Dr. Geisler Weighs in on the YEC Debate

_{Barry Arrington

February 11, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Excerpt:

After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy. (3) It is not a condition of salvation. (4) It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus (like the inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the death and resurrection of Christ, and His literal Second Coming. As Repertus Meldenius (d. 1651) put it: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity.” And by all counts, the age of the earth is not one of the essentials of the Christian Faith.

Comments

jlafan2001 wrote: "I did exactly what you said. I looked at the scientific evidence and saw that it didn’t line up with what the bible said so I jettisoned it. I got tired of the HUGE mental gymnastics that I had to go through to reconcile the two. Nihilism is the closest thing I found to reality." Translation, from fantasy into reality: Original: "I looked at the scientific evidence" Translation: "I don't actually know anything about science -- never studied college science, didn't take most of the available high school science, don't understand the math, can't read the chemical formulas, can't understand the diagrams of cells, etc.; so to find out what "science" says, I consulted Wikipedia and the various atheist web sites such as Panda's Thumb and Talk Origins, while studiously avoiding all the discussions of science published on other sites, and all the science that can be found in books (I don't read books, because they are too long and take too much time and effort). In this way, I can know that Behe and Dembski and Meyer are wrong without reading them, because atheists and materialists say they are wrong, and when has an atheist or materialist ever been prejudiced about anything?" Original: "I ... saw that it didn’t line up with what the bible said" Translation: I saw that an atheist and materialist interpretation of the results of science did not line up with a fundamentalist, literalist-inerrantist interpretation of what the Bible said, and quickly jettisoned my belief in the Bible without seriously investigating non-fundamentalist, non-literalist readings of the Bible, because gee, that would involve reading lots of long, hard books (and as I said, I don't like reading books)." Original: "I got tired of the HUGE mental gymnastics that I had to go through to reconcile the two." Translation: "I got tired of the mental gymnastics, and even when people explained to me that the mental gymnastics weren't necessary, because I was interpreting Christianity wrongly, I willfully refused to consider alternative understandings of Christianity." Original: "Nihilism is the closest thing I found to reality." Translation: "Since my understanding of "reality" was previously limited to a narrow form of fundamentalism, when that was shattered I was left with nothingness. It was much easier for me to accept that situation than to consider the alternative, i.e., that my previous understanding of reality was never adequate in the first place, and therefore its destruction was no great loss, and need not drive me to nihilism. So I took the lazy man's way out, opting for nihilism and despair, rather than the real man's way, which is to conduct a rigorous search for an alternate and better reality beyond fundamentalism, atheism, materialism, and nihilism. I always tend to prefer the intellectually and morally easy way to the intellectually and morally demanding way. If nihilism gives me a quick and simple answer, whereas developing an alternative understanding of Christian faith would take me a few years, during which I would have to endure a lot of mental and emotional sweat and spiritual growing pains, I'll go with nihilism. I like quick and simple answers, and dislike sweat and growing pains."Timaeus_{February 20, 2014
February
02
Feb
20
20
2014
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

BC, Well, you go happily along your way. See yaCentralScrutinizer_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer:
The command in Hebrew is: Light Be The command is grammatically the same as all the rest of the commands to “be” that follow. So God commanded himself to be there? That’s a stretch. No sale.
I am more than happy to concede that it was not. My more important point was that we will never have all the inputs and if the Bible chooses to be silent, we shouldn't get upset. A lack of information about an event in no way excludes the event.
What you’re really saying to me is that it doesn’t matter where the original light source went or why it isn’t mentioned again. However, that it is not mentioned again IS evidence.
This actually reminds me of the Isaac omission. Abraham told his servants to wait for both he and his son to return. Later on it only states explicitly that Abraham returned to the servants and they went their way. Do you believe that Isaac remained on the mountain and that the author contradicted himself when Isaac came from the well in Genesis 24? Because it does not mention Isaac in 22 we cannot rightfully assume that he left or stayed on, we only know for certain that he was there at one time and then he wasn't. There is no error in leaving out a detail.
Not that simple. Firstly, the attitude toward such fabrication of history was much different by people around 700 BCE (which is probably when Genesis was put in it’s final form.) Secondly, it is quite plausible that the author did exactly what I said: took well known stories and adapted them for social and political ends which he thought were in the best interests of the society. This is what happened with Josiah’s reforms and Ezra, “the scribe of Yahweh”, when he “brought out the book” that had been “discovered” and “read it to the people.”
You went from "quite plausible" to "this is what happened" a little too quickly. If you're not going to believe the text then why even believe Josiah ever existed? Adapting stories for political and social ends is dishonest in any time period. Similarities between stories of different cultures are in no way proof that one or both of the cultures is lying or copying. As Chesterton noted: "It is said there are only ten plots in the world; and there will certainly be common and recurrent elements."
Jesus was talking about being morally innocent, not unquestioning and gullible. I guess you missed the bit about being “wise as serpents” in Mat 10:16.
not quite but almost. Its in verse 4. Jesus was talking about humility, which would include being able to accept that one may never have all the answers. I think that applies here.B.C._{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

