How to Respond to Old Testament Violence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RockPigeon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It really isn’t dishonest, unless one goes into reading Scripture with the positivistic presupposition that truth is always unfailingly literal. How, for instance, do you reconcile yourself to Hebraisms – idiosyncracies of the Hebrew language (like “stiff-necked” referring to something other than the posture of one’s neck) not shared or immediately recognized by other languages?
Why would God saying a people are “stiff-necked” be pertinent to this discussion? Someone can be “stiff-necked” in the sense of being disobedient, and in this case it’s made clear that that’s the context. Again, we come back to the fact that God has not made it clear that Genesis is a parable. If Genesis is all a parable then it would be, in my opinion, dishonest.
Of course, because my “interpretation” doesn’t give a single, coherent, universally applicable rule for interpreting every single line of Scripture. And it doesn’t do that because I oppose Scriptural positivism. Because it’s silly and, like all positivisms, it’s a modern innovation.
So in other words there’s no real way to interpret the Bible then. We can’t really know what it means because it could mean anything. In that case I’d have to say that God failed in communicating his revelation to us, wouldn’t you?
We don’t get to divorce the reading of any one line of Scripture from the reading of all the rest. We don’t get to ignore theological, historical, historiographical, etc., contexts in which Scripture was written. We don’t get to invent arbitrary paradigms for reading Scripture that vacate us, personally, of all responsibility for actually digesting what we read. Etc.
Well, Scripture makes it plain to us how it’s to be interpreted. If it’s talking in a parable then it’ll indicate it’s talking in a parable. Again, if we can’t trust God to tell us when it’s a parable and when it isn’t then how can we believe in God’s honesty about anything?
 
Your personal interpretation understands when it says “all the high mountains” it means every single mountain on earth. Another interpretation understands it as all the mountainous areas in the region of the flood, which would be a much lower level of flooding. What makes your personal interpretation definitive and authoritative?
Well, for starters: even if it only means all the high mountains in a certain region, water still seeks its own level. The mountains of Ararat (where the ark landed) are many thousands of feet high - in order to cover them for the length of time of the Flood the Flood would have to be enormous.

Next, the entire context of the Flood account is the destruction of the entire human race. This could only happen if the Flood were global. There are obviously many more Biblical reasons why the Flood was global - perhaps we should start a separate thread on the subject.
No, it didn’t in Noah’s day, as Noah and his family prove. So your point is wrong.
It meant everyone except Noah. And, it the passage you’re referring to, it could mean everyone except the righteous few.

Your problem is the entire context of the Flood account is a destruction of the entire human race and a destruction of all the animals. That could only happen if the Flood was global.

"
Normal attempts". You’re reading this story at least 3,000 years after it was written down, and many more thousands of years after it was first told. But you’re quite certain YOU understand the passage and manner of writing/speaking perfectly well, and that anyone can understand. That is some hubris right there.
God would obviously put it in a language that everybody could understand, whether they read it 3,000 years ago or today.
 
You are judging God against the standards set for man. God is the author of life, and has all authority to end that life if and when He chooses. In fact, He WILL end the life of every single person who will live, except those alive at His Second Coming.

When God orders the killing of innocents, He commits no sin, because He is the author of life. Man is not, and does not have the authority to end the innocent life of another.
No one debates that God is the author of life, our creator. He gives our human life and takes it back to himself, as he wills.

What is evidently? up for debate is whether God wills and orders one human being to kill other innocent human beings for the furtherance of his kingdom, for his praise and glory.
Do you believe that God has ever willed one human being to kill innocents for his glory?
The Catholic answer to that question is an emphatic -NO-.
The killing of innocents can never be considered moral, at any time in history, in any cultural context. Period. End of story.

If an action is incompatible with the person of Jesus Christ, it is incompatible always and everywhere, at any time, in any culture. Ignorance is never an excuse for immorality. All ignorance can do is mitigate culpability.
 
I think you’re missing the point: the point is to destroy the entire human race. The only way that could have happened was if the flood was global. Do you agree that the entire human race was destroyed in the flood?
I am not missing the point at all. A people’s idea about a global flood would be limited by what they knew and understood of the world.The world to ancient Israelites was an inverted
bowl with windows that let in weather.Does that sound like people who understand “global” as we do?. The world was “flat” centuries. Wouldn’t that image preclude about half the world’s population and animals?
the sacred writers were not robots,nor did act only as secretaries.The Holy Spirit did not dictate the Bible. The bible is inspired. God breathed into a human being- so you have God’s spirit transmuted into human words.
 
I am not missing the point at all. A people’s idea about a global flood would be limited by what they knew and understood of the world.The world to ancient Israelites was an inverted
bowl with windows that let in weather.Does that sound like people who understand “global” as we do?. The world was “flat” centuries. Wouldn’t that image preclude about half the world’s population and animals?
the sacred writers were not robots,nor did act only as secretaries.The Holy Spirit did not dictate the Bible. The bible is inspired. God breathed into a human being- so you have God’s spirit transmuted into human words.
This is not the Israelite view of the world, though I am sure Biblical critics wish it were. Let me repeat the question: the Bible says that the point of the Flood was to destroy mankind completely. How could this possibly be accomplished without a global flood?
 
the Bible says that the point of the Flood was to destroy mankind completely.
Nearly completely. 8 people survived.
How could this possibly be accomplished without a global flood?
One possibility is this: if humans had not yet traveled beyond a certain region, then only that region would have to be flooded in order for the flood to kill (nearly) all of them (except the eight in the boat).

If you combine this theory with the possibility that the meaning of the word “world” was at the time confined to the area where humans had yet inhabited (“the known world”), and with the theory that some of the flood account may make use of hyperbole, then a regional flood could have wiped out all humanity (except the eight in the ark) and still be spoken of the way Genesis speaks of it.

I also think a real global flood can be defended, and Fr. Mitch Pacwa, on Catholic radio, once told a listener about one possibility he had heard: that the worldwide flood was a bunch of worldwide regional floods all happening during the glacial melt after an ice age. If all of humanity (except eight) died during this period, and if the ice and ice-melt came, among other places, from the tops of the mountains, that could account for some of the expressions in the Genesis story while also matching up with what modern geologists think happened in ancient history.

Of course, modern geologists would be the first to tell you that they are not inerrant. The Bible is. Attempts to reconcile the two rely on speculation, and are not necessary to authentic faith in the Biblical record. Catholics are required to believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis tell a real and true account of history, unless I’ve misunderstood the Church’s teaching, but the Church also says, if I remember correctly from certain Church documents I’ve read, that ancient methods of telling history are not necessarily the same as modern methods of telling history, and may make use of poetic expression and hyperbole to make a point. Thus, some elements of the Genesis narrative may make use of hyperbole and poetic license, and that can help us understand why it doesn’t always appear to match up with what modern geologists seem to think happened in early history.

Is that explanation at all helpful?
 
This is not the Israelite view of the world, though I am sure Biblical critics wish it were. Let me repeat the question: the Bible says that the point of the Flood was to destroy mankind completely. How could this possibly be accomplished without a global flood?
Really.
the world consisted of:The Heaven of Heavens-the Divine dwelling place
Then the Waters above the firmament
then the firmament of the sky where the floodgates of the waters were
sun ,moon and stars suspended
the columns of mountains
the earth
the waters under the earth
the Pillars of the earth
Sheol
under that the Abyss.
Not exactly a scientific view of the world.
The view of their world was limited,their knowledge was limited- global ,as we understand it, was not a concept for them. If you go into Genesis Table of Nations,you can better understand their concept of the world. It didn’t include China or the americas or a lot of other geography that would give us an inkling that they understood any part of global.
Besides- What is the point of the story? If you don’t understand the message then the details are meaningless.
 
God would obviously put it in a language that everybody could understand, whether they read it 3,000 years ago or today.
The Bible did not suddenly appear one day, written in English. Inspired scripture comes first from authoritative and inspired tradition, stories (don’t let that word scare you) told orally around campfires and such, passed down through the generations. At some point it was written down.

Scripture has been copied many many many times over the ages, with varying degrees of accuracy and understanding. There are literally hundreds of scripture interpretation “families”, or lineages, that have taken particular translations and run with them. It can make understanding in a literal sense a chaotic process.

While we are called to understand God’s word, it can be incredibly mysterious, because God is a mystery to us. That’s why it is said that “Christianity is not a religion of the book”. Revelation is not simply history, or facts. (how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Does it really matter?) It is the revealing of a relationship between God and man. There is plenty of mystery there that requires faith, not just the book.

“The Word became flesh”.
That sentence of scripture is so loaded with challenging truth that it takes a lifetime to accept and believe. To begin to believe “the Word became flesh” relieves us from trying to prove how deep the water was at the flood or how many days it really rained or how many days 6 of God’s days really are. The Word becoming flesh makes all that secondary.
 
Nearly completely. 8 people survived.
Obviously I’m not counting the 8 people that survived on the ark. “Everyone” means everyone outside of the ark.
One possibility is this: if humans had not yet traveled beyond a certain region, then only that region would have to be flooded in order for the flood to kill (nearly) all of them (except the eight in the boat).
That’s completely irreconcilable with what modern scientists believe. If you accept the modern evolutionist view of the world (and I’m assuming that you do) then this view is impossible as you had Native Americans and Australian Aborigines living in America and Australia for thousands of years.
If you combine this theory with the possibility that the meaning of the word “world” was at the time confined to the area where humans had yet inhabited (“the known world”), and with the theory that some of the flood account may make use of hyperbole, then a regional flood could have wiped out all humanity (except the eight in the ark) and still be spoken of the way Genesis speaks of it.
In this case the regional flood would have had to have wiped out all of the animals. The Bible is clear that all the animals and humans died except for those on the ark. That is irreconcilable with a local flood hypothesis.
 
the world consisted of:The Heaven of Heavens-the Divine dwelling place
That’s not a part of this universe.
Then the Waters above the firmament
Those are in heaven; again, not a part of this universe.
then the firmament of the sky where the floodgates of the waters were
The floodgates are a allegorical way of speaking about alot of water raining down from the sky.
sun ,moon and stars suspended
Not exactly, since they move and obviously Scripture knows that. Again, simply a figure of speech.
the waters under the earth
Waters are under the earth naturally. Land is higher than sea.
the Pillars of the earth
Figure of speech. The ground you’re walking on doesn’t move around, does it?
The grave.
under that the Abyss.
Please show me where Scripture states that the abyss is under sheol.
Not exactly a scientific view of the world.
These things are figures of speech used to convey reality. Not one of them is inaccurate.
The view of their world was limited,their knowledge was limited- global ,as we understand it, was not a concept for them. If you go into Genesis Table of Nations,you can better understand their concept of the world. It didn’t include China or the americas or a lot of other geography that would give us an inkling that they understood any part of global.
Besides- What is the point of the story? If you don’t understand the message then the details are meaningless.
Scripture makes it clear that everyone on the planet is descended from Noah’s children Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The Bible is divinely inspired by God and is not a Hebrew invention and thus does not contain Hebrew views of the world at all: only God’s view of the world.
 
The Bible did not suddenly appear one day, written in English. Inspired scripture comes first from authoritative and inspired tradition, stories (don’t let that word scare you) told orally around campfires and such, passed down through the generations. At some point it was written down.
Well, that’s not how the Bible says it came about. It says, for example, that the Pentateuch was written by Moses at the command of God.
Scripture has been copied many many many times over the ages, with varying degrees of accuracy and understanding. There are literally hundreds of scripture interpretation “families”, or lineages, that have taken particular translations and run with them. It can make understanding in a literal sense a chaotic process.
I guess that makes God incorrect then:

“The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever.” Isa. 40:8 (NASB)

“18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [h]the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Mt. 5:18 (NASB)

“35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.” Mt. 24:35 (NASB)
While we are called to understand God’s word, it can be incredibly mysterious, because God is a mystery to us.
Either God is telling you the truth or he isn’t. If he isn’t that’s called being dishonest. If he put things in Scripture in such a fashion that we have to turn our brains into scrambled eggs before we can understand it then that’s simply being dishonest. Based upon the character of God we can say that God would state things in a straightforward and plain manner unless he expressly indicated otherwise. To write things in a convoluted sense that no-one can possibly understand denies the essential nature of God.
 
That’s completely irreconcilable with what modern scientists believe. If you accept the modern evolutionist view of the world (and I’m assuming that you do) then this view is impossible as you had Native Americans and Australian Aborigines living in America and Australia for thousands of years.
If that is what modern scientists currently believe, and if someone argues that this is incompatible with what Genesis says, then one possible way to answer that objection is to explain that it is possible that the Flood happened within a few hundred years of when the first man “evolved.” In that case, humanity could’ve still been living in a region within which a flood could have wiped them all out except for Noah and his family. Before any humans were in Australia or America.
In this case the regional flood would have had to have wiped out all of the animals. The Bible is clear that all the animals and humans died except for those on the ark. That is irreconcilable with a local flood hypothesis.
I don’t think we have to interpret the Genesis comments about the animals in the same way we interpret its comments about the humans. I think that the flood narrative exhibits some features of Hebrew poetry when it discusses the animals.

For example, Gen. 6:20 repeats the same phrase several times, which is a feature of poetry: “Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive.” Genesis 7:2 repeats the phrase “the male and its mate,” and many of the same phrases are repeated again throughout chapter 7 in verses 8-9 and 14-16. Verse 23 repeats the phrase “blotted out” and re-uses the animal divisions from earlier in the chapter.

Poetic expressions such as “the breath of life” and numbers rich in symbolism such as 40 and 600 also make an appearance. I think all this poetic expression may allow us to interpret the narrative with some leave for poetic exaggeration and hyperbole. Therefore, maybe all the animals that died were in the “known world” as so far inhabited by men.

Does that seem possible to you?
 
If that is what modern scientists currently believe, and if someone argues that this is incompatible with what Genesis says, then one possible way to answer that objection is to explain that it is possible that the Flood happened within a few hundred years of when the first man “evolved.” In that case, humanity could’ve still been living in a region within which a flood could have wiped them all out except for Noah and his family. Before any humans were in Australia or America.
Then the Biblical comments about the chronology can’t be accurate. The Bible says the Flood happened approx. 1,656 years after Adam fell. Since evolutionists believe that humans evolved in Africa and came out of Africa then the Flood must have happened in Africa. Of course, this is impossible, since Noah’s ark landed on the Mountains of Ararat (in Turkey!).
I don’t think we have to interpret the Genesis comments about the animals in the same way we interpret its comments about the humans. I think that the flood narrative exhibits some features of Hebrew poetry when it discusses the animals.
Many portions of Scripture exhibit features of polished literary style. Leviticus and Numbers are great examples. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t literally happen, it only means that someone with high intelligence (aka God) wrote them.
For example, Gen. 6:20 repeats the same phrase several times, which is a feature of poetry: “Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive.” Genesis 7:2 repeats the phrase “the male and its mate,” and many of the same phrases are repeated again throughout chapter 7 in verses 8-9 and 14-16. Verse 23 repeats the phrase “blotted out” and re-uses the animal divisions from earlier in the chapter.

Poetic expressions such as “the breath of life” and numbers rich in symbolism such as 40 and 600 also make an appearance. I think all this poetic expression may allow us to interpret the narrative with some leave for poetic exaggeration and hyperbole. Therefore, maybe all the animals that died were in the “known world” as so far inhabited by men.
In this case I’m going to have to disagree. The destruction of man and the destruction of all the animals in Genesis are intertwined in such a way as to indicate that the Flood brought about universal destruction of man and also universal destruction of animals. The only way this could have happened is if it were global:

“21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out [t]every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.” Gen. 7:21-23 (NASB)
 
That’s not a part of this universe.

**
Those are in heaven; again, not a part of this universe.**You are talking of a way of seeing things.No part of their belief system would allow a world without the presence of YHWH

The floodgates are a allegorical way of speaking about alot of water raining down from the sky.Really so , that makes Genesis allegory.

Not exactly, since they move and obviously Scripture knows that. Again, simply a figure of speech We are talking of the thinking of very early Hebrews.

