Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:Ok, that makes sense, a person would write about the world as he knew it.

I have a friend from the Philippines, who was so surprised when she learned after
coming to the USA that the earth is actually round,like an orange.

Might those who wrote the Bible not have likewise been limited in their
knowledge of the world around them ?

Sure. I don't know of any cases where their limited knowledge lead them to make statements that turned out to be false, but I'm certainly not claiming that the biblical writers were omniscient. We do, though, need to take their limited knowledge as a caution against reading modern scientific discoveries back into the biblical text. For example, apologists like to argue that the Bible says that the heavens were "stretched out," and that somehow shows a knowledge that the universe is expanding (cf. Job 9:8; Ps 104:2; Isa 40:22; Jer 10:12; Zech 12:1, etc.). As you can guess, I don't think that works at all. In any case, from a hermenutical perspective, the implications for the Genesis 1 debate should be obvious. We shouldn't affirm any position that can't be justified by a reading of the text alone as written within its own cultural context. And that's one of the reasons I am a YEC advocate. I just don't think you can sustain OEC only on a textual basis.

Lots of outlandish interpretations, for sure.

My thought was that men decided which ancient writings
made the final cut to go in our modern Bible, so is it not posxible
that some apocrypha slipped thru?

We of course look at those writings with an entirely different
set of assumptions.

Audie wrote:My thought was that men decided which ancient writingsmade the final cut to go in our modern Bible, so is it not possible that some apocrypha slipped thru?

The apocrypha is still around if you want to consult it. With the exception of that contained in Roman Catholic Bibles, apocrypha is obviously garbage. It is little wonder that it wasn't included in the Bible.

Don't lose any sleep over this.

FL

It isn't quite as simple as "men decid[ing] which ancient writings made the final cut." But even if it were, it wouldn't matter (unless you are Catholic, and that for reasons I won't bother getting into here). We have thousands upon thousands of manuscripts of the biblical texts, which means we are extremely confident that we have them as they were originally penned. There are a few parts here and there where scholars disagree on what the original text said, but even in those cases, the disagreement is between one or two alternatives and not a question of what an entire section meant (which is important, because that is decidedly not the case with other early Christian and Jewish writings). As far as which books "made" the cut, we have, again, the vast majority of the "rejected" books, and even concerning those we don't, we know what they said thanks to extensive discussion about their contents. So not only do we have the vast majority of the books that people were thinking about accepting into the canon of Scripture, we have them pretty much as they were originally written, and we have the discussions as to what books were to be included and which ones were not and why some were accepted and others were not. In short, the process isn't as arbitrary as your comments might suggest. The end result of all that is that anyone is capable of looking at the books of the canon as well as the "rejected" books and deciding for themselves if those men you spoke of were right or not.

As for me, I have looked at every single book of the New and Old Testaments and have concluded that they are to be regarded as Scripture. I have also looked at a great many of the other books that have been rejected and have also concluded, with the rest of Christian tradition, that they ought to be rejected. Some ought to be highly esteemed, but none of those ought to be regarded as Scripture. There are even some I think ought not be regarded as Scripture that portions of the church have held to be Scripture (i.e., the Shepherd of Hermas).

Anyway, all of that is rather beside the point we were discussing. Whether or not a book is to be regarded as Scripture (and therefore inspired) is different from the question as to what the author of those books believed to be true and what his intended meaning was. The only place that question might be important is in the case of later additions to an accepted book, and, as I said, we can be highly confident we have them as they were originally penned--and even in the cases in which later additions are accepted as Scripture, too, we have good reason for thinking that is the case. So the fact that a group of human beings finally came to a consensus (for the most part) on what was to be regarded as Scripture and what was not to be regarded as Scripture--and the fact that we can reproduce and accept or reject their reasoning--has nothing to do with whether or not we can know what the authors of those books they accepted or rejected meant when they wrote those texts. And it is the job of every interpreter, whether you are a Christian or not, to read those texts with the goal of discovering those authors' intended meaning. And that means looking at what they actually said in light of the world as they knew it and not bringing in outside sources to which they had no access and of which they had no knowledge in developing one's interpretation.

