Genesis Flood Local Or Global ?

[Baron1710]

One of my favorite old earth folks is Hugh Ross who has posted a local flood theory on his page reasonstobelieve.org.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...cs/flood.shtml

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Genesis Flood is its geographical extent. Part of the basis for the controversy is that Genesis addresses the geophysics, geology, and geography of the flood only secondarily. Its main message is that God was compelled to cleanse the earth of the wickedness of man. The message of God's judgment against rampant evil is very clearly stated and understood in any translation. However, in order to comprehend the geological details concerning the flood, it is helpful, perhaps in this case essential, to read the Genesis text in the original Hebrew, and even then the text is not always as specific as one might like.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

One of my favorite old earth folks is Hugh Ross who has posted a local flood theory on his page reasonstobelieve.org.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...cs/flood.shtml

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Genesis Flood is its geographical extent. Part of the basis for the controversy is that Genesis addresses the geophysics, geology, and geography of the flood only secondarily. Its main message is that God was compelled to cleanse the earth of the wickedness of man. The message of God's judgment against rampant evil is very clearly stated and understood in any translation. However, in order to comprehend the geological details concerning the flood, it is helpful, perhaps in this case essential, to read the Genesis text in the original Hebrew, and even then the text is not always as specific as one might like.

I just started reading "A Matter of Days" by Dr Ross (and already own "Who Was Adam?" which is excellent).

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I just started reading "A Matter of Days" by Dr Ross (and already own "Who Was Adam?" which is excellent).

My favorite is "Creation and time" I will have to keep an eye out for those you just mentioned. Ross has a lot of credibility with evangelicals in higher education.

[Aquila]

Here's another great site for Old Earth Creationism. It's actually a hypertext book titled, A New Look At An Old Earth.

http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM#Contents

Personally, I don't believe in the Day Age concept. I believe that the days of Genesis were literal periods of time that we would define today as being hours long. However, I believe that they took place in the dateless past and are depicting God's spoken word as Moses looks back at the creation. The theory that I think best harmonizes the Bible with science is known as the Divine Fiat Theory. A great book on it is here:

http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolu.../dp/1556616791

Beyond this theory I'd embrace literal Scientific Creationism.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Okay, but I can't say I read Genesis 1 as a parable.

The literary genre of the parable really comes a bit later in history. To understand Genesis through 2 Kings you need to pick up on the narrative of The Sopherim, or The Scribe (most likely Ezra the scribe, but it may have been something like "the school of Ezra").

Throughout this work there are many references such as "unto this day..." that shows the writer was set in a particular time period and was looking back on events of the past.

There are also many apparent "anachronisms" like in Genesis 14 when Abraham pursues the kings from Sodom to "Dan." Dan was a city named for Abraham's great grandson who hadn't even been born yet; moreover, the city of Dan was never named that until the last chapter of Judges - long after Moses's death.

Given the fact that the Bible clearly gives us this narrative we must be willing to accept it - the Bible is the final authority here. So then we look closer and find that within this narrative several documents have clearly been placed. Some, like the Song of Deborah in Judges 5 are written in a style of Hebrew that almost goes beyond ancient and stand out in stark contrast with the surrounding narrative.

What we have with this collection of books appears to be the work of Ezra in collecting the books of the law and many other documents and compiling them together with an explanatory narrative.

Ezra obviously wasn't present at the time of the creation or the flood and his real mission wasn't to go back and teach Israel a bunch of Sunday School lessons. He had an entire nation with a rich cultural history and a God given mandate that was all standing on the edge of a knife.

His mission was not natural history but to re-establish the nation. He obviously wanted to frame everything and provide a rich context for future prophets and seers and thus his inspired words on creation and his repeated accounts of God's judgment upon those who strayed too far and for too long.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I think Paul is also saying that the Galatians SAW the power of God manifest through Paul in the miracles and wonders he did which confirmed the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Where do we stop explaining away miraculous, supernatural events? Where do we draw the line? Does science set the standard for what should be taken literally or figuratively in the Bible? Is science foolproof?

We don't "explain away" miracles. We accept the accounts and descriptions found within the Bible unless there's some sort of jaw dropping contradiction that makes you go - "What!?!"

