How can the scientific individual believe God exists when Bible claims surrounding the notion of salvation are unscientific?

Quite the contrary there is abundant scientific evidence of many massive floods at many different times in the past. But to be sure, for the made up fantasy of some people of a global flood 4000-5000 years ago) there is no evidence in either the Bible (global having nothing to do with the meaning of the word used for earth in the text) or science, and in fact good evidence that such a thing could never have happened at any time and certainly evidence contradicting the absurd interpretation of the story in the Bible as talking about a global flood or a gathering of all the living species on a boat. Not only is it physically impossible, but there is no large (let alone global) genetic bottleneck for land animals in the genetic evidence. This abuse of the Bible is as silly as the one pushing a Flat earth.

On the other hand, I have serious objections to the idea that the story of Noah in the Bible has no basis in historical events. The theological implications in the story are profound which require that we take this story much more seriously than just some made up story. But whether the flood is a local event or a global event has little theological importance – that is just an unimportant detail.

I think this story tells of a flood which wiped out the earliest human civilization, and I do not believe that civilization or humanity is a product of evolution (thus quite different from the global presence of homo-sapiens species). It is only our body and biology which comes from evolution. We are a completely different physical living organism quite apart from biology (and the body), and it is not some non-physical soul but the human mind whose substance is language just as biology is founded on DNA. So to be clear, I am not talking about the evolution of intelligence or morality. But there are rather peculiar ideas in language which many can find little basis for in biological or material realities – ideas like love and justice, and it is in such as these which our humanity and the life of the human mind must be found.

1 Like

Which is not what Adam or I were talking about. And the “massive” floods of which you speak would all be local only floods.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. The vast differences in the details of a global vs local flood would certainly change the theological points carried by the story.

Why?

As long as the flood covers all the known or at least visible world it has meaning. Why should the people of the time know about things beyond their reach or identification? As long as there is water as far as the eye can see it will be considered to be the whole world.

Richard

2 Likes

We can only imagine what you THINK you were talking about. But the words present for everyone to read only speak of an ancient flood and the story of Noah. And there is no evidence that the flood of Noah was a global flood for not only did the idea of “global” have nothing to so with the word used for earth but nobody in that culture had the idea of the earth as a globe or planet. In fact, since the picture painted of the earth in the Bible was that of a flat table, that tells us that word was referring to something significantly smaller than the planet we now call “Earth.”

Indeed but you have shown no contradictions whatsoever in what I said.

Nor have you shown any significant (let alone vast) theological differences, while I explained why the points I considered important were covered. What is important is that the people affected by the flood had an inheritance from Adam and Eve in ideas communicated by God (and the actions of Adam and Eve). And thus the impact they (A&E) had on the development of human civilization in the few generations recorded by the text, could indeed have been wiped out by the sort of floods for which we do have evidence for. And theological points which I consider significant are what it says about God and His reactions to what happened.

I suppose you can consider it to have theological significance to imagine sin supernaturally being imparted to entire species from the action of two individuals and God deciding to murder homo-sapiens who couldn’t possibly have any connection to them. But I think that is a theology devoid of any merit with a “god” more like a devil. I am certainly not interested in such nonsense.

In many of the cultures in the region, the edge of the world was the great oceans (e.g. Atlantic, Indian). Even then, I don’t think it is important to know if Noah’s story was supposed to be a big local flood or a global flood. It’s a bit like arguing over the length of the race in the Aesop’s Fable of the Tortoise and the Hare, at least in my estimation.

2 Likes

Well said. The key word is “incarnate”.

You have a disagreement over the Greek grammar? or the conclusion that God is spirit but cannot be called “a spirit”? Or is you dispute with the statement that God is infinite? or maybe that He has no limits?

No, that’s scientific nonsense, and will remain such until someone develops a Spiritometer.
You have set up science as an idol, but science is not a religion.

It can’t even be a scientific question. Or can you state it as a hypothesis and provide several ways to test it?

Really? Point us to the papers in reputable journals where spirits were detected and measured and their properties analyzed!

WHy would anyone bother to state “solutions” to a non-existent problem?

Your insistence here shows that you have fallen for Richard Dawkins’ fallacy that science can make pronouncements on anything.

Which perfectly describes angels in the Old Testament.

1 Like

But YEC ignores the ordinary use of language and substitutes their own meaning and grammar.
Adam is good at inventing false problems; here’s a real one for him: ancient Egypt was aware if the existence of ancient China, yet China does not appear in the Table of Nations in Genesis.

