Skip to comments.The Vital Doctrine of a Global Flood
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 ...
Bttt. Both Dr. Morrises are such nice men.
dittoes from a Global Deluge adherent!
Nice and correct! Has a nice and correct ring to it, doesn’t it :o)
That makes at least two!
True, it’s better to be both!
God said it. I believe it. Thats it.
“it could not have been just a local flood covering the Mesopotamian River Valley, as taught by most leading evangelicals today”
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.
Since there is no globe in the Bible, how can a global flood be Biblical ?
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.
Ive 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?
Thanks for pointing out the potential for pedantry due to using the word “global.” Worldwide will suffice, having the same meaning as it does.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sound interesting to me. Count me in!!!
What are you asking when you say what?
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.
I think it was directed at evangelicals purportedly teaching a Mesopotamian Valley flood, rather than worldwide.
Thanks for the ping!
Some names and dates coming in on the thread. I have to go to bed!
I’ve gotten drawn into the NCAA championship game, I’ll pick back up after it’s finished.
I was born and raised about an hour south of Chapel Hill....GOOOOOO HEELS !!!!!!!!!
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.
UNC wins, 89-72. It’s after midnight here, I’m wiped out. I’ll rejoin the thread tomorrow.
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.
There, fixed it.
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"?
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.
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?
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.
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?
This summation is a reasonably good place to start.
==There is no scientific plausible way for water to be created in order to flood the earth.
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.
==There is no scientific plausible way for water to be created in order to flood the earth.
Biblical references used to prove something the Bible says is a tad circular, don’t you think?
Perhaps you missed this part: “Geologists calculate that the rocks of the earths mantle still contain within their mineral structure enough water to fill the oceans ten times over”
How could it rain for so long? We dont 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).
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.
You see conspiracy where none exist.
I see one timeline accomodating the other. I see cooperation.
That they are arrived by totally independent means should show you that no such cooperation exists.
"Old Earth" theories originated in geology, several decades before Darwin.