Did these men agree the noah flood was local because of the text, or because they found a way to blend the text with their perceptions of geology? If the geology indicated a global flood, would they still maintain that the story was about a local flood, and that scripture must therefore be incorrect, or that it must be reinterpreted?
2 Likes
I am happy that you made such a study. Now my friend, give a complete definition of the Hebrew word we have been discussing that is translated earth. I am in the process of studying Dr. Ross along with Dr. Lamoureux. What you believe is up to you; however, I must disagree. What is the definition of the Hebrew word? Please enlighten us. But where we really disagree is the concept if the flood actually happened or not. I believe it did, not matter if it were local or universal. Good night, Eddie. I am getting tired. Also, you have a strong argument in relation to signs of a universal flood. I will have to consider both your view and John’s Denis Lamoureux, who has alphabet soup after his name, seems to hold more to your position. I will have to contemplate this.
Interesting and logical questions. My study of at least Dr. Ross is both biblical and geological. Dr. Custance is more from a linguistical view. I must admit that you do have a strong argument. I do not agree with Eddie because his is more a linguistical position; however, he admits that there is no evidence geological evidence. He just does not believe that Noah’s Deluge is actually history. Even though we disagree on the extent of the deluge, it seems we admit there was one. Correct me if I am misunderstanding you. If I had to take sides with anyone, it would be you. Rev. Billy Graham would agree with you and he is my wife’s distant cousin through her grandmother Grace Graham Webb. I do not believe as Eddie that Noah’s flood is myth. I also find nothing wrong with holding a high view of scripture. He should not attack your church. I hope we find at least some agreement. Your point is more logical than Eddie’s.
This is how I see things. I have no problem with the concept of a High View of Scripture. I read a geology book at the library of Old Dominion University put out by Reader’s Digest that showed archeologists digging near Babylon in Mesopotamia that seemed to support a local deluge of Noah; however, I can quote nothing more from the book since it was forty years ago. I will have to read more of Dr. Ross’s book before I can determine if his conclusions come from a linguistic perspective or is geology involved. I am sure that he covers this in his book. On page 54 of the book entitled "Who was Adam, Ross says the RTB model of creation says the flood is universal only in the sense that it affected all humanity and that it covered the land of Mesopotamia only where mankind according to his model lived. Dr. Ross also says that he will not cover more in this book since it is mostly about human development. Therefore, it is covered in Navigating Genesis. I do not see an exact date mentioned in the book; however, he believes that Noah’s flood is from 20,000 to 30,000 years ago. Remember that Ross is an Old Earth Theorist also; however, he does not believe in macro-evolution and neither do I actually. However, I still say God could have used any theistic method to create this universe except for Young Earth Creationism. I simply cannot believe that this world is only 6,000 years old. I also cannot believe that dinosaurs and human beings lived together and no one will convince me . Do not get so upset over a phrase referring to a particular belief. It is not important. Is there proof that the flood covered the whole world? No. I am speaking from my knowledge of geology here. Yes! Do I believe that this is a myth to explain that God punishes evil? It does teach that concept that God punishes evil; however, I believe the flood is history. Will believing in a literal flood, either universal or local, determine one’s salvation. No. Therefore, I must say that it is not important. Therefore, what do I say? Romans 10:12-13 gives the answer as follows:
For the scripture says, whosoever believes on Him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek, i.e., Gentile: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Do you gentlemen agree that that is all that is important? Let me know. I am going to give you both a piece of advice. Circular arguments lead nowhere. One day we shall know all there is to know when we reach heaven. Gentlemen, can we agree at least on that? Circular arguments lead no where and this is a circular argument; therefore, I will join some other discussion. Even though I have said this, I know there will be still disagreement among you.
God bless you both and have a nice day tomorrow. I am happy to see that you both take so much interest from the discussion. I am a Progressive Creationist, non common ancestry. Does that upset you? Remember that the US Constitution gives us Freedom of Speech and Religion. God bless America!
So, Eddie admits that it can mean land or country. Interesting; however, I will not open up a can of worms. Circular arguments lead nowhere. However, I was just stating what you admit to. Time to move on.
I see logic here. Good show, old man or perhaps young man!
@johnZ, Nice Analysis!
My version of your bullet points would be:
-
God would never be such a drama queen as to destroy the whole earth by flood. This theme was common to the Middle East because Mesopotamia regularly flooded dramatically … and the Sumerian and Akkadian priesthoods were compelled to tell a story about the Gods flooding the earth. But, in fact, we already have a better method described in Exodus with “the Destroyer” who was careful enough to ONLY kill the first born.
-
But if the Sumerians had a flood story, the Hebrew would have one too. So they co-opted the original flood story, and made it a story about Yahweh.
-
You seem to be fixed by the idea that the Bible writers could ever write a STORY and say it was about God.
I feel your pain.
George
1 Like
I think @Eddie has a good point here - we should take note not just of what the Bible says but also of how the Bible intends to communicate. I was intrigued by the statement that
and indeed it is also a good point. One resource I found useful in relation to this topic was this overview of CS Lewis’s views on Biblical literary styles, which is well aligned with @Eddie’s points and provides some additional references for those wishing to dig deeper.
1 Like
But it does indicate that it can be land or country and can determine the exegesis of the text.
No Eddie, not attacking, but testing. In other words, I agree that the story is a global flood, but you disagree that it portrays an actual event, so in essence, no matter what type of truth you think it portrays, you do not believe it actually happened. I think you have claimed without being certain about the geology or paleontology, you would expect that this story did not portray an actual event, but merely a made-up event (although not like Paul Bunyan, but perhaps more like… what? I’m thinking… perhaps like the reinterpretation of the Nanking massacre, or like the reinterpretation of the holocaust? or? like the Zeus pantheon, and the characterization of a hurricane as an anger of the gods of the sea? ). This would imply that if someone proposed that the geology actually supported a global flood, then you would be forced to claim it could not happen, because the Genesis story is clearly indicated as not portraying an actual event, based on hermeneutics alone? You see, that is the test. (the crude test).
Yes, I disagree that myth is the highest form of truth. It is sometimes a poetic form of truth, but not so much a form of truth, but rather a method to convey truth, and not a form of truth in itself.
As for whether there was a global flood in exactly 2340, that is not really the primary question. The primary question is was there a global flood within man’s recorded history, or within the perceived history of mankind. The detail of exactly when, is also interesting, and relevant, but not primary. If we have the dates wrong, this is not as important as whether it happened at all, in a context that makes it possible.
How would you deal with consequences #5 and 7? For point #7, I am thinking primarily about the destruction and renewal of earth. If there was no flood, yet scripture said there was, then are we to assume something similar for a new heavens and a new earth, that this is just symbolic balderdash?
Well, we know God will judge us on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice, but also on the basis of obedience. I am always reminded of the scripture passage where Jesus says that many will say did I not prophecy in your name and do miracles? And God will say, “get away from me, I never knew you.” So, even our obedience(and our acuity, intelligence, personality, kindness) will not earn a good judgement, but only Christ will. Yet, it is on the basis of loving others as Christ loved us, knowing that God loved us first, that we can trust and be assured in God.
You admit that eretz can mean land or country. As a theologian, historian, and linguist, I already knew that. Why did I keep bringing that up to you. I will now use a quote from an author and it will be up to you to tell me who it is. I am also educated, my dear friend. I quote as follows:
The ancient motifs in origins accounts are not whimsical flights of fantasy or merely literary devices in fictitious stories. Most are logical conceptualization of the past rooted in spiritual and physical phenomena. Some even have actual events and people behind them, such as local floods and community ancestors. Thus, creation accounts motifs were the historical paradigms of ancient peoples. And like all accounts of history, they were open to varying metaphysical interpretations. For the Hebrews, ancient Near Eastern motifs were shaped in the inspired revelatory light of the Creatorship and Lordship of a Holy God.
You mentioned your background and you should be proud to have it; however, do not put other people down. We have backgrounds also that make us experts in various fields, many in more than one. The Jewish Theological Seminary addresses me as Dr. Miller when they write to me. The Southern Baptists do the same; therefore, do not put me down. We all need to be humble at times, including you. I would like you to tell me who wrote the quote above. What is his name. You have a right to believe what you wish; however, never feel that you or any of us have the ultimate answer. We can only assume. Only the Great Designer God has that. You may read the deluge epic and see one thing; however, we may read it and see another. I believe there is a Divine purpose for that. May God bless you and all of us in seeking the ultimate truth. Also, John Z could be right.
The 2340 BC date is predicated on the false assumption that middle eastern ancient genealogy includes every person in the line, which they don’t. If you are unmemorable, then you get left out. So, there is no hard and fast date for the historical, local flood of Noah.
1 Like
A good resource for evidence for a local flood can be found here Exploring the Extent of the Flood: What the Bible Says: Part Two - Reasons to Believe from the Reasons To Believe website. The article is written by Hugh Ross. An excerpt:
Even within the Genesis Flood account itself (Genesis 6–9) we see indications that the deluge was somewhat less than global in extent. In Genesis 8 for example, as Noah observes the recession of the waters, verse 5 says he could see the distant hills and mountains from his perspective on top of the vessel. So he released a dove, “But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth” (Genesis 8: 9). Apparently the dove flew below the altitude of Noah’s vantage point. But the Hebrew words translated “all over the surface of the earth” in this verse are the same as those used in Genesis 7:19, the text most frequently cited as proof the Flood was global. Phrases such as “all the surface of the earth,” “under the entire heavens,” and “the whole world” may, thus, refer to an area smaller than the planet’s total surface, say, from horizon to horizon (more or less) or the area inhabited by people, on whom the text focuses.
1 Like