Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

OEC...MUST have a Local vs Global Flood


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
47 replies to this topic

#1
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts

You must have a local flood for OEC..... one of their "proofs" is that all the rocks and fossils were laid down by slow gradual processes with an occasional local rapid deposition.  If there were a Global Flood, it's sayonara to that a priori assumption.

 

Questions:

 

1. If the flood wasn't the WHOLE EARTH then why did Noah have to take the animals on the Ark?  Wasn't there animals some place else?

2. Or why build the Ark....why not just tell Noah to move?

3. Why build an Ark over 400 feet long if it was only a local Flood?

4. If the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?

5. If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

 

(Matthew 24:37-39) " But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  {38}  For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,  {39}  And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

 

So if people would have happened to not live in the Mesopotamia vicinity they would have not been affected and would've escaped GOD's Judgement.  What did Jesus mean when he likened the coming judgement of "all" men to..."in the days of Noah"?  Is the coming judgement a partial judgement?

 

Then.....

 

(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."

(Genesis 6:17) "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

 

(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."

 

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

 

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

 

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

(Genesis 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:"

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

 

(Genesis 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."

 

(Genesis 7:24) "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."



#2
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,008 posts

Yeah, the Bible pretty much puts the whole "local" flood hypothesis to bed.   I can't believe Christians refuse to accept what the Bible says about the extent of Noah's flood.



#3
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Advanced Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPip
  • 404 posts

 

1. If the flood wasn't the WHOLE EARTH then why did Noah have to take the animals on the Ark?  Wasn't there animals some place else?

2. Or why build the Ark....why not just tell Noah to move?

3. Why build an Ark over 400 feet long if it was only a local Flood?

4. If the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?

5. If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

 

How about some questions for your questions?

1. How did animals like penquins (flightless birds), Koalas (limited diet) etc that were not native to the middle east get to the ark?

2. Why did God promise not to destroy the world in a flood again?  Why did he seem remorseful?  did he make a mistake?

3. Do you believe that at least of 2 of every species, and their food could be housed on a 400 foot ark for the time it was afloat?

4. Do you believe that the physics that cause rainbows did not exist before the flood?  (i.e. prismatic affect)

5. What good did it do to send out a bird if the ark had no means of steering or propulsion?  What about all the civilizations that existed continuously before and after the flood?


Edited by jerryR34, 27 January 2014 - 04:55 PM.


#4
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,161 posts

Additionally, where on earth did all that water go afterwards?  And why do we see kangaroos in Australia only and not scattered along the way if descendants took them there?  I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but there are many such puzzles.



#5
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts

 

 

1. If the flood wasn't the WHOLE EARTH then why did Noah have to take the animals on the Ark?  Wasn't there animals some place else?

2. Or why build the Ark....why not just tell Noah to move?

3. Why build an Ark over 400 feet long if it was only a local Flood?

4. If the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?

5. If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

 

How about some questions for your questions?

1. How did animals like penquins (flightless birds), Koalas (limited diet) etc that were not native to the middle east get to the ark?

2. Why did God promise not to destroy the world in a flood again?  Why did he seem remorseful?  did he make a mistake?

3. Do you believe that at least of 2 of every species, and their food could be housed on a 400 foot ark for the time it was afloat?

4. Do you believe that the physics that cause rainbows did not exist before the flood?  (i.e. prismatic affect)

5. What good did it do to send out a bird if the ark had no means of steering or propulsion?  What about all the civilizations that existed continuously before and after the flood?

 

 

Congrats, I'm speechless!!

 

Just this...Remember that Heavy Homework we talked about on the other board?  This applies here.



#6
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,008 posts

How did animals like penquins (flightless birds), Koalas (limited diet) etc that were not native to the middle east get to the ark?

 

They were not on the ark, most likely.   Remember that Noah only took two of each kind, not two of each species.   Many species we know of today were probably not even in existence at that time.  So it is likely that many of the animals we are familiar with today were not actually on the ark, but their ancestors were and it was from those ancestors that we have the many modern species alive today.

 

2. Why did God promise not to destroy the world in a flood again?  Why did he seem remorseful?  did he make a mistake?

 

No, He didn't make a mistake.   Nor was God remorseful.  God still judges man.  

 

3. Do you believe that at least of 2 of every species, and their food could be housed on a 400 foot ark for the time it was afloat?

 

Again, Noah didn't take two of every species.  Noah took two of each kind.   For example, German Shepherd, Beagles and Cocker Spaniels are species.   "Dog" is a kind.  Noah only had to to take two of each kind.

 

 

4. Do you believe that the physics that cause rainbows did not exist before the flood?  (i.e. prismatic affect)

 

Why does that even matter?

 

5. What good did it do to send out a bird if the ark had no means of steering or propulsion?  What about all the civilizations that existed continuously before and after the flood?

 

The bird was simply a means of gaguing how fast the water was receding.   What about those civilizations?   What are you asking in reference to them?
 



#7
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,152 posts

 

They were not on the ark, most likely.   Remember that Noah only took two of each kind, not two of each species.   Many species we know of today were probably not even in existence at that time.  So it is likely that many of the animals we are familiar with today were not actually on the ark, but their ancestors were and it was from those ancestors that we have the many modern species alive today.

 

 

What is the process that it would take for a flying bird in the middle east to become the flightless bird in the South Pole?  Could you go through the steps that would be necessary for this to happen and how long each change would take?



#8
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts

Additionally, where on earth did all that water go afterwards?  And why do we see kangaroos in Australia only and not scattered along the way if descendants took them there?  I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but there are many such puzzles.

 

Yes....any answers to the 1st Post?

 

"where on earth did all that water go afterwards?"

 

Could you be looking @ a good portion of it?  You're presupposing that the Topographical Features of the Earth are the same now as they were then.

 

"And why do we see kangaroos in Australia"

 

I haven't the first clue; Unfortunately, kangaroos are outside the scope of expertise. :(



#9
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,008 posts

 

 

They were not on the ark, most likely.   Remember that Noah only took two of each kind, not two of each species.   Many species we know of today were probably not even in existence at that time.  So it is likely that many of the animals we are familiar with today were not actually on the ark, but their ancestors were and it was from those ancestors that we have the many modern species alive today.

 

 

What is the process that it would take for a flying bird in the middle east to become the flightless bird in the South Pole?  Could you go through the steps that would be necessary for this to happen and how long each change would take?

 

No, I can't explain that process.   I don't need to, either.  Micro-evolution shouldn't be a problem for you, as we know it takes place within a given kind/species.



#10
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,152 posts

From RTB...

 

A close examination of the text reveals that only two Hebrew words are used in the Genesis flood account to refer to the animals destroyed by the flood and to those taken aboard the ark. The words are nephesh and basar. The word nephesh translates as "soulish" animals and refers to those creatures endowed with characteristics of mind, will, and emotions, creatures with a unique capacity to relate to humans. We call them mammals and birds. It is their soulishness2 which makes them particularly susceptible to the effects of man's sin. The word basar refers more specifically to those birds and mammals that are part of man's economic system, that is, to livestock, poultry, game animals, any birds or mammals that have had contact with man.

So, the animal species rescued via the ark were nephesh, particularly those in the category of basar, living within the reach of the flood's devastation. They may have numbered in the hundreds and probably did not exceed a few thousand. The ark, then, would have been adequate to house them and their food, and eight people could have cared for them, as well as for themselves, for many months. There is no problem of credibility on this point.



#11
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,152 posts

 

 

 

They were not on the ark, most likely.   Remember that Noah only took two of each kind, not two of each species.   Many species we know of today were probably not even in existence at that time.  So it is likely that many of the animals we are familiar with today were not actually on the ark, but their ancestors were and it was from those ancestors that we have the many modern species alive today.

 

 

What is the process that it would take for a flying bird in the middle east to become the flightless bird in the South Pole?  Could you go through the steps that would be necessary for this to happen and how long each change would take?

 

No, I can't explain that process.   I don't need to, either.  Micro-evolution shouldn't be a problem for you, as we know it takes place within a given kind/species.

 

 

Yes, we know that micro evolution takes place. We have seen it.  But from what we have observed, it would take more than a couple thousand years for such a change to take place.



#12
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,161 posts

Is there a good explanation for how marine life fared in the flood conditions?  Wouldn't saline water animals be devastated by an onslaught of fresh water?



#13
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,008 posts

From RTB...

