Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Vital Doctrine of a Global Flood
ICR ^ | April 2009 | John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Posted on 04/06/2009 6:10:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

The Vital Doctrine of a Global Flood by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

Few biblical teachings are as controversial among evangelicals as that of the global nature of Noah's Flood. If Scripture is our guide, however, it could not have been just a local flood covering the Mesopotamian River Valley, as taught by most leading evangelicals today, but must have been worldwide in extent and effect.

For instance, Scripture lists the primary mechanisms for the Flood...

(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; History; Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; goodgodimnutz; idjunkscience; intelligentdesign; morehorsecrapfromicr; noahsflood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

1 posted on 04/06/2009 6:10:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; GourmetDan; MrB; valkyry1; DaveLoneRanger; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 04/06/2009 6:12:05 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Bttt. Both Dr. Morrises are such nice men.


3 posted on 04/06/2009 6:13:03 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance." ~Sam Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

dittoes from a Global Deluge adherent!


4 posted on 04/06/2009 6:13:28 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Nice and correct! Has a nice and correct ring to it, doesn’t it :o)


5 posted on 04/06/2009 6:16:56 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

That makes at least two!


6 posted on 04/06/2009 6:17:28 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

True, it’s better to be both!


7 posted on 04/06/2009 6:21:47 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance." ~Sam Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

God said it. I believe it. Thats it.


8 posted on 04/06/2009 6:29:34 PM PDT by bizdoc (Oh yeah?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“it could not have been just a local flood covering the Mesopotamian River Valley, as taught by most leading evangelicals today”

What?


9 posted on 04/06/2009 6:38:52 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

Lots of folks in the church, in an effort to appease the world, have capitulated to the theories and “evidence” that the bible is not factually correct.

They think this makes the message more “palatable” when in reality all it does is water down the truth of the bible in ALL areas. The target areas, of course, are the biblical rules of morality, but if you can “disprove” the historical aspects, you undermine the absoluteness of God’s laws as stated in His Word.


10 posted on 04/06/2009 6:44:46 PM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Since there is no globe in the Bible, how can a global flood be Biblical ?


11 posted on 04/06/2009 6:52:57 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’d be interested in seeing a thread, or even several, perhaps Caucus to keep distractions and argumentation to a minimum, with the many believers in the literal nature of the Bible here on FR, to discuss the various implications of current scientific thought, and just where the error(s) lie versus Biblical truth, as far as the global deluge, the age of creation, cosmological advances that would seem to indicate geocentrism, etcetera. We have an apparent wealth of in-depth knowledge here among those who are not hostile. Why not brainstorm? I’ve tossed out a few things myself, over the past six months or so, that seem to have shifted the center of gravity a bit, at least in this little corner of the web. So have many others.

Just to kick it off, I’ve been wondering just when the age of this Earth became such an all-encompassing issue for science. When did this concern first arise in a major way, and what was the putative age believed to be at that time? And, how has that belief changed over time, to the present? Dating methods in current use must have a very basic, erroneous assumption, in order for science and truth to be so far afield from one another.

Is this notion appealing? We’ve got threads here that have been active for years, so it could be quite the accumulation of thought, links to pertinent articles, that sort of thing.


12 posted on 04/06/2009 7:05:46 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
That would be interesting. I have books, but none of them is particularly recent, and more information sources would be appreciated.

I’ve been wondering just when the age of this Earth became such an all-encompassing issue for science.

I don't really know, but it is an interesting question. Early to mid-19th century, maybe?

13 posted on 04/06/2009 7:09:16 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance." ~Sam Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew

Thanks for pointing out the potential for pedantry due to using the word “global.” Worldwide will suffice, having the same meaning as it does.


14 posted on 04/06/2009 7:10:39 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Sounds about right, off the top of my head. I’d imagine that age has been extended greatly, and numerous times, due to the mindboggling amount of time assumed to be necessary for the macroevolutionary “tree of life” to work it’s putative magic. I’m also possibly of a mind that built in age assumptions have skewed methods of measurement as well.


15 posted on 04/06/2009 7:14:22 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

I’m thinking that fossils - mostly marine invertebrates - became a matter of major interest in Europe around the time period I mentioned. However, I don’t know why the existence of different kinds of seashells and stuff implies either billions of years of time OR the evolution of lower life forms to higher.

I do remember starting a book about a British man who mapped geologic strata around the 1850’s (canal-building period), and the statement that various kinds of ammonite fossils “proved” all live evolved from pond scum. One suspects a pre-existing agenda behind this kind of reasoning!


16 posted on 04/06/2009 7:18:36 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance." ~Sam Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

The cosmological stage on which the Noachic flood takes place, and the cosmic nature of the event itself, are quite easily discerned from the language of Genesis.

These are entirely consistent with widely held beliefs of the age, as explained in many elementary expositions. They are also of course entirely inconsistent with our modern knowledge of the place of the earth in universe.

It requires a gargantuan effort of mutative exegesis to transform this account into the “global flood” of Creationist doctrine.


17 posted on 04/06/2009 7:23:41 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Preconceived notions and a priori assumptions do seem to have driven the process, so it strikes me that there could be some value to backtracking and plugging a different set of assumptions, just to see what shakes out.


18 posted on 04/06/2009 7:25:27 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew

Thank you for your response. You write well. However, yet another negation of a literal reading is not what I was hoping to see, here.


19 posted on 04/06/2009 7:29:02 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

17th century royal society types like Robert Hooke wrote on geology and the age of the earth. The infamous Ussher age of 4004 bc came about in the late 1690s.
Decartes came up with his own estimate around the same time.
Lord Kelvin was the first to calculate the age based not on geology or the bible but on the ambient tempurature of the earth and an estimate of it’s cooling from formation in the 19th century.


20 posted on 04/06/2009 7:46:08 PM PDT by Nipplemancer (Abolish the DEA !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Sound interesting to me. Count me in!!!


21 posted on 04/06/2009 7:47:50 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

What are you asking when you say what?


22 posted on 04/06/2009 7:49:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
This sounds like William Smith, The Father of English Geology,

This would earn him the name "Strata Smith". As a natural consequence, Smith amassed a large and valuable collection of fossils of the strata he had examined himself from exposures in canals, road and railway cuttings, quarries and escarpments across the country.

His collections ...included many types of brachiopods, ammonites and molluscs characteristic of the shallow seas in which they were deposited.

He did enunciate The Principle of Faunal Succession, but this was in the 1790's and I don't think he was pushing an evolutionary agenda at this time.

It was Lyell's later work, Principles of Geology, which systematised the work of Smith and others, which had a formative influence on Darwin.

23 posted on 04/06/2009 7:56:13 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I think it was directed at evangelicals purportedly teaching a Mesopotamian Valley flood, rather than worldwide.


24 posted on 04/06/2009 8:08:44 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


25 posted on 04/06/2009 8:11:00 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Some names and dates coming in on the thread. I have to go to bed!


26 posted on 04/06/2009 8:11:41 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance." ~Sam Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’ve gotten drawn into the NCAA championship game, I’ll pick back up after it’s finished.


27 posted on 04/06/2009 8:11:48 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

I was born and raised about an hour south of Chapel Hill....GOOOOOO HEELS !!!!!!!!!


28 posted on 04/06/2009 8:17:43 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

I doubt the evolutionists will ever allow that as long as they have the power to influence the process by any means available to them.


29 posted on 04/06/2009 8:29:47 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MrB
How true I read a story once that said the Red sea was really the reed sea. I thought God must be mighty to of drown the who Egyptian army in a sea that was only ankle or knee deep.
30 posted on 04/06/2009 9:07:23 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

UNC wins, 89-72. It’s after midnight here, I’m wiped out. I’ll rejoin the thread tomorrow.


31 posted on 04/06/2009 9:12:55 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Post #10 pretty much addresses what I was asking.

I personally never heard a “leading evangelist” teach that the flood was only a localized flood. Who are these “leading evangelists” the article cites—I wonder.


32 posted on 04/07/2009 3:04:16 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
...most leading evangelicals...........in Laodecia.

There, fixed it.

33 posted on 04/07/2009 4:52:01 AM PDT by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
So you are assuming a world-wide flood around 3000BC (more or less) which would have wiped out all life on land except for what was on Noah's Ark.

And the whole world's land life was repopulated from what was on the Ark.

And every species existing today was on that one Ark.

And we have no dinosaurs today because they didn't make it on the Ark.

And you make fun of "Evos"?

34 posted on 04/07/2009 6:36:16 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money -- Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
I’ve been wondering just when the age of this Earth became such an all-encompassing issue for science.

It isn't. It's a reasonably well settled issue, with periodic improvements in methodology refining the calculations. It is, however, an all encompassing issue for creationists, who apparently believe their own obsessions must be those of science as well.

35 posted on 04/07/2009 7:18:01 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
I doubt the evolutionists will ever allow that as long as they have the power to influence the process by any means available to them.

What power do they have to prevent you from "backtracking and plugging a different set of assumptions, just to see what shakes out" if you choose to do so?

36 posted on 04/07/2009 7:25:53 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
It's a reasonably well settled issue, with periodic improvements in methodology refining the calculations.