B.C. First up, you are assuming the Genesis teller of these “tales” is a dishonest plagiarist, rather than an oral history recorder.
Not that simple. Firstly, the attitude toward such fabrication of history was much different by people around 700 BCE (which is probably when Genesis was put in it's final form.) Secondly, it is quite plausible that the author did exactly what I said: took well known stories and adapted them for social and political ends which he thought were in the best interests of the society. This is what happened with Josiah's reforms and Ezra, "the scribe of Yahweh", when he "brought out the book" that had been "discovered" and "read it to the people."
The names of God are no different. What is YHWH to the Hebrews may very well be Shang Di to the Chinese. Abraham came from Chaldea, why shouldn’t the names of gods and the oral histories be similar?
The origin of "Yah", "Yahweh", "El", "El Elyon", "Elohim", have obvious origins given where the Hebrews came from.
As to your kindergarten comment… Mathew 18:3
Jesus was talking about being morally innocent, not unquestioning and gullible. I guess you missed the bit about being "wise as serpents" in Mat 10:16.CentralScrutinizer_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

B.C. I think you missed my post. God is light. God was there.
The command in Hebrew is: Light Be The command is grammatically the same as all the rest of the commands to "be" that follow. So God commanded himself to be there? That's a stretch. No sale.CentralScrutinizer_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Mapou, 52, re domestication date for camels: Please cf. remarks compiled here. KFkairosfocus_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer:
That there is no consensus is a good thing. It means people are thinking for themselves and not towing the line with whatever the groupthink tells them to think. It’s the unshackled minds that make most of the great discoveries.
Everyone thinks for themselves, even when they think its best to let others do the thinking. I hate the thought of freethought, its like celebrating the free lunch. All thought is slavery. It binds us to certain premises excluding all others. The real unshackled minds are out enjoying themselves while we're all typing away in here ;)B.C._{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer:
What you’re really saying to me is that it doesn’t matter where the original light source went or why it isn’t mentioned again. However, that it is not mentioned again IS evidence.
I think you missed my post. God is light. God was there. JLAfan2001:
Nihilism is the closest thing I found to reality. This is why christians are laughed at. You can’t see the hamster wheels you are running on in order to keep your faith. Christians claim to have the truth over atheism and they can’t even agree on what that is historically, theologically, philosophically and scientifically. Really pathetic.
If nihilism is your reality then why waste everyone's time with a post that has no value or meaning? You are contradicting your own reality. To deny the existence of value is to contradict the fact of man as well as God. To acknowledge value is to be religious. To the Christian, God is the source of value. To the atheist the self is god, and to the nihilist... I suppose its a slightly more depressed self. All of humanity is religious, some are just more honest about it.B.C._{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

Barb:
The Bible does contain scientific knowledge and in some cases figurative language is used (the four corners of the earth, for example), but there’s no hidden meaning.
OK. Can you explain to me what the following verses mean?
And round about the throne were four and twenty seats; and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment, and they had on their heads crowns of gold. 5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God; 6 and before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four living beings full of eyes in front and behind. 7 And the first being was like a lion, and the second being like a calf, and the third being had the face of a man, and the fourth being was like a flying eagle. 8 And each of the four living beings had six wings about him, and they were full of eyes within; and they rested not day and night, saying, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come!”
I'm all ears. And there is plenty more where those came from.Mapou_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Tragic Mishap: What it means is that you have no clear epistemology.
Depends on what you mean by "you." Some do. Some don't. Another effect of freedom of thought unchained from dogmatic consensus.CentralScrutinizer_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

