Blessings,

I thought it would be a healthy idea to hear some different perspectives as to what 'authorities' we rest our core beliefs of scripture, God's creation and His Salvation.

Of course scripture must be our ultimate authority and I believe that is a consensus here with most members, but God has given us intelligible minds, a complex structure within us to be able to use our reason and other elements to discern and interpret evidence found throughout His creation. We only need to observe the complexity of DNA to see that God has used a type of road map and His fingerprints can be found in all aspects of His creation.

I'm curious what other devices members use to search for God's truth and how it is compared to the authority of scripture.

Some live by a 'Presuppositional' view point where they believe that man's reason outside of God's Word is limited and to some extent very limited and adhere greatly to Proverbs 3:5-7. Others believe you can use evidence within the physical world to explain how God's creation was developed and how it has continued its course through the millenniums.

I'd like others to share their devices and their methods as it might be edifying to other members in that they've never considered using such methods for themselves.

I look forward to hearing from some of you and your methods of explaining the magnificence of God's creation.

Be blessed!

Views: 282

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Dearest Jim, you must be ignorant of the Christian faith, the history of the flood and what Christians believe.  A huge contingent of Christians experts in creationism accept a local flood view.  This has nothing to do with their salvation unless you have some unction to judge the whole of Christianity based on flood geology which is theoretical and experts and others over the years after examining the claims of Flood geology cannot rectify the inferred facts of this theoretical view to actual evidences. Some of these experts actually wrote for AIG and did many articles and have left for the same reasons. MY sense of Flood geology does not come without years of study and trying to rectify the claims, as well as the inferences of dispersion.  

A majority of Christianity believes in a local flood, that has nothing to do with their salvation and no line has been drawn in the sand (that is your words and presupposition).  
The bible clearly explains the flood and Christians all believe in a flood, as I do.  It is regretful that you blindly continue to infer and judge Christians that don't view your views as legitimately correct, based on a lack of evidences.  I could ask you 3 question about the flood, of which you could not answer nor would not, instead you would make some glaring comment about how unchristian I am as you have here. It is no accident and much study that has brought me to a position of no position on the flood.  MY position Jim is I have no position, if you believe in a WwFlood, then great, and if you believe in a local flood they both have their explanations and they both fit within the context of the biblical narrative.  IF we were talking about essential faith doctrines instead of "your" dogma that would be different.  I hold those who believe in the wwFLood just as much as anyone with a different view. What that means is your my brother in Christ and I don't take issue with anyone who believes in wwflood. So Jim you are now calling me what?  What ever it is you just explained to the readers then you have also disenfranchised half of Christianity that believes differently than you.   

So my question to your ridiculous rant above is do you believe that Christians can believe in a local flood and be Christians?  Do you believe the gapping holes on flood geology need to be answered before that theory can be taught dogmatically?  Do you believe that GOD gave man free will and the Holy Spirit to guide his understanding of the Word?  DO you believe the essential faith doctrines of the church are in jeopardy because someone has different view of your theory? These are the issues.  

When you want to disenfranchise my Christianity and that huge content of Christian scholars and experts and reject their faith based on your inference that they pick and choose wrongly, who are you to judge.  Doesn't God call us not to be arrogant? The height of hypocrisy is basing ones faith on a "theory" that is failed in many areas.  The fact that I have studied this in detail and cannot rectify flood geology with the evidence, which is left behind by God's work in nature.  Not Walt Browns inferences, or Morris's views of fossils that he has been taken to task for many times, of positional explanations for fossil formation, which run counter to what is observable?  I respect the fact you believe in wwFlood, I don't believe that affects your Christian faith or practice one iota. So Jim I will not disenfranchise your faith or your practice or impugn your ability to understand Scripture because you don't have my belief.  I am comfortable in my own skin the majority of experts in creationism are with a different view, even people involved with flood geology.

So Jim,
Take two subject matters, one the Toba Volcano, and the other the Karoo fossil beds. I am interested how flood geology supports these two very well known but little spoken about events in history. IF you want to talk fact and issues lets do it, but I am not going to bite on your rants and positional views of my soul and content of my character.  Your my brother in Christ... I will leave it that way until you actually want to talk about real facts and real evidences.  You want to do that, then lets have at it. Otherwise your continued outrageous inferences about my character should not be posted on this site. Its surely disrespectful...  

Or do the administrators support "character assassination". 

AND NEXT he will repeat the lie that the flood is irrelevant, (I never said that once JIM, that's your words, the flood is very important to me personally, scripturally, and the narrative is clear)

What has a wwflood vs a local flood view to do with the shed blood of Christ and His redeeming ministry of reconciliation? (My question)

Jim why don’t you explain how you can disenfranchise a whole majority cross section of Christians across the world, disregard their faith as inadequate, question their scriptural choices as if it was a whim, and not study... Infer that Christians with a different view are now outside of the faith, because the blood of Christ's reconciliation the gospel is somehow now in jeopardy?  

Please answer my original question?

Are you inferring that God has a litmus test for salvation based on the flood view of individual Christians?

This stuff you put out is disrespectful at best and absurd.
IS there anything here that conflicts with the Gospel reconciliation of all men through the shed blood of Christ, or will you continue to promote these absurd inferences?


1.Limited Geography, Limited Life

The first position is that humans and animals were spread out all over the globe. The Flood affected a limited portion of the earth killing only those who lived in a small geographical area. The rest of the people and animals were spared. 

2.Limited Only Geographically All Life Destroyed

Others hold that all life was limited to one particular region. Though the Flood was geographically limited, the Flood killed every living thing since all life was confined to one geographical area. 

3.Uncertain About Human And Animal Life

Some who hold to a local Flood do not think there is sufficient evidence to make a decision as to whether humans and animals lived in other parts of the globe at the time of the Genesis Flood. Although accepting a geographically local Flood, they do not take a position as to how to the extent of the Flood with respect to animals and humanity. 

All Agree Geographically Limited

Local Flood advocates all agree that the Flood was geographically limited - whether or not it destroyed all of humanity and all of the animal kingdom. There is no agreement, however, as to the exact geographically extent of the Flood. 

The Local Flood View Explained

The local Flood view is that God sent a destructive Flood to a limited part of the world to destroy the evil inhabitants that dwelt there. These were people who had received special privileges from God and lived in highly favorable circumstances. Instead of honoring Him, they were evil continually. God, therefore, wiped out all of the people and animal in this geographical area except for eight people - Noah and his family. 

Not Degrading Scripture

Those who hold this view should not be accused of having a low view of Scripture. Bernard Ramm comments. 

It is not a question as to what God can or cannot do. Those who believe in a local Flood believe in the omnipotence and power of God as much as any other Christian does. The question is not: 'What can God do?' but 'What did God do?' (Bernard Ramm,, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, Eerdmans, 1954, p. 163).


We should not assume, therefore, that those who hold to a local Flood have a low view of the power of God and the inspiration of the Bible. There are many good Bible-believing Christians who think the Scriptures teach the Flood was not worldwide in scope but rather limited to a local geographical area. 

Most Arguments The Same

As we have noted, there is disagreement between local Flood advocates as to whether there were people and animals living in others parts of the globe. Whatever the particular position that local Flood advocates take on this issue, their arguments for a localized Flood are basically the same. Therefore we will group the arguments together making note where there is disagreement between those who advocate a restricted Flood. 

