Continuing the discussion from [The Problem with the Flood]

See that’s the problem with using categories which may not be applicable. Applying the nomenclature of “literal” to the difference between slavers and anti-slavers is in my view misplaced. After all, scripture literally says that if you can seek your freedom as a slave, you ought to do so. And it says that in Christ there is no slave nor freeman, which implies a certain type of equality in humanity… this part the so-called literal readers chose to ignore. Nor does scripture anywhere literally mention such a thing as a “negro”, nor does it equate “negro” with the curse of Ham or with slavery. So they have simply made the equation that Ham is black or african, but there is no literal proof of that. In fact, it is Canaan who is mentioned in connection with slavery, and it would be logical to suppose that Canaan inhabited or was connected with the land of Canaan, not with black africans. Interesting also that the King James uses “servant of servants” which is the translation most slavers had at the time. Interesting also how the Jacob talks about Issachar being a bland of slaves (KJV) or forced labor (NIV). But this must have escaped the attention of the slavers. Point is, favoring slavery had nothing to do with literalness, but rather with selective reading.

Other than that, you have raised some good points. However, YEC people maintain that in general there is lots of evidence for a global flood, in terms of the fact that almost all sediments were laid down by water, not by wind, that water dwelling organisms fossils are found all over the world including the highest peaks on earth, that fossils can only be created by rapid burial, not by slow sedimentation, that erosion of major canyons happened quickly, not slowly over eons of time, that for sedimentary layers to fold in mountains required them to be pliable and thus not yet hardened at the time of folding, that fossils are generally found in groups that make sense from a flood perspective, that there is a mixing of many types of organisms in many places, and yet that fossils are sorted to some extent as would be expected when impacted by a flood, and that organisms including dinosaurs and mammal fossils are found in groups which apparently experienced multiple disaster at time of death. Then there are the polystrate fossils which also indicates rapid burial and deposition of many layers in a relatively short period of time.

As you say, if we accept the fall of man into sin in the garden of Eden, but deny the global flood, a creation- fall -redemption structure could be maintained. However, the reliability of scripture would be in question. In addition the need for justice under God’s demands and expectations would be diminished, since the flood is the great teacher of the universal rebellion of man, and the normal justice that would be expected, for which God provided a substitute atonement. A local flood simply would not teach that truth.

I don’t think anyone is covering up evidence. They are not seeing what the evidence points to. And this is obvious from the many false starts and false conclusions that evolutionary theory has brought forward over the years, which have eventually been changed.

There is however indeed an explicable motive, which is a motive derived from a naturalistic and materialistic philosophy, that even if evidence for a flood were to be seen, the cause could not be explained in purely naturalistic terms. In addition, while you might argue that they could say a global flood happened but Noah, sin, and rainbows are pure mythology, it would be difficult to admit or even to confront the fact that scriptural records had concluded a global flood long before geologists felt compelled to admit it.

This by itself does not prove that a global flood happened, or that eyes have become so blind as to not see it. Nevertheless, it is as valid as arguing the creationist motive.

It’s been very interesting to read you and Eddie’s conversation. I think you are both deep thinkers.

In one regard, however, I would say the mainly-atheistic scientific community had no problem admitting to the concept of the universe having a beginning. Most scientists, and religions, for thousands of years believed the universe to be eternal (whether in principle or just their own thinking).

Except for the Bible.

Today’s modern cosmology has the “big bang” for the “beginning of the universe”. This is a huge shift from “eternal universe” to “a universe with a beginning”. I can’t remember the exact name of the newspaper… but I think in the big bang’s peak of popularity (when things really got going in the 60s), a newspaper came out with the headline: The Bible Got It Right After All.

If the mainly-atheistic scientific community is accepting an idea that the Bible had thousands of years prior to the scientist’s conclusion, would it not be true for the idea of a global flood? Currently right now, their are huge debates about what could have caused the big bang… at one point there is absolutely nothing: no space, matter or time (according to the theory) and then all of the sudden there is something.

The explanation pretty much falls into three general categories.

