Was Noah's Flood Local?

by JosephAlward 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

hooberus

There would have been no reason for an ark to built in the first place if God was only going to cause a local flood. God simply would have had Noah and the animals migrate out of the area as He did with Lot and his family out of Sodom.
God had Noah build the ark because the flood was indeed global requiring an ark to save mankind and the animals so that the earth could be repopulated. That is why male and female pares of each animal were taken.
The Creation Research Society has over 1,000 members ALL with advanced degrees in science. They are an excellent source for information on the scientific evidence of a recent global flood. They have an excellent internet site.
JosephAlward

hooberus wrote,
There would have been no reason for an ark to built in the first place if God was only going to cause a local flood. God simply would have had Noah and the animals migrate out of the area
It is abundantly clear that the writers of Genesis believed that the flood they were describing was global, but this doesn't mean the global flood actually occurred. The story of Noah and the flood seems to have been nothing more than an allegory (a fictionalized tale meant to teach a moral).
Few things in the Bible are clearer than the fact that the writers viewed the flood as a rebirth of the earth and its people, a kind of second creation. In the first creation story, God created an earth covered with water, then had the waters recede from the earth to expose the land, on which his people would multiply. Later, God was dissatisfied with what the earth and its people had become, so he essentially created anew the earth. He once again returned the earth to state in which it had existed before--a world completely covered with water.
He removed the waters, saving only Noah and his family. Noah and his family were to be the ones from whom civilization would spring, just as God had intended for Adam and Eve. But, this is just a teaching story, a story about righteousness, cleansing, and rebirth. It was never intended to be taken literally by its creators; there is zero evidence that there ever was a global flood, or an ark the size of the one described in the Bible.
God had Noah build the ark because the flood was indeed global requiring an ark to save mankind and the animals so that the earth could be repopulated. That is why male and female pares of each animal were taken.
This is good evidence that the Genesis writers wanted the readers to know that the flood in their (fictional) story was global.
The Creation Research Society has over 1,000 members ALL with advanced degrees in science. They are an excellent source for information on the scientific evidence of a recent global flood.
A requirement for membership in the CRS is that members must pledge that they agree that the Bible stories are literally true, and that they will work to find evidence which supports the literal truth of the creation and flood stories. Rather than use the scientific approach of collecting evidence, and only then reaching a conclusion, these folks first reach a conclusion (the Bible stories are literally true), and then go looking for "facts" which they think support this view. These are hardly objective "scientists"; they are hard-core, die-rather-than-admit-Bible-error fundamentalists.
The academies of science of every industrialized country in the world know that there was never a global flood.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
Moxy

making estimates at the size and shape of the flood region and calculating the maximum flight distance of a middle eastern dove for comparison is ludicrous. (and comically reminiscent of Life of Brian.) there wasnt a big circle of water and then suddenly none. surely if the flood was not geographically global, the flooded area wouldve constantly fluctuated over the many months of inundation, with the surrounding area ranging from total inundation, to isolated peaks, to islands, to flooded rivers, etc. trying to make any determination about the state of a local flood from the flight of a bird seems pointless. it only makes sense in the context of a fictional global flood legend.
likewise, the bizarre method used by noah to check if the ark had grounded:
Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry.
what?? u mean the earth was totally dry and they still had to sit in the ark waiting to find out? this implies the ark had no windows, an obvious physical impossibility. it also seems to be written by a severely nautically-challenged author, who isnt familiar with the OBVIOUS sensation of a vessel being grounded, or of the absence of the sensation of the waves. i doubt the author had ever been on a boat before in his life! ive read that the gilgamesh epic, written by a sea-faring people, contains more realistic nautical references (ark dimensions aside.)
legend, people. legend.
mox
hooberus

Joseph wrote:
"A requirement for membership in the CRS is that members must pledge that they agree that the Bible stories are literally true, and that they will work to find evidence which supports the literal truth of the creation and flood stories. Rather than use the scientific approach of collecting evidence, and only then reaching a conclusion, these folks first reach a conclusion (the Bible stories are literally true), and then go looking for "facts" which they think support this view. These are hardly objective "scientists"; they are hard-core, die-rather-than-admit-Bible-error fundamentalists."
Many of the members of the CRS are former evolutionists, who were trained in the evolutionary viewpoint of historical geology. After examining both interpretations of the evidence they changed their viewpoint. Rather than dismissing their evdence as worthless because they are "fundamentalists", we should evamine the scientific data from the perspective of both views.
hooberus

If we say that the account of Noah and the flood is fictional, then since Jesus Christ is said to be decended from one of Noah's sons, wouldn't this be saying that Jesus Christ was also fictional?
cellomould

We are all fictional, Hooberus, as the story tells us that we all decended from Noah.
cellomould
"Money walks through the door, and memory flies out the window" Dream Theater, 6:00
peacefulpete

Hooberus
It is always a good start to check the credentials of advocates of any cause.But it must be remembered that some very highly schooled people are Catholics,Mormons,UFO buffs,Saskwatch chasers,Pyramid mystics,etc.I'm sure you get the point.
Pseudo science always has elements of science that serve as glue.It follows that at least a few scientists would be advocates of these pseudosciences. What I should expect to see is at least some of the scientists who feel there is proof of a global flood or young earth to be Agnostic or Atheists or Hindu. Then I would not be as concerned the published findings were tainted with preconcieved dogma.(This conclusion after all does not in any way presuppose a divine cause or a Christian theology.)I do not see this,rather of all the philosophical opinions in the world only fundemental Christian scientists hold this position.Why they are now fundementalist Christians is not possible to determine nor is it relevant..What is relevant is how much their beliefs affected their conclusions.

