Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For anyone interested in reading about Noah and the Flood, here is a historical fiction novel on it. It's creation-based and also incorporates all the common objections to the ark, as well as covering dinosaurs, giants, great lifespans, etc., and pretty faithful to the Genesis and biblical account. It can be found on Amazon. Not sure about other sources. Just a note - unlike other Noah novels, this book isn't for kids. It's written from a Christian perspective, but it has violence, brutality, and mature themes. It's not bloody or have gratuitous sexuality, but it does paint a sordid picture of the antediluvian world, which is the very reason it was destroyed 4,300 years ago.
Noah's day has come back to life in this generation -- just as Jesus foretold.
Matthew 24
[37] But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
[38] For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
[39] And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
[40] Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
[41] Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
[42] Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
[43] But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
[44] Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
Noah's day has come back to life in this generation -- just as Jesus foretold.
Matthew 24
[37] But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
[38] For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
[39] And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
[40] Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
[41] Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
[42] Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
[43] But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
[44] Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
Interesting. The first review on Amazon of it references Luke 17 talking about that.
I believe that Noah's flood story in Genesis is both based on an actual, but regional flood, probably the Black Sea flood, or based on local river floods which resulted in catastrophic damage to local communities, and that it was written as a polemic against the other ancient Near East flood accounts, and the reasons for those flood accounts.
Old Testament scholars Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton have written a book titled 'The Lost World of the Flood' in which they examine the text of the Genesis flood narrative and its use of hyperbolic language to intentionally relate a regional flood as a global flood for rhetorical and theological reasons. The flood narrative is examined within the context of the ancient Near East.
Dr. Walton is interviewed about his book in the video below. It's 32 minutes in length.
I believe that Noah's flood story in Genesis is both based on an actual, but regional flood, probably the Black Sea flood, or based on local river floods which resulted in catastrophic damage to local communities, and that it was written as a polemic against the other ancient Near East flood accounts, and the reasons for those flood accounts.
Old Testament scholars Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton have written a book titled 'The Lost World of the Flood' in which they examine the text of the Genesis flood narrative and its use of hyperbolic language to intentionally relate a regional flood as a global flood for rhetorical and theological reasons. The flood narrative is examined within the context of the ancient Near East.
Dr. Walton is interviewed about his book in the video below. It's 32 minutes in length.
Nothing in Genesis or the Flood account indicates that it's anything other than history and a real event. I see a lot of skeptics claim that it's all "rhetorical," as if just claiming it makes it so. That's a very poor texual criticism of Genesis, and it's also importing ideas into the text (evolution via eisegesis) instead of reading out of the text (exegesis). Gen. 7:19 says that "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." I fail to see how that's a regional event, and it ignores the plain meaning (or perspicuity) of Scripture. And since Noah couldn't possibly have known with his own eyes whether the Flood covered the entire world, this passsage would have been God's point of view, not Noah's. God was the one stating that it covered all the mountains of the world. And indeed it did. Sea shells have been found even on top of Mt. Everest (before the mountains were "lifted" and the valleys "lowered" as mentioned in the Psalms, since Mt. Everest didn't exist yet at its current height during the Flood).
Just because a region also had a flood doesn't automatically make it Noah's Flood. The Flood of Noah was global; the Black Sea flood was regional - so they weren't the same. It would also be absurd for Noah to spend the better part of a century building this huge ship when he could have just walked a few days to escape a local flood. And why bring birds along? They could have flown out of the flood zone. And for that matter, why bring any animals? Other species representatives would have been alive and well elsewhere.
Additionally, both Jesus and the apostles are quoted as saying that the Flood of Noah destroyed everyone (not just Noah's local audience). To insist that it was local is to insist that Jesus didn't know what He was talking about, even though He could raise Himself from the dead. And the global Flood is compared in the New Testament to a global judgment by fire at the Last Day. If Noah's Flood was local, then the judgment by fire will also be local (i.e. you'll escape it if you're not in the area). Unlike yourself, even notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits that the Bible teaches a global Flood and young world (though he doesn't believe it).
The whole story falls apart when you try and accommodate Genesis and evolution, and both creationists and evolutionists will hold you up to scorn for being a compromiser. It's one thing to say that the Bible teaches a global Flood, but that you don't believe it. It's quite another to say that there never was a global Flood and the Bible doesn't teach it - which it clearly does.