The Biblical Case For A Local Flood

Those who argue a biblical case for a local Flood believe that Scripture can support this position. They believe terms used in Genesis do not force one to believe in a universal Flood. 

1.All Does Not Always Mean All

Though the word all is found throughout the Flood account, it is not necessary to assume that it is used in a universal sense. There are many places in the Bible where all does not mean every last one. For example. 

Joel 3:2 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Joe/3/2/s_879002">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Joe/3/2/s_879002>;  reads: 

I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, My people Israel, for they scattered My people among the nations and divided up my land (Joel 3:2 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Joe/3/2/s_879002">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Joe/3/2/s_879002>; ).


Though the Scripture says all nations, we know from the context that the nations are limited to those around Judah and Jerusalem. 

Another example can be found in the statement of Cyrus. 

Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him! Let him go up (2 Chronicles 36:23 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Ch/36/23/s_403023">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Ch/36/23/s_403023>; ).


His kingdom, though great, did not encompass the entire globe. 

Therefore all does not mean every last one. Therefore when we find the term all in Scripture, the context has to tell us if it means every last one. It is not always necessary to assume that it is used in a universal sense. 

2.Universal Language Is Often Hyperbolic
 

In Scripture, universal language is often hyperbolic - deliberate exaggeration for effect. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote: 

If you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant (Colossians 1:23 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Col/1/23/s_1108023">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Col/1/23/s_1108023>; ).


This is obvious exaggeration. Not everyone, everywhere in the earth had heard the gospel at this time. 

This is another indication that universal expressions in Scripture are not necessarily universal. The context must be the determining factor. Statements which sound universal in the English Bible may have a local reference. 

The universal terms could have been used to emphasize that this was no normal flood. Though local in extent, it nevertheless was devastating in its destruction. 

3.The Hebrew Word Earth Can Be Translated Land
 

The Hebrew term eretz translated earth in Genesis 6-8 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/6/1-22/s_6001">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/6/1-22/s_6001>;  should be translated land instead of earth. The word eretz is used more than 2,500 times in the Old Testament with 80% of the time being translated land rather than earth. Therefore, the Hebrew writers employed the word with its much more restricted meaning about four times as frequently as they employed it with a broader meaning. What is in view, in the Flood account, is not the entire earth, but the land around Noah. 

If the word land is substituted for earth in the Flood account then the passage has an entirely different sense. Consider how the passage would then be understood. 

Now the land was corrupt in God's sight, and the land was filled with violence. And God saw that the land was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the land. For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the land, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the land shall die (Genesis 6:11 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/6/11/s_6011">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/6/11/s_6011>; ,12 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/6/12/s_6012">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/6/12/s_6012>; ,17 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/6/17/s_6017">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/6/17/s_6017>; ).


The point is as follows: the extent of the Flood cannot be decisively settled based upon the Hebrew word for earth. 

4.Hebrews Had Better Word For Entire Earth

When the Hebrews wished to convey the idea of the whole habitable earth, they used the word tetel, as in Psalm 24:1 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/24/1/s_502001">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/24/1/s_502001>; . 

The earth is the LORD's and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it (Psalm 24:1 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/24/1/s_502001">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/24/1/s_502001>; ).

This word is not found in the Genesis Flood account - another indication that the entire earth is not in view. 

Not As Clear As It Seems

Consequently, the words all and the whole earth, which are found throughout the Flood narrative, may not really be as widespread in their implications as the text seems to state. The Hebrew language cannot, by itself, be decisive in determining the extent of the Flood. 

5.Emphasis On Promised Land

The writer of Genesis was mainly concerned about God's covenant people and the land which they were promised - it was not on the entire globe. Old Testament authority, John Sailhamer, writes. 

Two primary themes dominate the Creation account: the land and the blessing. In recounting the events of Creation, the author has selected and arranged the narrative to allow these themes full development. The preparation of the land and the divine blessing are important to the author or Genesis (and the Pentateuch) because these two themes form the basis of his treatment of the patriarchal narratives and the Sinai covenant. In translating the Hebrew word eretz (earth) in 1:1-2, the English versions have blurred the connection of these early verses of Genesis to the central theme of the land in the Pentateuch. Although eretz can be translated by either earth or land, the general term landin English more closely approximates its use in chapter 1. Thus from the start the author betrays his interest in the covenant by concentrating on the land in the account of creation (John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch As Narrative, Zondervan, 1992, pp. 81,82).


Consequently a local Flood that covered the Promised Land is consistent with his emphasis. 

6.Mountains May Not Have Been That High

If Noah lived in the plains, then the term high mountains could refer to mountains that were relatively low - a few hundred feet. They were high mountains from his perspective on the plain. If this is the case, then it would not force us to assume that the entire world was under water. 

7.Water Level Relative To Mountains

While it is true that water seeks its own level, the covering of low lying mountains, a few hundred feet in height, would not necessitate a universal Flood. 

8.Universal From Author's Perspective

All admit that universal terms are used in the Flood account. It is argued that the terms are meant to be understood as universal from the author's (Noah's) perspective. From his limited standpoint, everything was covered with the waters of the Flood. When Noah used the phrase the entire heaven it would have meant all the sky that he could see. We find this limited sense of heaven in the Book of First Kings. 

In a little while the heavens grew black with clouds and wind; there was a heavy rain. Ahab rode off and went to Jezreel (1 Kings 18:45 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ki/18/45/s_309045">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ki/18/45/s_309045>; ).


The heavens do not refer to the sky around the entire globe, but merely the sky in one limited area. 

The same limitation is found in a statement in Deuteronomy. 

This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the peoples everywhere under heaven; when they hear report of you, they will tremble and be in anguish because of you (Deuteronomy 2:25 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Deu/2/25/s_155025">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Deu/2/25/s_155025>; ).

All peoples under heaven does not refer to everyone on the planet, it merely refers to those living in that part of the world. 

Same Author

What is important about this reference is that it is from the same person who wrote the Book of Genesis - Moses. Since this phrase in Deuteronomy is limited in its extent, it is consistent to interpret the phrase in a limited extent in Genesis. 

Consequently, when Moses wrote of the heaven and earth in the Flood account, it would have referred to all the sky and all the land in which surrounded Noah. As far as Noah was concerned, the Flood was universal.

9.Exact Site Of Landing Unknown

The Bible says that the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ararat - not necessarily present day Mount Ararat. This Hebrew word refers to a range, not one specific mountain. The range is a one hundred thousand square mile area. Old Testament authority, Gordon Wenham, explains. 

On the mountains of Ararat does not mean on a mountain called Ararat, but on the mountains in the area called Ararat. Ararat is the Hebrew term for Urartu, a kingdom north of Assyria (2 Kgs 19:37 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Ki/19/37/s_332037">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Ki/19/37/s_332037>; ; Isa 37:38 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/37/38/s_716038">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/37/38/s_716038>; ; Jer 51:27 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jer/51/27/s_796027">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jer/51/27/s_796027>; ) later called Armenia, now part of eastern Turkey, southern Russia, and northwestern Iran. Various mountains in Armenia have been identified with the one on which the ark landed . . . But it should be repeated that the biblical text does not give a precise location (Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word, 1987, pp. 184,185).