After determining if those endorsing this position are truly aquainted with the facts.The next step is to ask the tough questions: What is lacking so that this position does not have wide acceptance in the scientific community?Facts or Faith?
A serious problem with groups such as the CRS is their lack of philosphical diversity among it's members.As I said all members are hard core young earth creationists. In fact the CRS broke away from it's mother organization the ASA(American Scientific Affiliation)because the ASA had gradually come to accept the possibility that the earth was in fact 4-5 billion yrs old as science was saying, rather than the 6-10 thousand yrs young earth creationists insist the Bible teaches.They accused the ASA of "abandoning the doctrines upon which it had been founded." Sound like good science to you?
When faced with overwhelming evidence that the earth is very old,while not conceeding,they often respond that God can do anything! If he wanted to make the earth with the appearance of great age and then inspire the Bible to say it is only 6000 yrs old, He could.And it would be a test of faith. Their belief in the literalness of the Bible has necessitated a dishonest God.A God who misleads scientists into believing one thing when the opposite is demanded by Him for any chance to go to heaven.
Yes I know they have their "facts" .My honest and careful search consistantly revealed a twisting of statistics,antiquated science,misquoting of authorities,faulty logic,demonizing of opponents,and appeals to emotion.
If I may recommend a couple excellant books by Michael Shermer:How We Believe, the search for God in an age of reason,and Why People Believe Weird Things. Both boks require an honest self evaluation of why we believe what we do.From there we gain some insight into the minds of others.It is worth the effort.
peacefulpete

Sorry about the lack of paragraphs,I did put them in but it reformated when I entered it.
hooberus

Thanks for your response pete,
quote
"What I should expect to see is at least some of the "scientists" who feel there is proof of a global flood or young earth to be Agnostic or Atheists.Then I would not suspect their science to be tainted with preconcieved dogma."
You placed the word "scientists" in italics as if creationist geologists are not "legitimate" scientists. I personally have spoken with creationist geologists who had PHD's in geology. I consider someone who has a PHD in sedimentary geology to be a scientist. Please reserve the "italics" for people who do not have legitimate training in their field.
quote
"What I should expect to see is at least some of the "scientists" who feel there is proof of a global flood or young earth to be Agnostic or Atheists.Then I would not suspect their science to be tainted with preconcieved dogma."
Agnostics and Athiests do themselves have strong preconceived dogmas. Athiests must accept organic evolution as the ONLY possible method of life's origin. This binds and forces them into believing in a long geological time scale. Much of the evidence for long historical ages has to do with the preconceived need to accomidate long organic evolutionary periods. While denying a one time global flood, many athiestic and agnostic scientists do indeed believe that sometimes large portions of sedimentary strata formed catastrophically. They are called "neo-catastrophists".
quote
"After determining if those endorsing this position are truly aquainted with the facts.The next step is to ask the tough questions: What is lacking so that this position does not have wide acceptance in the scientific community?Facts or Faith?"
You make an excellent point here. But keep in mind that many in the scientific community accept organic macro-evolution as a pereconceived FACT. This binds them into accepting long geological ages as a FACT. This is due to virtually all educational institutions from elementary school, through high school, to universities teaching dogmatically that macro-evolution and long ages are a FACT. While at the same time having other scientific viewpoints censored out. What if all churches, and seminaries tought the same doctrine as the Watchtower "Gilead" seminary. Wouldn't then the majority of the clergy believe and teach Watchtower doctine? This would not however make Watchtower doctrine right. Just because the majority believes in a particular interpretation of data, it does not necessarilty prove them to be right.
quote
"A serious problem with groups such as the CRS is their lack of philosphical diversity among it's members.As I said all members are hard core young earth creationists."
Have you checked the percentage of Athiests and Agnosics in the National Academy of Sciences? I believe it is above the 90th percentile!
quote
"Yes I know they have their "facts" .My honest and careful search consistantly revealed a twisting of statistics,antiquated science,misquoting of authorities,faulty logic,demonizing of opponents,and appeals to emotion."
I too deplore any type of faulty argumentation. However I have seen many examples of it in anti-creationist publications such as repeated straw man arguments and personnal attacks. People on both sides of the issue need to make sure that they are not using faulty tactics.
quote
"If I may recommend a couple excellant books by Michael Shermer:How We Believe, the search for God in an age of reason,and Why People Believe Weird Things. Both boks require an honest self evaluation of why we believe what we do.From there we gain some insight into the minds of others.It is worth the effort."
Thanks for the recommendations. I would recommend the book "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics" It it available from ICR or possibly CRS. Other materials available answer the "appearance of age" issue.
Once again thank for posting a response.
Sargon

Hooberous,
You are wrong when you say that atheists must subscribe to the theory of organic evolution. I am a devout atheist who subscribes to the 'don't give a shit' theory of man's origins. After years of listening to both, or all sides, of this argument; i've reached the conclusion that it won't be solved in my lifetime and is doesn't affect wether thew sun will rise tommorrow. Therefore I accept neither evolution or creation yet am still an atheist.
There are other non-theistic versions to on the origion of life which I won't go into at this time.

Imagination is more important than Knowledge. Albert Einstein

Was Noah's Flood Local?

Share this