Dr. Geisler Weighs in on the YEC Debate

_{Barry Arrington

February 11, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

JGuy:
Yeah, quite mighty. But I don’t hold that the Grand Canyon was a result of the immediate global flood, but rather a massive catastrophe set up by the global flood. Meanwhile, you’ve presented no evidence against, much less overwhelming evidence against a global flood. Naming your top irrefutable evidences would be nice start.
I did not say there is no evidence against a global flood. I said there is no good evidence for a recent global flood. And there is no good evidence for a global flood that destroyed all of humanity except for 8 people. I am not saying that Moses lied. I think he just found documents that were already extremely old even in his day and stitched them together. Notice how Moses, a man who was raised and educated like royalty by the mighty and knowledgeable Egyptians, did not have anything to say about the genealogy of the Egyptian Pharaohs. Why is that, by the way? By the time Moses was born, the Hebrews had already been in Egypt for 500 years. Most were uneducated slaves. Who kept those ancient genealogies during all those years? Why did Moses write in Hebrew and not in Egyptian hieroglyphics? Is it possible that the records that he used were not very accurate?Mapou_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

1. where did all the water go 2. what was the flood mechanism
Catastrophic plate tectonics answer both these questions quite well. 1. The pre-Flood crust of the earth slid into the mantle, and the newly forming crust was completely evened out with all the water evenly spread over the top. There is plenty of water to cover everything to a depth of 20 feet if the crust of the earth is smooth. In short, the water went nowhere. The crust has changed shape due to catastrophic plate tectonics. 2. Catastrophic plate tectonics provides answers to all sorts of questions. The pre-Flood crust of the earth was whole and uncracked, but denser than the mantle beneath it. Some disturbance broke the crust in one place, and it began to slide into the mantle a little bit. A process called thermal runaway caused the new tectonic plates to accelerate. Thermal runaway has to do with special properties of certain solids under very high pressure and heat, causing them to liquify and become more dense at the same time. Once thermal runaway began, it caused the sinking of the pre-Flood crust to accelerate and continue until most of the earth's crust was buried sideways in the mantle, only stopping its acceleration once the leading edge reached the core. (There is observational evidence for at least two very large portions of the earth's mantle being significantly colder than the rest of the mantle.) At this point several things happen. First, as the old crust is still sinking, water is boiling off at the sink point (since it was in the ocean). Simulations show this violently and rapidly vaporized water would have shot into the air at speeds initially in excess of escape velocity (the fountains of the great deep burst forth). The earth's atmosphere quickly fills with superheated water vapor, causing massive storms and rainfall. Second, the the new "crust" is liquid magma, and evens out over the surface of the earth, allowing the existing water to cover the entire surface to a depth of twenty feet. Third, the magma begins to cool, forming a new crust with sediment piling down on top of it forming sedimentary layers and the fossil record.tragic mishap_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer:
Where is this original light source now, the one that existed before the sun was poofed into existence on the fourth day? There is no statement that it ever disappeared.
Fallacious. Absence of evidence is the evidence of absence... aka an argument from ignorance. Why should every detail need to be explained, and if it's not explained in detail, then it's metaphorical because it never existed or never happened? Based on your approach to the scripture, do you hold that creation of the universe is figurative (such that matter and time are eternally existing), or that God actually did create the universe?
The creation tale, the tower of Babel tale, the flood tale, all have obvious precursors in Sumer via Canaan.
Carrying your logic consistently: Claimed modern historical text books about some historical event or person, which are long preceded by precursor tales of the supposed historical figure, are obviously just pieced together storybooks to tell a political side of a story, and will eventually be worth merely kindergarten material. The events or people never really happened the way described in the modern book.JGuy_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

