Evidence for God from Science

Thanks, that is a great explanation. I wonder why I haven't seen that yet. I only have one question though, why would the fountains of the deep have to be opened if the flood was only of the Mesopotamian basin?

kmr wrote:Thanks, that is a great explanation. I wonder why I haven't seen that yet. I only have one question though, why would the fountains of the deep have to be opened if the flood was only of the Mesopotamian basin?

It's funny you should ask that.. I'm currently working on an animated gif that explains that. The extra water is needed to flood the Mesopotamian basin since the water from the clouds wouldn't be enough... What do we mean by the waters of the deep? Many believe it was a breach of water that broke at The Strait of Hormuz at the lower end of the Persian gulf. When the Bible says the deep Genesis 7:11, many think of the underground aquifers, but the deep can also simply mean the water from the oceans Genesis 1:2..

Hmm, that is possible. Do you know what the hebrew word for fountain can translate to as well? Perhaps it could mean something other than a literal fountain, like a breach...

kmr wrote:Hmm, that is possible. Do you know what the hebrew word for fountain can translate to as well? Perhaps it could mean something other than a literal fountain, like a breach...

In Hebrew it's ma`yan or english spring H4599

But yes... The water can also spring forth or breach forth as well...

Like this...

First let me point out that I do appreciate the literal sense in which OEC are defending a local flood.
I certainly don't have the time to go through every point of Rich's article where I take exception.

Here is one critique.

Another problem for the global flood interpretation is what happened to the "earth" after the flood. Read the following verses and see if you can see why the word "earth" does not refer to the entire planet:

Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NASB)

This is an instance where Rich is taking excessive liberty to try and defend his position. And basically falling into the same issues he is accusing the English translations of doing. The problem is that in this text, the controversial word, "all" is absent. Both with the word water, and the word land/earth. Something he has failed to point out. Exegesis and context tell us that the drying up of the earth was in regards to what was flooded. Not that every drop of water on the earth dissapeared.

God promised no more floods like the Genesis flood. What about the Genesis 9:11 and 9:15. If the flood was local, did God lie, since floods have destroyed local areas since the Genesis flood.

"And I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:11)
and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:15)

This also is inconsistent. As quite a case has already been built on what 'all' means. It is now convenient for his interpretation to take all as meaning all.

Lastly, his conclusion is filled with logical fallacy.

This paper has shown that the Bible declares the Genesis flood to be local in extent, though universal in its judgment of humans (with the exception of Noah and his family. (Actually the bible does not declare this. The bible doesn't make arbitrary statements. I could simply say, my paper has shown that the bible declares the Genesis flood to be a global event." A very dangerous wording, as it seems to present his paper as having authority over the bible. Even though I doubt that was his intent, it still is there.
The evidence presented here is purely biblical, (again, a fallacy. Yes, Rich has done a fine job of presenting the text, and explaining his interpretations of it. Having read the article, there was a lot of non-biblcal commentary. Now granted he does add this next sentance.) although a strong case could also be given for extra-biblical reasons. A global interpretation of the Genesis flood requires that certain non-flood-related verses of the Bible contradict each other. (This is another fallacy. Without going into length, it is simply arbitrary to claim that a global flood contradicts the bible. What he means is that a global flood contradicts his interpretations and use of land/earth/people.) In addition, a global interpretation of the Genesis flood would require the Genesis text to contradict itself. (Same as stated before.) The lack of global references in the book of Genesis through chapter 11 (with the exception of Genesis 1), reveals that all the early events of Genesis occurred in a small geographic area. In addition, an examination of the original Hebrew text of the Genesis flood passage demonstrates that the global wording of our English translations misrepresents the original intent of the account. (Certainly if you are a local flood proponent you would think so.) Your assignment at this point is to re-read the Genesis flood text with the words "land" or "people" (depending upon the context) substituted where for the word "earth." When you are finished, you will discover a remarkably different flood account than what you have read before.


Now, please understand, that I agree there are some very good points and issues raised in this article. In fact, I wouldn't just abrubtly rule out the case that is being made. One must be honest and consider the possiblity that the conclusion is correct. But as with anything making such claims, we should examine to see if the case is being made properly. As I have pointed out, there is some fallacy, unwarranted bias and error. I say unwarranted bias because not all bias is bad. Obviously we'd all agree that the bible is a reliable document provided from God. And that the flood account is a historical fact.

I've been watching the funds grow at http://arkencounter.com/. Today as of 12/30/10 it is at 685,017. Just a few days ago it was at 390,000. Dam... This thing really seems to be taking off..