  1. Absolutely nothing caused it. It happened for no reason.

  2. The multiverse theory i.e., their are an infinite amount of universes out there, and this just happens to be one of them.

  3. Some supernatural cause.

-Tim

I haven’t got time to get into detail about what is literal and what is not, and whether a figurative metaphor when taken figuratively is still a literal interpretation… this gets rather convoluted. I think about the word “just”, which has two entirely unrelated meanings, as in “only” or “justice”. Or various connotations of some words which are closely related. If raquia is to be taken as figurative… if one word is figurative, does that mean the entire sentence, paragraph, chapter or novel is to be taken figuratively? Of course not. Yet this appears to be the common argument.

It is good to look at the forest as well as the trees.

God did not cover up all evidence for a flood, as I have pointed out already.

Tim: The big bang, while interesting, does not carry the significance of the creation of man, nor even of the flood, and in fact is often used, like much evolutionary theory, to discount the involvement of God. This is particularly true lately when the big bang is postulated as simply one big bang among many in a cycle of big bangs in the expansion and contraction of the universe.

@johnZ

The big bang doesn’t have to do with the creation of man or the flood, I agree. But it does correlate with a beginning to the universe, as opposed to the long-held opinion of an eternal one.

I have a hard time understanding how one can explain an entire universe (where before there was nothing at all), and it just “sprang into existence” for no reason… Of course many atheist scientists try to explain it this away, the more logical conclusion, IF the big bang did in fact TAKE PLACE, would be some metaphysical reality … either God or a multi-verse theory (and multi-verse theory is, I believe, a very poor substitute for God… it only “pushes” the origins farther back, not explaining anything.)

Their have been some scientists that try to argue that the big bang is really a “contraction”… but this view, to my understanding, is not popular, and very few scientists thing that explanation is credible.

My basic point is explaining a universe that had a beginning point (by whatever means) is much harder to explain for the atheist than a universe that simply always existed. Yet, despite that, big bang cosmology is the standard for today, despite it not being very “atheist-friendly”…

While I agree with you both (Eddie and you) that scientists are not objective. The aspect of science itself is more objective… but it’s carried out by subjective people. Not machines. People get influenced by things: scientists, artists, theologians, and carpenters alike.

But even so, it seems puzzling to me why only a very select group is arguing for a global flood. Their are some non-Christians that argue against Darwinian evolution … some of which belong to other religions, or just don’t buy into it (some ancient astronaut theorists, don’t like Darwin… and they are a class all their own). But yet we don’t see this with people that are outside the YEC movement.

@Eddie

I like what Dr. J. Vernon McGee says, "There are two ways to read Scripture. With a telescope or with a microscope. Might I suggest to you, that we first read Scripture with a telescope. Ask ourselves, “What is the big picture? What does the Bible itself put emphasis on?” — when reading Genesis the major focus is on Abraham and his progeny. This is not to discount Genesis 1-11 at all (much of the Bible would be incomprehensible without these chapters). But Genesis 1-11 is more of an introduction, than a focal point. Which makes organizations like Answers in Genesis seem a little bit strange… an organization that primarily talks about these chapters and little else.

Sometimes we are surprised by what the Bible puts emphasis on. For instance, in the story of Noah, we have three chapters talking about the depravity of mankind, Noah finding grace in God’s sight, him building an Ark to save his family and all the animals, the waters covering the mountains, the dove and the olive branch etc.

But we also have three chapters in Exodus, solely talking about the precise details of the holy tabernacle (to the height and width of each curtain and bracket, how many curtains, what color are the curtains? what about the furniture?). This all seems very strange to us why such information of something so catastrophic as a global flood that wipes out humanity, and an ark that saves one family and two members of each “animal kind”, gets the same amount of attention as the decorating a holy tent?

Sometimes we just have to take the Bible as it is.

-Tim

Tim,
You don’t need to disparage scientists this way. You could say, current models of the beginning of the observable universe show that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago in a very dense state and has been expanding ever since. Some people (who regard themselves as scientists also) are a bit touchy about being called atheist. “Nones” is the more PC term today.