Local" is misleading – “regional” would be more accurate.

Not if read in the context of the spiritual warfare between God and the lesser elohim who rebelled – given the intro in Genesis 6, the Flood only needed to cover whatever area that the Nephilim were to be found.

1 Like

Any local/regional flood would not destroy “all life” unless it was supernaturally sudden and complete and the point being made was all life was destroyed. The original audience would have had experience with flooding which they survived. On the other hand, a flood that covered all the ground, including the high hills, could not be survived. Even if you want to go with a regional flood, a flood that took 40 days of rain to complete wouldn’t be hard to out run. The lesser elohim would have to be pretty dense to allow such a slow flood to drown them.

Hyperbole didn’t exist in the Ancient Near East?

1 Like

Sure, hyperbole could exist in the ancient near east but that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. When read in context the flood story undoes creation. God’s ordered universe goes back to its primal chaos. God separates the waters above and below and then the waters burst forth. Its language harkens back to early Genesis. The flood account cannot be read as “localized” any more than Genesis 1 can. Arguing the Bible speaks of a localized flood is simply not tenable. The flood also alters and changes the entire order afterwards. Here is a snippet from a pdf on my website:

Red herrings about ANE people not having a conception of a globe are irrelevant. They had an idea of how people are made and could traced them back to a primal couple. They didn’t believe in evolution. They had an idea of how all things were created from earlier Genesis and could describe that process being undone. The account actually depicts the death of ALL humans and has God’s creative work being undone. Some may think that it is unimportant if the flood was local or global. The reality is whether or not the Genesis flood corresponds to an actual flood or is just rearranging ancient Mesopotamia furniture on the basis of some huge ancient flood in people’s collective memory that was conventional knowledge at the time, is probably the unimportant detail. What matter is what the account does with the furniture it is rearranging. The same with Genesis 1 (and 2 for that matter).

Vinnie

The real question is if the flood story can be read as a literal history to begin with.

Well, in my view there are actually two flood accounts intertwined into one. Both can’t be correct. Whether or not there was a local flood and God chose to spare a family in a specific region is beyond historical corroboration. We just can’t know. A lot of times myths are based on history and there is nothing wrong with thinking that to be the case.

My issue is when people try to salvage Biblical inerrancy or correctness with a localized flood interpretation because that is not at all what the details suggest nor what the author of Peter in the New Testament believed. The Bible is taking the ancient deluge it inherited from the ANE world and spinning it. We can know very little about the specific details either way. There is no way to falsify most of them (e,g. God warning a man to build a boat). As it stands in the text, the genre of the account is not history. Science has largely ruled out a global deluge that ended all life (the reason why Noah took 2 of every animal and built a boat instead of migrating). But that is largely what the account is describing.

I am very confused by your post. God can create and sustain an entire universe ex nihilo but you question His ability to make sound? Many of us see descriptions of God as anthropomorphic. God is spirit and beyond us but has revealed Himself to us in terms and metaphors we can understand.

You have things backwards my friend. The continued existence of all things, the consistency and order of nature and its comprehensibility all depend on God every instant. Science only sciences because of God.

Vinnie

1 Like

How does the story of Utnapishtim fit into your view of the Noah story?

I’m with you on the localized flood. To me, it looks like an attempt to save a flood story that doesn’t need saving. It works fine as a mythical and theological piece of literature. Again, in my opinion.

That’s my assessment as well. The parallels between the flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Biblical flood story are hard to ignore, at least for me. It reminds me a bit of the movie “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” which was heavily inspired by Homer’s “The Odyssey”.

Or Atrahasis or Ziusudra. The Sumerian version of the Gilgamesh Epic has a similar flood story but features Ziusudra as opposed to Noah (Genesis), Atrahasis (Atrahasis) or Utnapishtim (Gilgamesh). Will the real Noah please stand up?

I see these as different variations or stories of the same event. It seems the epic of Gilgamesh may predate the Genesis version by a very long time but ultimately there is no way to trace the lines of transmission for any of them. We can only look at when the extant versions we have show up in the record. That does not say anything conclusive about their ultimate origin.

The parallels are impossible to ignore but that sword can hypothetically cut both ways. One might say the story of the flood was so well known it was told in different versions for thousands of years. A person of faith might just surmise the Genesis version is closer to the truth because its in scripture. There is just no way to know historically. I wrote this when discussing the other flood accounts. I might tweak my conclusion some as the sovereignty of God weights more and more on me but this stands:

An account which appears to post-date several other similar mythological narratives and was written thousands of years after the events it purports to narrate with no known lines of transmission has no historical value. If a person does not grant the Bible special privileges, why would they accept the details Genesis narrates over, for example, the older Babylonian version that the biblical account shares many features with? A historian approaching all texts equally would not. To state the obvious, historians require historical evidence. There is no ancient corroboration for the flood story in close proximity to when it actually might have occurred. Though to be perfectly honest, even if it did occur as Genesis narrates, we should not expect any “contemporary-primary data” to actually survive (was writing even a thing then?). So in this case the absense of evidence is not evidence of absence. Historians do not blindly trust sources written shortly after the events they narrate, let alone thousands of years later by an unknown author.

There may have been a big singular floor or a series of floods that prompted these events. God may have intervened to spare a family or not. It’s a moot point. We really just can’t know. I’ll read scripture and try to understand it as literature in the sense of what’s on the page itself. Historical question are dead on arrival.

Genesis 6
5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. 6And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”

You.were.saying???

Are we talking theology or science?

Theologically the flood only has to be big enough to cover the known world.

Scientifically the idea of two, or even a family of eight producing all of humqnity would be a little more problematic

Richard

1 Like

The confusion comes as a result.of the insistance on these forums that our bible must align with scientific facts.

Read the O.P again more carefully.

A spirit cannot physically make air vibrate through vocal chords…that is scientific fact.

We also know that in space, it is dead quiet, there is no sound right

Google AI Overview

No, you cannot hear sound in the vacuum of space because sound requires a medium (like air or water) to travel through, and space is nearly devoid of matter.

Now read the following from Google AI about what God is according to the bible.

Instead of just coming up with stuff off the cuff about what you think God is, read the included bible verses (these are not my verses…google AI generated them based on a lobrary of religious denomination.beliefs)

AI Overview

In most religious traditions, God is considered a non-physical, spiritual being, not possessing a physical form. This is supported by biblical passages like John 4:24, which states, “God is spirit”.

Here’s a more detailed explanation:

  • Non-Physical Nature:

The concept of God as a spirit, rather than a physical entity, is a core belief in many religions, including Christianity and Islam.

  • Biblical Support:

The Bible, for instance, uses verses like John 4:24 to emphasize God’s spiritual nature, stating, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in the Spirit and in truth”.

  • Philosophical Considerations:

Philosophically, the idea of a physical God raises questions about the nature of reality and the limitations of the physical world in describing the divine.

  • Other verses:

Other passages, like Luke 24:39, Romans 1:20, Colossians 1:15, and 1 Timothy 1:17, also affirm the non-physical nature of God.

  • Focus on Attributes:

Instead of focusing on a physical form, religious traditions often emphasize God’s attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, which are not tied to a physical body.

Perhaps instead, it’s an insistence that our understandings of the Bible must align with reality. When there is a discrepancy … reality should be seen as having the deciding vote. And it’s our understandings that should give way.

1 Like

I like your post vinnie, although im not in aggreement with the furniture thing. I will read your website…thanks for that.

Id like to suggest that people here consider the following:

Methusela knew Adam…lived with him for hundreds of years

Methusela knew Noah…

According to the Book of Genesis, Methuselah was the son of Enoch, the father of Lamech, and the grandfather of Noah. Elsewhere in the Bible, Methuselah is mentioned in genealogies in 1 Chronicles and the Gospel of Luke.

Methuselah knew Noahs son Shem…for at least 200-250 years

Shem knew Abraham, isaac, Jacob and Esau.

Now my.question…

Who here believes that Jacob and Esau did not really.exist historically…that these two were not real men who walked this earth?

I believe Jacob and Easau really.existed because the bible 100% says they were real men. Therefore, given Noahs son Shem knew them, and Shem knew Methuselah, and Methusela knew Adam for at least 200 years…

the claim the flood isnt real amd wasnt global is simply untennable for bible believing Christians based on that family lineage.

Literary claims or otherwise, there is absolutely no way around it other than to claim, none of the bible family lineages up to and including Christs, are real and that is because the lineages given to us…the kings, patriarchs and prophits go back through Shem and Methuselah…and these two men who connect directly to Adam