Is It Science?

[LuftWaffle]

You have to be alive to perish, hence the reason I used "everything" (every living thing would have been clearer but longer to type). None the less, molecules, atoms, and particles are not alive. Here is every translation of Gen 7:4 I could find, and I conclude that if it was alive, it was killed, regardless of size, classification, kind, type, etc. Am I incorrect?

Hi Don Fanucci,

I'd say yes. In the context the statement should be taken as meaning there will be large scaled and extensive destruction. Other verses are more specific indicating that the destruction was upon flesh, having breath in the nostrils.

Gen 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:

Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Taking a single verse and expanding the semantic field of certain words to the maximum isn't how we read the text. This is why I generally have a problem with the term 'literalist', because we who are called literalists do not read the Bible in such a way. We simply try to get at the plain meaning of the text as would have been inferred by the author and as it would have be understood by the original audience.

There is no indication that Noah took aquatic life, insects and plants on the ark. There is also no indication that Noah had to have representatives of microscopic creatures: bacterial, fungal etc.

It seems the line of argumentation that you're following here is that some parts of the text when taken to it's hyper literal sense would be absurd. Since we therefore we take some parts of the text to be figures of speech, we might as well abandon literal interpretations in the early chapters of Genesis altogether. I don't believe this is a valid line of reasoning.

[LuftWaffle]

I don't believe this is a valid line of reasoning.

I think it is. Once you have figures of speech, who decides what is metaphorical and what not?

For instance, how could plants survive if they had no place in the ark?

Nobody except sceptics of a historical Genesis has problems distinguishing between the various literary devices used in any piece of text.

I suppose if I say, "Yesterday it rained cats and dogs", would confuse the heck out of you because the only two possibilities are that it actually rained literal cats and dogs, or that the whole sentence is metaphor and that it's impossible to know what it really means, yes?

For instance, how could plants survive if they had no place in the ark?

Seeds and spores would float and are generally resilient. Bulbous plant would probably enter dormancy and resprout once the waters subsided, same with established trees that didn't get uprooted.

Many plants of course did die and get buried and compacted, so the flood explains quite nicely why we have such extensive coal and oil deposits across the world.

[LuftWaffle]

Well, if saying "I will kill all creatures I have created" is on the same level as "it rains cats and dogs", then everything goes.

Twisting my words doesn't make an argument

How do you know that the rest is not also metaphorical?

Erm... Are you asking me a literal question? Gee, suddenly I've lost the ability to tell the difference.

[Don Fanucci]

Hi Don Fanucci,

I'd say yes. In the context the statement should be taken as meaning there will be large scaled and extensive destruction. Other verses are more specific indicating that the destruction was upon flesh, having breath in the nostrils.

Gen 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:

Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Taking a single verse and expanding the semantic field of certain words to the maximum isn't how we read the text. This is why I generally have a problem with the term 'literalist', because we who are called literalists do not read the Bible in such a way. We simply try to get at the plain meaning of the text as would have been inferred by the author and as it would have be understood by the original audience.

There is no indication that Noah took aquatic life, insects and plants on the ark. There is also no indication that Noah had to have representatives of microscopic creatures: bacterial, fungal etc.

It seems the line of argumentation that you're following here is that some parts of the text when taken to it's hyper literal sense would be absurd. Since we therefore we take some parts of the text to be figures of speech, we might as well abandon literal interpretations in the early chapters of Genesis altogether. I don't believe this is a valid line of reasoning.

I'm afraid that doesn't work LW. On the one hand, creationists would insist that Genesis be taken literally, right down to somehow arriving at 6000 years as the age of the earth. But on the other hand, you are now telling me that "every living thing" really doesn't mean that. It really means a lot of living things, but not everything. Well....Think about what the author is trying to convey, as you told me. He is clearly conveying that God is creating a clean slate--starting over. And he is doing this because he is omnipotent, all powerful, and is the only one able to do it. To do that, he has to get rid of everything (as the text says). It is pretty clear why he is saying everything, but it is also pretty clear the intention of why it is being said. It is also pretty clear to me that you are dead wrong on this one. You can insist on a literal interpretation until it doesn't suit you. But then again, as I have mentioned, I'm fine with it because this is how I reconcile creation and evolution. There is just a lot in Genesis that we still don't understand.

[LuftWaffle]

I'm afraid that doesn't work LW. On the one hand, creationists would insist that Genesis be taken literally, right down to somehow arriving at 6000 years as the age of the earth. But on the other hand, you are now telling me that "every living thing" really doesn't mean that. It really means a lot of living things, but not everything.

I think there are two very valid reasons to think that in the context of Genesis 7:4 it doesn't necessarily mean every living thing including every bacteria and microbe and spore and algae and plankton was killed in the flood.

1. Everything when used in common language hardly ever means every ontological entity, just like saying "everything is a mess". This is particularly valid in the context of the text where the things that died are later qualified.

2. In English we generally call any self-replicating system a "living thing", whereas in Hebrew there are distinctions, between sentient creatures (nephesh chay) and things like plants, and insects etc.

Again in terms of your accusation of picking and choosing what to take literally is unfair. I don't think there are real windows in heaven that cause rain, so I suppose I'll never live up to the unreasonable TE expectation of taking the whole literally or the whole figuratively. Language simply doesn't require that wooden, mechanistic approach.

Well....Think about what the author is trying to convey, as you told me. He is clearly conveying that God is creating a clean slate--starting over.

But then why keep anything? Why not just take Noah up to heaven, build a new earth and put him back there. I think God wanted to wipe away mankind and its sin, yes. Again I must point out that the ark wasn't a representative museum or zoo, but the point of it was to repopulate the earth, not necessarily to restore the earth to its preflood state and populations, but to continue on, with sin wiped out.

And he is doing this because he is omnipotent, all powerful, and is the only one able to do it. To do that, he has to get rid of everything (as the text says). It is pretty clear why he is saying everything, but it is also pretty clear the intention of why it is being said. It is also pretty clear to me that you are dead wrong on this one. You can insist on a literal interpretation until it doesn't suit you. But then again, as I have mentioned, I'm fine with it because this is how I reconcile creation and evolution. There is just a lot in Genesis that we still don't understand.

What do you make of this verse?

And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

(Mar 10:5-6)

Bearing in mind that according to evolution mankind arrived at the very end of a 15 billion year old creation. Yet Jesus claims that mankind was around from the beginning of creation?

[Don Fanucci]

What do you make of this verse?

And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

(Mar 10:5-6)

Bearing in mind that according to evolution mankind arrived at the very end of a 15 billion year old creation. Yet Jesus claims that mankind was around from the beginning of creation?

I think you and I probably agree on the literal interpretation somewhat, but here is yet another example of what is literal. Technically, the beginning of creation would be "in the beginning". But I know you mean it as a reiteration of Genesis. BTW, considering creation, and the order of evolution, it looks like man came last.

[Don Fanucci]

There is no indication that Noah took aquatic life, insects and plants on the ark. There is also no indication that Noah had to have representatives of microscopic creatures: bacterial, fungal etc.

It seems the line of argumentation that you're following here is that some parts of the text when taken to it's hyper literal sense would be absurd. Since we therefore we take some parts of the text to be figures of speech, we might as well abandon literal interpretations in the early chapters of Genesis altogether. I don't believe this is a valid line of reasoning.

I don't think so. Again, I'm reading the text as Shiloh said. In addition to "every living thing", while you say it doesn't mean insects, "every creeping thing" surely isn't referring to dogs, cattle, or chickens. I don't think he would have needed to mention microscopic stuff as it wouldn't make sense to anyone until a 100 or so years ago, but I still take from it that he wants to wipe the slate clean. Hence everything has to go... BTW, even though it only rained for a little over a month, there was water for almost a year. Imagine if your lawn was underwater for a year. Any plant and all the trees (unless you live in the Bayou) would die.

[LuftWaffle]

What do you make of this verse?

And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

(Mar 10:5-6)

Bearing in mind that according to evolution mankind arrived at the very end of a 15 billion year old creation. Yet Jesus claims that mankind was around from the beginning of creation?

I think you and I probably agree on the literal interpretation somewhat, but here is yet another example of what is literal. Technically, the beginning of creation would be "in the beginning". But I know you mean it as a reiteration of Genesis. BTW, considering creation, and the order of evolution, it looks like man came last.

This is a common answer to this question and it's entirely fallacious. It attemtps to dismiss the question itself by saying something to the effect of, "Well, Jesus is wrong anyway, because according to the creative process man was created on the 6th day, which is toward the end".

What amazes is me how casually this argument is used by Christians, considering that it's based on Jesus being "wrong anyway". Surely there should atleast be a bit of concern or even regret.

Why is it a fallacious argument?

Because it commits the fallacy of equivocation. The word 'creation' can be used in two senses.

1. A Painter busy producing a painting, is engaged in the creation of said painting.

2. The painting itself is called the painters creation.

Notice the difference? In the first sense the process of work is 'creation' and in the second sense the thing that is/was created is the 'creation'.

You're dismissing the question by switching from sense 2 to sense 1 and then claiming that Jesus is wrong anyway according to sense 1.

Clearly Jesus is referring to creation in the sense of what has been created, the created universe (sense 2), which began with Genesis and ends when God returns.

In this sense Jesus is absolutely correct, but in this sense evolution is still inconsistent, because where evolution is concerned the process is ongoing.

From an evolution point of view no matter in which sense you use the word, man appeared right at the end of a 20 billion year period.