Thank you for your input and opinions. I'm interested in tracking scientific assumptions of the age of the Earth over time, from early estimates made prior to this becoming, as you note, a settled issue under science, right through to today, in order to see just what the impact of these periodic improvements and alterations to calculations have actually been. There has not always been a need for an extremely old Earth, scientifically speaking, prior to the issue being deemed settled, and just how this has evolved and why, strikes me as a potentially interesting avenue.

37 posted on 04/07/2009 7:53:05 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Can one not believe in Noah and the great flood without having to try and prove it scientifically? Some of the animals on the ark (if not most of them) would have to walk for years to reach the ark. There is no scientific plausible way for water to be created in order to flood the earth. Floods are not new water, but simply transfers of water from one place to another. In other words, one can believe in the great flood by simply accepting that God made it all happen. Why even argue with science about whether it is possible or not?


38 posted on 04/07/2009 7:53:31 AM PDT by yazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
I'm interested in tracking scientific assumptions of the age of the Earth over time, from early estimates made prior to this becoming, as you note, a settled issue under science, right through to today, in order to see just what the impact of these periodic improvements and alterations to calculations have actually been.

This summation is a reasonably good place to start.

39 posted on 04/07/2009 8:09:17 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: yazoo

==There is no scientific plausible way for water to be created in order to flood the earth.

http://biblicalgeology.net/Answer/Where-did-all-the-water-come-from.html


40 posted on 04/07/2009 8:19:01 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Once again, trying to use science to explain that which is best left to the hand of God. All of those theories in the link were nothing more than theories. It also fails to explain how animals not native to the Middle East got to the ark, then after the flood only populated regions not in the Middle East. Furthermore, there can be no explanation, short of the hand of God for why all the animals marched to the ark in pairs. If you believe the bible is literal then the best explanation is that God made it happen and we don’t need science to prove it.


41 posted on 04/07/2009 8:31:17 AM PDT by yazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

==There is no scientific plausible way for water to be created in order to flood the earth.

http://biblicalgeology.net/Answer/Where-did-all-the-water-come-from.html
________

Biblical references used to prove something the Bible says is a tad circular, don’t you think?


42 posted on 04/07/2009 8:35:50 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Perhaps you missed this part: “Geologists calculate that the rocks of the earth’s mantle still contain within their mineral structure enough water to fill the oceans ten times over”


43 posted on 04/07/2009 8:49:37 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
From your link:

How could it rain for so long? We don’t know for sure but creation scientists have many proposals:

- Collapse of a thick water-vapour canopy which surrounded the pre-Flood earth high in the atmosphere. This is unlikely to have provided all the water, but it may explain some of it.

- Jets of water shooting high into the atmosphere from under the earth and falling back as rain.

- Intense cyclones called hypercanes, that developed over warm ocean water, heated by underwater volcanic eruptions.

- Water dumped on the earth by a swarm of comets. Craters on the moon point to an intense solar system bombardment, and some creationists suggest this happened at the time of the Flood.

- A combination of these processes.

Actually, "creation scientists" have a few additional proposals:

- Celestial pumper trucks couriering water from Europa.

- Heavily saturated "Sponges of the Deep" that were suddenly squeezed dry by gangs of unruly teenage "giants" who were sick of their "sons of God" dads telling them to mow the lawn and their "daughters of men" moms telling them to wash their own great-big dishes.

- A catastrophic plumbing failure at "vapour canopy" Sub-Station 4.

- "Hoses of the Heavens."

- And the most obvious: God magically "blinked" the water into existence just like He did the whole miserable planet (though this one begs the question why God didn't just magically "blink" into existence a new and improved planet instead of going on a murderous rampage).


44 posted on 04/07/2009 10:26:58 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Geology doesn’t have anything to do with evolutionary theory.


45 posted on 04/07/2009 1:14:57 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
Geology doesn’t have anything to do with evolutionary theory.

No, it doesn't, oddly enough. That's why I find it odd that geological timelines have clearly gotten altered to accomodate biological ones.

46 posted on 04/07/2009 1:56:41 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

You see conspiracy where none exist.


47 posted on 04/07/2009 2:35:43 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DevNet

I see one timeline accomodating the other. I see cooperation.


48 posted on 04/07/2009 2:43:16 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

That they are arrived by totally independent means should show you that no such cooperation exists.


49 posted on 04/07/2009 2:49:50 PM PDT by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
No, it doesn't, oddly enough. That's why I find it odd that geological timelines have clearly gotten altered to accomodate biological ones.

"Old Earth" theories originated in geology, several decades before Darwin.

50 posted on 04/07/2009 2:51:54 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson