Old Creationism and a Regional Flood

[gracea1one]

Isn't he one of the teachers of the "Serpent Seed" as well?

Yes, indeed.

 

[rookie]

As well as William Marion Branham (Branhamites)

 

[Peairtach]

I'm more interested in some elucidation of this aspect of things:

All long-age compromises reject Noah's Flood as a global Flood - it could only be a local event, because the fossil layers are accepted as evidence for millions of years. A global Flood would have destroyed this record and produced another! therefore, these positions cannot allow a catastrophic global Flood that would form layers of fossil-bearing rocks over the Earth. This, of course, goes against Scripture, which obviously teaches a global Flood (Genesis 6-9).

The above is from a booklet by Ken Ham ("Six Days or Millions of Years?", p37)

Is Ham hamming it up? Or are OECs liable to interpret the Flood as local because of their view of the Days and therefore of the fossil strata? Is the above the main or underlying reason why OECs tend to believe in a local Flood, if it is the case that more/most OECs believe in a local Flood.

How would this affect a biblical interpreter's assessment of day-age, framework, etc, approaches to Genesis 1?

There's a good hermeneutics exam Q !

 

[rookie]

Well, looking at the word "day" in the first chapter of Genesis, the Hebrew is "Yom", and just as english, it can mean a time period "In my father's day" which doesn't mean one specific day.

But, according to Hebrew scholars, everytime the word "Yom" is accompanied by a number (first day, second day, third day....) it means a 24 hr period.

Which is further more supported by Exodus chapter 20, when Moses gives the commandments and refers to the 6 day creation.

Now here's another flaw with the millions of years theology. If Genesis chapter 1 has a gap between verses and 1 and 2, why then, is the first day of creation only mentioned in verse 5?

And if the first six "days" are time periods, did Adam and Eve and all their descendants really only 930 + yrs old?

Based on the way it's written and read, the context and consistency has to remain the same through out the book.

You can't change the context and consistencies within the same chapter 4-5 times to try and make evolution fit.

 

[Afterthought]

I'm more interested in the logical connections between holding to a long period of time for the days and therefore holding to a local flood.

Is it the case that since OECs hold that the fossil record is the period of time of the long age/framework days they don't like the idea of a global flood because it would spoil or at least confuse their strata?

Is this the case, or are there other reasons why OECs in particular as opposed to YECs would be local floodists?

As far as I know it is the view of many of the honest OECs (at the very least the day-agers), the line of thinking is like this. We have science telling us one thing. We have the Bible seeming to tell us another. Does the Bible allow for an interpretation that is in accordance with what science is telling us without doing any harm to the rest of faith and practice, especially since there is pretty much no way for science to be wrong on this issue? Since an interpretation of the days of Creation and the flood could accommodate science, then we should accommodate there.

The "logical" link then I don't think is so much in the hermeneutic but in the motivation for using that hermeneutic, namely (1) an attempt to reconclie the Bible and science, (2) a belief that either it is highly improbable that science is wrong on this issue or that it is easier to re-interpret portions of the Bible to accommodate science when that re-interpretation does no harm elsewhere than to "re-interpret" science itself, and (3) a belief that God would not lie in either nature or in the Bible--that is, that nature and the Bible are on the same level--(and our interpretations of either could be wrong and so are on the same level of fallibility) and so when they appear to contradict, someone mis-interpreted somewhere and why not us Christians with the Bible when the scientific evidence backs its interpretation so much more than the evidence for a contradictory (to science) interpretation of Scripture?

If that's interpreting the Bible differently so not to confuse the strata or because it is already believed that the fossils are millions of years old, so be it, though no honest OEC would say that's what they're doing nor would they be aware of it. Indeed, they would think they are honestly looking at what the Bible alone says.


Also, the creation scientist brand of YECs (especially the "no animal death before the fall" strand) pretty much have to believe in a global flood in order to account for the fossil record and various geological changes that otherwise would have taken many, many years to form. However, I do know some honest OECs who accept a global flood.

 

[PreservedKillick]

On the points made above concerning vegetation, surely a universal flood would not kill all edible vegetation--seaweed at the very least is edible. Plus, aren't olive trees notoriously difficult to kill?

 

[TimV]

Well, I know that they grow in the Mediterranean Basin, which I assumed to be the coastal areas bordering the Mediterranean Sea and excluding the mountainous regions. Perhaps I am mistaken?

Yes, you're mistaken, but even without a knowledge of agriculture, the key is Mt. Ararat. It's not in a coastal region. If you start from the standpoint that the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat, even towards the bottom then you can't have a regional flood lasting 150 days. So, the location is something else that you have to say is a lie.

 

[rookie]

And besides, the Noah waited for a week for that dove to come back, how far can a bird fly for 3.5 days.....assuming it was flying in a straight line. And my big question, is why bother bring 2 of every kind of animal on board to preserve them if it was only a local flood. As I mentioned before. God: "Noah, move 5000 miles away.. I am going to flood this area"

And who cares if it's 10 000 miles...there was a 100 yr span, and at this point, couldn't other men go along with him, if they suspected something and survive as well? What if someone was already living that distance away.....they would have been spared....

 

[Peairtach]

Raymond

especially since there is pretty much no way for science to be wrong on this issue?

Thanks for that post Raymond.

It seems that some OECs may be likely to plump for a regional flood partly based on their view of the strata being associated with long creation periods, but also, as likely, or more likely, because they are more open to current popular science having weight in interpreting the Bible, anyway. Therefore if people posit that a global flood is impossible, the OECs are more likely to go for that.

But OECs think the scientific evidence for a very old earth is very strong, whereas the evidence for evolution is very weak. If popular current science has got evolution wrong, may it not have got geology, etc, wrong?

rookie

Now here's another flaw with the millions of years theology. If Genesis chapter 1 has a gap between verses and 1 and 2, why then, is the first day of creation only mentioned in verse 5?

I don't hold to long ages/framework hypothesis for the days. God created the days on day one by creating light and dividing the darkness from the light. If the days were a "literary device" it would seem to be incoherent to have an account of God creating the literary device of the days. But that is what God does on Day One; He creates days, whereas days didn't exist before.

On the other hand it seems that the unformed and unfilled Heavens and the Earth were created before Day One.

Day One begins at Genesis 1:3

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Each of the Days starts with "And God said" i.e with the Word of God (Christ).

 

[rookie]

Raymond

especially since there is pretty much no way for science to be wrong on this issue?

rookie

Now here's another flaw with the millions of years theology. If Genesis chapter 1 has a gap between verses and 1 and 2, why then, is the first day of creation only mentioned in verse 5?

I don't hold to long ages/framework hypothesis for the days. God created the days on day one by creating light and dividing the darkness from the light. If the days were a "literary device" it would seem to be incoherent to have an account of God creating the literary device of the days. But that is what God does on Day One; He creates days, whereas days didn't exist before.

On the other hand it seems that the unformed and unfilled Heavens and the Earth were created before Day One.

Day One begins at Genesis 1:3

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Each of the Days starts with "And God said" i.e with the Word of God (Christ).

So verses 1 and 2 are a completely different context and creation? That now gives room for the evolution debate. I know sometimes we try to count how many angels could dance on a pin head (trying to go over technical). But at the same time, IF evolution had never surfaced, would anyone believe in that gap between verses 1 and 2?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I have done some very quick math, and was very, very conservative on it.

Let's say that when God said let them be fruitful and multiply, he only allowed them 1 child every 5 yrs. Well, based on their years of living, Adam would have had 160 kids. Then, that would be 80 couples (perfect world here) and the next generation has 80 kids...and I know my math is somewhat flawed.


But the math I did, gave me 629 145 600 000 000, which, I am not even sure what number that is (quadrillion I think). So with this kind of potential population...and this is only with a child ever 5 yrs...and Adam was the only one that didn't see Noah, so they were all living at the time.....how can they all live within a few thousand square miles?

