that is a construct…faithfulness to God is taking his word at face value because it is His inspired word.
What you are actually suggesting there is that the Bible records error because it is written by men who did not accurately record what God “inspired” (told) them to write, or that it has been corrupted through the ages (a theory which world renowned Textual Expert Dr Dan Wallace completely demolishes).
Also, the idea that “language and genre tell us that the bible means differently to what it states” this claim is baseless because the flood is recorded thousands of years apart by writers from different regions and influences (ie Moses, Christ’s ministry, and Peter). We have evidences across multiple biblical internal references that align harmoniously with the Genesis account exactly as its written and lets not forget, Christ walked the earth and testified of our creator…He was supposedly God…if God doesnt know His own history, then your faithfulness argument is mute!.
The point is, if God is so powerful, how did both Old and New Testament writers, as well as Christ (Gods own son and one of 3 persons of the Trinity) cock up the narratives of the Flood and Sodom and Gomorah?
If Christ cant get it right, and his disciples also screwed it up (apparently their witness was Christs ministry, Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the writings of the Old Testament Prophets)…then we all have a big problem there…its a Santa Clause story full of childhood hope and adult fantasy.
IF there was any evidence for the biblical flood it could be tested by science today. It is the only miracle in the Bible that can be tested today. And it also requires many undocumented in the Bible miracles if it did happen. Miracles that serve NO PURPOSE except to save this human, fallible interpretation. Said miracles, if they did happen, could be argued to show God is a deceptive God.
Careful what you wish for. Archeology does support the later history recorded in the OT, but generally the dates don’t agree with the literal dating provided by the text. Archeology is also one of the reasons we know there was no global flood at the time specified by the literal dating.
Yes, it is the difference. Jesus’ resurrection would not leave scientific evidence that we could observe today. A recent global flood would. This means claims about a recent global flood can be investigated by science.
I did answer the dilemma.
None of those events would create empirical evidence that science could investigate today. Not so with the biological history of life or the geologic history of Earth.
You are making the assumption that God inspired them to write a literal history.
That’s exactly the scenario YEC leads us to, that the Bible is wrong. When the observable facts don’t line up with an interpretation of the Bible it is the interpretation of the Bible that is wrong. This is why you are a Heliocentrist instead of a Geocentrist.