I still don’t understand how people living in China, describing a flood that affected China are Noah’s kids. Noah’s kids didn’t live in China. If they eventually settled there, they would not have been able to describe what happened there, during the flood, while they were hiding out on the ark.
2 Likes
Well, the YEC argument is that the Chinese are descended from Noah. That’s the reason there are worldwide flood stories that describe the same Flood.
But the Chinese stories we are discussing don’t just describe a generic flood somewhere, they describe a flood in a particular region with geographic details like how they dug canals through certain Chinese mountains to control the rising waters. How would Noah’s kids know what people in China did during the flood that killed them all off?
4 Likes
And I think that your point was well put. Please keep commenting. We all learn from each other. Thanks.
I’m not saying I agree with the YEC position and that you’re wrong. I’m saying that your point doesn’t address the YEC contention that all people in the world are descended from Noah. I’m sure they would say that the universal Flood stories became distorted and diluted over time, so that in a particular culture it was distorted to the point that it was “no longer universal.”
Arguing that the Chinese civilization predated the Flood is a non-issue in the YEC scheme because “it’s just wrong.”
1 Like
I see. I wasn’t really trying to make that point, I was just expressing my incredulity that the children of Noah could have been the original source of all of the world’s flood stories, given their limited perspective on the flood. I think it’s funny how flood supporters insist that every detail in the Bible is literal history, but then take amazing interpretive license to explain away all the details (sometimes ones that match corroborating geological evidence, as is the case with the China story) in other flood narratives as completely made up, so the only takeaway is “See! Global Flood!”
1 Like
Right. At a certain point the explanations become convoluted enough to cast doubt. In this particular case, I think it’s reasonable for such distortions to enter into a narrative (maybe to make the story for relevant and palatable for the immediate culture), but to suggest that this happened almost immediately after the Flood (meaning that Noah’s descendants would have had to migrate to the area and distort their myth narratives before the narratives were set down textually) begins to strain credulity.
Ussher has the Flood at 2348BCE; the Chinese Book of Documents is dated to some 1-2 thousand years before that. Hmmm…tricky.
1 Like
I think the choice is between viewing the appearance of age as God “writing a mythological account” into the fabric of the physical or the Genesis account is mythology.
The latter views the physical evidence as literal, and the other choice views God’s Word as literal.
Being created as part of the physical our bias is going to favor what the physical appearance offers, and there is no denying that. Nor as fallen humans, convincing ourselves that an honest and just God has a creative streak that defies our senses is an easy task. God does seem to go to great lengths in order for us to just outright reject who or what God is. We on the flip side make it really easy for God to fit into the physical, while the hard task is how the physical actually fits into God’s plan as creator.
Gee, how many times have we had this same discussion before? In short:
(1) the Black Sea flood was slow enough for people to have walked away and not been drowned as described in the Bible.
(2) There is no evidence of any civilizations having been suddenly destroyed or ended by a flood. Instead there is plenty of evidence of them being continuous across any flood time suggested.
(3) Geologists have no trouble detecting ancient floods. No evidence of such a worldwide event has been detected.
(4) Human genomics has traced back homo sapiens back to their emergence 200,000-300,000 years ago. There is no genetic evidence of a bottle neck in the early/mid-Bronze age which would suggest a population of only 8 people.
(4) The genetic variation among modern humans far exceeds what would be expected from a population of 8 people in the early/mid Bronze Age.
(5) The vast majority of Christian geologists subscribe to an ancient earth and the absence of a worldwide flood.
(6) Folklore analysis of the various flood stories show a great deal of variation in survivors, extent, time of occurrence, etc. - making the tracing of them to a single event very problematic.
(7) Melting at the end of the last Ice Age began about 10-15 millennia ago. Sea level rose at a rate of 50m over 5000 years - hardly the Noahic Flood described in the OT. This was near the beginning of the Neolithic and well before any early Bronze Age civilizations or cities with large boat building capabilities such as those attributed to Noah.
(8) The claim that the Grand Canyon is due to the Flood has been strongly refuted by expert Christian geologists (Carol Hill, etc.).
And I could continue - but don’t need to beat this subject to death.
6 Likes
Dear Don,
Thank you for this. I agree with everything you have pointed out and you find that my pervious post fits into #7 on your list. There were plenty of storms during the global warming that caused the ice to melt to cause the localized events needed to flood the delta regions with flash floods. As you know, flash flood kill many people each year and if you not prepared for them, they are deadly. What happened 10,500 years ago was a shift from hunter gather (and cannibalism) to farming. The hypothesis is that in the local region where Noah’s family settled, the flood freed them from the threat of nomad hunters for many generations so they could establish a new culture. This by no means killed off the dangerous nomad hunters/conquerers. And the enlightened, “civilized” culture that Noah found, did not stand longer than six generations.
Best Wishes, Shawn
Your incredulity, not withstanding, is not the point. The point is there are world wide historically documented stories about the flood. Are they all 100% saying the same, (as if rehearsed), no. There are similarities. (as if the story, had not been remembered due to the breakdown of communication and time).
And there are scientists who confirm that there is evidence of a catastrophic flood, or floods. And this also gives credence to the world wide flood story. Because it says that there is evidence of a flood, only not a world wide on, but of many little ones. But this does not rule out the world wide flood. It only calls into question the “science” of those who are claiming that there could have been many little ones but “never” a world wide one.
And the fact that these same scientists claim that there was a world wide flood, on mars, but never on earth. (I’m scratching my head on this “huh”).
He does not go to great lengths to “hide”. The Bible tells us in Romans 1, from verse 17 on down that there has been plenty of signs given by God to help us to recognize that He exists. He has even given us eye witness testimony of some of the people in the Old Testament, and then in the New Testament of those who walked and rubbed elbows with God Himself.
But what He can not do, is openly reveal Himself. For one, we would all die. For two, we would all accept Him because of His majesty and power.
Think of the way that Daniel and John feel at the feet of angels when they came face to face. And this was only an angel. They had to tell them that they were created beings as Daniel and John was.
This would be magnified much more if God made an appearance.
How many of us would stop; sinning and try to live right just because the knew for sure that God really existed.
But as I said, just as darkness can not be when light is present. Neither can sin be when God is present. Thus many would be automatically destroyed if and when God comes on the scene.
God does not do this though. I’m sure you remember the text that begins with, “God is not slack, concerning His promises”.
Well, there you have it. God does not reveal Himself, because He want’s us to have the time we need to make up our minds. Are we going to believe what He has told us in His Word about Him and what He has done for out salvation, or are we going to deny His Word, and instead accept the foolishness of this world over what God has said.
The choice, of course is up to us.
But I will believe that the science of those who say the Bible is right, over the science of those who refuse to accept God as the Lord.
No, they aren’t. The locations and characters and other details are different. And it is a fact that floods happen in lots of places people live, so the existence of multiple stories of devastating floods is not really that amazing.
No one argues with this. Many little floods do not equal a worldwide flood that killed off all life on earth except two of every “kind” and eight people and created all the fossils and rock formations we can find today. On the contrary there are piles of cross-verified evidence that show this absolutely did not happen. Here are two articles with an abundance of facts. You saying over and over again that some creationists have different explanations does not do anything to change these facts. Their imaginative “explanations” are not scientific and don’t hold water.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%201.pdf
No geologic evidence whatsoever exists for a universal flood, flood geology, or the canopy theory. Modern geologists, hydrologists, paleontologists, and geophysicists know exactly how the different types of sedimentary rock form, how fossils form and what they represent, and how fast the continents are moving apart (their rates can be measured by satellite). They also know how flood deposits form and the geomorphic consequences of flooding.
Now just how long have you studied geology? When were your credentials awarded to you?
Why is it that you do not agree with the creation scientists who say that there is plenty of evidence supporting a world wide flood?
The very fact that the flood is handed down through history from almost every known civilization means that it has every reason not to be doubted.
It was once thought of that there was not enough water to have covered the earth over the mountains. But recent findings shows that there was more water then previously thought. l
Plus there are some speculations that suggest that earth’s water could have been deposited by meteor’s.
Of course this is preposterous. We have yet to confirm any asteroids having enough water to seed out planet. It is obviously more likely that the water here was here from the begining.
And of course some of the mountains today started lower. But this only means that there didn’t have to be so much water as first thought to cover the mountains. They were lower before the flood, and grew as a result of the waters that cause the tectonic shifting.
I have two MAs in linguisitics. In the process I learned how research and academic publishing are done, and I know the difference between blog posts and peer reviewed academic literature. That is enough for me to judge between sources. You sources are not impressive.
3 Likes
I meant no disrespect. Nor did I seek any. But my point was to point out that you are not an authority on geology. On floods. On tectonic shifting. So all you have is what others have said. And if you are a Christian, why would you seek truth from those who reject God’s Word, and God, over those who do?
I have two Christian friends whom I trust who have PhDs in geology. Both of them say young earth creationism and a global flood are completely untenable.
3 Likes
You seem totally resistant to the idea that there are Christian geologists, with PhD’s no less, who honor God’s word and yet still say there is no evidence for a global flood. And some of the evidence is so simple that even without a degree in geology (I do have a degree in engineering though) I can understand and accept the findings. I have yet to see any YEC argument that can pass muster.
2 Likes
We don’t [all] have to be geologists ourselves to realize that it is good to pay attention to what 99% of geologists think on a topic they are qualified to know more about. Since God is all about truth, it behooves us to attend to things that are true. You don’t do that.
1 Like
Gerald, you do bring up a good subject when you question creditials and relate that to whether one’s judgement is valid.
What should we look for when deciding whether someone’s opinion is trustworthy?
Is the only valid measure of competence a degree?
Are all degrees equal?
Does competence in one area translate to competence in another?
Each of these questions can be discussed at length, but just to give my opinion, we are called to be wary and perhaps a little skeptical in dealing with spiritual teachers, and I think we can expand that to how we deal with science claims also. In fact, modern science is pretty much built around that principle, requiring supportive evidence and reproducibility before a finding is accepted.
Degrees are good to look at as a baseline, as they at least assure you of a minimal level of training and commitment to study, but as anyone with a degree knows, they generally poorly prepare you for life’s work unless perhaps life’s work is to remain in the academic setting. In science, it is good to look at published work, whether their work is respected by their peers, and whether they have any compromising factors (sources of funding etc.). All these thing have to be weighed in the balance
Even then, we have to look at our own personal motivations and biases. Are we just cherry picking what we want to believe (confirmation bias)? Are we just appealing to authority rather than considering the evidence independently?
A final comment and I will stop. As Christians, we are called to truth in all aspects of our lives. We are all fallible humans and there will be failings, but our conduct in secular matters reflects on the gospel and affects eternity.
5 Likes