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?Box_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Mapou
I’m sure the Grand Canyon is strong evidence that it may have been a mighty flood drainage channel but no global flood happened 4000 years ago.
Yeah, quite mighty. But I don't hold that the Grand Canyon was a result of the immediate global flood, but rather a massive catastrophe set up by the global flood. Meanwhile, you've presented no evidence against, much less overwhelming evidence against a global flood. Naming your top irrefutable evidences would be nice start.JGuy_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Where is this original light source now, the one that existed before the sun was poofed into existence on the fourth day? There is no statement that it ever disappeared.
God Himself is described as "light" throughout the book. In regards to creation did you imagine Him working in the dark? This is just an example of how insufficient information can be used to form a conclusion. You didn't consider God as the source of light, therefore you saw the existence of light pre-day4 as an impossibility. The act of drawing concrete scientific conclusions about events that happened so long ago is an act of futlility as we have no guarantee that we've collected every necessary input. Every time a new revolutionary discovery is made, we have to rethink everything. Science is flux.
The creation tale, the tower of Babel tale, the flood tale, all have obvious precursors in Sumer via Canaan. And all very well known in Canaan and the Levant. The author of Genesis took these stories and reworked then, taking the better attributes of Anu, Enki/Ea and Enlil, merging them in a single deity named “Ehyeh” (derived from Ea, ultimately becoming YHWH), and purge the polytheistic tone and solar and lunar aspects of worship from them. Genesis is a politically and theologically driven piece of work. Naive fundamentalists generally don’t know anything about any of this. You can believe the kindergarden story in Genesis if you want, be my guest. But there’s a lot more to the story. In light of modern science and history, it’s simply naive to take the Genesis account as literal, factual history.
First up, you are assuming the Genesis teller of these "tales" is a dishonest plagiarist, rather than an oral history recorder. This is the fish tale argument- all the stories people tell about the whale they had on the end of their line and how they wrestled with it for days does not in any way negate the fact that large fish actually have been caught. For all you know these numerous stories point to a single origin. 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? As to your kindergarten comment... Mathew 18:3 *disclaimer* I am neither for young earth or old, neither prove or disprove.B.C._{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Barb:
Then you probably aren’t searching for the truth, you’re searching for confirmation of your own beliefs. The Bible doesn’t work that way, sorry.
Barb, that's what searching is all about. We have hypotheses (beliefs) and we search to either confirm or disprove them. 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. 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. 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.Mapou_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Mapou writes,
You searched and you found what you wanted to find. I’m happy with that.
No, I didn't. Don't ever presume to speak for me. I went into Bible study searching for the truth, not simply reading what I wanted to read. The Bible isn't like that. The Bible forces you to examine yourself for flaws, and then tells you how to correct those flaws. It doesn't tell you what you want to hear.
I don’t demand that anybody accept my interpretation of the Bible. In fact, seeing that I’m always searching, my interpretation changes all the time. You believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and I don’t.
Then you probably aren't searching for the truth, you're searching for confirmation of your own beliefs. The Bible doesn't work that way, sorry.
In my opinion, the Bible contains a fair amount of nonsense that a mighty, knowledgeable God, a God who created the universe could never have written. That is my opinion. UD is a forum for sharing opinions.
Pray tell, what is this nonsense? I can pretty much guarantee that what you consider nonsense is the exact opposite, except that you're not taking into account its context.
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.
So, in your opinion, the report is right and the Bible is obviously wrong. Any chance that the report might be flawed, or didn't you take that into account? We know that camels were among the domestic animals that Abraham received from Pharaoh, says the Bible. (Gen. 12:16) When Abraham’s servant went on a long journey to Mesopotamia, he “took ten camels from the camels of his master.” So the Bible clearly states that Abraham owned camels about the beginning of the second millennium B.C.E.—Gen. 24:10. Some do not accept this. The New International Version Archaeological Study Bible reports: “Scholars have debated the historicity of these references to camels because most believe that these animals were not widely domesticated until approximately 1200 B.C., long after the time of Abraham.” Any earlier Biblical reference to camels would therefore be considered an anachronism, or a chronological misplacing. Other scholars, however, argue that although the domestication of camels became a factor of importance about the end of the second millennium, this does not mean that camels were not used earlier. The book Civilizations of the Ancient Near East states: “Recent research has suggested that the domestication of the camel took place in southeastern Arabia some time in the third millennium [B.C.E.]. Originally, it was probably bred for its milk, hair, leather, and meat, but it cannot have been long before its usefulness as a beast of burden became apparent.” This dating to before Abraham’s time seems to be supported by bone fragments and other archaeological remains. Written evidence also exists. The same reference work says: “In Mesopotamia, cuneiform lists mention the creature [the camel] and several seals depict it, indicating that the animal may have reached Mesopotamia by the beginning of the second millennium,” that is, by Abraham’s time. Some scholars believe that South Arabian merchants involved in the incense trade used camels to transport their goods northward through the desert, heading to such areas as Egypt and Syria and thereby introducing camels to these areas. This trade was probably common as early as 2000 B.C.E. Interestingly, Genesis 37:25-28 mentions Ishmaelite merchants who used camels to transport incense to Egypt about a hundred years after the time of Abraham. Perhaps camels were not widely used in the ancient Near East at the beginning of the second millennium B.C.E., but evidence seems to confirm that they were not completely unknown. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia therefore concludes: “It is no longer necessary to regard the mention of camels in the patriarchal narratives as anachronisms, since there is ample archeological evidence for the domestication of the camel before the time of the patriarchs.”
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.
See above.Barb_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