 

A close examination of the text reveals that only two Hebrew words are used in the Genesis flood account to refer to the animals destroyed by the flood and to those taken aboard the ark. The words are nephesh and basar. The word nephesh translates as "soulish" animals and refers to those creatures endowed with characteristics of mind, will, and emotions, creatures with a unique capacity to relate to humans. We call them mammals and birds. It is their soulishness2 which makes them particularly susceptible to the effects of man's sin. The word basar refers more specifically to those birds and mammals that are part of man's economic system, that is, to livestock, poultry, game animals, any birds or mammals that have had contact with man.

So, the animal species rescued via the ark were nephesh, particularly those in the category of basar, living within the reach of the flood's devastation. They may have numbered in the hundreds and probably did not exceed a few thousand. The ark, then, would have been adequate to house them and their food, and eight people could have cared for them, as well as for themselves, for many months. There is no problem of credibility on this point.

 

This is one of those times when knowing Hebrew is valuable.   The article is wrong.   The word "nephesh" doesn't appear in the flood account, not a single time.   The word "basar" is used but in a general sense and refers to all living breathing things.  God told Noah the end of all flesh (basar) had come before Him.    There is no mention in the text of a division beween "nephesh" animals and "basar" animals.  That is simply incorrect.  



#14
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts

Is there a good explanation for how marine life fared in the flood conditions?  Wouldn't saline water animals be devastated by an onslaught of fresh water?

 

Yes, the fountains of the GREAT DEEP.....the Minerals coming from the Earth's crust.

 

However, I'm no Marine Biologist.  We could ask George Costanza, however. :P



#15
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Advanced Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPip
  • 404 posts

 

 

Just this...Remember that Heavy Homework we talked about on the other board?  This applies here.

 

I would like to assign you some homework as well, but I'll be specific.  Please read the book "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin.  I've read your book at least 2 times.



#16
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,526 posts
Yes, we know that micro evolution takes place. We have seen it.  But from what we have observed, it would take more than a couple thousand years for such a change to take place.

 

~

 

Micro-Evolution (Valence In A Kind) Happens

 

And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. Genesis 4:20

 

Every Time Bos indicus Sahiwal Cattle Are Crossbred With Exotic Bos taurus Cattle

 

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Genesis 1:24

 

To Produce A Cow With Superior Milk Shakes And World-Class Steaks

 

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:25

 

Yet Micro-Evolution Has Never Produced An Evolutionist

 

And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. Genesis 4:21

 

Or A Bible Believer

 

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

 

Hum

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

You'd Think With All Of Those Billions And Billions Of Years In The Past

We Would See Just One Turnip Turn Into A Roasting Hen

Or An Olympic Discus Thrower

Turn Into An Orca

 

:)



#17
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,526 posts

I would like to assign you some homework as well, but I'll be specific.  Please read the book "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin.  I've read your book at least 2 times.

 

~

 

Wow~!

 

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. Jeremiah 17:5

 

Nothing Fishy Here

 

Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. Jeremiah 17:7
 

Secondly, Tiktaalik’s head, as in amphibians, is not connected to the shoulder girdle. In fish the head, shoulder girdle and circulatory system constitute a single mechanical unit. A change from this would require the head to become incrementally detached from the shoulder girdle with functional intermediates at every stage. None are known.

 

Thirdly, paleontologists have placed the evolution of limbs connecting fish and reptiles in a proposed sequence which sounds impressive:

 

GlyptolepisSauripterusEusthenopteronPanderichthysTiktaalikAcanthostegaIchthyostegaTulerpeton.

 

But these extinct fossil creatures differ considerably among themselves and are not an obvious evolving sequence. Their order is doubtful. Panderichthys ‘dated’ earlier than its supposed predecessor Eusthenopteron. Acanthostega’s skull is more tetrapod-like than Ichthyostega’s while the latter’s shoulder and hips are more robust and land-animal-like than Acanthostega.

 

Fourthly, all calculations of evolution depend on the assumption of a multi-million-year old Earth to allow time for it to work. But there is now increasing evidence of a much younger Earth.

 

To summarize, Tiktaalik appears to be a unique creature which has both amphibian and fish-like features. It must have been one of a mosaic of fauna living in an area described by Shubin as ‘a shallow stream surrounded by large seasonal mud flats’ under warm conditions before the Flood. http://creation.com/...your-inner-fish



#18
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,152 posts

 

From RTB...

 

A close examination of the text reveals that only two Hebrew words are used in the Genesis flood account to refer to the animals destroyed by the flood and to those taken aboard the ark. The words are nephesh and basar. The word nephesh translates as "soulish" animals and refers to those creatures endowed with characteristics of mind, will, and emotions, creatures with a unique capacity to relate to humans. We call them mammals and birds. It is their soulishness2 which makes them particularly susceptible to the effects of man's sin. The word basar refers more specifically to those birds and mammals that are part of man's economic system, that is, to livestock, poultry, game animals, any birds or mammals that have had contact with man.

So, the animal species rescued via the ark were nephesh, particularly those in the category of basar, living within the reach of the flood's devastation. They may have numbered in the hundreds and probably did not exceed a few thousand. The ark, then, would have been adequate to house them and their food, and eight people could have cared for them, as well as for themselves, for many months. There is no problem of credibility on this point.

 

This is one of those times when knowing Hebrew is valuable.   The article is wrong.   The word "nephesh" doesn't appear in the flood account, not a single time.   The word "basar" is used but in a general sense and refers to all living breathing things.  God told Noah the end of all flesh (basar) had come before Him.    There is no mention in the text of a division beween "nephesh" animals and "basar" animals.  That is simply incorrect.  

 

 

It is used in the flood account,  it is used in Chapter 9 when God is speaking of the animals that were on the ark.



#19
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,152 posts

 

Yes, we know that micro evolution takes place. We have seen it.  But from what we have observed, it would take more than a couple thousand years for such a change to take place.

 

~

 

Micro-Evolution (Valence In A Kind) Happens

 

And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. Genesis 4:20

 

Every Time Bos indicus Sahiwal Cattle Are Crossbred With Exotic Bos taurus Cattle

 

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Genesis 1:24

 

To Produce A Cow With Superior Milk Shakes And World-Class Steaks

 

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:25

 

Yet Micro-Evolution Has Never Produced An Evolutionist

 

And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. Genesis 4:21

 

Or A Bible Believer

 

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

 

Hum

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

You'd Think With All Of Those Billions And Billions Of Years In The Past

We Would See Just One Turnip Turn Into A Roasting Hen

Or An Olympic Discus Thrower

Turn Into An Orca

 

:)

 

 

I am not looking for micro evolution to produce an evolutionist, I am looking for the process that would take a dove to a penguin.



#20
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,008 posts

 

 

From RTB...

 

A close examination of the text reveals that only two Hebrew words are used in the Genesis flood account to refer to the animals destroyed by the flood and to those taken aboard the ark. The words are nephesh and basar. The word nephesh translates as "soulish" animals and refers to those creatures endowed with characteristics of mind, will, and emotions, creatures with a unique capacity to relate to humans. We call them mammals and birds. It is their soulishness2 which makes them particularly susceptible to the effects of man's sin. The word basar refers more specifically to those birds and mammals that are part of man's economic system, that is, to livestock, poultry, game animals, any birds or mammals that have had contact with man.

So, the animal species rescued via the ark were nephesh, particularly those in the category of basar, living within the reach of the flood's devastation. They may have numbered in the hundreds and probably did not exceed a few thousand. The ark, then, would have been adequate to house them and their food, and eight people could have cared for them, as well as for themselves, for many months. There is no problem of credibility on this point.

 

This is one of those times when knowing Hebrew is valuable.   The article is wrong.   The word "nephesh" doesn't appear in the flood account, not a single time.   The word "basar" is used but in a general sense and refers to all living breathing things.  God told Noah the end of all flesh (basar) had come before Him.    There is no mention in the text of a division beween "nephesh" animals and "basar" animals.  That is simply incorrect.  

 

 

It is used in the flood account,  it is used in Chapter 9 when God is speaking of the animals that were on the ark.

 

Genesis 9 is post flood, actually.  But, whatever...

 

It doesn't say that Noah took only "nephesh" animals on the ark.    RTB makes a false dichotomy between nephesh and basar.   Basar is not a separate kind of life from nephesh.   Basar and nephesh are both general terms for all living breathing creatures including human beings.   That is how both words are used in the text.  Pretty sloppy theology. 






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network