There were some books of the apocrypha that were "good enough" to be cited by some NT authors ( Like Jude and Peter citing 1Enoch) and some that was even included in the oldest of codexes, the Sinaiticus ( Epistle of Barnabas, Sheppard of Hermas).
The thing is that there really isn't anything in those books (mentioned above) that would effect any doctrine we had today.
Why weren't they included?
Typically it was concerns about authenticity of authorship ( although some argue that it was also about the volatile nature of some like 1Enoch).
Lets not forget that some had issues with Revelation being in the bible:

Revelation was the last of book to be accepted into the Christian biblical canon, and even at the present day some Nestorian churches reject it.[19] It was tainted because the heretical sect of the Montanists relied on it[20] and doubts were raised over its Jewishness and authorship,[21] and it was not until 419 that it was included in the canon.[22] Doubts resurfaced during the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther calling "neither apostolic nor prophetic," while it was the only New Testament book on which John Calvin did not write a commentary.[23] Even today it is the only New Testament work not read in the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, though it is included in Catholic and Protestant liturgies.

The canonical process was very interspersing and suggest this book:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Audie wrote:My thought was that men decided which ancient writingsmade the final cut to go in our modern Bible, so is it not possible that some apocrypha slipped thru?

The apocrypha is still around if you want to consult it. With the exception of that contained in Roman Catholic Bibles, apocrypha is obviously garbage. It is little wonder that it wasn't included in the Bible.

Don't lose any sleep over this.

FL

Obvious to who, and why?

As for losing sleep... Not me, not for that!

PaulSacramento wrote:There were some books of the apocrypha that were "good enough" to be cited by some NT authors ( Like Jude and Peter citing 1Enoch) and some that was even included in the oldest of codexes, the Sinaiticus ( Epistle of Barnabas, Sheppard of Hermas).
The thing is that there really isn't anything in those books (mentioned above) that would effect any doctrine we had today.
Why weren't they included?
Typically it was concerns about authenticity of authorship ( although some argue that it was also about the volatile nature of some like 1Enoch).
Lets not forget that some had issues with Revelation being in the bible:

Revelation was the last of book to be accepted into the Christian biblical canon, and even at the present day some Nestorian churches reject it.[19] It was tainted because the heretical sect of the Montanists relied on it[20] and doubts were raised over its Jewishness and authorship,[21] and it was not until 419 that it was included in the canon.[22] Doubts resurfaced during the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther calling "neither apostolic nor prophetic," while it was the only New Testament book on which John Calvin did not write a commentary.[23] Even today it is the only New Testament work not read in the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, though it is included in Catholic and Protestant liturgies.

The canonical process was very interspersing and suggest this book:

I ahve way too much reading to do for that, anytime remotely soon, sorry.
It probably is interesting though. And thanks.

Did anyone ever consider leaving out the Noahs Ark story?

No, they did not. The story of Noah's Ark cannot be separated from the rest of the text of Genesis. There has been an attempt for about a century to divide up the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) into about four traditions (and then subdivide those). It is called the documentary hypothesis, and the idea was that Genesis-Deuteronomy are really the result of those four distinct traditions "woven together" by some redactor about the sixth century BC. On that view, the flood story could be theoretically taken to be a part of two particular sources (on this hypothesis, it was taken from two sources, J and P - for a breakdown, see this handount). You could then try to exclude it by excluding those two sources--J and P respectively. But there are several insurmountable problems with that approach, which is why, by the way, no one has attempted to do so.

1. Most generally, the entire documentary hypothesis has been debunked repeatedly. It is completely subjective--that is, it offers absolutely no objective approaches by which scholars may come to anything like a warranted consensus. The general approach has been tried, found wanting, and abandoned in every other field of literary studies. As such, any conclusions based on it are highly suspect at best.
2. If we insist on using it anyway, you would have to exclude J and P wholesale, and of all the sources to exclude, J is arguably the most important. Get rid of P, and you lose pretty much the entire book of Leviticus as well as any kind of connection to the so-called Temple Cult Judaism, which is one of the main motivators for the very existence of the documentary hypothesis (since, supposedly, it was the Temple Cult that warranted the kings of Israel, Josiah in particular originally, their political power). So to get rid of the Flood account via the documentary hypothesis is to undermine the documentary hypothesis!
3. Even if you were to succeed in getting rid of it, the flood narrative is deeply tied into Jewish theology and therefore the rest of the OT, and particularly the rest of Genesis. That is why B. Childs, who was no conservative scholar, developed what is called Canon Criticism. He recognized that what is important is the fact that the Jewish people came to accept the Jewish canon, and nowhere is that truer or more important than with the Books of Moses. As such, you have to take them as the Jews did, and they took them complete with the Flood narrative. As such, to dismiss that particular account is actually to dismiss the entire canon (that is, to accept it only piecemeal), and to do that is to make it literally impossible to come to any kind of understanding about what the Jews believed, why they did so, and how that impacted their culture, historical outlook, and eschatological hopes, and therefore political machinations.

There are more reasons than those, but that's just a quick taste of things. As Paul has pointed out, canonization is a fascinating topic. It's much, much, much more nuanced (and far more important!) than a bunch of old guys getting together and deciding for and among themselves what books "made the cut" (and that for political reasons, as is usually suggested by people who don't understand the historical process and are looking to be dismissive of the biblical text). Such a hypothesis is an example of the cure being worse than the disease given all the new complications it creates.

So, again, bottom line, no one has considered leaving out the flood story. You can, of course, argue--as many do--that the Flood account is merely a legend, probably based on some impossible to recover kernel of historical truth (perhaps some local flood that decimated some local tribe), or more likely a collection of such accounts. You can argue that the details of Noah's Flood were actually borrowed from other cultures and weaved into the Jewish story over many centuries. But to try to leave it out of the canon entirely? To try to suggest that we shouldn't take it as it is written in attempt to understand early Judaism (and thus later Judaism when doing historical theology generally or what is called biblical theology--the tracing of special revelation--specifically)? No, that's simply not possible. Well, it's not rationally warranted, anyway . . . I can't tell irrational people what they can or can't do, but I can certainly tell you that such irrational people cannot do their work in anything like a scholarly manner. As such, we shouldn't (and don't) take them seriously. They are what they are . . . cooks, crackpots, and fringe conspiracy theorists, more fit for mockery and our amusement than for serious interaction.

Ok thanks, I didnt think it was something that could be left out.

I didnt get your take, tho, on whether it is a description of literal events or is more like the kernel of truth (such as would go into the flood legends of disparate cultures).

Audie wrote:Ok thanks, I didnt think it was something that could be left out.

Really? Then I'm not sure what you meant by

• Did anyone ever consider leaving out the Noahs Ark story?

Why would anyone "consider leaving out Noah's Ark story" if it's not something that could be left out?

I didnt get your take, tho, on whether it is a description of literal events or is more like the kernel of truth (such as would go into the flood legends of disparate cultures).

I think it happened as written, and that simply because the Bible says so. There are interesting arguments from geology that either seem to point in the same direction or else certainly could be interpreted in that way, too. But in the end, I'm fine saying that it is something I take on faith. The Bible says it, and that is sufficient for me, as I think the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I believe that because that is what Jesus believed, and I'm not about to to Him that He was wrong. And I believe that Jesus was right (that is, I wouldn't tell Him that He was wrong) because I am convinced by the historical record that He was risen from the dead. That, then, confirms His ministry, and since part of His ministry included the proclamation of His own divinity, then I have to affirm that He is God. So if God in Christ says that what the Bible says is true, and since the Bible says that the Flood happened, I believe that the Flood happened.

Needless to say, I don't expect someone who does not believe in Christ to accept that argument. What I do expect you to do is take the historical issues of canonicity seriously and thereby come up with a reasonable explanation as to how the flood narrative got into the text of Genesis and why it was accepted. Just saying that it was borrowed from Gilgamesh and is, in general, a legend, doesn't fly. I have an easy answer, of course. It got in the text and was accepted precisely because it happened. As that option isn't open to you (well, it is . . . you don't have to be a Christian to affirm Noah's Flood!), you would need to come up with your own explanation.

edit:

And by the way, I would like to thank you for the way in which you have conducted yourself in your time here. I have been here for over a decade, and from time to time we get a reasonable atheist such as yourself. We obviously disagree on a great many things, and you have your convictions. I respect that. More than that, I respect your overall respectfulness. There have been many, many atheists who have joined this board and have not been near the quality poster that you are. I'm sure you have been to atheist boards and have seen precisely the same thing out of some visiting Christian members. A great many are little more than preachers, not interested in dialogue, and they don't last long. And I'm sure you've seen the occasional Christian who knows how to be respectful and be open to meaningful dialogue. I think we all would do well to be more like that. So, again, thank you for your contribution so far.