The Anglican rite of Baptism mentions Noah's flood probably in reference to 1 Pet 3:20-21. God bless them! Anglican Rite of Baptismscordova_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Back to the OP, what are the essentials of the Christian faith? My answer is what will get you into heaven, and the thief on the cross illustrates the essentials of the Christian faith. That said, why the interest in these questions? For YEC's like Ken Ham can't even in principle be persuaded otherwise, these questions may be meaningless. However for people like myself, that want corroboration of claimed eyewitness testimony, the question is deeply interesting and is a means of believing the Gospels. In other words, it may not be a doctrinal requirement, but for me finding the Bible believable and being corroborated by physical evidence is a requirement. I'm like a juror wanting to find out who is lying and who is telling the truth. As the Genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 and Matt 1 are corroborated, I will find the Bible more believable. Many people claim to speak in the name of God, I want some proof they really are. If I can find evidence of Noah's flood (and Noah is an ancestor of Jesus, and for that matter ALL of us), then I have another reason to believe the Bible. The question of distant starlight and the age of the universe are separate questions, and if the universe is Old, I can live with that.scordova_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

More forensic evidence layers are formed quickly -- from the Darwin loving pages of Wikipedia: Polystrate Fossils
A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum.[1] This term is typically applied to "fossil forests" of upright fossil tree trunks and stumps that have been found worldwide,
So if we have trees embedded in two different stratified rock layers, what's the point of invoking millions of years to form the strata. In view of the turbidity experiments at the University of Colorado and elsewhere, we have a sensible mechanical explanation for the multi-colored layers of the geological record, and with both C14 and polystrate fossils, fast strata formation would seem to be the best explanation for the formation of the fossil-bearing layers.
The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically only found in creationist publications.[1][3]
I wonder why? :-) A picture is worth a thousand words, look at the polystrate fossil tree here: http://www.icr.org/article/4950/ Now, going back to what Norm Geisler has said, for the sake of argument, let us say he's right. Fine. It all may be moot anyway regarding Noah's flood. And if the flood explains most of the features of the fossil record, maybe the rest of the questions will not be so urgent, like say the question of distant starlight. The 6,000 year-old Earth may be a big question, but imho, the great flood is an equally powerful claim because it is also subject to forensic inquiry, and it has great potential to damage the Darwinian narrative.scordova_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

I have offered some theology and Bible verses, but UncommonDescent is here to serve the ID community which are from diverse religious and philosophical viewpoints. So how does discussion of a great flood serve the ID community? Assuming for the sake of argument the Earth and Universe are Billions of years old, that is a separate question than "establishing the time of death" of the creatures that compose some (not all) of the fossil record. If reasonable doubt regarding the time of death can be established for many fossils, then Darwinism will be crushed even more than it has been, because the one thing the Darwinist have relied on is the fossil record to construct their narrative. The Darwinists have tried to prosecute their case on the fossil record in many ways, and they have failed, but they've never been seriously challenged on their interpretation of the physical question: "what was the time of death". That is a hard-nosed basic empirical question like a Crime Scene Investigator (CSI). I used to accept that the fossils were hundreds of millions of years old. I argue now, based on the forensic evidence outside of religious texts, the time of death is at least inconclusive and maybe even quite recent for many fossils. As in Crime Scene Investigation, the rate of decomposition and other considerations are an indicator of time of death. For fossilized tissue, we establish time of death by: 1. presence of C14 (half-life 5730 years) 2. presence of DNA (half-life 521 years) 3. unracemic amino acids (half-life thousands of years) 4. erosion rates (fossil record wiped out in 10,000,000 years) If not proof, that is cause for reasonable doubt as to the time of death. Time of death is not immediately an argument for Noah's flood, but now we have reasonable doubt about the age of some (not all) fossils. The rocks may be dated as old, but a live dog buried today in 1 billion year old rocks does not mean it died 1 billion years ago. In crime scene investigation we would never think to establish time of death by dating the old rocks around corpse, we date the time of death by the materials that are part of the deceased body.... These fossils are used as "index fossils" to date various geological strata, but if the fossils are young, that indicates the strata was formed about the time of death since it appears the strata formation was associated with the cause of death. In a crime scene investigation, we try to establish cause of death, and in many cases for the fossil record, suffocation and crushing appear the major cause of death for those nicely preserved fossils, not death by other natural causes. Burial must be fast as matter of principle lest the creatures decompose or get devoured by scavangers, and the burial must involve water for certain kinds of preserved fossils (fossils with soft tissue that gets permineralized). Further, look at the grand canyon staircase and see the beautiful stratified layers of different colors and different rocks. Did we somehow have these magical eras where only 1 kind of rock was laid down, and then suddenly another -- kind of a punctuated equilibrium in terms of rock! It doesn't make sense. Here is the most plausible mechanism to explain the segregated colored layers of rocks. It is based on this simple physics formula: E = 7/10 m V^2 The experiments were carried out at the University of Colorado and other laboratories. See this video with real-time experiments forming stratified layers: Drama in the Rocks In light of these considerations, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Noah's flood as some fabrication. The forensic evidence may actually corroborate eye witness testimony. Worse for the Darwinists, they have no eyewitness testimony, and further, their supposed narrative reminds me of Kurt Nurmi's defense of Jody Arias, it's a case that seems indefensible.scordova_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

vjtorley @55, Thank you for your comments and references regarding the flood. The comet impact theory is certainly interesting. The May 10, 2807 B.C. date sounds a little fishy. How can they be so sure? Does this correspond to the Biblical date? PS. I have seen reports that the Black Sea used to be a low lying lake that became flooded with Mediterranean waters which destroyed many human habitations that surrounded the original lake. But my understanding is that this happened more than 5000 years ago.Mapou_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

There are passages in the New Testament which speak of God as saving only Noah and his family, suggesting that only eight human beings survived the Flood. That may not necessarily be the case, however. It could have been that eight human beings were warned by God about the Flood, because they lived righteously. That does not preclude the possibility of a few others surviving by accident. That’s my take on the account.
I deeply respect this viewpoint, and perhaps the main reason I accepted the flood being global was it was aesthetically pleasing that such a dramatic thing happened, and at the end of the tragedies there were rainbows awaiting humanity symbolizing God's covenant mercy on those that were spared... Even to this day, the PCA denomination that I'm a part of seem very ambivalent to the YEC, OEC, evolution, ID, the great flood. I came to my present views because the circumstantial evidence. Me, I'm a bit of a pragmatist near agnostic in matters of origins, I'm come to the table like a Private Investigator trying to assess the facts. Yes I'm biased, and to help get a balanced view, I delighted to engage the other viewpoints and see them give their best shot as if we were in a courtroom, but stripped of the legal maneuvering, and simply arguing facts. So, independent of theology, let us consider: ARGUMENTS AGAINST GLOBAL FLOOD: 1. where did all the water go 2. what was the flood mechanism 3. the geological record does not show a great flood 4. radiometric dating 5. the fossil record ARGUMENTS FOR: 1. the fossil record 2. radiometric dating 3. the geological record shows a great flood 4. the water from the flood is still there, the mountains and continents simply emerged from the flood as evidenced by the structure of mountains and continents 5. the flood mechanism seems to be "fountains of the great deep" as said in genesis, this can be confirmed by continued geological exploration I was an old Earth Darwinist raised in a Roman Catholic home that didn't care what I believed about evolution. Even today the denomination I'm a part of has about the same ambivalent attitude on these matters. I accept my current view based on the facts, and the facts seem to accord well with the claims of Noah's flood, and thus each day I find it actually easier to believe the Bible because it's bold claims about geological history accord with the facts. 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. PS I have abandoned aesthetically pleasing ideas about reality before, and I'm willing to do so again. I once believed the universe was teeming with intelligent life like us, and that like star trek there would be unending adventure and discovery for mankind for all eternity. I no longer think that, and speaking of Norm Geisler, here is post at UD just along the lines of that and what Norm Geisler had to say: Boldly Going Where No Man Has Gone Beforescordova_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Viascheslav Gusiakov, Ronald Bryant, Dallas Abbott and Bruce Masse have responded to Bourgeois in an article titled "Mega Tsunami of the World Ocean as the evidence of recent oceanic bolide impacts, chevron dune formation and rapid climate change" in Geophysical Hazards: Minimizing Risk, Maximizing Awareness (ed. Tom Beer). For a summary of the article, see here: http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1338188.html . For an online view of most of the article, see here: http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=3zL__qAVI8cC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=burckle+crater+date&source=bl&ots=YVX0R50IEk&sig=CJXXMbuOFlhENX4T6m4bwTQ5hmw&hl=ja&sa=X&ei=CTv8UtDrJ8rhkAXOrYAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=burckle%20crater%20date&f=false The authors point out that: (a) contrary to Bourgeois' assertion, the orientation of each chevron is actually consistent with the waves coming from a point source (the Burckle crater) and being refracted by the underwater topography near the southern coast of Madagascar; (b) unlike wind-blown dunes, which have a well-sorted unimodal size distribution, the Madagascar chevrons are unsorted, with a broad range of particle sizes, from small boulders down to clay particles; (c) some of the marine shells and microfossils associated with the chevrons are found as high as 200 meters above present-day sea levels, and 7 kilometers from the coast, which is far higher and further than the wind could carry them; (d) the sediment particles appear to have been splashed with molten massive metals, suggesting a cosmic impact at high temperatures (although chemical weathering cannot be ruled out). The authors acknowledge that the Madagascar chevrons haven't yet been dated, but suggest a date of 4,000 to 7,000 years ago, and more specifically, about 4,800 years ago. In short: there is tentative evidence for worldwide flooding around 5,000 years ago which wiped out most of the human race, and which (according to myths around the world), a few people escaped by boats and rafts. Noah could have been an individual providentially warned by God, and he may have hopped into a boat with his family and livestock (the animals in the Noah's ark narrative in Genesis). That may be the essential factual core of the Biblical story of Noah. There are passages in the New Testament which speak of God as saving only Noah and his family, suggesting that only eight human beings survived the Flood. That may not necessarily be the case, however. It could have been that eight human beings were warned by God about the Flood, because they lived righteously. That does not preclude the possibility of a few others surviving by accident. That's my take on the account.vjtorley_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

[I totally messed up the formatting in comment 34 so, I'll restate it with the blockquotes fixed. Apologies to the readers. ] The essentials of the Christian faith is what the theology of the thief on the cross. That is one of my favorite passages, he said:
And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
Recognize Jesus is the Christ, accept him as savior. The essential of the Christian faith are what God deems necessary for salvation. I could live with an Old Universe, ancient life, etc. but there is one highly important name in Christ’s genealogy:
23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,[e] the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. If one accepts Jesus and the Gospel of Luke and Matthew, one is confronted with Noah, and the account of the great flood where only 8 people on Earth were spared. As far as paleontology is concerned, imho, if we actually weighed the geological evidence, it looks like there was a great flood. Whether life or anything else is old, is a separate question.
And Christian Baptism corresponds to the flood:
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you 1 Peter 3
Maybe 500,000,000 died in the flood, 8 were spared. Funny, I can’t remember ANY Christian baptism that mentioned Noah’s flood in the ceremony. Anyway, maybe God will give us a reminder. The flood motion picture is coming out next month.scordova_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

An excerpt from the Science Daily article (April 30, 2009, at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429091637.htm ), in which Dr. Jody Bourgeois challenges the cometary impact theory championed by Dr. Bruce Masse:
Bourgeois said the theory just doesn't hold water. For example, she said, there are numerous chevrons on Madagascar, but many are parallel to the coastline. Models created by Bourgeois' colleague Robert Weiss show that if they were created by tsunamis they should point in the direction the waves were travelling, mostly perpendicular to the shore. "And if it really was from an impact, you should find evidence on the coast of Africa too, since it is so near," said Bourgeois, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences who has studied earthquakes and tsunamis in various parts of the world... The discovery of marine fossils in some chevron formations seems to support the idea that a wave created the deposit, but Bourgeois discounts that evidence also. "Marine fossils can get into non-marine deposits. It's not uncommon. You only have to change sea level a little bit or have them wash up on a beach in a storm," she said. "And some marine organisms can be carried by the wind. I am convinced these are largely wind-blown deposits."
Masse's reply follows...vjtorley_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Barb @50, You searched and you found what you wanted to find. I'm happy with that. I don't demand that anybody accept my interpretation of the Bible. In fact, seeing that I'm always searching, my interpretation changes all the time. You believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and I don't. In my opinion, the Bible contains a fair amount of nonsense that a mighty, knowledgeable God, a God who created the universe could never have written. That is my opinion. UD is a forum for sharing opinions. 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_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Hi everyone, I'd like to make a comment on the Flood. As readers of this Website will be aware, I believe in an old Earth. According to the Bible, Noah's flood is supposed to have killed off nearly all of the human race, a mere 5,000 or so years ago. There are solid scientific reasons for believing that the entire Earth was never covered with water. (See the article "Deluge" by Anthony Maas, at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm , in The Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908.) However, there is one scientific proposal that I am aware of which squares with the main features of the Biblical account, but I should warn readers that it is a speculative hypothesis. I am referring to the recent theory that the Earth was hit by a very large comet, about 5 kilometers wide, on May 10, 2807 B.C., causing a "1-2-3 punch" of mega-tsunamis worldwide, massive flooding from storm surges and extended atmospheric rainout, and finally, hurricane-force winds. Most of the rainfall, which lasted for about seven days, was supposedly due to ocean-fed prolonged cyclonic storm activity stimulated by atmospheric rainout and blockage of sunlight. The Burckle crater, located in the Indian Ocean about 1500 kilometers south-east of Madagascar, is believed to be a relic of this cometary impact, but there may have also been a second impact about two or three days after the first. This global catastrophe is estimated to have wiped out 50 to 75% of humanity. It is hypothesized that this event is what lies behind the Flood stories that are found in civilizations all around the world. About half of the recorded Flood myths indicate that the few survivors saved themselves on boats, canoes, makeshift rafts, or by floating on or in a log or other buoyant debris, which then typically became grounded on mountainsides or other high spots. For a scholarly account of this theory, see "The Archaeology and Anthropology of Quaternary Period Cosmic Impact" at http://tsun.sscc.ru/hiwg/PABL/Masse_2007_ICSU_Paper.pdf by W. Bruce Masse (in Bobrowsky, P., and Rickman, H., eds., Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Berlin, Springer Press, 2007, pp. 25-70) and scroll down to page 46. For a scholarly review of this bold hypothesis, see "Recent Cosmic Impacts on Earth: Do Global Myths Reflect an Ancient Disaster?" by archaeologist Thomas F. King, at http://archaeology.about.com/od/climatechange/a/masse_king.htm . For a popular summary of the theory, see "Did a comet cause the Great Flood?" (article by Scott Carney, in Discover magazine, online edition, November 2007, at http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/did-a-comet-cause-the-great-flood ) and "Ancient Crash, Epic Wave" (article by Sandra Blakeslee, in The New York Times, 14 November 2006, at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1 ; see also http://mathildasweirdworldweblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/noahs-flood-dated-to-may-10th-2807-bc/ ). The Website of the Holocene Impact Working Group is at http://tsun.sscc.ru/hiwg/publ.htm . The theory advanced by Dr. Bruce Masse that the Burckle crater, east of Madagascar is the result of a cometary impact in 2807 B.C. has recently been challenged by Dr. Jody Bourgeois, who argues that it is instead the result of aeolian processes. See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429091637.htm . To be continued...vjtorley_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Mapou continues:
Obviously the gospels of Luke and Matthew (and even the Mosaic account) are mistaken because there was no global deluge 4000 years ago.
Yes, obviously the gospels are mistaken because there is absolutely no possible way that Mapou might be mistaken. Because he is far more enlightened than the rest of us. Your arrogance and condescension are noted. And promptly ignored.