Nothing in Genesis or the Flood account indicates that it's anything other than history and a real event. I see a lot of skeptics claim that it's all "rhetorical," as if just claiming it makes it so. That's a very poor texual criticism of Genesis, and it's also importing ideas into the text (evolution via eisegesis) instead of reading out of the text (exegesis). Gen. 7:19 says that "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." I fail to see how that's a regional event, and it ignores the plain meaning (or perspicuity) of Scripture. And since Noah couldn't possibly have known with his own eyes whether the Flood covered the entire world, this passsage would have been God's point of view, not Noah's. God was the one stating that it covered all the mountains of the world. And indeed it did. Sea shells have been found even on top of Mt. Everest (before the mountains were "lifted" and the valleys "lowered" as mentioned in the Psalms, since Mt. Everest didn't exist yet at its current height during the Flood).
Just because a region also had a flood doesn't automatically make it Noah's Flood. The Flood of Noah was global; the Black Sea flood was regional - so they weren't the same. It would also be absurd for Noah to spend the better part of a century building this huge ship when he could have just walked a few days to escape a local flood. And why bring birds along? They could have flown out of the flood zone. And for that matter, why bring any animals? Other species representatives would have been alive and well elsewhere.
Additionally, both Jesus and the apostles are quoted as saying that the Flood of Noah destroyed everyone (not just Noah's local audience). To insist that it was local is to insist that Jesus didn't know what He was talking about, even though He could raise Himself from the dead. And the global Flood is compared in the New Testament to a global judgment by fire at the Last Day. If Noah's Flood was local, then the judgment by fire will also be local (i.e. you'll escape it if you're not in the area). Unlike yourself, even notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits that the Bible teaches a global Flood and young world (though he doesn't believe it).
The whole story falls apart when you try and accommodate Genesis and evolution, and both creationists and evolutionists will hold you up to scorn for being a compromiser. It's one thing to say that the Bible teaches a global Flood, but that you don't believe it. It's quite another to say that there never was a global Flood and the Bible teaches it - which it clearly does not.
Aside from the fact that geology simply does not support a global flood, or a young earth, many Christian Old Testament scholars are well aware of the fact that the Genesis flood story has many similarities with the earlier ANE flood accounts. The Bible has to be understood and interpreted within its ancient Near Eastern context. And the simple fact of the matter is that the Biblical writers appropriated the stories of the other ANE cultures for polemical purposes.
There simply is no reason to take the Genesis flood, or creation narratives, as scientifically literal accounts. Theological truths can be communicated apart from historical factuality. The point of the Genesis flood account was to refute the Mesopotamian and other flood accounts and the reasons why the gods caused the flood. The Old Testament was written most immediately to the people of that time and for the purpose of promoting Yahweh over the various gods of the ANE.
Both John Walton and Tremper Longman III, who co-authored the book, 'The Lost World of the Flood' are Christians by the way. From your post, I assume that you aren't even interested in looking into whether what you believe is true or not. But I offered the book for those who are interested.
There are many genres in the Bible. Much in the Bible is historically true, but much is not although it communicates a theological truth.
In view of the vast amount of geological evidence against it, it is absurd to believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old or that there was a global flood. As William Lane Craig says, young earth creationism is embarrassing.
Aside from the fact that geology simply does not support a global flood, or a young earth
The fossil record suppors a global catastrophe. Billions of dead things, laid down by water, all over the world, testifies to a watery grave worldwide. Additionally, here is a link to PhD scientists in the sciences who hold to creation evidences and a young world: https://creation.com/creation-scientists
Quote:
many Christian Old Testament scholars are well aware of the fact that the Genesis flood story has many similarities with the earlier ANE flood accounts.
Similarities don't make them the same event, as I already mentioned.
Quote:
The Bible has to be understood and interpreted within its ancient Near Eastern context. And the simple fact of the matter is that the Biblical writers appropriated the stories of the other ANE cultures for polemical purposes.
There is no evidence of this, and the burden of proof is on you to prove this beyond just stating that it's true.
Quote:
There simply is no reason to take the Genesis flood, or creation narratives, as scientifically literal accounts.
As I said once before, Jesus and the apostles believed it to be a global Flood, so I will, too. Besides, Genesis is written as literal, so it should be taken as literal. Should Abraham be allegorical, too? Jacob? Pharaoh? They're all in Genesis as well.
Quote:
The point of the Genesis flood account was to refute the Mesopotamian and other flood accounts
Wrong. The purpose of the Flood was to eradicate a sinful world.
Quote:
Both John Walton and Tremper Longman III, who co-authored the book, 'The Lost World of the Flood' are Christians by the way.
So what? Lots of Christians are compromisers on Genesis and don't take the plain meaning of the text - yourself included.
Quote:
From your post, I assume that you aren't even interested in looking into whether what you believe is true or not.
Sir, I've been studying creation science for over 30 years. I've written a book on Noah and am a regular contributor to Creation Magazine through Creation Ministries, International. I know why I believe what I believe.
Quote:
Much in the Bible is historically true, but much is not
This is one of your main problems. You don't even believe the Bible to be true - so why should you believe it when Jesus claims to have risen from the dead? Do you think the secular world is going to cozy up to you when you embrace godless evolution, yet insist on believing that a man rose from the dead - a scientific impossibility from the POV of the world?
Quote:
In view of the vast amount of geological evidence against it
You're elephant hurling; you have yet to prove any such thing.
Quote:
it is absurd to believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old
Once again, both Jesus and the apostles believed this. I'll take their word for it over yours.
Quote:
As William Lane Craig says, young earth creationism is embarrassing.
I'll believe God's infallible word over man's fallible theories any day.
Here is some real scientific evidence for you to ponder:
Polystrate fossils - how do you account for them? Fossilized trees bisecting supposed millions of years of fossil strata. Found all over the world. They would have long since rotted away if the layers were really as old as evolutionists claim. This shows that the layers are only as old as the trees in question.
Carbon in diamonds - carbon's half-life is only thousands of years old, yet it's found in diamonds, which are supposedly billions of year old. The carbon should have long since decayed away, yet it's still present, indicating that the diamonds are only thousands of year old.
Soft tissue and blood cells are being discovered in dinosaur bones, such as T-rexes and hadrosaurs. Such tissue would never have been preserved for millions of years.
Irreducible complexities, such as the eye, blood clotting, and the immune system show that systems have to already be in place to work and could not have possibly evolved. Scientists such as Michael Behe have shown that these things could not have evolved incrementally.
Biblically, the text in Genesis is very clear in chapter 6 that the Flood was global, not local. I recommend that you leave your pre-conceived notions at the door ad re-read Genesis 6 again and see for yourself. Jesus and the apostles believed the Flood destroyed the entire world, so you'll have to disavow them as well to believe it was local. God's promise after the Flood with the rainbow was to never again send a GLOBAL, not local, Flood on the earth again. So God must have been wrong there, too. And Exodus 20:8-11 is a nail in the coffin of an old earth, showing that the days of Creation Week were indeed six literal days - not long ages.
The order of creation in Genesis 1 contradicts the supposed evolution of life. Plants were created before the sun, and birds were created before reptiles, contradicting the evolutionary sequence. Merely adding vast ages to Genesis 1 doesn't solve anything.
The word for "day" in Genesis is "yom" in the Hebrew. Outside of Genesis it's used 471 times either with a number, using "evening" + morning together without the word "day," or using "evening' or "morning" with the word "day" - and in each case it always means an ordinary day per Hebrew grammatical rules. And the 6 days of creation use each one of these. So - why question only Genesis?
My advice to you is to stop thinking that a secular world will suddenly embrace you because you as a Christian declare allegiance to godless evolution. Evolution neither wants nor needs God to get from a Big Bang event to now. Trying to incorporate God into it will only bring you scorn from those you're trying to appease.
The Flood makes sense. There is a reason why dinosaur fossils are uncovered, why whale fossils are uncovered at high altitudes, grand canyon is a result.
The fossil record suppors a global catastrophe. Billions of dead things, laid down by water, all over the world, testifies to a watery grave worldwide. Additionally, here is a link to PhD scientists in the sciences who hold to creation evidences and a young world: https://creation.com/creation-scientists
Similarities don't make them the same event, as I already mentioned.
There is no evidence of this, and the burden of proof is on you to prove this beyond just stating that it's true.
As I said once before, Jesus and the apostles believed it to be a global Flood, so I will, too. Besides, Genesis is written as literal, so it should be taken as literal. Should Abraham be allegorical, too? Jacob? Pharaoh? They're all in Genesis as well.
Wrong. The purpose of the Flood was to eradicate a sinful world.
So what? Lots of Christians are compromisers on Genesis and don't take the plain meaning of the text - yourself included.
Sir, I've been studying creation science for over 30 years. I've written a book on Noah and am a regular contributor to Creation Magazine through Creation Ministries, International. I know why I believe what I believe.
This is one of your main problems. You don't even believe the Bible to be true - so why should you believe it when Jesus claims to have risen from the dead? Do you think the secular world is going to cozy up to you when you embrace godless evolution, yet insist on believing that a man rose from the dead - a scientific impossibility from the POV of the world?
You're elephant hurling; you have yet to prove any such thing.
Once again, both Jesus and the apostles believed this. I'll take their word for it over yours.
I'll believe God's infallible word over man's fallible theories any day.
Here is some real scientific evidence for you to ponder:
Polystrate fossils - how do you account for them? Fossilized trees bisecting supposed millions of years of fossil strata. Found all over the world. They would have long since rotted away if the layers were really as old as evolutionists claim. This shows that the layers are only as old as the trees in question.
Carbon in diamonds - carbon's half-life is only thousands of years old, yet it's found in diamonds, which are supposedly billions of year old. The carbon should have long since decayed away, yet it's still present, indicating that the diamonds are only thousands of year old.
Soft tissue and blood cells are being discovered in dinosaur bones, such as T-rexes and hadrosaurs. Such tissue would never have been preserved for millions of years.
Irreducible complexities, such as the eye, blood clotting, and the immune system show that systems have to already be in place to work and could not have possibly evolved. Scientists such as Michael Behe have shown that these things could not have evolved incrementally.
Biblically, the text in Genesis is very clear in chapter 6 that the Flood was global, not local. I recommend that you leave your pre-conceived notions at the door ad re-read Genesis 6 again and see for yourself. Jesus and the apostles believed the Flood destroyed the entire world, so you'll have to disavow them as well to believe it was local. God's promise after the Flood with the rainbow was to never again send a GLOBAL, not local, Flood on the earth again. So God must have been wrong there, too. And Exodus 20:8-11 is a nail in the coffin of an old earth, showing that the days of Creation Week were indeed six literal days - not long ages.
The order of creation in Genesis 1 contradicts the supposed evolution of life. Plants were created before the sun, and birds were created before reptiles, contradicting the evolutionary sequence. Merely adding vast ages to Genesis 1 doesn't solve anything.
The word for "day" in Genesis is "yom" in the Hebrew. Outside of Genesis it's used 471 times either with a number, using "evening" + morning together without the word "day," or using "evening' or "morning" with the word "day" - and in each case it always means an ordinary day per Hebrew grammatical rules. And the 6 days of creation use each one of these. So - why question only Genesis?
My advice to you is to stop thinking that a secular world will suddenly embrace you because you as a Christian declare allegiance to godless evolution. Evolution neither wants nor needs God to get from a Big Bang event to now. Trying to incorporate God into it will only bring you scorn from those you're trying to appease.
Appealing to creation.com will get you nowhere. Nor does your claim to have written a book about Noah and having contributed to Creation Magazine lend any weight to your argument for a global flood. No legitimate geologist believes that there is evidence for a global flood.
I'll just address one of your 'real scientific evidences for me to ponder:'
''Soft tissue and blood cells are being discovered in dinosaur bones, such as T-rexes and hadrosaurs. Such tissue would never have been preserved for millions of years.''
Mary Schweitzer is the paleontologist who made the discovery of the soft dinosaur tissue. She's also a Christian, and she does not appreciate young earth creationists misusing her discovery to claim that this proves a young earth.
''Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” ''
''Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
If you believe 24/7 creation is really the only interpretation possible and ignore tons of evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that life was a simple construct that got way more complex over time, that’s fine—we may be wrong about the science (I don’t think we are, but as a scientist I have to leave that minute possibility open). I think that parents need to tell their kids that there are a lot of REASONS scientists say what they do, and virtually NONE of those reasons are to disprove God’s existence. That doesn’t enter in. I’ve had lots of students come into my office in tears over the years, saying, “I don’t understand…” The thing is, if you go with the scientific evidence and it turns out to be wrong, I don’t think God is going to punish you for that; God made us curious people. I believe we should step back a little bit and consider other views equally—anything less is doing God and your child a disservice.
So the discoverer of the controversial soft dinosaur tissue (many scientists remain skeptical about the validity of the discovery) rightly remains convinced that the earth is very, very old. And again, she's a Christian.
As for your claim that there is no evidence that the Old Testament writers appropriated the stories and beliefs of the other ANE cultures for polemical purposes, the evidence for 'borrowing' has long been known and written about by scholars. In his book 'Against the Gods' John D. Currid, makes the following comment.
It has been evident for a long time now that there are a magnitude of parallels between Genesis 1 and creation accounts from Mesopotamia and Egypt. . . . For many scholars, the numerous parallels prove that the Genesis record is directly dependent on earlier Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts. This position has dominated scholarly circles since the late nineteenth century.
Against the Gods, Currid p. 33
While there are many parallels, there are also many differences. It's the differences which demonstrate that the purpose for 'borrowing' was for polemical purposes.
Your comments demonstrate an overly literalistic and wooden view of the Bible. Your claim that I don't believe the Bible is false. I do believe the Bible. But I recognize that not everything is to be understood as historically literal. There are other ways to communicate theological truths.
Oh. And I'm not trying to appease anyone. I go where the evidence leads. And the evidence leads to an earth that is billions of years old, and a Universe which is billions of years older still. The evidence also is against a global flood.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-13-2018 at 12:29 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