Mapou continues,
Barb, that’s what searching is all about. We have hypotheses (beliefs) and we search to either confirm or disprove them.
Not necessarily. The book of Proverbs speaks of searching for truth and wisdom as though they are buried treasure. Studying the Bible is best done with an open heart and an open mind, not by developing hypotheses and then looking for confirmation in scripture. What you find might disprove your hypothesis, or it might confirm it, but it might also be so far off the mark that it is unquestionably false.
But it pays not to be too hasty in coming to a conclusion. In my case, I have a hypothesis that the Bible contains amazing scientific knowledge hidden in a metaphorical language, knowledge that will dramatically change the world as we know it.
The Bible does contain scientific knowledge and in some cases figurative language is used (the four corners of the earth, for example), but there's no hidden meaning. The only thing that I've found personally is that the Bible is very accurate scientifically.
So I search various texts to find support for my hypothesis. I could be either right or wrong but guess what? After many years of searching, I have found the evidence I was looking for. Much more than I had hoped to find.
In other words, you don't really know if you're right or wrong, and you don't care. That, to me anyway, is the definition of "pointless".
For example, I interpreted a number of passages in the books of Zechariah and Revelation to be a metaphorical description of the working of the brain and intelligence. In fact, I am getting close to publishing a revolutionary speech learning and recognition program strictly based on my interpretation of the ancient texts. Wait for it.
Should be interesting to say the least.Barb_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

I disagree strongly with your YEC interpretation of the Bible and find your continually defense of it to be divisive, unproductive to ID, or Christianity, in general, and ideologically/theologically driven instead of empirically.
Now you sound like the politician you are! Keep at it. Maybe one day you will take over the 92% atheist National Academy of Sciences. Me? I aim to please God not man.
That there is no consensus is a good thing. It means people are thinking for themselves and not towing the line with whatever the groupthink tells them to think.
What it means is that you have no clear epistemology.tragic mishap_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

No, JLAfan, you mistake the curious (relative) obsession of YECs and OECs with the literal historicity of Genesis with the credibility of Christianity; and worse, interpret it as a plausible reason for sinking into atheist nihilism. In any case, could abnegation of our intelligence and moral sense ever be an acceptable fall-back - even if, perversely, it were rationally-based. As is clear from Christ's words about his followers eating his body and drinking his blood, a spiritual understanding of his words and those of Scripture must be sought. Rather than explaining to those who then walked away and ceased following him, what, by its supremely-supernatural nature, would always be mysterious to them in some degree, even after the Last Supper, he was quite content for it to happen. Although Jesus was desperate, for our sakes, for our salvation, he realised that leaving so-called 'wriggle-room' for the faint-hearted believer in his teachings, was equally of paramount importance. He didn't come down to earth to set us an intelligence test (at least, in the terms in which the World understands the word, 'intelligence'), although we love to complete our crossword, jigsaw, OEC, YEC puzzles, etc. He came down to earth to submit us to a spiritual ECG! The passport to heaven is the heart. Surely, no-one would want to meet brainy serial-killers in heaven. So, as James says in his epistle, faith qua belief is not enough by a long chalk; the devils believe and tremble. The sole criterion, ultimately, will be our commitment to charitable self-denying love, which can, in any case, only be a direct gift of the Holy Spirit - whatever one's formal religion or lack of one. And, as Pope Francis remarked in his homily the other day concerning the Mass, being a meeting with the person of God, not a chore, duty, rite or ceremony, mutatis mutandis,che was not challenging them ultimately to put their faith in the concept of 'eating his body and drinking his blood, but their 'faith' qua 'commitment to belief' in his person as the ultimate trustworthy teacher - for which on many occasions and in many different ways he had given them more than adequate grounds. I suspect no convert and few, if any 'cradle' Catholics would fail to wonder at times about, for instance, the Immaculate Conception, but like a number of other teachings, we tend to 'put them on the back-burner', not denying them, but perhaps remaining a little hesitant, deep in the recesses of our hearts, but in due course, it has been my experience that they have been vindicated, although not through book-learning, but through growth, in some measure, in the Spirit.Axel_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