People make mistakes.
Yes, they do. Please include yourself in this statement.
The evidence against a recent global flood is overwhelming.
So you didn’t bother reading my posts. The evidence for a global flood exists, whether you like it or not. And whether you accept it or not. Consider the following: 1) Such an awesome catastrophe, if it really happened, would never have been completely forgotten. Hence, in many nations there are reminders of that destruction. Consider, for example, the precise date recorded in the Scriptures. The second month of the ancient calendar ran from what we now call mid-October to mid-November. So the 17th day corresponds approximately to the first of November. It may not be a coincidence, then, that in many lands, festivals for the dead are celebrated at that time of year [All Souls’ Day, right after Halloween]. 2) If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have scientists found no trace of it? Perhaps they have, but they interpret the evidence some other way. For example, orthodox science teaches that the surface of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age. Similar mistakes have been made. Concerning the time when scientists were developing their theory of ice ages, we read: “They were finding ice ages at every stage of the geologic history, in keeping with the philosophy of uniformity. Careful reexamination of the evidence in recent years, however, has rejected many of these ice ages; formations once identified as glacial moraines have been reinterpreted as beds laid down by mudflows, submarine landslides and turbidity currents: avalanches of turbid water that carry silt, sand and gravel out over the deep-ocean floor.” [Scientific American, May 1960, p. 71.] 3) Other evidences of the Deluge linger in mankind’s traditions. Practically all ancient peoples have a legend that their ancestors survived a global flood. African Pygmies, European Celts, South American Incas—all have similar legends, as do peoples of Alaska, Australia, China, India, Lithuania, Mexico, Micronesia, New Zealand, and parts of North America, to mention only a few. “Even greater similarities to the Genesis account are present in another Babylonian epic whose hero bears the name Gilgamesh. . . . It most likely came into existence around the beginning of the second millennium. . . . [Clay tablet XI] is virtually intact, thus providing the most complete version of the deluge story in cuneiform script.”—Encyclopædia Judaica. “Like the Hebrews, Babylonians, Greeks, Norsemen, and other peoples of the Old World, many Indian tribes of North and South America had traditions of the Deluge. . . . ‘When the earliest missionaries came’ . . . , the Reverend Myron Eells reported in 1878, ‘they found that those Indians had their traditions of a flood, and that one man and his wife were saved on a raft.’”—Indian Legends of the Pacific Northwest. 3) Of course, over time the legends have been embellished, but they all include several details indicating a common source narrative: God was angered by mankind’s wickedness. He brought a great flood. Mankind as a whole was destroyed. A few righteous ones, however, were preserved. These built a vessel in which humans and animals were saved. In time, birds were sent out to search for dry land. Finally, the vessel came to rest on a mountain. Upon disembarking, the survivors offered a sacrifice. 4) The similarities cannot possibly be coincidental. The combined evidence of these legends corroborates the Bible’s ancient testimony that all humans descend from the survivors of a flood that destroyed a world of mankind. Hence, we do not need to rely on legends or myths to know what happened. We have the carefully preserved record in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible.—Genesis, chapters 6-8. Hand-waving away evidence you don’t like or don’t want to accept only reflects badly on you. It states that while you claim to search for knowledge, you reject it when you find it.
Nobody has to accept anything in the Bible as the inerrant word of God.
No, they don’t. That is why the Bible makes references to “stupid ones”.
Sure, one can find a lot about God in the Bible by searching. And the Bible is not the only source of knowledge either.
No, it’s not. But it is the most accurate and comprehensive source of knowledge there is. But please feel free to ignore what scholars have found in favor of your own personal theology.
Certainly, nobody should allow some human preacher to interpret the Bible for them.
The Bible states that “interpretations belong to God.” So then why should any one of us here allow you to interpret the Bible for us? What makes you so sure your theology is sound? One definition of the word “interpret” is “to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) Thus, one’s interpretation of anything is usually influenced by one’s background, education, and upbringing. What would a housewife think of a recipe book that was open to just any interpretation? Or of what benefit would it be to spend money for a dictionary that allowed its reader to interpret the meaning of words just any way he chose? Is that the kind of guidebook we would expect God to give his creatures? Indeed, in such a case, would it even be proper to speak of it as a guidebook? Honest, God-fearing persons are not interested in twisting the Scriptures “to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16) To avoid doing this, they find all the scriptures dealing with the subject they are trying to understand. When scriptures are found that clearly contradict previously held views, those views are quickly discarded, as they cannot be correct. How good it is to know that the Bible is not open to just any interpretation. When we allow its Author to interpret it for us, it is truly “beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness.” Then, and only then, will it make us “fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
We should have faith in God, not in the supposed infallibility of a book (that’s idolatry) and certainly not in any preacher (that’s stupidity).
Faith in God requires belief in the infallibility of a book. This does not mean that we worship the book, as per your definition. That is a non sequitur, a classic logical fallacy.
“Search and you shall find” is the responsibility of every Christian, not only the leaders of Christianity (that’s the evil doctrine of the Nicolaitans).
Note the example of a first-century Ethiopian eunuch, who was puzzled about a certain passage of Scripture. “Do you actually know what you are reading?” the Christian disciple Philip asked him. The Ethiopian replied: “Really, how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?” What humility—especially considering that the eunuch was likely a man of note in his homeland! Thanks to his humility, he received deep insight into the Scriptures.—Acts 8:26-38. Yes, “search and you shall find” is each person’s responsibility. But that does not negate the fact that God did use an organization (the first century apostles, the nation of Israel) to make his will known. Assuming that you can read the Bible on your own and understand everything in it is complete hubris.Barb_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

JGuy: Even though it easily reads as literal – I have found figurative elements within it (figurative in the sense of acting as types).
Not many people dispute that it reads as if it is literal. And this is for good reason, historically. The intended audience were not living in a scientific age and the author wanted to convey some "sanitized" points about the creation to a people who were assaulted with "pagan" ideas about creation on all sides. In short, they needed a creation story that was a "matter of fact" sort of tale, where, for example, the sun and the moon and stars (objects of serious idolatry in the Levant and the surrounding areas) were mere creations. In fact, the proper names of the sun and moon are not even used in the account, which is significant. I don't know if you realize this, but if you read the Torah and the Tanakh you will see that the chief concern of "Yahweh", over and over, is Israel's idolatry. Worshipping other gods and worshipping the sun, moon and stars. The creation tale, the tower of Babel tale, the flood tale, all have obvious precursors in Sumer via Canaan. And all very well known in Canaan and the Levant. The author of Genesis took these stories and reworked then, taking the better attributes of Anu, Enki/Ea and Enlil, merging them in a single deity named "Ehyeh" (derived from Ea, ultimately becoming YHWH), and purge the polytheistic tone and solar and lunar aspects of worship from them. Genesis is a politically and theologically driven piece of work. Naive fundamentalists generally don't know anything about any of this. You can believe the kindergarden story in Genesis if you want, be my guest. But there's a lot more to the story. In light of modern science and history, it's simply naive to take the Genesis account as literal, factual history.CentralScrutinizer_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Jguy: All that’s needs is a light source and a rotating planet. You have both on the first ~24 hour day.
Where is this original light source now, the one that existed before the sun was poofed into existence on the fourth day? There is no statement that it ever disappeared. On a spherical planet and orbiting a single light source, it's always dark somewhere and it's always light somewhere, as we observe on earth? When the original light source was poofed into existence it would have been "morning and evening" on one side of the planet and "evening and morning" on the opposite other. Why does the account only mention "evening and morning" and not the "morning and evening" that was on the other side of the globe?CentralScrutinizer_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

JGuy @42, I'm sure the Grand Canyon is strong evidence that it may have been a mighty flood drainage channel but no global flood happened 4000 years ago.Mapou_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

suckerspawn:
Why do you question the inerrancy of the Bible then quote the Bible as if it is absolute truth?
Wrong. I quote the Bible the same way I quote Wikipedia. I don't believe either is absolute truth. However, both have enough truth in them to be very useful.Mapou_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Coldcoffe " Although I admit I am confused in what other way I can interpret it." Think what for God is important to tell to you, and figure out how He would tell you if you were man living in middle east in 1200 bC.Chesterton_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Mapou @ 35 "Nobody has to accept anything in the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Sure, one can find a lot about God in the Bible by searching. And the Bible is not the only source of knowledge either. Certainly, nobody should allow some human preacher to interpret the Bible for them. We should have faith in God, not in the supposed infallibility of a book (that’s idolatry) and certainly not in any preacher (that’s stupidity). “Search and you shall find” is the responsibility of every Christian, not only the leaders of Christianity (that’s the evil doctrine of the Nicolaitans)." Why do you question the inerrancy of the Bible then quote the Bible as if it is absolute truth?suckerspawn_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Mapou and CentralScrutinizer
CentralScrutinizer:
The first thing I like to ask Biblical literalist, inerrantist, YECs is this: do you actually believe the sun was created on day four of a 24-hour-day cycle or not?
It’s not easy to have a morning and an evening without a sun but you’ll be surprised what a Biblical literalist will believe in.
All that's needs is a light source and a rotating planet. You have both on the first ~24 hour day. Genesis 1:3-5 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. I realize you guys apparently like to keep it mostly if not all figurative. But I'll entertain you a tiny bit here with the nature of my interpretation of Genesis 1. Even though it easily reads as literal - I have found figurative elements within it (figurative in the sense of acting as types). That's not to say it's one or the other...but both!... and both are equally true. This is in the same sense that I believe Abraham and Isaac were two real people. And the account of what happened with them is historically accurate. But in terms of a type, Isaac serves as type pointing to Jesus. So, Abraham and Isaac are literally true, and have a kinda figurative nature about them (a type) that is equally true. I don't want to get into details about what I see in Genesis 1, because the figurative aspects are more prone to opinion. So, with that, I can say there is imo possibly a very good figurative/type type of reason for the sun being made on day four with literal and figurative both being equally true... but I'll leave it for now to avoid spreading my specific view about it so that it isn't perceived as my view of it being a fact.JGuy_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

Mapou @ 35
Obviously the gospels of Luke and Matthew (and even the Mosaic account) are mistaken because there was no global deluge 4000 years ago. People make mistakes. The evidence against a recent global flood is overwhelming.
You're obviously wrong about the scriptures and the nature of the evidence. Wrong all around... well, other than the exception of stating that people make mistakes - which is conveniently exemplified by the claim in your post. Every time someone uses such strong words as 'overwhelming evidence' (à la Richard Dawkins) my skeptical mode pegs out into high alert. Especially, when the claim is punctuated with silence on the nature of the key evidences. Meanwhile, one can observe the scale of something like the Grand Canyon, and the pancaking of the strata... at a scale you of hundred of miles which you simply do not find occurring on the planet today. Numerous submarine canyons, some as big as Grand Canyon or bigger, stretching off the coasts of the continents... or consider fossils - found all over the world - and how they require rapid burial meaning rapid movement of sediments that built up the strata they are in all over the world. The claim of overwhelming evidence against a global catastrophic flood falls flat not only in silence of evidence, but in light of what we can observe.JGuy_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

tjguy #40
The first thing I like to ask Biblical literalist, inerrantist, YECs is this: do you actually believe the sun was created on day four of a 24-hour-day cycle or not? Yes.
I admire your courage to stand by the Bible, but I am not sure we can interpret the Bible literally. Although I admit I am confused in what other way I can interpret it.coldcoffee_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

The first thing I like to ask Biblical literalist, inerrantist, YECs is this: do you actually believe the sun was created on day four of a 24-hour-day cycle or not?
Yes.tjguy_{February 13, 2014
February
02
Feb
13
13
2014
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply