Why Noah's Flood was Local

[truthfinder9]

Let me explain something to you, I know the authors of those articles. In fact I contributed to those articles.

So stop embarassing yourself by talking about things you don't know anything about.

[truthfinder9]

"And you have the nerve to tell me I don't have the ability to think for myself (that I'm just a parrot for Ken Ham)"

Which is still true, by the way.

[truthfinder9]

"But those of us who accept the miracles of the creation"

See here is one of those classic unchristian young-earth/global flood insinuations that they are the ones who accept the miracles. Local flood proponents believe in the miracle of the flood as well. If global flood people actually read what they local flood people say, instead of what other people tell them they say, the global flood people would know this is what the local flood proponents believe: A massive flood in the Middle East occured early in man's history when they hadn't yet left the area and destroyed civilization.

But some people just don't want to actually learn what they are talking about before they pretend they already know.

People who assume they already know they are correct on what the Bible reads aren't actually taking it seriously.

[P-Marlowe]

Let me explain something to you, I know the authors of those articles. In fact I contributed to those articles.

So that gives you carte blanche to quote from their articles without acknowledgment? Whatever. You still should provide a cite when you pull a quote from somebody else.

So stop embarassing yourself by talking about things you don't know anything about.

I know a little about plagiarism, and that looked like plagiarism to me.

[P-Marlowe]

The Hebrew word for days in Genesis doesn't explicitly say 24 hr days, in fact context dictates otherwise. That means the days in Exodus 20:8-11 aren't 24hr days either.

It says evening and morning in Genesis. Unless God was trying to mislead us, the implication is that it is, in fact, a 24 hour day (by our clocks).

I don't believe you ever answered yes or no to the question of whether you believe what God wrote on the Tablets of stone, specificially that the Lord made the heavens and the earth and all that in them is in six days. Now do you believe that? Yes or no?

[P-Marlowe]

See here is one of those classic unchristian young-earth/global flood insinuations that they are the ones who accept the miracles.

The first miracle in the bible is that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. Do you believe that Miracle? How about the parting of the red sea? Do you accept that? Was that a "natural" event or can God suspend the laws of nature in order to do his miracles?

Do you believe in the Miracle of changing water into wine? Walking on Water? Feeding 5000 with a couple of fish? Healing a man born blind? If you believe all that, then why can't you believe that God did what he said in Exodus Chapter 20?

[A CA Guy]

Obviously when they say the world was flooded back then, it could have easily been the whole known world.
I don't have a problem with that, that makes sense.

Also, nobody could know exactly where the Garden of Eden is because despite two modern river names being mentioned in the Bible, they could not have existed right where they were because of the flood mentioned in the Bible.
The river names may be the same, but only God knows where the rivers all ran before the flood.

[truthfinder9]

I provided the links as citiations a number of times. Was that too complicated for you?

[truthfinder9]

Again, you seem to know nothing about Hebrew or haven't bothered to try.

The Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refer to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day.

(And since you weren't able to follow the chain of posts before, I'll spell it out for you: this is from Young-Earthism is NOT Biblical

No, God did not create the world in 6 24 hr days. The bible doesn't say that. Only your force-fitted, contradictory interpretation does. It's poor biblical skills like that that confuse so many people.

[truthfinder9]

I see, you can't defend your position so you red herring your way to miracles and redefine the debate to be about miracles. Here's a tip, don't ever publicly debate anyone.

[P-Marlowe]

No, God did not create the world in 6 24 hr days. The bible doesn't say that. Only your force-fitted, contradictory interpretation does. It's poor biblical skills like that that confuse so many people.

"Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."--Professor James Barr, (1984) former Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford.

FWIW (according to my limited research), Professor Barr, like you, rejects the idea of a six day creation, but is honest enough to admit that the Hebrew cannot be twisted to infer that these are ages or that the Noahic event was anything other than a world wide flood.

It is clear that if anyone is force fitting the scripture to fit their pre-conceived notions it is you.

[xzins]

It is true that the story reads 6 days and that it does give the impression of normal days.

It is, therefore, legitimate for that interpretation to be one of the possible interpretations that should be investigated.

Case closed.

[Religion Moderator]

This is your last warning. Discuss the issues, stop the personal remarks.

[ScubieNuc]

P-Marlowe has done a good job debating you. Just because you don't accept the reasonings of P-Marlowe doesn't make then wrong.

So you believe that Moses/God was hiding the truth about the time it actually took to create the world? They couched the time frame in these tricky Hebrew words and phrases so that it could mean a Long time, or a short time?

Wasn't the recognition of the 7th day as a rest day in Exodus based on the 6 day creation? Wouldn't hiding the truth or telling a half truth be the same as a lie? If you believe that Moses/God was lying or not completely revealing the truth, doesn't that then bring into question alot of other Scipture?

You should answer P-Marlowe's questions in Post #106, because the reality is that all of Scripture is tied together. You can't change one part without effecting other parts.

If you don't believe Moses, how can you believe Jesus?

Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Jhn 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Sincerely

[Alamo-Girl]

My apologies. I was pinging you to my reply to Alex Murphy which was inspired by the article you wrote (and he linked for my perusal) vis-a-vis this one.

[P-Marlowe]

It is true that the story reads 6 days and that it does give the impression of normal days. It is, therefore, legitimate for that interpretation to be one of the possible interpretations that should be investigated. Case closed.

It clearly is the historic view. The day/age view is clearly a modern invention which is not supported by any historical evidence. That includes Augustine's non-literal interpretation which is so often quoted by those who wish to allegorize Genesis into a 13 billion year long creative process.

6 days are 6 days.

	The GPTS Faculty Statement on Creation
	We the faculty of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary wish to acknowledge publicly our view on creation so that the churches and individuals supporting the Seminary may know what to expect from classroom instruction and faculty writing. In so doing, we note the following as preliminaries: (1) the issue of creation has long been considered a fundamental Christian belief, one that distinguishes Christianity from other religions; (2) this particular doctrine has been subject to prolonged attack since the mid-19th century, but continues to be critical for orthodoxy; (3) although the history of belief on this subject is clear, some fine and notable theologians from our communions have held differing views on this subject; and (4) that as a Seminary we are obligated not to teach contrary to the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Standards may be changed by the church courts, but, in our view, the seminaries ought not to be teaching contrary to those Standards, so that when there are changes they will occur as a result of the church’s mature deliberation and not in a de facto manner. Thus, we offer our view on the subject of creation as a school that serves a number of Reformed denominations, especially the PCA and the OPC. • We believe that God’s Word is not only inerrant, but that it is also clear to the learned and unlearned alike; thus, we affirm that when God reveals his mind—on creation or any other matter—he is quite capable of making his thoughts known in ordinary language that does not require extraordinary hermeneutical maneuvers for interpretation. • Accordingly, we believe that when God revealed his creation as ex nihilo and by the power of his word, and when he surrounded the six days of creation with such phrases as “the first day . . . the nth day” and “evening” and “morning”—all phrases which would have been understood in their normal sense by Hebrews in the second millennium BC—that God himself intended to convey that the work of his creation spanned six ordinary days, followed by a seventh and non-continuous day which also spanned 24 hours like the other six days. • We believe that an accurate study of OT texts does not support the gap theory, the framework hypothesis, the analogical theory, or the day-age view. Indeed, we find the OT creation texts to be interpreted as normal days, and no passage demands that Genesis 1-2 be re-engineered to yield other interpretations. The long history of rabbinical commentary, the very dating of time by the Hebrew calendar, and orthodox Jewish thought so understands these texts to embrace only days of ordinary length. • The NT church and Scriptures offered no revisions of this view, and nowhere do those texts themselves advocate framework or day-age views. We certainly believe that if the wording of Genesis 1-2 required clarification or modification away from the normal meaning of the Hebrew terms, God would so indicate in the text itself, as well as in NT treatments of Genesis 1-2. • The earliest post-canonical commentaries either advocated a 24-hour view of the days (e.g., Basil, Ambrose) or followed Augustine in a somewhat platonic scheme. Augustine’s view, however, was that creation occurred instantaneously, and he nowhere enunciated a day-age view or a framework hypothesis. • Until the Protestant Reformation, only two views were propagated: (1) the Augustinian view (followed by Anselm and John Colet) and (2) the literal 24-hour view (espoused by Aquinas, Lombard, and others). • The magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Beza) adopted a uniform view, that of 24 hours, and overtly repudiated the Augustinian view. • Prior to the Westminster Assembly, the leading Puritans (Ainsworth, Ames, Perkins) and others repudiated the Augustinian view and taught a sequential, normal day view. • The Westminster Assembly divines either felt no need to comment on the length of days—so clearly was it established—or if they commented, they uniformly (either explicitly or implicitly) adopted the 24 hour view. With 60-80 divines normally attending sessions, at least 20 of the divines who did comment in other published writings indicate that they only understood the creation days to be 24-hour days (or ordinary days), and none have been found who espoused a contrary view. Specifically, there were no divines who wrote advocating a day-age view or a framework view. We continue to esteem them not only as confessional authors but also as faithful exegetes. We deny that certain scientific theories are so certain as to compel us to reinterpret Scripture on this matter. • Following the Westminster Assembly, the testimony of the American Reformed tradition (e.g., J. Edwards) followed the tradition of Ussher/Perkins/Ames/The Westminster Divines on this question. No debate about this subject arises until after 1800, as the winds of various European views began to circulate. • By the mid-nineteenth century, certain leading Presbyterians (C. Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and later Shedd and Warfield) began to conform their exegesis to the ascendant science of the day. We believe that this was a strategic and hermeneutical mistake, as well as a departure from the meaning of terms in the Westminster Standards. • Leading southern Presbyterians (such as Thornwell, Dabney and Girardeau) however, simultaneously resisted efforts to broaden the church on this point, as is documented in the Woodrow trial and decisions. • Early in the twentieth century, numerous evangelicals — and some seminaries — became overly concessive to a secular cosmology, departing from the historic view expressed in the Westminster standards on this subject. • Some of us, at earlier times, were willing — due to love of the brethren and respect for esteemed teachers — to declare that the meaning of confessional language on this question was vague. We are no longer able in good conscience to do so. Both the normal meaning of the confessional phrases and the original intent as verified by other writings of the divines is now abundantly clear, with no evidence to the contrary. • Even the secular confidence in earlier cosmologies is declining in some areas. • Therefore, we declare our view shares the exegesis of the Westminster divines that led them to affirm that God created all things “in the space of six days” by the word of his power. We also believe that this clear meaning of confessional language should be taught in our churches and pulpits, and that departures from it should be properly safeguarded. • Accordingly, we reject the following contemporary notions: (1) that John 5:17 teaches a continuing seventh day of creation; (2) that violent death entered the cosmos before the fall; (3) that ordinary providence was the only way that God governed and sustained the creation during the six days of creation; (4) that extraordinary literary sensitivities must be ascribed to pre-1800 audiences; and (5) that Scripture is unclear in its use of “evening and morning” attached to the days of creation. We admit that some Christians have been too lax on this subject, and others have been too narrow. Hence, we hope to enunciate in this statement a moderate, historic, and biblical position. Even should other fine men differ with us on this subject, we hereby announce our intent to remain faithful to the teaching of the Westminster Standards and other Reformed confessions of faith on this subject. To God alone be glory.

[truthfinder9]

"So you believe that Moses/God was hiding the truth about the time it actually took to create the world"

No I don't believe they were hiding anything. Or lying. The Hebrew isn't tricky either, people are simply forgeting basic Bible reading skills including context, original intent, point of view, etc. P-Marlowe ignores all of these very basic skills to support his belief. That is the point to all this.

[truthfinder9]

"Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

Sorry, but here is a list of quite a few world-class scholars, apologists, theologians, etc., who disagree with that statement:

Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth Interpretation

In fact most of these people are well known for the defense of the literal Bible, contrary to the accusations that people who support local flood/old earth don't.

Also, the statement "the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story" is perhaps one of the most unscholarly statements I've seen in awhile. Hebrew scholarship proves without a doubt that, especially the early chronologies, cannot be and were never intended to be added up.

[truthfinder9]

"It clearly is the historic view. The day/age view is clearly a modern invention which is not supported by any historical evidence."

Blatantly untrue. (And of course appealing to history is a fallacy. In other words, if were to appeal to history we will still have to believe the Earth was at the center of the universe).

See, among others,

PCA Report of the Creation Study Committee

Creedal Controversy: The Orthodoxy of "Days"

Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation

And don't forget church "fathers" like Origen, Augustine and others also open to long days.

[truthfinder9]

That reminds me, Luther, who supported 24 hr days, also supported geocentrisim. Goes to show you that pointing at this or that scholar instead of addressing the question doesn't prove anything. It's the appeal to Authority fallacy.

I'm just asking people to follow some basic bible reading exegesis. I realize churches don't teach this anymore, but that's why we have all these problems.

Theology Tool Kit