Evidence for God from Science

Hello everyone, some recent objections that I saw recently from atheists regard some critiques of the old earth version of Noah's flood. First they claim that from a strightfoward reading of the Biblical text implies that the flood was global,thus they (the atheists) claim that all that old earth creationists are doing is destroying the story in order to save it. I was wondering what your response to this would be? Also, the atheists I was chatting with mentioned that the part of the story where the dove brings back a tree sprig indicating that the flood waters receded is unscientific because if all plants and trees were covered with water (whether it be all over the world or just locally) how would the trees survive when being covered in extremely salty water (which most likely would be the case during a flood in that part of the world). I was wondering how OECs can better respond to these claims raised by atheists. Thank you all for your time and God bless.

Derrick, If the flood was local, not global, that would explain the leaf. It would have come from a plant that wasn't covered by water. This may help http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... PH3Z4Rtz95

I know that's the view I hold to as well Rick. But going back to my first question, the atheists mentioned that from a plain strightfoward reading of the story, it mostly would imply to most people that the flood was global. What I'm personally needing to know is, how can we as OECs nail down from the biblical texts that the flood was indeed local? Thank you for your reply.

Derrick, in this article by Rich Deem "The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says it Must be local". lists a bunch of bible verses supporting the local flood theory. For some reason I posted the link incorrectly. To me, straightforward reading, without the context of all creation stories in the bible , will result in a 6 consecutive 24 hour day belief. People, especially non-bible believers like to quote certain passages to back up their point. I guess telling them they need to keep the context of the whole bible is what I would say. Those verses in Rich Deem's article may help.

Whenever atheists want to start asking these types of questions, ask them for their exegetical principles and hermeneutic. For them to say that it is a straightforward reading is to take a very simplistic approach to a historical document which would have been interpreted differently then than it is now. If they want to take that approach it is fine, but it simply does not reflect proper scholarship.

There are many examples of language in the Bible where universal terms like "all", "world" etc clearly do not have a universal application. That is why we actually bother with things like historical context, trying to understand how readers of the ancient near east would have understood what was written and doing comparative studies with other ANE texts.

August wrote:Whenever atheists want to start asking these types of questions, ask them for their exegetical principles and hermeneutic. For them to say that it is a straightforward reading is to take a very simplistic approach to a historical document which would have been interpreted differently then than it is now. If they want to take that approach it is fine, but it simply does not reflect proper scholarship.

There are many examples of language in the Bible where universal terms like "all", "world" etc clearly do not have a universal application. That is why we actually bother with things like historical context, trying to understand how readers of the ancient near east would have understood what was written and doing comparative studies with other ANE texts.

Exactly. That's how I started to study this issue. Someone told me that "day" doesn't necessarily have to be translated as 24 hour day. I'm a simple guy, so something as simple as that got me to start searching. If you keep your honesty,and humility when speaking to evolutionists, it seems to help them see you're not saying that you're better than they are. It may help them to be more open and receptive.

derrick09 wrote:I know that's the view I hold to as well Rick. But going back to my first question, the atheists mentioned that from a plain strightfoward reading of the story, it mostly would imply to most people that the flood was global. What I'm personally needing to know is, how can we as OECs nail down from the biblical texts that the flood was indeed local? Thank you for your reply.

It seems somewhat ironic that these atheists would be in agreement with YEC all of a sudden. but, that aside, here is all you need to know from an OEC perspective. All YEC points are countered here... Our own Rich Deem is also featured among the articles

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

Our own Rich Deem is also featured among the articles

RickD wrote: Exactly. That's how I started to study this issue. Someone told me that "day" doesn't necessarily have to be translated as 24 hour day. I'm a simple guy, so something as simple as that got me to start searching. If you keep your honesty,and humility when speaking to evolutionists, it seems to help them see you're not saying that you're better than they are. It may help them to be more open and receptive.

Rick, you might like this detailed word study of you...

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote: Exactly. That's how I started to study this issue. Someone told me that "day" doesn't necessarily have to be translated as 24 hour day. I'm a simple guy, so something as simple as that got me to start searching. If you keep your honesty,and humility when speaking to evolutionists, it seems to help them see you're not saying that you're better than they are. It may help them to be more open and receptive.

Rick, you might like this detailed word study of you...

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

Yom, that's "yom"...too quick on the buttons...

derrick09 wrote:Hello everyone, some recent objections that I saw recently from atheists regard some critiques of the old earth version of Noah's flood. First they claim that from a strightfoward reading of the Biblical text implies that the flood was global,thus they (the atheists) claim that all that old earth creationists are doing is destroying the story in order to save it. I was wondering what your response to this would be?

Well it's a cute accusation but under the Hebrew telescope it hold's no water...