Waters are under the earth naturally. Land is higher than sea.Not according to their way of thinking.

Figure of speech. The ground you’re walking on doesn’t move around, does it?Actually the earth under your feet moves.

The grave. (yeah, but it was also consider a place-like Hades, or Heaven.

Please show me where Scripture states that the abyss is under sheol.

These things are figures of speech used to convey reality. Not one of them is inaccurate.

Just as the figures of speech that are used in the Stories of creation and The Flood.

Scripture makes it clear that everyone on the planet is descended from Noah’s children Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The Bible is divinely inspired by God and is not a Hebrew invention and thus does not contain Hebrew views of the world at all: only God’s view of the world.
**The Bible is divinely inspired- inspired, not physically written by Him. So God didn’t use a Human agent at all.? So why would someone have to be inspired-if it comes directly from God’s mouth? Inspired -breathed into.God-breathed-not God forced.The Holy Spirit breathed into the human writer- it didn’t possess him.God created us with free will just to rescind it , when He wanted Scripture written? We are His creations -not His robots or playthings. Leave that to pagan deities. **

Figures of speech ,hah. That is just comical. . Everything is literal until you think it isn’t.

As far as the Hebrew view of the world-just google it. .This was part of Genesis 101 in Bible School.Jews like Catholics aren’t people of the Book. They rely on Tradition. To search for a scripture to back up everything is folly at best. If things can’t exist because they are not mentioned in the Bible- then there are a heck of a lot of things that should exist but do. Like the Holy Trinity. Find those exact words and I’ll pat you on the shoulder
 
Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the subject of cosmology and how to interpret Genesis:

Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.[23]
 
Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis” (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:

St. Augustine of Hippo
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.[16]

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.[17]

In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way.
Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis” (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:

St. Augustine of Hippo
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.[16]

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.[17]

In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our minds
 
**The Bible is divinely inspired- inspired, not physically written by Him.
Same thing. The words in the Bible are written by God through a human agent.
Figures of speech ,hah. That is just comical. . Everything is literal until you think it isn’t.
Like I said before, when figures of speech are used in the Bible Scripture makes it obvious.
As far as the Hebrew view of the world-just google it.
How the Jews interpreted Scripture is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Bible actually says.
  • then there are a heck of a lot of things that should exist but do. Like the Holy Trinity. Find those exact words and I’ll pat you on the shoulder
Not too difficult:

“19 [e]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” Mt. 28:19 (NASB)
Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the subject of cosmology and how to interpret Genesis:
You do understand that I’m not Catholic? It doesn’t matter to me what Pope John Paul II says; it only matters what God says. Obviously I disagree with his statement.
Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis” (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:
See above.

What you’re saying is that we should give up Genesis (and therefore, any sort of sound Biblical hermeneutic) because extra-Biblical evidence appears to be against it. I think that the words of God are more important than that, and so does the Apostle Paul:

" In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I solemnly urge you: 2 proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching." 2 Tim. 4:1-2 (NRSV)

Had God wanted to say he created the world through evolution he could have. Had he wanted to indicate there wasn’t a global flood he could have. He did not.
 
We’ll just have to disagree on the interpretation of the evidence. Have you visited sites run by creationist scientists, like Creation Ministries International (creation.com/) ? They claim that there is good evidence of a global flood and good evidence against evolution.
No…in this case it is fact versus fiction. Floods leave behind evidence…a worldwide flood would leave it everywhere. Not only is there no disruption of native population, no physical evidence has been deposited of any even regional flood in the entire Allegheny National Forest. Not far away there is great evidence of the final Ice Age. I’ve seen these…I have sampled them.

Noah’s Flood was not worldwide…and that is a fact.
 
No…in this case it is fact versus fiction. Floods leave behind evidence…a worldwide flood would leave it everywhere. Not only is there no disruption of native population, no physical evidence has been deposited of any even regional flood in the entire Allegheny National Forest. Not far away there is great evidence of the final Ice Age. I’ve seen these…I have sampled them.

Noah’s Flood was not worldwide…and that is a fact.
We will have to disagree.

It ultimately comes down to the fact that the words of God trump any other form of evidence that can possibly be presented. What do you think of that philosophy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top