Timothy, I agree with much most of what you have said. And while I relate that the big bang does not imply God to atheists, and explain how they work around it, yet I do agree that it correlates to a beginning out of nothing. It depends on how you interpret the big bang.

The global flood is argued because scripture describes it. And a local flood does not make sense. A local flood under the conditions described in Genesis is more convoluted than a global flood. Which means that if the flood was truly local, then all the theological implications of the flood for the world would be false, and the chapters on the flood would mean nothing at all. The story would have been better completely omitted in that case.

To scientifically grasp a global flood is likely beyond the comprehension, experience and knowledge of most scientists. We get a little finger of one hurricane off the eastern coast bringing water at 3 inches per hour to South Carolina… and its a small disaster. Mt. St. Helen’s predicted to impact 27 square miles, when instead it blasts 230 square miles, and just a small volcano. To imagine or calculate the forces, upheaval, and disturbances associated with 1000 volcanos blasting simultaneously, with associated hurricane winds, tectonic movement, tsunamis, etc., is beyond our scope, beyond our comprehension. We look for safety and security in our science, just as we do in our daily life, and it leads us to slow and gradual and predictable changes. Changes that do not and will not significantly affect our history or lifespan on this earth; this gives comfort.

@Eddie
@Patrick

Amen, Eddie! You speak the truth here. I really don’t like how PC language subtly controls your speech (I know it does mine). For instance I have this Indian friend (though I call him Native American)… But at one point in our conversation he literally called himself a redskin as if it was no big deal. This surprised me (isn’t there a huge battle going on about the sports team Redskins that has everyone worked up? Isn’t that just so offensive?)… And yet my Indian friend just doesn’t care (the person who should).

My nephews grew up thinking that the literal word “black” was offensive… No matter the context… Just the word itself. This is when PC language gets out of control.

Truthfully, Patrick, I’m sorry that you’re offended, but honestly you’re the only person I’ve ever met that has been offended by such an innocuous term. It literally just means “not a theist”. Go on YouTube and you’ll be bombarded by videos that say “Why atheists are smarter…” “Atheism is the road to sanity”… As well as account names that say “The Amazing Atheist” “The Thinking Atheist”… As far as I can tell the majority of people are proud of the term and don’t shy away from it.

-Tim

Tim,
I travel to countries where that term can get me killed.

@Patrick

Fair enough. You’ve said this before but again we are not out talking to each other in person. Yes, this is a public forum. But the term “none” still means the same thing, it’s just a “nicer?” sounding word.

I wasn’t calling you that, anyway. It’s simply the easiest and quickest way to arrive at my point in the conversation… Thus I use the term. I don’t think we should live in fear of using certain terms online … If you’re out in public where it’s been known to get you killed then sure… Refrain from using it. But the whole purpose of the internet is as universal gathering of people and a universal sharing of knowledge. If I start regulating my speech (going from non-offensive language to PC language) this would erode away the beauty of it. I’m not using these terms in an antagonistic way, so one should not take them as being antagonistic.

-Tim

Tim,
Maybe you can say “Others” say …

@Patrick

I’ll try my best to come up with a better term, but saying “others say” and “nones” is far too vague to be properly understood.

Would you be happier if I said “non-theist” or “non-religious”…?

-Tim

Actually no. These are labels that can be used to be discriminated against. All of these labels are used to say “they are not one of us”. And we know best. And they do not.

@Patrick

Every single label in the entire universe can be used as discrimination, Patrick. This is why PC language is silly. What if one day I couldn’t use the word “carpenter” because that’s discriminating against “plumbers”…? Putting “labels” on things should not be looked at as antagonistic phraseology. How else can I describe what I’m saying without using qualifying language??

We’re not living in George Orwell’s 1984 novel… Nor should we be encouraging that we should be living in it.

The mere fact that you’re participating on a site that’s called “Christian” is discriminatory.

-Tim

Eddie described it much more eloquently than I.

-Tim