Full disclosure -- I've not read everything you've posted on these boards, so I am only commenting on my limited interaction with you that I've had so far. But so far, I've been impressed with what I HAVE seen.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:Ok thanks, I didnt think it was something that could be left out.

Really? Then I'm not sure what you meant by

• Did anyone ever consider leaving out the Noahs Ark story?

Why would anyone "consider leaving out Noah's Ark story" if it's not something that could be left out?

I didnt get your take, tho, on whether it is a description of literal events or is more like the kernel of truth (such as would go into the flood legends of disparate cultures).

I think it happened as written, and that simply because the Bible says so. There are interesting arguments from geology that either seem to point in the same direction or else certainly could be interpreted in that way, too. But in the end, I'm fine saying that it is something I take on faith. The Bible says it, and that is sufficient for me, as I think the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I believe that because that is what Jesus believed, and I'm not about to to Him that He was wrong. And I believe that Jesus was right (that is, I wouldn't tell Him that He was wrong) because I am convinced by the historical record that He was risen from the dead. That, then, confirms His ministry, and since part of His ministry included the proclamation of His own divinity, then I have to affirm that He is God. So if God in Christ says that what the Bible says is true, and since the Bible says that the Flood happened, I believe that the Flood happened.

Needless to say, I don't expect someone who does not believe in Christ to accept that argument. What I do expect you to do is take the historical issues of canonicity seriously and thereby come up with a reasonable explanation as to how the flood narrative got into the text of Genesis and why it was accepted. Just saying that it was borrowed from Gilgamesh and is, in general, a legend, doesn't fly. I have an easy answer, of course. It got in the text and was accepted precisely because it happened. As that option isn't open to you (well, it is . . . you don't have to be a Christian to affirm Noah's Flood!), you would need to come up with your own explanation.

edit:

And by the way, I would like to thank you for the way in which you have conducted yourself in your time here. I have been here for over a decade, and from time to time we get a reasonable atheist such as yourself. We obviously disagree on a great many things, and you have your convictions. I respect that. More than that, I respect your overall respectfulness. There have been many, many atheists who have joined this board and have not been near the quality poster that you are. I'm sure you have been to atheist boards and have seen precisely the same thing out of some visiting Christian members. A great many are little more than preachers, not interested in dialogue, and they don't last long. And I'm sure you've seen the occasional Christian who knows how to be respectful and be open to meaningful dialogue. I think we all would do well to be more like that. So, again, thank you for your contribution so far.

Full disclosure -- I've not read everything you've posted on these boards, so I am only commenting on my limited interaction with you that I've had so far. But so far, I've been impressed with what I HAVE seen.

The account seems to me to be integral, but what do I know? That is why I asked.

There is some variety in opinions about whether its a literal account, metaphorical, or describes a local event, this from Christians who presumably are thoughtful.

My (alas, ex) father in law is Catholic, and takes his religion seriously. He is also a petroleum geologist, and as such his take is that one just cannot possibly say that a world wide flood such as is told in the Bible is something that really happened.

(sans the "God cleaned it all up" idea, which is just too silly)

He doesnt try to reconcile those seeming contradictions. His take is that there are many things we dont know, and more than we cannot know.

(oh, thanks for your kind words. I do not wish to offend anyone, and I hope that I will be successful. I was raised to be thoughtful of others, and tho I do have a mean streak and am very competitive, any lack of self control resulting to rudeness to others is very disgraceful.)

I'll be the first to admit that there are scientific difficulties with taking the text as it stands. With that said, I am not a scientist, and I am told by other scientists that those problems can either be solved or that there are potential solutions that are still being worked out. And even after all of that, I am content to say that even in the absence of any such reconciliations, that we are still not warranted to reinterpret the text in light of modern science, and that takes us back to the original point.

You are correct that there are other interpretations. You can take the account as entirely mythical. You can treat it allegorically. You can even argue that Moses was just plain wrong even as he thought he was right. All of those arguments would have major implications for our theology about what Scripture is, whether or not it is innerant, and other such things. Perhaps you can argue (as some here do--neo-x comes to mind) that the Bible can be wrong about scientific facts and somehow still be right about theological facts. Perhaps you can argue that some parts are not inspired but others are. I don't know how you could consistently make those distinctions, but, frankly, I don't think it's my job to try to do so, since I don't hold that position. I'll leave that work to those who do make those arguments. As for me, I think the Bible is accurate in all that it says, and so when I come to issues I am trained in, I give what I believe to be the most honest answer I can: I don't know. Again, I am told that there are others who do. And as such, I am left to quote Laurence Fishburne: "Then we have a difference of opinion, therefore I'm going to choose the opinion that best serves my agenda."

I hope my honesty isn't taken for anything other than what it is . . . my humblest attempt to understand the world within the framework of what I actually have studied and do know well, without presumption based on what I do not know. I am formally trained in languages and philosophy. I am not trained in science.

And as a final aside, just for the sake of completeness, you could just say the Bible is wrong and that there is no such thing as inspiration at all! That would obviously be your position. What I don't think we can do is, again, reinterpret the text through the lens of modern science in order to harmonize the two views. That's just disingenuous, at least on my view. If there was no global flood, then that has theological implications, and we need to be able to face them honestly. But since I'm not going to say that there was no global flood, and certainly not on the basis of science that I am neither trained in and when I speak to people who are trained in it who tell me that science confirms the biblical picture, then those are implications that aren't of concern for me.

All the best to you!

I recall on professors' statement that perhaps the only parts that should be taken as divine inspired are the ones that proclaim divine inspiration.
The prophetic writings of Daniel, Isaiah, Elijah, Jeremiah, etc, etc..

The parts that say " The Lords says..."
Paul's mention of "Not I but The Lord..." as opposed to "Not the Lord but I...."

We recall the warning from Jeremiah about the "lying pens of the scribes"...

But, of course, then we could not justify the inspiration of verses such as Deut. 8:3:

• Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land the Lord promised on oath to your ancestors. Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the wilderness these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years. Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you.

But, of course, Jesus regarded it as inspired. See Matt. 4:4.

The fact is, we cannot pick and choose which verses we want to believe and which ones we don't. To do that is to ignore the authority of Scripture. What we are saying in such cases is that we ourselves are the theological authority, and we are using Scripture to illustrate or describe but certainly not to prescribe our belief system. As such, I say that anyone who does not regard the totality of Scripture as inspired does not have a biblical faith. They have a faith of their own invention that happens to match what other sources, including the Bible, happens to say on various matters.

And if someone wants to use the word of Jeremiah to accuse Moses of having a "lying pen," then he or she can do so without my company!

Jac3510 wrote:

I'll be the first to admit that there are scientific difficulties with taking the text as it stands. With that said, I am not a scientist, and I am told by other scientists that those problems can either be solved or that there are potential solutions that are still being worked out. And even after all of that, I am content to say that even in the absence of any such reconciliations, that we are still not warranted to reinterpret the text in light of modern science, and that takes us back to the original point.

Much as Dr K Wise, paleontologist put it.
if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. (emphasis added)

I hope my honesty isn't taken for anything other than what it is . . . my humblest attempt to understand the world within the framework of what I actually have studied and do know well, without presumption based on what I do not know. I am formally trained in languages and philosophy. I am not trained in science.

I have felt what i take to be a tug toward Christianity. Im not here to parry and thrust, to argue or convert. Im trying to see how this works.

I dont have any theology in my background. I an, tho, trained as a scientist. I dont do certainties, I do probabilities. I do data and logic.

As my (ex) father in law, petroleum geologist and Catholic put it, saying there really was a flood is like saying a herd of buffalo went through your house, yet left not a hair, a footprint, left all in good order without so much as a lingering ldor. What are the police to think when they respond to the 911, and find nothing amiss, and aerial surveillance fails to discover the rampaging herd in its tens of thousands? The police nor I feel we are warranted against what we are allowed to think of this!

And as a final aside, just for the sake of completeness, you could just say the Bible is wrong and that there is no such thing as inspiration at all! That would obviously be your position

Not at all. The Bible cant just be "Wrong". Poetry cant be wrong; Egypt is real; the history may be incomplete and at times inaccurate but its history, its not "wrong". The list goes one.

As for inspiration, how do I know? I dont do certainties; what you took to be obvious is not so at all.

What I don't think we can do is, again, reinterpret the text through the lens of modern science in order to harmonize the two views. That's just disingenuous, at least on my view.

If one JUST went by the Bible, one could think Pi is 3, and that there actually are unicorns.
Its not unreasonable at all to cross reference with what one can observe. You need a different word than "disingenuous", which I take to mean "false innocence".

If there was no global flood, then that has theological implications, and we need to be able to face them honestly.

How would you go about doing that? I read you as saying that is unthinkable, out of the question to actually face this. I must have misunderstood.

But if not..

I hate to see this as a bright line over which one cannot step. IF i have to think the flood was real, it would require of me intellectual dishonesty of the most profound sort. I dont see that happening.

But since I'm not going to say that there was no global flood, and certainly not on the basis of science that I am neither trained in and when I speak to people who are trained in it who tell me that science confirms the biblical picture, then those are implications that aren't of concern for me.

It is a concern to me, though. Im not going into science after all, I was in that to please my father. My training now talks about things like "due diligence", and I have great concern for that.

The way a scientist works, a lot of it is just tedium, meticulous work, like an accountant going over the books, say, looking for where there might be error or fraud.

Then as they go along, they say, hmmmm, that looks isnteresting. Lets see where that takes us.

I cant leave things alone.

Im not writing this well, sorry. Too much else on my mind.

What if you, in your due diligence, were to find as the geologists etc have, that there just could not have been a world wide flood. What would you really do?

And what am I to do, if I must accept it, or reject the whole thing?

Audie wrote:Much as Dr K Wise, paleontologist put it.
if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. (emphasis added)

Either that or I would have to seriously consider how else to reconcile what I am persuaded is true about Jesus Christ with what it seems He believed and taught concerning the nature of Scriptures.

I have felt what i take to be a tug toward Christianity. Im not here to parry and thrust, to argue or convert. Im trying to see how this works.

I dont have any theology in my background. I an, tho, trained as a scientist. I dont do certainties, I do probabilities. I do data and logic.

As my (ex) father in law, petroleum geologist and Catholic put it, saying there really was a flood is like saying a herd of buffalo went through your house, yet left not a hair, a footprint, left all in good order without so much as a lingering ldor. What are the police to think when they respond to the 911, and find nothing amiss, and aerial surveillance fails to discover the rampaging herd in its tens of thousands? The police nor I feel we are warranted against what we are allowed to think of this!

As I said, I'm not a scientist, and I don't have your training. All I can say is that there are people who not only see evidence for a global flood, but they see it to be extremely compelling. For instance, there's this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0

Thta's part one of his presentation. If you get that interested, you can go on to part two. Regarding training, he received a BSc in Applied Geology at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, in 1975 (First Class Honors) and a PhD in Geology The University of Sydney, Australia in 1982. He's just one of many I could name. Now, I am highly skeptical of popular science, and what Snelling offers in his presentation is just that: popular science. I find it interesting. I can't argue for it. I can't argue against it. I certainly don't argue with it (in either of the two senses you can take that). Perhaps he is totally wrong. Perhaps he is a con-artist. My point is merely that there are men of his caliper who present evidence that there was, in fact, a global flood. And I have no doubt that there are men of equal credentials who challenge his scientific claims on scientific grounds. I'll leave that nuanced debate to them. Now, were Snelling and others like him to come out and declare that there is just no scientific evidence, then I would have to reconsider my position on the inerrancy of Scripture. But as it stands, I'm willing to trust him and those like him. Perhaps you can watch his presentation and read his technical/non-popular articles and perhaps you, with your training, can find out where you think he is wrong. But that's on you and your training. It's beyond me, and I'm okay admitting that.

Not at all. The Bible cant just be "Wrong". Poetry cant be wrong; Egypt is real; the history may be incomplete and at times inaccurate but its history, its not "wrong". The list goes one.

Of course poetry can be wrong. Poetry is nothing more than a style of writing. You can say anything incorrect in any style of writing. Observe,

• I wanted to let you know
  That oddly I have no toes
  So I can't count past ten
  With no help from my friends
  Unless I start counting the hairs in my nose

Cute? Yes! (Well, maybe no, but you get the idea!) True? Not the slightest. And if I wrote that trying to inform you of the "facts" in that poem, I would be very wrong. And it doesn't make it less "wrong" just because it uses the names of real places. I could write a "history" of the life of Abraham Lincoln. I could put the whole thing in verse, if I so chose. And I assure you, that life would be a wrong account, since I don't know much about his life! It wouldn't just be incomplete. And I know you agree, because I know that you wouldn't be too inclined to accept the idea that Lincoln was really a vampire hunter.

No, the fact remains that the Bible is either true or false as it is written. We don't get to play silly word games to get around that fact.

As for inspiration, how do I know? I dont do certainties; what you took to be obvious is not so at all.

But it is obvious. The Bible says things that you do not believe are true. Now, perhaps you aren't going to go out there and argue with conviction that its claims are false, but there are things it affirms as true that you do not affirm. That is, you think the Bible is wrong. You've done well enough so far that you should continue your trend and just admit that. I mean, consider some of its claims:

• The Bible claims that it is the inspired Word of God, that is, that its very words are the product of the breath of God (see 1 Tim. 3:16)
  The Bible claims that God created the universe (Gen 1:1)
  The Bible claims that Jesus rose from the dead (1 Cor 15:3ff)
  The Bible claims that Jesus was and is God--the same God who created the universe (John 1:1-3)
  The Bible claims that Moses parted the Red Sea and that the Israelites crossed over on dry land while Pharaoh's army chased them (Exo 14)

Do you think those claims are true? If not, then you must hold them to be in error. If I say "X is Y" and it turns out that X is NOT Y, then I cannot not be mistaken. An atheist, therefore, necessarily believes that the Bible is wrong in at least some of its claims.

If one JUST went by the Bible, one could think Pi is 3, and that there actually are unicorns.
Its not unreasonable at all to cross reference with what one can observe. You need a different word than "disingenuous", which I take to mean "false innocence".

The Bible does not say that pi is three, and it certainly says nothing about unicorns. And of course it is not unreasonable to cross reference with what one can observe. I gave you two ways in which we can and should do that in my first comments to you in this thread.

And I think "disingenuous" is absolutely the correct word. It does not mean "false innocence" but rather it means "lacking sincerity." It is completely insincere to take a text, claim that it was revelation to a particular person, and then deny that very revelatory status by saying it means something that the original recipient (not to mention the author) could not in principle be aware of. To use a silly example, suppose I said to you:

"I have decided that I am now an atheist."

And now suppose in ten years, I say to a friend, "Ten years ago, I used the phrase 'I have decided that I am now an atheist' while talking to an atheist. Now, I didn't tell her at the time, but I am going to tell you now, friend, that I was speaking in a special code. To properly understand my meaning, take the last word in every sentence and reverse its meaning. But only do that with sentences I stated ten years ago today!" I could, of course, do that. But then my original statement to you would be disingenuous, and it would be disingenuous for me or anyone else to claim that I was having an honest conversation with you now. And that is precisely what reinterpretations of Genesis 1 in light of modern science do. They take ideas that the original authors were completely unaware of and force them on the text. In our field, we call that eisogesis, and it is disingenuous. My fellow posters on this board, many of them OEC, would obviously disagree with my assesment. On that, they would say that I am wrong (remember what I said above -- you can't say something that turns out not to be true and not be wrong!). But that's a matter of disagreement between us. I don't doubt that they really believe OEC is true. But I do doubt that they get it from Scripture. I don't doubt their salvation or their Christianity. But I do doubt the veracity of their theology on this point.

How would you go about doing that? I read you as saying that is unthinkable, out of the question to actually face this. I must have misunderstood.

Of course it isn't unthinkable. I gave you some examples of what that might look like already. Perhaps we would just have to deny the inerrancy of Scripture. Perhaps we would have to read the books mythologically and rely on critical history studies to try to figure out what kernals are really true and what is just a nice idea. The really interesting discussion there would be on what that would mean for Jesus' own mind. If He was God, then how could He have been mistaken on the nature of Scripture? What might that look like?

Those are the sorts of questions we would need to ask. I'm just saying I have no reason to ask them right now because I think the Bible is true. You don't. And that's fine with me, because, for me, it's a matter of authority. I trust me that God told the truth, even when I don't understand it. You seem to trust your interpretation of observational evidence (or the interpretation of other human beings of observational evidence). I figure we'll find out who trusted the right source when history is over (or, if you are right, and there is no God, then we'll actually never figure it out, because to die is just . . . the end . . .).

But if not..

I hate to see this as a bright line over which one cannot step. IF i have to think the flood was real, it would require of me intellectual dishonesty of the most profound sort. I dont see that happening.

Plenty of Christians deny the inerrancy of Scripture. I don't think they can be logically consistent and do so, but they do. Talk to neo-x. He is a theistic evolutionist. He denies that Adam and Eve were the parents of all humans. He has declared plainly on these boards that he thinks the Bible is wrong as it is written on this count. But he's still a Christian, and he's a Christian because he believes the gospel of Jesus Christ. All these debates over creation and the flood are interesting, but frankly, they really ought only be interesting within a Christian context. I couldn't care any less than I do what the Koran says about the miracles Jesus did as a baby (and it speaks to that). I don't believe the Koran, so it just doesn't interest me. It isn't even a curiosity. But if I were Muslim, I would suddenly care a great deal. Now, I'm not telling you (on purpose, anyway) what to be interested in and not. But frankly, I don't know why it matters to you one way or the other what the Bible says or what Christians say about the Genesis Flood. Perhaps you could care about the politics of it, as in, perhaps you could care about public policy as it relates to the Flood (e.g., teaching creationism in public schools). But even that isn't an interest in whether or not Noah's Flood is canonical or inspired. That's a question about the relationship between Church and State.

But I digress. The point is, again, it's not a bright line you can't step over. You are free to question it all you want, and that as either a believer or an atheist. Not everyone is as convinced as I am about the nature of the Bible or how it ought to be read and understood.

It is a concern to me, though. Im not going into science after all, I was in that to please my father. My training now talks about things like "due diligence", and I have great concern for that.

The way a scientist works, a lot of it is just tedium, meticulous work, like an accountant going over the books, say, looking for where there might be error or fraud.

Then as they go along, they say, hmmmm, that looks isnteresting. Lets see where that takes us.

I cant leave things alone.

Im not writing this well, sorry. Too much else on my mind.

What if you, in your due diligence, were to find as the geologists etc have, that there just could not have been a world wide flood. What would you really do?

And what am I to do, if I must accept it, or reject the whole thing?

I get due dilligence, and I appreciate that. So let me put it this way. When it comes to considering Christianity, there are primary doctrines and there are secondary doctrines (and there are even tertiary doctrines!). If you go back to my reasoning for accepting the Genesis Flood as being true, you'll find I START with Jesus Christ. Were it not for Him, I probably wouldn't believe it to be true today. So the primary doctrine is the gospel of Jesus Christ. You need to decide whether or not you believe THAT. Once you come to a conclusion on that issue, then you can examine the theological and scientific questions relating to the Old Testament. There is an entire field of study on the relationship between the two testaments (the New and the Old). But before you get to it, you have to know whether or not Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing in Him you have life in His name (John 20:31). That is a matter of historical studies, believe it or not. If I were you, I would say that to do your due dilligence, the first thing you need to do is read about Jesus. Who do scholars say He was? What do we know about Him when we think about Him historically? If you want to do your due dilligence, read books like Jesus Under Fire by J. P. Moreland. That is what I did when I was doing my due dilligence about fifteen years ago. I wanted to make sure that I believed what I did because it was true and not because I was taught it. I decided to keep an open mind and go where the evidence lead. And the evidence, so far as I understood it and so as my subsequent training proved to me, lead me to the Cross.

Second, to do you due dilligence, you need to read philosophy. Science is important. It has taken an outsized role in our lives today, not because it is unimportant, but because science is not identical with logic, and because lots of illogical people have made illogical conclusions about the world based on the work of scientists. The very best book I can recommend to you is Edward Feser's The Last Superstition. Beyond that, go to the Philosophy Forums here and ask, "Can someone walk me through the philosophical proofs for God's existence?" You'll have a lot to learn, but if you want to do your due dilligence, you'll get far.

But if you continue to try to ask theological questions and try to use science as your tool in answering them, not only will you fail to get your answer, but you'll fail to see why your answers are both incorrect and unhelpful, precisely because the questions you are asking are not scientific but theological and philosophical. And being theological and philosophical, your own answers will be theological and philosophical answers. Yet your training is not in those areas, and so you will think you are giving a scientific answer when you are not. As the cliche says, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

Now, I've written far more than enough . . . too much, I'm sure. But I hope SOMETHING in this wall of text I've offered you is at least similar to helpful. And if it isn't, forgive me for wasting your time. And I mean that sincerely, because you only have one life to life, and I hate to waste a single second of it. I've only said all of this because I have far too high opinion of myself, and somehow, I'm under the impression that something here might actually be worth a bit of your attention!