Since we do not know exactly where the ark landed, we do not know what mountains were covered. They could have been relatively small. 

10.Local Flood Prevented Need For Universal Flood

If humanity was limited to one specific geographical area, then God could have used a local Flood to keep the corrupt human race from spreading out all over the globe. The local Flood recorded in Genesis kept God from sending a greater destruction later in human history. 

11.Too Hard For Animals To Disembark From Great Height

The identification of the present day Mount Ararat with the spot of the ark's landing has been questioned by some interpreters. 

Mt. Ararat is c. 17,000 feet high, but the name was only later applied to this peak, and Heb. implies no more than a peak in this region. It is a gratuitous assumption of a miracle to make the animals find their way down through ice and snow from such a height (H.L. Ellison, The New Layman's Bible Commentary, G.C.D. Howley, F.F. Bruce, H.L. Ellison, editors, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, p. 142).


12.Noah Did Not Go Far To Preach 

Also, the Biblical record indicates that Noah did not go to far countries to preach. This is consistent with the local Flood view but is difficult to reconcile with a universal Flood theory - which says the population was geographically spread out. If God send a global flood, there would have been people who would not have heard about the coming judgment. 

13.The Ark Was A Sign

The building of the ark was a testimony only to those who saw it. Why should others believe Noah's testimony about an upcoming Flood if they were living far from the ark's construction? Therefore the Flood must have been geographically limited to those who could have witnessed the construction of the ark. 

14.No Time To Warn Everybody

The building of the ark could have occurred in a relatively short period of time. This would not have provided Noah with ample time to warn those living in other parts of the globe - if those parts were populated at the time. 

15.An Endless Supply Of Miracles Needed
 

Some writers feel that an endless supply of miracles are necessary for a universal Flood account to be established. Bernard Ramm writes. 

If one wishes to retain a universal Flood, it must be understood that a series of stupendous miracles is required. Further, one cannot beg off with pious statements that God can do anything (Bernard Ramm, ibid., p. 165).


As we study Scripture, we find what is known as an economy of miracles. This means that God does not do more than is necessary in a particular situation - He does not flaunt His mighty power. He would not have sent a universal Flood if it was not necessary. David E. O'Brien writes. 

God's demonstration of His power throughout the Scripture is rare enough to remain awe-inspiring but always restrained. God doesn't swat mosquitoes with meteorites. If His aim was to eradicate all life, with the exception of Noah and his family, the flood would have been extensive enough to accomplish that goal, but not more extensive (David E. O'Brien,Today's Handbook For Solving Bible Difficulties, Bethany House Publishers, 1990, p. 218).


16.Ark Would Not Survive Universal Flood

It is also contended that the ark could not survive the physical stress of a universal Flood. The continuous upheavals of the earth for five months would have destroyed the ark. 

17.Ark Could Not Hold All The Animals

Noah's ark would not have been big enough to hold two of each animal that is known today - let alone those that have become extinct since the Flood. At best, it could hold about 30,000 species of animals - a small percentage of all known species both past and present. 

18.Ark May Have Been Smaller Than Traditionally Believed

If the standard measurement, the cubit, was smaller in Noah's time, then the ark could have been considerable smaller than traditionally believed. A smaller ark would lend further support for a local Flood. 

19.Animals Could Not Have Come From All Over The Globe

If the Flood were universal, then thousands of animals from all over the world would have had to get to the ark. How would animals from other continents cross the ocean to get to the ark? 

20.The Difficulty In Caring For The Animals
 

The caring for the animals is another problem raised with the idea of a universal Flood. The text indicates that the animals did not hibernate since Noah was told to store away food. 

Also take with you every kind of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them (Genesis 6:21 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/6/21/s_6021">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/6/21/s_6021>; ).


With some 4,500 species of animals and over 8,000 species of birds as well as other types of life, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for eight people to handle and feed all these animals. 

In addition, the animals lived in different environments and many had special diets. It does not seem possible that they could have survived for a year in the ark with their own unique needs. 

CONTINUED>>>>>

21.Number Of Species To Save Believable With Local Flood

A local Flood would reduce the total number of species to be saved. There would be no need to save every type of specie on the planet. This would have made it possible for Noah and his family to care for the animals. Also, the creatures that Noah took on the ark correlate to those that were made on the fifth and sixth day. These were animals necessary for human society - domesticated animals and animals to be used for sacrifice 

22.Other Destructive Floods Do Not Break God's Promise

God promised Noah that He would not send a similar flood upon the earth. 

I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth (Genesis 9:11 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/9/11/s_9011">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/9/11/s_9011> ).


It has been argued that this promise has been broken if the Genesis Flood was only local. Many devastating local floods have happened since Noah's time killing thousands in their destruction. 

However, the purpose of the Genesis Flood was to destroy all life, not simply to cover the globe with water. Since the time of Noah there have been no more floods that have destroyed all life. Therefore, even if the Genesis Flood was local, the promise to Noah has not been broken. 

23. Fountains Of Water Not Continually Breaking Up

We should not necessarily assume that the fountains, or springs, of the great deep continued to break up for five months. Genesis 8:2 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/8/2/s_8002">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/8/2/s_8002>  could be rendered in the past tense. Both the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version translate the verse in this way. 

Now the springs of the deep and the Floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky (Genesis 8:2NIV a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/%20niv/Gen/8/2/s_8002">https://www.blueletterbible.org/%20niv/Gen/8/2/s_8002> )


The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained (Genesis 8:2 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/8/2/s_8002">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/8/2/s_8002>  NRSV).


If this is the case, then the springs of the deep were not a constant water source for five months. The shorter time span for the source of water for the Flood is another indication that it was geographically limited. 

24.Chronology Of The Flood Supports Local Deluge

If the Flood covered all the high mountains, this would include 17,000 foot Mt. Ararat. Scripture says it took about 300 days for the waters to run off. Dividing this into 17,000 feet, reveals that the waters would have had to have receded about 50 feet a day! This does not seem possible. A universal Flood would have needed a much longer time for the waters to recede. 

25.Where The Ark Rested
 

The ark came to rest only five hundred miles from the origin of where it was built. If the Flood was a year-long and worldwide, we would expect the ark to land farther away from its origin. 

26.The Distribution Of The Animals

Many find problems with the animals leaving the ark and then moving to the various spots on the earth. How would they disperse to all parts of the globe? How could they have crossed the oceans? A local Flood does not have this problem. 

27.Noah Began Immediately Using The Land

If the earth suffered the tremendous upheavals necessitated by a universal flood, then Noah and his family would not have been able to immediately start agricultural work. Yet the Scripture says that he started working the land after the Flood. This necessitates the Flood being local. 

28.World Of Humanity Destroyed

Peter's statement, in the New Testament, does not necessarily indicate a universal Flood as some have claimed. 

For they willingly forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being Flooded with water (2 Peter 3:5 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Pe/3/5/s_1159005">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Pe/3/5/s_1159005> ,6 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Pe/3/6/s_1159006">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Pe/3/6/s_1159006> ).

The text merely says that the world that then existed was destroyed - not the entire globe. The Flood was only as spread out as was the population. Since the population was limited to one geographical area, so was the Flood. Because certain areas of the planet were not populated at that time, there was no need for the Flood to reach those unpopulated areas. The flood only occurred where people lived. There would be no reason whatsoever for God to flood an uninhabited area. 