That's what happened when people began to understand the geologic column and the fossil record. There were too many things that didn't line up. ... I gotta get ready to leave here. brb, as it were, on a different system from home.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here's another great site for Old Earth Creationism. It's actually a hypertext book titled, A New Look At An Old Earth.

http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM#Contents

Personally, I don't believe in the Day Age concept. I believe that the days of Genesis were literal periods of time that we would define today as being hours long. However, I believe that they took place in the dateless past and are depicting God's spoken word as Moses looks back at the creation. The theory that I think best harmonizes the Bible with science is known as the Divine Fiat Theory. A great book on it is here:

http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolu.../dp/1556616791

Beyond this theory I'd embrace literal Scientific Creationism.

I think what sold me on Ross' version was the idea of a God who with great patience and love created an ideal place for man. Even taking the time to age the universe before forming man.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I think what sold me on Ross' version was the idea of a God who with great patience and love created an ideal place for man. Even taking the time to age the universe before forming man.

I read Ross's book, Creation and Time. I found it to be very good and I like a lot of what he has to say. I just think that the narrative is pretty clear about describing actual days not long periods of time. Besides, science would have microscopic and simple plant life come way before the age of the "third day".

What I like about Alan Haywood's theory is that we see God, in the dateless past, speaking for six literal days. Then everything spoken begins to manifest and develop over a period of billions of years. No specific order is required, no specific time frame or outline needed. That would mean that the world around us that has been developing for billions of years is the result of six creative days of divine utterance. All things can then be said to be the result of an utterance made during a single day.

So my son might ask, "Daddy, how long did it take God to make the earth?" I can answer, "Only six days." He then might ask, "Daddy how old is the earth?" I can answer, "Billions of years."

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I think what sold me on Ross' version was the idea of a God who with great patience and love created an ideal place for man. Even taking the time to age the universe before forming man.

Sometime during one of their podcasts, they spoke at length about the Earth having somewhere from 50 to perhaps a few hundred thousand years in it's ENTIRE lifespan (4.5 billion now -10-12 when the sun goes 'boom') that mankind can survive and prosper. We are living in the middle of that time period. Many tectonic, solar, and other factors go into this calculation -from tectonic activity, meteoric bombardment, the state of the suns solar output, the position of our solar system in the Milky Way, and even more precise measurements like the state of our oil reserves and their sulpher content (a few tens of thousands of years ago, the oil would not be in a state where it could be easily refined -and in an equal amount of time in the future, will not be again).
It is truly amazing.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I think what sold me on Ross' version was the idea of a God who with great patience and love created an ideal place for man. Even taking the time to age the universe before forming man.

O Lord my God, When I in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy Hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed.

Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!

When through the woods, and forest glades I wander,
And hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees.
When I look down, from lofty mountain grandeur
And see the brook, and feel the gentle breeze.

Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!

And when I think, that God, His Son not sparing;
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.

Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!

When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation,
And take me home, what joy shall fill my heart.
Then I shall bow, in humble adoration,
And then proclaim: "My God, how great Thou art!"

Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!

Oh how he must love us. His love is truly an everlasting love. He fashioned the universe for us and then died for us, though we are not even a blip on eternity's radar. Oh LORD, who is man that thou art mindful of us?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I read Ross's book, Creation and Time. I found it to be very good and I like a lot of what he has to say. I just think that the narrative is pretty clear about describing actual days not long periods of time. Besides, science would have microscopic and simple plant life come way before the age of the "third day".

What I like about Alan Haywood's theory is that we see God, in the dateless past, speaking for six literal days. Then everything spoken begins to manifest and develop over a period of billions of years. No specific order is required, no specific time frame or outline needed. That would mean that the world around us that has been developing for billions of years is the result of six creative days of divine utterance. All things can then be said to be the result of an utterance made during a single day.

So my son might ask, "Daddy, how long did it take God to make the earth?" I can answer, "Only six days." He then might ask, "Daddy how old is the earth?" I can answer, "Billions of years."

What is a day? Is it 24 hours? Or is it the daylight between evening and morning? Or is it a figure of speach when combined with evening and morning simply indicating the begining and end of an age?