[LuftWaffle]

There is no indication that Noah took aquatic life, insects and plants on the ark. There is also no indication that Noah had to have representatives of microscopic creatures: bacterial, fungal etc.

It seems the line of argumentation that you're following here is that some parts of the text when taken to it's hyper literal sense would be absurd. Since we therefore we take some parts of the text to be figures of speech, we might as well abandon literal interpretations in the early chapters of Genesis altogether. I don't believe this is a valid line of reasoning.

I don't think so. Again, I'm reading the text as Shiloh said. In addition to "every living thing", while you say it doesn't mean insects, "every creeping thing" surely isn't referring to dogs, cattle, or chickens. I don't think he would have needed to mention microscopic stuff as it wouldn't make sense to anyone until a 100 or so years ago, but I still take from it that he wants to wipe the slate clean. Hence everything has to go... BTW, even though it only rained for a little over a month, there was water for almost a year. Imagine if your lawn was underwater for a year. Any plant and all the trees (unless you live in the Bayou) would die.

The 'creeping things' (hebrew 'remes') usually refer to animals that move quickly with their bellies close to the ground, such as lizards, rats, mice, raccoons, badgers, etc. You're bringing a modern understanding of 'creepy crawlies' to the text.

As I said, there is no indication that Noah took insects and representatives of all plants onto the ark. In a Hebrew sense plants and insects are considered biological machines, and not sentient living things with flesh and breath in the nostrils.

Notice also that your strategy is again a 'wrong anyway' approach. You're trying to dismiss a literal interpretation of Genesis, by trying to force an inconsistency, despite that fact that I gave you two reasons why 'all living things' do not necessarily imply 'every selfreplicating organism'.

I'm also not sure how this reasoning is meant to show baraminology as false, since your objections seem to be against hyperliteralism or as Shiloh put it 'face value' interpretation and it doesn't really speak to the question of 'how many kinds of animals there were back in Noah's day' or how many animals were on the ark.

Your initial argument was along the lines of

1. There are 20+ millions species now, therefore Noah had to have atleast 40+million animals on the ark.

2. The ark cannot hold so many animals

3. Therefore Noah's ark must be taken figuratively

This argument is fundamentally flawed because premise 1 assumes as it is now, so it was back then. How do you *know* that it is the case that what is here now was also back then? Because of the evolutionary timelines? If that's the case then you're simply begging the question, by using evolution to prove evolution.

So apart from the two reason I gave why not all 'kinds' needed to be on the ark, the argument is flawed because of the above assumption.

[Don Fanucci]

The 'creeping things' (hebrew 'remes') usually refer to animals that move quickly with their bellies close to the ground, such as lizards, rats, mice, raccoons, badgers, etc. You're bringing a modern understanding of 'creepy crawlies' to the text.

As I said, there is no indication that Noah took insects and representatives of all plants onto the ark. In a Hebrew sense plants and insects are considered biological machines, and not sentient living things with flesh and breath in the nostrils.

Notice also that your strategy is again a 'wrong anyway' approach. You're trying to dismiss a literal interpretation of Genesis, by trying to force an inconsistency, despite that fact that I gave you two reasons why 'all living things' do not necessarily imply 'every selfreplicating organism'.

I'm also not sure how this reasoning is meant to show baraminology as false, since your objections seem to be against hyperliteralism or as Shiloh put it 'face value' interpretation and it doesn't really speak to the question of 'how many kinds of animals there were back in Noah's day' or how many animals were on the ark.

Your initial argument was along the lines of

1. There are 20+ millions species now, therefore Noah had to have atleast 40+million animals on the ark.

2. The ark cannot hold so many animals

3. Therefore Noah's ark must be taken figuratively

This argument is fundamentally flawed because premise 1 assumes as it is now, so it was back then. How do you *know* that it is the case that what is here now was also back then? Because of the evolutionary timelines? If that's the case then you're simply begging the question, by using evolution to prove evolution.

So apart from the two reason I gave why not all 'kinds' needed to be on the ark, the argument is flawed because of the above assumption.

You are now putting conditions on the flood, none of which is supportd by scripture. The kind argument has been debated. There is zero proof for it being possible, and the theory itself is vague and ambiguous. If it were possible, creationists would have proven it already--it is a testable hypothesis. Doesn't work. That means everything alive today had to be on the Ark. Plain and simple. Now you are telling me that some stuff didn't get on, but some how survived (in ten months of water no less, or are you goingto tell me the flood didn't really cover the whole earth?). Defeats the whole story doesn't it, and contradicts the "every living thing" argument I made. If your creepy crawly theory were correct, what do reptiles use for food? Plants and insects--all dead if they are not on the Ark, and therefore, the reptiles too. Here is yet another glaring problem with creationists; they continually move the goal posts, because frankly, they have to. Your arguments do not hold up to scrutiny.