29.Noah's Ark Not Yet Discovered

One of the arguments for a universal Flood is that parts of Noah's ark have been discovered high atop Mt. Ararat in Eastern Turkey. Since Araratis 17 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/17/1-14/s_696001">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/17/1-14/s_696001> ,000 feet high, there must have been a global Flood - since water seeks its own level. 

There are two problems with this contention. First, the Bible does not give a specific location as to the landing of the Ark, it merely says the mountains of Ararat. This does not necessarily mean that it landed on the Mt. Ararat of today. Second, it has not been established with any certainty that the wood found high upon Mt. Ararat is from the time of Noah. 

30.Geographical Place Names Limited

The Book of Genesis gives no geographical place names outside of Mesopotamia until after the Flood. This is an indication that civilization was centralized and limited to one geographical area. 

If the Flood happened early enough in human history, then it would have destroyed everything living because humankind and animals all dwelt in a limited area. 

31.The Need For Noah Not To Migrate

If the Flood were only local, then why didn't Noah and the animals simply migrate to an area that the Flood would not touch? 

God did not allow Noah and the animals to migrate out of the Flood area for a number of reasons. 

Fair Warning

First, God wanted to give the people fair warning. The fact that Noah took time to build the ark and preach to the people left them without an excuse. If he and his family migrated, then the people would not have had a fair warning about the upcoming judgment - something God always gives. Building an ark would give them all a clear warning. 

Some May Gone With Him

If Noah had migrated, it is possible that some of the evil people would have left the area with him. It would not have taken an act of trust in God to leave the area. This would be similar to the mixed multitude who went out of Egypt with the children of Israel. If this happened, the purpose for the Flood - the destruction of the sinful humanity - would have been thwarted. 

Necessary To Warn, Not Escape

The fact that Noah and his family could have migrated from the area to escape the Flood shows that the ark was not necessary. However, God always warns before judgment. The act of building the ark in a plain by a respectable man like Noah would have called the attention of everyone to it. Therefore, in one sense, the ark was necessary. 

32.Necessary To Save Animals

A case also has to be made for taking animals on the ark. Why did they have to join Noah and his family? They were not necessary to testify to the people of the upcoming Flood? 

Domesticated Animals Would Have Been Wiped Out 

Many local Flood advocates argue that only domesticated animals went onto the ark. At this time in history, sheep, cattle, pigs and goats had been domesticated. If Noah had simply migrated, then all the domesticated animals would have been wiped out by the Flood. The domestication of animals would have had to have begun all over again. 

Animals Could Not Have Migrated Alone

Had the domesticated animals left the area of the Flood on their own they would have been easy prey for predators. This necessitated why they should join Noah and his family on the ark. 

33.Not Necessary To Take Dinosaurs On The Ark

Local Flood advocates are not in agreement whether dinosaurs may have existed at this time in human history. Many advocates of a global Flood, however, insist that Noah took dinosaurs with him on the ark. 

If they did exist, local Flood advocates believe that it would have been unthinkable for Noah to take them on the ark. Is it really likely that Noah would take a seventy-foot long dinosaur on the ark? Are we to assume that a male and a female Tyrannosaurus Rex was housed next to the other animals? It seems absurd to argue that Noah would have had large carnivorous dinosaurs housed with all the other animals. 

35.Flood Stories In Other Cultures Do Not Testify To Universality Of Flood

The fact that many cultures around the world have their own Flood stories does not testify to a universal Flood. Some of the stories only bear a superficial resemblance to the Genesis account and many of the stories can be attributed to Christian missionaries. These stories do not force the belief in a universal Flood. 

Local Flood, Not Everyone Killed

As we have mentioned, some local Flood advocates believe their were people and animals living in other parts of the globe who were not affected by the Flood. They contend the ark saved eight people and a number of animals that lived in that particular region of the world, the Flood did not destroy every other human being and animal. Their arguments are as follows. 

1.People Were Living Elsewhere

There is evidence that people lived on other parts of the globe at the time of Noah and were not affected by the Flood. Bernard Ramm writes: 

If the evidence is certain that the American Indian was in America around 8,000 B.C. to 10,000 B.C., then a universal flood or a destruction of man, must be before that time, and due to Genesis and Babylonian parallels there is hardly an evangelical scholar who wished to put the flood as early as 8,000 to 10,000 B.C. (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View Of Science And Scripture, Eerdmans, 1954, p. 336).


If this is the case, then the Flood was limited geographically - it did not cover all the earth, and anthropologically - it did not kill every human being then alive. 

2.Whole Known World

The world described in Genesis is the world known to Noah - not the whole inhabited earth. Therefore the Flood was limited to the world that Noah knew. 

The whole world in Scripture is often the whole known world, not the entire planet. We also read the following in the Book of Genesis. 

Moreover, all the world came to Joseph in Egypt to buy grain, because the famine became severe throughout the world (Genesis 41:57 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/41/57/s_41057">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/41/57/s_41057> ).


It is not necessary to assume that the famine was of global proportions. 

In the New Testament we read. 

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered (Luke 2:1 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/2/1/s_975001">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/2/1/s_975001> ).


This is the whole Roman world, not the entire globe. 

The Flood, therefore, would have killed all humans and animals known to Noah, not those living in other parts of the globe. 

3.All Sinful People That Noah Knew Were Destroyed

The statement that the Flood destroyed all sinful people means only the sinful people Noah was aware of - not necessarily the entire world. Noah was unaware of people leaving in other parts of the world. All the people that he was aware of were destroyed in the Flood. Therefore, from his standpoint, all people were destroyed. This allows for other people and animals, not living in other parts of the globe, to have survived the Flood. 

4.Where Are All The Human Fossils?

If millions of people were killed in a worldwide Flood, why don't we find their fossils? If they lived alongside of dinosaurs why don't we see them buried with them. 


Do Not Know If Other Continents Were Populated

Other local Flood adherents are not certain, either way, whether there were people and animals living outside the waters of the Flood. Though all life was probably not limited to the Mesopotamian Valley, there is not enough evidence to know, one way or the other, whether other parts of the globe were populated at that time. How far humanity migrated is unknown. Therefore, they argue, that the Flood was localized geographically and may, or may not, have killed all the remainder of humans and animals on the earth. 

Summary

These are the non-scientific arguments that local Flood advocates have put forward to support their case that the Genesis Flood was geographically localized and did not extend to the entire world. 

Scientific Arguments 

There are also a number of scientific arguments that are raised against a universal Flood. 

1.The Mixing Salt And Fresh Water Would Have Killed Marine Life

If the Flood covered the entire earth, it is contended that the mixing of the salt waters with the fresh water would have killed the marine life. Those that were not killed would have been crushed by the water pressure or would have starved by the loss of their feeding ground. In any case, nothing would have survived. 

2.Leaf From Olive Tree Shows Local Flood

The Bible says that after the Flood, Noah sent out a dove that brought back an olive leaf. 

When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth (Genesis 8 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/8/1-22/s_8001">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/8/1-22/s_8001> ;11 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/11/1-32/s_11001">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/11/1-32/s_11001> ).


It is doubtful that any olive tree could have survived the upheavals caused by a global Flood. In addition, olive trees grow in the lowlands, not high up on mountains. This is another indication of a local Flood. Theologian Ronald Youngblood writes. 

The freshly picked olive leaf brought to Noah by the dove (8:11) virtually rules out Ararat as the ark's landfall since olive trees do not grow within thousands of feet of that high elevation. In fact, that one olive leaf may turn out to be the Achilles' heel of the universal-flood theory, because it implies that somewhere an olive tree had survived the flood (probably atop a relatively low mountain) (Ronald Youngblood, The Book of Genesis, Second Edition, Baker Book House, 1991, p. 114).

3.Plant Life Destroyed

Most plant life would be destroyed by being submerged under salt water for a year even if the waters were diluted. 

4.The Amount Of Water Supports Local Flood 

The amount of water needed to cover Mt. Everest is about eight times as much as presently is on the earth. There is no known source for the water for a global Flood and no way of getting rid of it afterward. Where did the water come from and where did all the water go? Evaporation is not a sufficient answer. Neither is the suggestion that the water returned to subterranean cavities. They could only a small fraction of the water necessary to cover the highest mountains around the world. 

Therefore, the amount of water from the rain would support a local Flood, not a universal one. 

5.No Water Vapor Canopy

Many who believe in a universal Flood argue that a water vapor canopy existed above the earth before the Flood. This canopy is the waters above referred to in Genesis 1:7 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/1/7/s_1007">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/1/7/s_1007> . This canopy provided a tremendous amount of water for the Flood. 

Local flood advocates deny the existence of such a canopy. They believe the waters above simply refer to the clouds. Furthermore the waters above still existed long after the Flood. 

Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded and they were created. He established them forever and ever; He fixed their bounds, which cannot be passed (Psalm 148:4-6 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/148/4-6/s_626004">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/148/4-6/s_626004> ).


Since the waters above are everlasting, they could not have been the source of the water for the Flood. 

6.Petroleum Products Available Before Flood

It has been argued that the universal Flood is the source of the petroleum products of today. However we find Noah using petroleum products before the Flood. 

So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out (Genesis 6:14 a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/6/14/s_6014">https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/6/14/s_6014> ).

Pitch or bitumen, is a petroleum product. There were at least some petroleum products before the Flood. 

7.Strong Wind Works For Local Flood

The Bible says that God sent a strong wind to dry up the waters of the Flood. This would work well with a local Flood that occurred in a plain but it would be of no help in a universal deluge. In addition, it shows that God used evaporation to get rid of the water rather than an upheaval of the earth as is argued by those holding to a global flood. 

8.No Geological Evidence For A Universal Flood
 

If the Flood were universal in geography, then we should find evidence of this. It is argued that the evidence is not there. Donald Boardman, emeritus professor of geology at Wheaton college, writes: 

It thus seems most likely that the continents at the time of the Flood were about the same as they are now, both in extent and in elevation. Geologists should be able to find evidence of a Flood that covered the entire earth within the last few thousand years. No distinctive beds, sequence of beds, or erosional features that are the result of running water or wave action have been recognized, and it is reasonable to assume that such are not present (Donald Boardman in The Genesis Debate, Ronald Youngblood Ed., Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986, pp. 218, 219).


Though signs of localized catastrophic floods are found everywhere, there is no clear sign of one, global Flood. 

9.Flood Geology Discredited

Most Christians who have advanced degrees, in science believe that the geological evidence supports a local Flood. Flood geology, which argues for the universal nature of the deluge, is not recognized by the majority Christian scholars. It has been rejected both scientifically and biblically. Howard Vos explains. 

The flood geology position has been discredited in university geology departments and is being rejected almost universally by evangelical geologists. This is true in part because it does not agree with scientific arguments according to which, e.g., many geologic features could not have been formed under water or in so short a time. . .
Flood geology is also rejected because it does not tally very well with Scripture itself. Geography or topography, e.g. does not seem to have been changed greatly by the Flood. Mesopotamia with its great rivers appears to have been much the same after the Flood as before it. . .
Those who oppose flood geology observe that the Flood was designed to be an event in redemption history, not in geological history. . . . one can hold to a universal flood brought on by rain and tidal waves, which deposited surface material such as gravels and silts, without holding to flood geology. Flood geology is an interpretation of the universal flood and its effects, but is not synonymous with a belief in a cataclysmic or even a universal flood (Howard Vos, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 2, E-J, Revised Edition, Eerdmans, 1982,p. 318).


10.Rapid Development Needed

If the Flood was universal, then all the animals today descended only from those brought upon the ark. However, the ark could hold, at most, only a few thousand pairs of different species. This would mean that the millions of different species we find today descended from these animals taken upon the ark. This would involve a very rapid development in a very short period of time. There is no evidence that this did happen or even possibly could have happened. 

11.The Fossil Sequence

Another problem with regard to a universal Flood is the fossil sequence. Wayne Ault writes: 

The sequence of fossils in the strata of the world or in the stratigraphic column in any one region simply cannot be explained on the basis of a one year Flood. The fossil species are not hopelessly mixed. Rather, many index fossils, distinctive of a given geologic period have been recognized and used successfully by geologists around the world. Different brachiopod species, for example, which are index fossils for different periods, may have distinctly morphological features but may be quite similar in shape and size. There is no way that these fossils could be selectively winnowed out of worldwide Flood waters and deposited in their respective strata except that they lived at different times and were buried where they lived (Wayne Ault, Flood in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Merrill Tenney General Editor, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, Volume II, 1975, p. 562).

This leads many to believe that the scientific evidence supports a local Flood. 

Summary To Local Flood View

These are some of the arguments, biblical and scientific, that have led people to believe that the Bible teaches a local, rather than a universal Flood. They feel this view is the most compatible with both science and Scripture. 

Without denying the supernatural character of the account, local Flood advocates believe God sent a Flood to only part of the world. 

Hi Jim,


 Jim Brenneman said:

The opponents of Creation Conversations believe that we should interpret the Scripture on the basis of their opinions about uncertain science.

I suppose I would be considered one of those opponents.

My problem is that I expect people who say they believe the Bible is God's word and the final authority to accept exactly what the Bible says.  Not what they believe it to say or want it to say. 

God Bless,

Aaron

Hi Jim,

Jim Brenneman said:

In the face of this evidence he is unwilling to admit a world-wide flood that covered the entire earth. He refuses to acknowledge that the catastrophe that formed these strata really did take place.

Will you give me the Bible text that supports or describes a catastrophic flood as you have describe that took place?

I do believe in a world wide flood.

I also believe the Bible when it says the water gathered to one place and dry land appeared.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

That should solve any problem about whether the entire land mass was covered with water. It should also solve the problem about how high the hills had to be.

God Bless,

Aaron.

Hi Lou,

I have a couple of comments to insert in your post.

Lou Hamby said:

Dearest Jim, you must be ignorant of the Christian faith, the history of the flood and what Christians believe.  A huge contingent of Christians experts in creationism accept a local flood view.  

It does not matter what you or anyone else believes.   The only thing that matters is what the Bible says.

Genesis 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

What part of "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." leaves any dry land available to make the flood a local flood?

 MY position Jim is I have no position, if you believe in a WwFlood, then great, and if you believe in a local flood they both have their explanations and they both fit within the context of the biblical narrative.  