I am leaning towards a global flood.....now just quick, imagine with twins, triplets and so on......

Now what does that tell you about the age of the Earth? If people have really been around for 200,000 years as scientists suggest, what do you think our world population would be today?

 

[CharlieJ]

Now what does that tell you about the age of the Earth? If people have really been around for 200,000 years as scientists suggest, what do you think our world population would be today?

Impossible to tell. Continuous population growth is a modern phenomenon fueled by technological advances in agriculture. Before the late medieval/early modern period, world population was capped by food production. In fact, a relatively stable population was assumed to be an unchanging fact of human existence. Pre-modern economic theories were built on this hypothesis.

 

[Peairtach]

Raymond

especially since there is pretty much no way for science to be wrong on this issue?

rookie

Now here's another flaw with the millions of years theology. If Genesis chapter 1 has a gap between verses and 1 and 2, why then, is the first day of creation only mentioned in verse 5?

I don't hold to long ages/framework hypothesis for the days. God created the days on day one by creating light and dividing the darkness from the light. If the days were a "literary device" it would seem to be incoherent to have an account of God creating the literary device of the days. But that is what God does on Day One; He creates days, whereas days didn't exist before.

On the other hand it seems that the unformed and unfilled Heavens and the Earth were created before Day One.

Day One begins at Genesis 1:3

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Each of the Days starts with "And God said" i.e with the Word of God (Christ).

So verses 1 and 2 are a completely different context and creation? That now gives room for the evolution debate. I know sometimes we try to count how many angels could dance on a pin head (trying to go over technical). But at the same time, IF evolution had never surfaced, would anyone believe in that gap between verses 1 and 2?

I don't hold to the "ruin/reconstruction" theory. All I'm saying is that the text appears to indicate that the unformed and unfilled heavens and earth were created before Day One. We don't have a Day on which the unformed and unfilled heavens and earth were created. On which of the Six Days was this "blank canvas" created?

 

[Afterthought]

It seems that some OECs may be likely to plump for a regional flood partly based on their view of the strata being associated with long creation periods, but also, as likely, or more likely, because they are more open to current popular science having weight in interpreting the Bible, anyway. Therefore if people posit that a global flood is impossible, the OECs are more likely to go for that.

But OECs think the scientific evidence for a very old earth is very strong, whereas the evidence for evolution is very weak. If popular current science has got evolution wrong, may it not have got geology, etc, wrong?

An OEC wouldn't think that way, or at the very least the day-age strand wouldn't, and the question pretty much answers itself. There are two reasons why they wouldn't follow popular science on evolution. Firstly, OECs tend to see evolution as not actually science but rather as a religious sort of thing. Secondly, they also see evolution as causing some big problems in the Bible (e.g., was there a literal Adam?)--and so the Bible cannot be re-interpreted to include it (although I did once see a TE create a literal, albeit unlikely, interpretation that included a literal Adam!)--while they see long ages and a regional flood doing no harm--and so they re-interpret the Bible to accommodate those things. On the other hand, they see the science for an old earth and a regional flood as quite correct.

Because they see the evidence strong in one case and weak in the other, they accept one and reject the other (along with the reason that they see it as causing theological problems). There is much good scientific evidence for long-ages and no global flood, but there is little to none in evolution's case (which is why it is seen as bad science). Because they see popular science in the case of evolution as not science at all, they don't feel that the method of science in general, which shows the earth to be old and to have no global flood, is wrong; in their case, they would see evolution as departing from true, good methods of science while in the other cases popular science remains true to its methods. So it's not so much a matter of following popular science in interpreting nature but following (what they see as) good science. Since good science and popular science intersect at many points, there's no reason to reject popular science at those points. But since popular science turns into bad science in the case of evolution, it is rejected by OECs. Although popular science is wrong in one case, it isn't wrong in the other because it investigated the data properly according to the methods of science.

 

[Peairtach]

Thanks for that explanation from someone who was OEC.