tragic mishap: BA, I think YECs like myself get frustrated with OECs, TEs and all the rest because there seems to be no consensus on your side about what actually happened.
That there is no consensus is a good thing. It means people are thinking for themselves and not towing the line with whatever the groupthink tells them to think. It's the unshackled minds that make most of the great discoveries.CentralScrutinizer_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

JGuy: Fallacious. Absence of evidence is the evidence of absence… aka an argument from ignorance.
What you're really saying to me is that it doesn't matter where the original light source went or why it isn't mentioned again. However, that it is not mentioned again IS evidence. And it is important, because it shows that the author thought that daylight is not caused by the sun which is factually wrong. The author says can have three "evenings and mornings" without a sun. Why? Because as the text indicates, the daylight was already there going through evening and morning cycles. Also, you failed to comment on the fact that a globe such as ours always has day and night going on concurrently. Which "evening and morning" did the author of Genesis have in mind? See, you treat the text like a kindergartener would. But there are implications for grown up minds.CentralScrutinizer_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Tragic mishap Perfectly said. This is exactly what Dawkins et al. are saying. The bible is wrong becuase of the scientific evidence and there are two kinds of fools who still hold on to it. 1) People like you who refuse to accept the refutation of the bible from science and only look at the evidence that supports your belief so that you can cling to your irrational faith. 2) People like BA77 who try to read things into the bible that it was never meant to say so that he can cling to his irrational faith. I did exactly what you said. I looked at the scientific evidence and saw that it didn't line up with what the bible said so I jettisoned it. I got tired of the HUGE mental gymnastics that I had to go through to reconcile the two. Nihilism is the closest thing I found to reality. This is why christians are laughed at. You can't see the hamster wheels you are running on in order to keep your faith. Christians claim to have the truth over atheism and they can't even agree on what that is historically, theologically, philosophically and scientifically. Really pathetic.JLAfan2001_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

I've said my piece! i.e I disagree strongly with your YEC interpretation of the Bible and find your continually defense of it to be divisive, unproductive to ID, or Christianity, in general, and ideologically/theologically driven instead of empirically.bornagain77_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Either the Bible is an accurate source about history or not. If it isn't, then be a man and discard it. If it is, then it must necessarily take priority over sketchy extrapolations from scientific evidence, so be a man and take it at its word because its the best source we have.tragic mishap_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

BA, I think YECs like myself get frustrated with OECs, TEs and all the rest because there seems to be no consensus on your side about what actually happened. Some of you think Noah's Flood happened and was global. Some of you think it happened and was local. Some of you think it didn't happen at all. Some of you think Adam and Eve evolved from primates. Some of you think Adam and Eve were specially created. Some of you think Adam and Eve were myths and didn't exist. We are confused about how you interpret Genesis. Some of you appear to take it at its word on pretty much all of it except the first couple chapters. Some of you dismiss the everything up to chapter 11 as allegory. Some of you believe human beings used to live close to a thousand years. Some of you don't. The list goes on and on and on, but one thing is always the same: Every last one of you thinks you are following the scientific evidence in believing as you do, when the best possible evidence anyone could have about history is historical sources like the Bible, which you appear at times to accept as an accurate source. But you pick and choose what you accept as historical not on the basis of the text but rather on the basis of scientific evidence extrapolated into the distant past. In other words, you are prepared to accept everything in the Bible except for anything you think contradicts scientific evidence. This is an absurd way of interpreting the Bible, especially when there is zero consistency or consensus on what evidence is or isn't enough to contradict what you yourselves accept as a reliable historical source.tragic mishap_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

tjguy, I disagree strongly with your YEC interpretation of the Bible and find your continually defense of it to be divisive, unproductive to ID, or Christianity, in general, and ideologically/theologically driven instead of empirically. I merely pointed out the secular sources for catastrophic mega floods to refute your claim that a Global flood can make no sense from a OEC perspective, since clearly these people had/have no YEC Theological axe to grind as you do.bornagain77_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

