Genesis Flood and Exodus historical issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter patricius79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Philvaz has some good stuff. This is a big paper. Will you boil it down to one or two questions?
Click to expand...
maybe you could respond to this part

In addition to the wealth of geological evidence opposing the possibility of a global deluge, a variety of biogeographical evidence also counts conclusively against such an event. For one thing, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that human or animal populations were ever disrupted by a catastrophic global flood at any point in the past. Indeed, all the evidence indicates continuous occupation by these populations of points around the globe into the exceedingly distant past. Human beings have been in North America for at least twelve thousand years and in Australia for at least thirty or forty thousand years, long before the biblical deluge could have occurred by any consistent reading of the textual evidence of the Bible.
philvaz.com/apologetics/p82.htm

this is from the conclusion which is the most important part.

at bottom of the page, under this, is the link to the article which gives the BIBLICAL evidence that the Bible MUST be describing a local flood
 
The above arguments against a literal flood all assume that, if there was a Flood, every descriptive element in the story is entirely literal. This assumption has no basis. Many Scripture passages contain both literal and figurative elements. For example, Jesus tells the disciples that Lazarus is sleeping – He is using a figure. Then He explains that Lazarus is dead – now He is speaking literally.

Even the expression Love your neighbor contains both literal and figurative elements. The term love is literal. The term neighbor is a figure, meaning that we should treat even persons who are not our neighbors as if they were.

So we can hold that there was literally a Noah and a great Flood and an Ark with animals. But we can also hold that the story includes certain figurative elements: that the Flood covered all the earth, that the Ark contained all animals, that all humans were killed other than in the Ark, etc.

Any argument that proves the Flood could not have covered the whole earth, or that all human persons could not have been killed at that time, or that all animals could not have fit on the Ark, only proves that those elements are figurative. It does prove that the entire story is fiction.
 
patricius79 said:
maybe you could respond to this part

In addition to the wealth of geological evidence opposing the possibility of a global deluge, a variety of biogeographical evidence also counts conclusively against such an event. For one thing, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that human or animal populations were ever disrupted by a catastrophic global flood at any point in the past. Indeed, all the evidence indicates continuous occupation by these populations of points around the globe into the exceedingly distant past. Human beings have been in North America for at least twelve thousand years and in Australia for at least thirty or forty thousand years, long before the biblical deluge could have occurred by any consistent reading of the textual evidence of the Bible.
philvaz.com/apologetics/p82.htm

this is from the conclusion which is the most important part.

at bottom of the page, under this, is the link to the article which gives the BIBLICAL evidence that the Bible MUST be describing a local flood
Click to expand...
After skimming the paper it is written by unifomatarianists mostly over 100 years ago.

Here is some new info.

Paleocurrents
 
As aforementioned, there are literal and figurative elements in the stories.
Also, in the example of a red tide making the water undrinkable, well, God could have used natural events or supernatural events. Neither one nor the other is unthinkable from a rational viewpoint - stating that it HAD to be God pouring a bucket of red paint into the water is just as foolish as stating that it HAD to be a red tide. The only thing that we have hard evidence for is that God sent the plagues.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The above arguments against a literal flood all assume that, if there was a Flood, every descriptive element in the story is entirely literal. This assumption has no basis. Many Scripture passages contain both literal and figurative elements. For example, Jesus tells the disciples that Lazarus is sleeping – He is using a figure. Then He explains that Lazarus is dead – now He is speaking literally.

Even the expression Love your neighbor contains both literal and figurative elements. The term love is literal. The term neighbor is a figure, meaning that we should treat even persons who are not our neighbors as if they were.

So we can hold that there was literally a Noah and a great Flood and an Ark with animals. But we can also hold that the story includes certain figurative elements: that the Flood covered all the earth, that the Ark contained all animals, that all humans were killed other than in the Ark, etc.

Any argument that proves the Flood could not have covered the whole earth, or that all human persons could not have been killed at that time, or that all animals could not have fit on the Ark, only proves that those elements are figurative. It does prove that the entire story is fiction.
Click to expand...
of course I agree. and apparently the Scirptures themselves prove that it was a local flood

moreover Sarigianis writes:

1. The topography of the Mesopotamian region forms a huge U-shaped bowl that stretches 600 miles from the Persian Gulf to the northwest. Steep escarpments that rise quickly from less than 200 meters to 1,000 meters set boundaries for the Mesopotamian Plain on the north and the east. Terrain that rises gradually, but consistently, to heights above 400 meters forms the southern and western boundaries. Elevations above 400 meters fully contain the Mesopotamian Plain except where it meets the sea.
reasons.org/astronomy/noahs-flood/noahs-flood-article-1
 
this is from Deem:

*The “whole earth” usually refers to local geographyExamples of where kol erets refers to a local area include the following verses:

•“Is not the whole [kol] land [erets] before you? Please separate from me: if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left.” (Genesis 13:9) (The “whole land” was only the land of Canaan)
•And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth. (Genesis 41:57) (The people from the Americas did not go to Egypt)
•Then God said, "Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all [kol] the earth [erets], nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you. (Exodus 34:10) (There would be no need to add “nor among any of the nations” if “all the earth” referred to the entire planet.)*
godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html#objections
 
NJJMBVB said:
As aforementioned, there are literal and figurative elements in the stories.
Also, in the example of a red tide making the water undrinkable, well, God could have used natural events or supernatural events. Neither one nor the other is unthinkable from a rational viewpoint - stating that it HAD to be God pouring a bucket of red paint into the water is just as foolish as stating that it HAD to be a red tide. The only thing that we have hard evidence for is that God sent the plagues.
Click to expand...
We don’t have what I think would qualify as hard evidence for Biblical miracles. Red tide? The people living at this time never saw it before? Jesus raised the dead? Hard evidence for that? Cleansed the lepers, gave sight to the blind?

The moment God is implicated in purely “natural” events, when is He God? The God that was crucified and rose bodily in three days? That is the problem and, of course, some need to believe that a purely natural event occurred and God did what? Let it happen? God supports the universe at this moment.

God bless,
Ed
 
here are examples from an article by Deem which show that “kol eretz”–“the whole earth”–is used locally:

*•And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, “Let the Hebrews hear.” (1 Samuel 13:3) (Obviously, Saul could not have blown a trumpet loud enough to be heard throughout the entire earth)
•For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured. (2 Samuel 18:8) (No, the battle did not take place over the entire earth.)
•So when they had gone about through the whole [kol] land [erets], they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. (2 Samuel 24:8) (No they didn’t go through the entire earth, just the lands of Palestine.)
•And all [kol] the earth [erets] was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. (1 Kings 10:24) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans went to see Solomon.)
•Then the fame of David went out into all [kol] the lands [erets]; and the LORD brought the fear of him on all the nations. (1 Chronicles 14:17) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans knew about David.) *
godandscience.org/apologe…html#mountains
 
from the Sarigianis article

Textual Considerations
Genesis 8:9 records that the dove sent out by Noah could find no place to set her feet “because there was water over all the surface of the earth.” Yet four verses prior, in Genesis 8:5, the text says that the flood waters had receded enough so that for Noah the “tops of the mountains became visible.” Correct interpretation here depends on establishing the dove’s frame of reference. Likewise, the phrase “under the entire heavens” in Genesis 7:19 must be interpreted from Noah’s perspective in Mesopotamia, not from a modern global perspective.
reasons.org/astronomy/noahs-flood/noahs-flood-article-1
 
Genesis 8:11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

Ok, take an olive tree, put it underwater for about 200 days at the depth you believe Noah’s flood was to dupicate the pressure, at salt water say about 50 of sea water.

Now drain all the water off that olive tree and see if after 40 days it comes back to life.

😉

In a local flood, the leaf is not a problem. The land was simply far enough away that the dove would not find the olive tree.

I still am curious how 8 people cared for thousands of animals. The methane alone would had have doom this project.
 
Big_Dummy said:
Genesis 8:11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

Ok, take an olive tree, put it underwater for about 200 days at the depth you believe Noah’s flood was to dupicate the pressure, at salt water say about 50 of sea water.

Now drain all the water off that olive tree and see if after 40 days it comes back to life.

😉

In a local flood, the leaf is not a problem. The land was simply far enough away that the dove would not find the olive tree.

I still am curious how 8 people cared for thousands of animals. The methane alone would had have doom this project.
Click to expand...
Neither are valid arguments.
  1. How long does it take a seedling to spout and leaf?
  2. Methane - how about vents or windows?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top