Please show me where you can get a local flood in Genesis 7:17-23.

God Bless,

Aaron

Aaron if you read the reasons why some believe in a local flood above that I posted, there is no disharmony between local and wwFlood with respect to the Word. I mean not to be coy here but it would be great of WWflood authors would actually answer quesiton about flood geology that have gaping holes in it.  MY issue here is I am driven towards a local flood for many reasons but none the less that doesn't mean that I have a lesser view of the bible or Christ's Work as stated in John nor his reconciliation through is sacrifice for all men.  God has not set a litmus test for salvation based on wwFlood?

THe word Erets is used for a local designation more often in Scripture, the King James rightly interprets the Word "all the high hills", which certainly the eye witness account includes what could be seen from a local perspective.  All the high hills refers to the hills that could be seen from their vantage point.  THe 15 cubits have been interpreted for a long time as over the "mountains" hills, but that is not what it says...

7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

THe same high hills are not mountains, under the heavens does not imply the whole world but as the eye witness can see and the WwFlood flood has been read into the narrative. The 15 cubits may well have been referring tot he fact the draft of the boat as my study of cubits and drafts on boats is that 22 to 24 ft is more than adequate to float a giant boat. The word likely has a local connotation and not the whole world.

But my point is not to argue one way or the other, the fact that I find the local flood more plausible in the face of the narrative as well as the dispersion, doesn't negate any of our views of essential faith doctrines.  I have had exchanges with University of Kentucky experts on tree rings, and even on live trees (Bristle cone and European spruce) we easily have over 5,000 years of information recording volcanoes and other historic things including climate (with double rings per year,inferred by YE brothers but not actually observed).  In none of the samples known to tree ring experts is there any evidence of a wwFlood.  That certainly would have evidence and does not.  We have many known cultures that have little or no interruption in their existence do to a flood. But while I am hesitant to go there, my challenge is Flood geology is indeed theoretical, and has many issues, of which I have not been able to rectify, even the published fossil record is inaccurate, on both sides?

My point is that this subject has many adherents on both sides.  My issues as shared with Jim is that flood geology has many issues I can not rectify with the facts. Thats it.  Therefore It seems reasonable based on what I posted above a Local flood could well and is probably in view with respect tot he narrative.  There are nuances we are all aware of but my point was not to discredit Jim's view of a wwFlood, but to point out that flood geology is not scripture, it has big holes in it, dispersion lacks an explanation, and if you have followed my posts I also believe that while the whole local flood area destroyed all man and animals, and there is a huge contingent of information from archeologists and other experts that there was indeed a large flood that surely did what the Scriptural narrative implies fully, but the language and the actual narrative well supports a huge localized flood as well.

When I gave facts and mathematical figures on the rain and the drying of the waters against Mt. Everest, my figures did not include its height today, but inferred Everest at 1/4 of its height, the math implies that it would taken 52 years for the waters to clear and dry based on the figures we are given in the Scriptures.  So it is clear in many other areas of the narrative that this implies a local flood and not wwflood. 

The other issue is that I do not believe in evolution, OE or other variations that are applied by Local flood adherents.  I am YE earth or Younger earth.  ONE is not forced to accept OE or uniformatarian ideas because the language implies a local flood. Jim in his discredit of anyone outside his view calls me an opponent, but I am not an opponent of YE per se, and I don't care if you accept a wwflood or not, it doesn't affect our fellowship as believers nor does it affect salvivic issues.

One of the issues with post flood is the fast development of kinds in to the known species we all love and observe in the modern world.  There is no evidence behind this implied kinds that could explain genetically how this fast speciation happened for millions of animals in such a sort period of time.  Becasue of the compression of YE time we have mega fauna kinds being created by multiplication off the ark and then extinct within 500 years?   
So I am not an opponent, like Glenn Morton/Ardsma/etc. and other ex-AIG writers, I am pointing out that there are issues and that is it, I am not questioning someones salvation, I am not supporting a litmus test for the flood, but there are issues, and the failure here is that authors of flood geology have yet to have answered the many and a sundry questions from experts in geology?  So until I get answers from the YE experts on specific issues, I cannot rectify the evidence with the facts?  Plain and simple. 

So why doesn't CC host an "Ask the expert series" with flood geology people?  Many of the questions unanswered so far may get answered?

Again this was not about me trying to argue with anyone, its my view and that is predicated on the Scriptures as I understand it, I posted the above local flood overview because it covers all the various discussions surrounding a local flood view.  The evidence for local flood in the face of Flood geology issues, seems much more clear to me.  

When you quoted the world was covered with water and the land came up out of the waters... (Psalms 104 Creation Psalms), what suppose was under the land, was it all just sediment and soft sand or was it strata and rock and other geologic phenomenon all akin to preparing the earth to receive the creation event of living fauna and flora? How did mountains come into existence without strata?  The earths crust is a multiplicity of strata.  

I asked Jim to talk about the Toba Volcano, YE people have no discussions about this, but they should! Why does a YE PHD in the field write a YE paper on volcanoes and leave this out completely from his works? The Toba volcano completley changes his works?  
or why do YE friends accept fossils on top of the surface of the ground foot prints etc. all over the world as results of the flood, yet they deny the evidences of Ancient cities as being pre-flood. any evidences must be post-flood?  Who said? They assume or infer all cities are results of post flood dispersion, but is that true?

How do you accept dinosaur fossils as flood induced and have every issue under the sun with ancient cities excavated by archeologists as pre-flood in many cases, inferred to be post-flood and totally reject evidences to the contrary?  

Again I ahve no need or desire to be divisive with anyone,  This is my view that has developed for some time and a lot of study, and I believe as a majority of Christians do that the flood was local and the narrative is local in context...

Hi Lou,

I will insert my comments.
 
Lou Hamby said:

Aaron if you read the reasons why some believe in a local flood above that I posted, there is no disharmony between local and wwFlood with respect to the Word. I mean not to be coy here but it would be great of WWflood authors would actually answer quesiton about flood geology that have gaping holes in it.  MY issue here is I am driven towards a local flood for many reasons but none the less that doesn't mean that I have a lesser view of the bible or Christ's Work as stated in John nor his reconciliation through is sacrifice for all men.  God has not set a litmus test for salvation based on wwFlood?

It is impossible for the Bible to support a local flood and a world wide flood at the same time.

Either the Bible says what it means and means what it says or it is just another fable.

But you are correct you can be wrong about the flood and a lot of other things and still be saved.  All it takes to be saved is to believe God and take Him at His Word.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

So a person does not have to do anything to be condemned as that has already been established.  Mankind does have to do something to remove that condemnation and that is to believe in the entity that was God which died for the sins of all mankind, and accept His offer of a free full pardon.


THe word Erets is used for a local designation more often in Scripture, the King James rightly interprets the Word "all the high hills", which certainly the eye witness account includes what could be seen from a local perspective.  All the high hills refers to the hills that could be seen from their vantage point.  THe 15 cubits have been interpreted for a long time as over the "mountains" hills, but that is not what it says...

The Hebrew word ארץ appears 2504 times in the KJV and is translated land 1543 times. Earth 712 times, country 140 times, ground 98 times,world 4 times, way 3 times, common 1 time, field 1 time, nations 1 time, and wilderness 1 time.

In Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

God said let the 'dry' land appear.

In Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

God called the dry land ארץ erets. 

Question: Which part of the dry land mass did God call ארץ erets?

7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

THe same high hills are not mountains, under the heavens does not imply the whole world but as the eye witness can see and the WwFlood flood has been read into the narrative. The 15 cubits may well have been referring tot he fact the draft of the boat as my study of cubits and drafts on boats is that 22 to 24 ft is more than adequate to float a giant boat. The word likely has a local connotation and not the whole world.

What eye witness are you talking about.  The only eye witnesses that could see what happened was the heavenly host.  No one on the ark could see what happened.

The ark was not a boat.  It was a rectangular barge and the draft would have been around 42 feet with it's load.

The 15 cubits was referring to the depth of water on the top of the hills.

But my point is not to argue one way or the other, the fact that I find the local flood more plausible in the face of the narrative as well as the dispersion, doesn't negate any of our views of essential faith doctrines.  I have had exchanges with University of Kentucky experts on tree rings, and even on live trees (Bristle cone and European spruce) we easily have over 5,000 years of information recording volcanoes and other historic things including climate (with double rings per year,inferred by YE brothers but not actually observed).  In none of the samples known to tree ring experts is there any evidence of a wwFlood.  That certainly would have evidence and does not.  We have many known cultures that have little or no interruption in their existence do to a flood. But while I am hesitant to go there, my challenge is Flood geology is indeed theoretical, and has many issues, of which I have not been able to rectify, even the published fossil record is inaccurate, on both sides?My point is that this subject has many adherents on both sides.  My issues as shared with Jim is that flood geology has many issues I can not rectify with the facts. Thats it.  Therefore It seems reasonable based on what I posted above a Local flood could well and is probably in view with respect tot he narrative.  There are nuances we are all aware of but my point was not to discredit Jim's view of a wwFlood, but to point out that flood geology is not scripture, it has big holes in it, dispersion lacks an explanation, and if you have followed my posts I also believe that while the whole local flood area destroyed all man and animals, and there is a huge contingent of information from archeologists and other experts that there was indeed a large flood that surely did what the Scriptural narrative implies fully, but the language and the actual narrative well supports a huge localized flood as well.

When I gave facts and mathematical figures on the rain and the drying of the waters against Mt. Everest, my figures did not include its height today, but inferred Everest at 1/4 of its height, the math implies that it would taken 52 years for the waters to clear and dry based on the figures we are given in the Scriptures.  So it is clear in many other areas of the narrative that this implies a local flood and not wwflood. 

What makes you think Mt Everest existed at the time of the flood?

Mountains were created by the division of the land that took place during the lifetime of Peleg.

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Mankind and animals were dispersed prior to the division of the dry land that existed at Genesis 1:10 Which take care of your dispersion problem.

The other issue is that I do not believe in evolution, OE or other variations that are applied by Local flood adherents.  I am YE earth or Younger earth.  ONE is not forced to accept OE or uniformatarian ideas because the language implies a local flood. Jim in his discredit of anyone outside his view calls me an opponent, but I am not an opponent of YE per se, and I don't care if you accept a wwflood or not, it doesn't affect our fellowship as believers nor does it affect salvivic issues.

One of the issues with post flood is the fast development of kinds in to the known species we all love and observe in the modern world.  There is no evidence behind this implied kinds that could explain genetically how this fast speciation happened for millions of animals in such a sort period of time.  Becasue of the compression of YE time we have mega fauna kinds being created by multiplication off the ark and then extinct within 500 years?   
So I am not an opponent, like Glenn Morton/Ardsma/etc. and other ex-AIG writers, I am pointing out that there are issues and that is it, I am not questioning someones salvation, I am not supporting a litmus test for the flood, but there are issues, and the failure here is that authors of flood geology have yet to have answered the many and a sundry questions from experts in geology?  So until I get answers from the YE experts on specific issues, I cannot rectify the evidence with the facts?  Plain and simple. 

I am afraid you are going to have a long wait for the YE experts to answer your questions.

So why doesn't CC host an "Ask the expert series" with flood geology people?  Many of the questions unanswered so far may get answered?Again this was not about me trying to argue with anyone, its my view and that is predicated on the Scriptures as I understand it, I posted the above local flood overview because it covers all the various discussions surrounding a local flood view.  The evidence for local flood in the face of Flood geology issues, seems much more clear to me.  When you quoted the world was covered with water and the land came up out of the waters... (Psalms 104 Creation Psalms), what suppose was under the land, was it all just sediment and soft sand or was it strata and rock and other geologic phenomenon all akin to preparing the earth to receive the creation event of living fauna and flora? How did mountains come into existence without strata?  The earths crust is a multiplicity of strata.  I asked Jim to talk about the Toba Volcano, YE people have no discussions about this, but they should! Why does a YE PHD in the field write a YE paper on volcanoes and leave this out completely from his works? The Toba volcano completley changes his works?  or why do YE friends accept fossils on top of the surface of the ground foot prints etc. all over the world as results of the flood, yet they deny the evidences of Ancient cities as being pre-flood. any evidences must be post-flood?  Who said? They assume or infer all cities are results of post flood dispersion, but is that true?

There were cities before the flood.

How do you accept dinosaur fossils as flood induced and have every issue under the sun with ancient cities excavated by archeologists as pre-flood in many cases, inferred to be post-flood and totally reject evidences to the contrary?

Easy.

They are just like you. Everyone knows what they believe and do not want to be bothered with the facts. 


Again I ahve no need or desire to be divisive with anyone,  This is my view that has developed for some time and a lot of study, and I believe as a majority of Christians do that the flood was local and the narrative is local in context...

Everyone is a free moral agent with freewill which makes it possible for you to believe anything you want to believe regardless of what the actual facts are.

The consensus of the masses does not change what God had Moses write down in the torah.

God Bless,

Aaron

Lou,

I believe you have missed the entire point. Just to be clear, no, I do not derive my information or 'inference' from AIG. Because individuals agree with publications released by AIG does not conclude that those individuals are blindly following and repeating AIG, besides even if that were true, who we agree with and who does not agree with individuals is irrelevant. Perhaps two or three agree on a conclusion simply because its true.

That said, I do not cast aspersions on individuals who may be very learned or educated within their own field. I forward all man the same respect, because I remember that all of us are, without Christ, nothing more than sinners who needed a Saviour.

However, I do (as should all professed Christians) abandon discoveries made by man and conclusions derived by fallible men when they compromise the integrity or are inconsistent with the Word of God. You have often cast aspersions on myself and others who would deny faith in man over the Word of God. This may be the reason you and I often disagree. I have been clear on this before, and it seems to be a necessary factor for me to continue to express my faith within my Christian worldview time after time to some on this board because I don't honestly believe they read posts carefully, but I have come to find that some don't simply don't care to take the time to understand what posts certain individuals are making, simply read and respond contrary just for contrary's sake. 

I believe the Word of God is infallible. I believe that the Word of God is the ultimate authority in this universe and nothing is its equal, that is not limited to the discover of evidences made by man. Perhaps AIG's view and mine are in agreement, if they are, it is irrelevant but for some reason so important that you continue to make this point. I don't believe there is a Christian on this board that holds to this position solely due to the authority of AIG, but rather because it is the standard and the framework laid out by scripture, and thus it is the authority of scripture.

I support and I give respectful attention to Christian (and even the secular) scientists who have worked, and who have studied, and who have dedicated their life to the discovery of truth, however, I lose respect for anyone who would bring evidence to judge God's Word, rather than using God's Word to judge evidence.

Example, and we've hashed this over several times to which you can't provide scripture, only some evidence you say is witnessed through nature and is supported but not concluded by models and hypothesis and modern day testings that death occurred prior to the sin of man. This is a man conceived ideology that was primarily constructed due to the fossil record. This is an example of taking evidence to scripture to explain scripture, rather than using the literal reading of scripture to confirm the truth and abandon any premise that would contradict scripture. The reason is simple, man reasons that something so miraculous as the fossil record, or the 'speciation' of animals just could not exist without death before sin, but man's reason has detoured their faith which is to remind us that we serve a God of miracles. No reason to revisit this, you and I both agreed through our private messages that this is no longer a discussion either of us will budge on and thus abandon further discussions, but it was necessary to explain my point.

All this said, we may be able to come to a stalemate pending how you would answer this simple question, Lou... Which is likely to be the most fallible? God's Word, or Man's word?

My answer, simply Man's word is the most fallible of the two regardless their pedigreescertificationsdiplomas or accomplishments. This may offend you, Lou, and I believe from your statement above you feel as though skilled and learned men should be forwarded special attention because of those four underlined words above. It is not my intent to offend anyone, but often when a part of someone's belief system is challenged, they become offended by default, because it challenges some part of who they are, but it's been said "If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth"... and if something is destroyed, something was damaged, that would be a worldview.

Further responses to your statements, Lou:

"I don't want to be lead by someone who believes the only truth that is acceptable to him is in the Bible, when GOD himself left his footprints in the sand for all. "

Lou,

John 14:16 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Colossians 2:3 tells says:

"In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

Meaning in Christ

The only truth that exists, Lou, is that which is in the Bible & Christ, because Christ (as has been explained time and time again yet ignored by some) is the embodiment and manifestation of the Word of God. There is no truth outside of the Word of God that exists. God's creation is not an authority of truth, rather it is a representation of God's power and divinity. God left His 'footprint in the sand' sure but for our wonderment, however there are some who have forwarded through 'inference' and research, what size foot He has, the shape of His toe nails, how much He weighs, how tall He is, and concluded He has gout as well as athlete's foot.

Can you show me in scripture, Lou, where God told man to use His creation to validate His Word? Quite the contrary, however, I can show you several places in scripture where God's Word told man not to rely on their own reasoning, but to turn to and trust completely in the truth of God's Word, and His word alone. Also, to meditate on the Word day and night, and to write those words upon our hearts that we might not sin against Him.

Yes, we have beautiful verses that say 'The Heavens declare the glory of God' which is to say God's creation is a testament to His power and His divine Godhead, but not used to prove His truth or His existence. Those He has written upon our heart. This put's God and His Word on trial by evidence and no man judges the Lord. These verses are simply reminders to all of us how much more God is than are we, and is meant to keep us in our place and remind us that we are but dust of the ground. We have several whole chapters found in Job which explain the place of man over God. It would do some good to re-read these passages and stew on exactly how much of what we believe is righteous and how much is prideful within ourselves.

While some may be offended of a statement like this, Lou, I am quite honored, as I do believe the only acceptable truth is the Bible, and I would adhere to anyone who believes the same. Is there a single man who by those four underlined words above deserve a place or recognition over God, perhaps equal to God, or even worthy to be beneath Him? If the answer is No, then I am still struggling to understand the purpose of your question. If the answer is Yes, who are these men?

Lou:

"Again how should we deliberate as Christian brothers about fossils?  Fossils are not written into the core of the Bible, but its evidences are everywhere in many different physical states. "


Lou, Fossils are recorded into the Bible. We know where they came from:
Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Problem is some just don't adhere to the Word or they aren't satisfied by God's Word alone.

So, we know where they come from. I have no problem studying fossils to learn more about what type of lifestyle it may have had or other aspects of its life, but using a dead piece of bone that is calculated as being millions (or thousands) of years old using a fallible dating method and then applying the discovery of those results to some how legitimize or rationalize scripture is, in my opinion and using your own words "rough and shoddy"... if individuals holding published works and pedigrees that are a testament to their education and knowledge want to live out their faith in this way, I have no problem with it, it just isn't Biblical. I do have a problem when they question others who practice Biblical living and mark them as blind, uneducated or unimaginative lazy individuals. Judge not...

God's work stares us in the face not for us to explain God, how He works and how He did it, but to remind us that He is the absolute Lord of Glory and we are to sit back and marvel at His works (not use them to possibly undermine His Word) and worship Him because He is worthy.

I hope, again, I've been clear enough to explain my position... it might be a simple position and some may even call it a blind position, but its the Biblical position, and I can live with that.


Lou Hamby said:

Gary your opinion is yours and that I respect.  But your conclusions ride rough shod over the extensive information I posted earlier from AIG articles one right after the other.  Then somehow I get that about you,  but I also believe that your inference that what we "see" is implied to be fallible therefore not trustworthy is a bunch of inference on your part.

You cast aspersions on peoples work (experts in many fields) with little regard for the truth or the evidences.  GODs work, Authority, Evidences, Creative acts, Design and information are all completely homogeneous with the Word of God, for all thing exist and consist becasue of him. He said it was all good. It is all an extension of HIS work. and that is not fallible, nor untrustworthy.

I don't want to be lead by someone who believes the only truth that is acceptable to him is in the Bible, when GOD himself left his footprints in the sand for all. 

I asked you to lets come together and investigate the evidences of Gods Work in nature, the Word, and the the truth that stares us in the face.  

Again how should we deliberate as Christian brothers about fossils?  Fossils are not written into the core of the Bible, but its evidences are everywhere in many different physical states. 

So, somehow the topic of my post, Man's reasoning and explanation of God's creation... has been hijacked and is now a topic of 'which is it, a world wide flood, or a local flood', this seems to be common practice that if continued, will need to be addressed in the future. I'm closing this topic down. There are plenty of other open forums that discuss this very topic of the flood. They can be discussed there.

That said, there was a question asked by Lou and I feel it necessary to answer:

"So why doesn't CC host an "Ask the expert series" with flood geology people?"

Simple, that isn't Creation Conversations platform. There is a cost associated with such an event, we are a free service and are not funded by any member here are CC.

Secondly, it is the intent to have such an event to undermine the statement of faith and the YEC position. While there may be some members on this board who do not hold to he YEC position, it IS the position of CC, its moderators, its owners and the majority of its members, and as it has already been posted and reaffirmed, per the rules of engagement, the undermining of those values will not be tolerated, and if those values or the integrity of CC continue to come under attack or be questioned, those users will be asked to leave or banned. There are other websites who well receive a multitude of belief systems and allow them to be shared and challenged, CC is not one of those sites. This from the President and owner I had the privilege to travel with this weekend to Washington and Oregon speaking and professing the truth of God's creation to the Slovak communities. On this, there is nothing left discuss, simply an expectation to comply with the rules of this site.

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service