BA @14
I disagree with that, since evidence for ‘catastrophic megafloods’ is coming from secular sources:
Humanpast.net Excerpt: Worldwide, we know that the period of 14,000 to 13,000 years ago, which coincides with the peak of abundant monsoonal rains over India, was marked by violent oceanic flooding – in fact, the first of the three great episodes of global superfloods that dominated the meltdown of the Ice Age. The flooding was fed not merely by rain but by the cataclysmic synchronous collapse of large ice-masses on several different continents and by gigantic inundations of meltwater pouring down river systems into the oceans. (124)
OK BA, so some secular scientists see some evidence for massive flooding and even use the word "global" in reference to it. Great. They see there is evidence for a global flood. But, here is my question for you: Does that mean that you think this flood they are referring to was Noah’s flood? Are you saying that you think this flood they are talking about was truly "global", that ice melting caused it, and that it lasted one year? Do you think that Noah had to build an ark to escape it? Do you also think that Noah’s flood took place 13,000 years ago at the time these scientists see evidence for a "global" flood? The Bible is pretty clear about when Noah's flood took place. To claim that this flood of 13,000 years ago was Noah's flood, you are going to have to find a way to add almost 9000 years of undocumented history into the Bible – more than 5 times the amount of history up until that point(assuming a 6000 year old earth). The kind of global flood the Bible speaks of is one that covered the tops of all the mountains all over the earth. It involved a massive amount of water. It was likely the mother of all cataclysms and involved huge earthquakes and super volcanoes that allowed the fountains of the deep to open up. The biblical flood of Noah would have been cataclysmic and would have totally reshaped the earth’s surface. The sediment stirred up would have necessarily settled out and formed lots of rocks. BA, what rocks do you propose that Noah’s flood formed and when? In other words, how old do you think these rocks should be? It couldn’t be the rocks that have all the “old” fossils in them, right? So what ones did the flood form in your opinion? Just curious. Let’s be accurate here. If this is what you are saying took place 13,000 years ago, fine, but I doubt it is. And, if you don’t think this “global flood” of 13,000 years ago was Noah’s flood, then when do you think it actually took place? These scientists really are not referring to a global flood like the Bible speaks of. This explains why they are able to maintain their belief in millions of years.tjguy_{February 14, 2014
February
02
Feb
14
14
2014
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT}

Hi Mapou, I have to say there isn't any evidence for temperature change around 2800 B.C. See here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10k.html But there is evidence of climate change around that time. Here's a quote from p. 223 of "Mega Tsunami of the World Oceans" (the article I linked to above), in Geophysical Hazards: Minimizing Risk, Maximizing Awareness, edited by Tom Beer: "The Burckle crater-Madagascar impact chevron is proposed to date to around 4,800 BP (Masse 2007), which would then make it roughly coincident with the climatic boundary shift between the middle to late Holocene, variously dated at between 5,000 and 4,800 B.P. This climatic boundary shift is poorly dated and its genesis uncertain; however, it generally represents a permanent change from warmer-dryer conditions to a cooler-wetter climatic regime at least for much of the northern hemisphere, and also seems to signal (Hong et al. 2005) a shift in the periodicity and intensity of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation Pattern (e.g. Cane 2005; Hong et al. 2007). These effects are suggested as being consonant with the atmospheric injection of considerable water vapor and aerosols from an abyssal impact of around 10^6 Mt [one million megatonnes - VJT] indicated by the apparent size of the Burckle crater candidate impact structure, and from megatsunami effects noted in southern Madagascar and on the western coast of Australia." Hope that helps. See also this: http://archaeology.about.com/od/climatechange/a/masse_king_4.htmvjtorley_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

Let me say this, on a personal level I would hope acceptance of Young Earth etc. would not be a requirement for membership in a church. I would have been excluded from being a part of the church for most of my life had that been the case. It was because of the toleration of even mistaken views that permitted me to remain. So I'm all for toleration. If the minister has reverence for the Bible, even if he misinterprets it, I can endure that. I want no part of a church or minster that disrespects the Bible. But making mistakes about interpretation of the Bible is not the same as disrespecting the Bible. I agree with Dr. Geisler, and am grateful the churches I've been a part of have agreed according to their doctrinal requirements for membership.scordova_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Camels in ancient Egypt: http://www.isocard.org/e_Library/Proceedings/Proceedings_1998_Camel%20Conference_UAE/vol_01_23.pdf What's your take on it now?JGuy_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Mapou @ 52
I was just reading a report yesterday about the archaeological evidence of the domestication of camels. It turns out that camels were not domesticated in the middle east until much later than the book of Genesis claims. My interpretation is that the book of Genesis is probably mistaken. Your interpretation is probably that the book of Genesis is 100% correct and that the archaeologists are wrong. Fine. I have no problem with that. As I said, searching is every Christian’s personal responsibility.
Mapou. Confirmation is fine & good in a search for the truth, but confirmation bias is not searching for the truth in the way you claim to do. See here, you have an ancient document that describes ancient events with domesticated camels. And you have a modern claim far removed in time & locality about what use camels were in those ancient times. You choose the modern claim over the ancient record of what was observed. In a search for truth, you can only file that as a note. If you want to use it as evidence of what is true, then you need to do more to prove your bias was correct.JGuy_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

Mapou
I did not say there is no evidence against a global flood.
This double negative literally translates to "I said there is evidence against a global flood". But I don't think you are saying that. Yet, I'm not sure.
I said there is no good evidence for a recent global flood.
Granted. You did say recent. But you actually said: "The evidence against a recent global flood is overwhelming." That is different than saying there is no evidence. It's saying there is actually overwhelming against a recent global flood. This apparently leaves open that there could have been a global flood - just not recently. But what I responded to was the claimed overwhelming evidence against a recent global flood? If all your thinking is archaeological dates for things like the Egyptians etc... then it's easy to doubt the veracity of such claims. There is no unbroken record of peoples that goes beyond the recent flood time. For me, it appears as no coincidence that there isn't a chain of recorded emperors that date ancient China before the global flood of about 4500 years ago. Yet, interestingly, we find clues of the recent flood from feats of this Chinese hero figure dealing with waters in the mountains - perhaps remnant waters stored like what perhaps breached to form the Grand Canyon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu_the_GreatJGuy_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

vjtorley, Thank you for the reply. This is all very interesting. I hypothesize that a comet impact of this magnitude would have jettisoned enough material in the atmosphere to trigger an ice age (not to mention global earthquakes) for many years afterwards. Do you know if there is evidence for an ice age around that time? I apologize for throwing a bunch of questions at you as I could research it on my own but I am a little pressed for time right now.Mapou_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Sal.
Sometimes faith is viewed this way:
Faith is believing what you know ain’t so. Mark Twain
At this point in my life, it just seems that the mainstream account “ain’t so” based on the physical facts. I don’t think in good conscience I could muster that sort of Mark Twain “faith” to believe there was no Great Flood.
This verse still gets me to thinking... Hebrews 11:1 (KJV & NKJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1 (NASB & ESV) Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.JGuy_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Hi Mapou, The date of May 10, 2807 B.C. comes from other flood myths. To quote the article in Discover magazine at http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/did-a-comet-cause-the-great-flood :
Among 175 flood myths, Masse found two of particular interest. A Hindu myth describes an alignment of the five bright planets that has happened only once in the last 5,000 years, according to computer simulations, and a Chinese story mentions that the great flood occurred at the end of the reign of Empress Nu Wa. Cross-checking historical records with astronomical data, Masse came up with a date for his event: May 10, 2807 B.C.
That date's about 460 years earlier than Archbishop Ussher's date of 2348 B.C., but it's in the right ballpark, and I don't think Archbishop Ussher ever claimed to be certain that his Biblical chronology was correct.vjtorley_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Box:
Mapou #63: For example, I interpreted a number of passages in the books of Zechariah and Revelation to be a metaphorical description of the working of the brain and intelligence. In fact, I am getting close to publishing a revolutionary speech learning and recognition program strictly based on my interpretation of the ancient texts.
Mapou, is this program conscious?
Of course not.Mapou_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply