Jac wrote:Sure, and this is why I think the whole local flood theory knocks itself out (along with the whole OEC model). The local flood theory only works if you have it killing a few dozen people, a special people of God in the vast swaths of humanity already filling the whole world. Of course, that's hardly what the text seems to picture, but let that pass. Massive theological implications for THAT view . . .
Anyway, the supposed selling feature of the local flood is that scientifically acceptable, that we should accept it because it doesn't make us look stupid to skeptics. But it doesn't pass that test at all. And not only does it look stupid, it looks desperate. So now we're going to posit that 50,000 years ago there was a flood in some unspecified place that killed off all of modern homo sapien sapiens, well, all except eight, and that before the migrated to the whole world. I mean, really? That's supposed to make the flood story more palatable to atheists? That takes care of all the problems? Could a human 50,000 years ago have built an ark like the Bible describes? What about Noah living to 600 years old? And if you have 120 years to build it, and if the flood is only local, why not . . . I don't know . . . just walk the good folk away? The whole thing is just ridiculous. The whole point of the global flood is that the judgment was universal and inescapable--not just ignored, but inescapable--an idea totally undermined by this view we're talking about now.
Look, tons of people can point and laugh at the global flood model. And they'll say that it's even more at odds with the scientific evidence than the local flood model. But I hardly think they're going to be impressed with the latter, especially when it can't even sell its own main feature (given the distribution problem). Add to that the general look of desperation, and I think you are, ironically, giving non-believers cover for rejecting the Bible: "well, if they have to constantly look for new meanings for their special book, then why believe it at all? they obviously don't believe what it says, so why should I?"
It's all very sad, so says I.
The thing is Jac, many people look at the "global flood" and consider it as ridiculous as angels coming down and having sex with our women and producing offspring. If you're honest, I think you'd admit that the "angel" position of the Nephilim affronts your natural sensibilities too much, which is why you think it completely stupid and ridiculous. Well, then, so too does a global flood which is just naturally unsustainable, it is of the same calibre to those like Hugh, Audie and many local flood proponents.
As for timings, the thing is, the science is confusing itself as to human origins. So this isn't so much a foundational problem with a local flood theory as it is a problem with a scientific understanding of human origins and lay people like myself trying to make sense of it all. If the flood in based in real Earth history, then we must look to such history given Scripture doesn't give a year for when it all occurred.
Additionally, you always tend to make the mistake that the reason for wanting a Day-Age interpretation or local flood is to make modern science or Atheists happy, and that just isn't true. As you say, they'll never be happy! They're just a sad bunch of people!
Seriously, your revisionist ideas of re-interpretation to suit science is just an irrelevant accusation like perhaps the suggestion that the Sethite interpretation of the Nephilim is a revisionist interpretation. What we're after at the end of the day is truth, and the fact is the Bible often deals with truths of a real historical nature. Our knowledge of the real world is just always increasing and such can impact our understand from other sources of knowledge which may appear to claim something contradictory about real world.
Hugh for example (sorry to always talk of you in third person Hugh), is a perfect illustration of someone who'll never be happy unless perhaps the ark is uncovered, an exact time is given through scientific dating methods, and then much more physical scientific evidence is given. He doesn't care whether such a story is merely physically possible, what he wants is evidence, physical evidence. Merely having it as naturally possible doesn't cut it, so proving that it is a possibility isn't going to impress any scientist or physically-minded people who always demand to see physical evidence rather than merely have the mere possibility of something.
Now more on timings, which you Nicki also made mention of. They are complicated in a local flood theory, because the science of human origins is itself very confusing. The language used, requires understanding. For example, you might think
homo sapians are us, but no, we're classified as a sub-species of
homo sapiens sapiens. Earlier hominins like Australopithecines are also often referred to as human. So then, when Christians claim Adam was the first human to walk the face of the Earth, to what species a scientist might ask are we referring -- one that walked around 500k+ years ago?
Now, "anatomically modern humans" marks the dawn of
homo sapiens sapiens, considered to be us. They are said to arrive on the scene 200k years ago, though I think more reliable recent studies suggest around 125k give or take 10k. That's when "we", creatures biologically identical to us, apparently arrived on the scene. Oh, but hang on. There's an issue. Behaviour we associate with us human beings doesn't appear until much later. It comes in dribs and drabs, and then more fully at around 40,000-50,000 years ago.
So guess what? Science now makes a distinction between
anatomically modern humans AND
behaviourally modern humans. So now, as a compatibilist Christian trying to understand Scripture with real world data uncovered by scientific investigation, do I place "Adam" at the earlier anatomic modern human stage, or "Adam" at the later behavioural modern human stage? This is a fair question and one I don't have an answer for.
But wait, there's more! Because this is further complicated by the fact the FULL HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
isn't evidenced until about 17,000 years ago when "homo sapiens sapiens" developed all the major representational techniques including painting, drawing, engraving, sculpture, ceramics, and stenciling. Working on stone, ivory, antler, and occasionally clay, they created imaginative and highly complex works of art.
And then again, there is still more because agriculture and farming crops and animals isn't evidenced
until around 12,000 years ago.
So now, where should Adam and Eve be placed? If we place them at say 12k years ago, well then, there were anatomically modern humans also in the Americas 15,000 years ago -- are these really just a different behavioural species? When did the real behavioural modern humans arrive and the scene and where were they located? All relevant questions. Questions I haven't fully explored and don't really have strong beliefs on.
The difficulty with timing is because Scripture doesn't give the exact timing. Yes, some try to extrapolate this and that time, like
DBowling in the other thread, but we're not clearly given any particular year. So we must try and match up the real world, with the text, and come to a compatible understanding -- that is, if Scripture indeed touches upon historical truths in our actual world.
Finally, and I'm almost reaching the end here now...
IF timing is an issue, then
there is always the possibility that God could have caused many localised flooding events. I wonder if even you might have considered such in a global flood scenario Jac, given there just isn't enough water to cover all of the earth at one and the same time?
Perhaps like Audie often accuses us of, we're thinking too either/or dichotomy-like, and there is actually third way which is the flood was worldwide where humanity was located all over the world, the flood is global in extent but God caused many local natural disasters and flooding events all over the world.
This possibility came to me in my recent readings of some mythical flood stories which name real locations, for example, an Australian Aboriginal flood story which told of a major flood in their particular location with similar undertones of bad humans and some spirit god or the like being angry. Noah's story, just perhaps details what happened in Mesopotamia and hence it became the Jewish story. Here, I am just floating possibilities.
I just don't see it with the Seth/Cain explanation, it feels more like a convenient interpretation.
