always exist a few who depart from traditions in their speculations.

To conclude, I find that your reasons for accepting a global flood scenario instead of a local flood scenario to be unconvincing. After scrutinizing crucial points in your reasoning, I believe such reasoning either breaks down, is unsupported, or irrelevant to one accepting a global flood over a local flood...

The local flood theorists have failed to make their case scientifically. forget about the science which proves this or that about the universe, forget the diversions and misdirection: the local flood theory is unproveable when the claim that all humans save 8 were destroyed is added to the mix.

ps. I will be taking a long break from the forum as work demands and other things are requiring my time. As important and refreshing as these discussions are, other priorities are taking precedence.

Best regards in particular to Gman and Kurieuo and the others as well. Look for me later.

Sorry to come in late:

Forum Monk wrote:I am not claiming a lack of evidence, but rather a wealth of evidence to support the idea that men were scattered all over the earth according to conventional dating, for a minimum of 40,000 years. Human occupation in North and South AmericaI is at least 11,000 years old and new discoveries are pushing that back into 10's of thousands of years.

Yep, all fine with me.

It is local flood enthusiatists who claim they stayed in a localized region...

Really? This one doesn't.

...which the archaeological evidence challenges this idea.

Agreed. So what's the evidence for a local flood again? So far all you have is the language, so let's deal with that.

The language used to describe the flood does appear to refer to a global event, but can apply locally, as these examples show:

• 'all flesh': Psalm 145:21, Isaiah 40:5; 66:23, Jeremiah 45:5, Ezekiel 20:48; 21:4, Joel 2:28
• 'under heaven': Mark 16:15, Colossians 1:23
• 'the face of the earth': Genesis 4:14; 41:56, Exodus 10:5, Numbers 11:31; 22:5, 11, Isaiah 23:17, Jeremiah 25:26, Ezekiel 34:5; 38:20
• 'The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground': Ezekiel 38:20

Equivalent phrases also used in a non-literal sense include:

• Deuteronomy 2:25, 'all people under heaven'
• 1 Kings 18:20, 'every nation and kingdom'
• Ezekiel 38:20, 'The fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the wild beasts, all the things that creep on the ground, and all people who live on the face of the earth'
• Daniel 4:1; 5:19; 6:24, 'all peoples, nations, and language groups'
• Mark 16:15, Colossians 1:23, 'all creation'

Next?

For this reason, I ignore the science altogether...

Mistake. Big mistake. God isn't about to do something like a global flood and then leave all the evidence for a local flood. He doesn't trick us like that. The book of words (the Bible), and the book of works (nature), do not contradict each other.