Jump to content


Photo

Definition Of 'kind'

antelope falcon kind ark flood young earth bird genetic

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
32 replies to this topic

#1 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 08 May 2012 - 10:19 AM

Baraminology is strictly a Creationist study. It is based on certain interpretations of Scipture: Genesis 7 is mainly the source for YECs idea of 'kind'.
There has been speculation on what classification level 'kind' is on. Is it at Order or Family?

All primates are a single Order, and therefore we would be a member of the created 'kind' of ape. We obviously know Noah did not give rise to gibbons and orangutans.
However, even if it was at the Family level, it would imply gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangs were in the same Baramin as humans. This is incorrect.

One of the main reasons baraminology is so important in young-earth circles is because they must find a way to squeeze all those millions of species of animals on the ark. Everyone knows this is impossible, so people turn to the 'kind' argument.

In my numerous debates I have suggested that Deuteronomy 14 tells us that 'kind' would more than likely refer to any recognizable species or group of animals.

"3 Do not eat any detestable thing. 4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep.[a] 6 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. 7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a divided hoof you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the hyrax. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a divided hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. 8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses."

So we know the sheep, the goat, the gazelle, and the antelope are different 'kinds'. These animals comprise family Bovidae. So we know there is no general Bovid 'kind'.

What about the two goats mentioned? The wild goat is obviously distinguishable from the domestic form.

"11 You may eat any clean bird. 12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, 14 any kind of raven, 15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, 18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."

So according to this verse, there are two 'kinds' of kite. There are several different kinds of falcon (genus Falco) different kinds of owls (the great owl is the Pharoah eagle owl, there are numerous kinds of hawk (there are numerous species within subfamily Acciptridae). Guess what else. Ospreys are also members of Acciptridae.
In my numerous debates I have brought his up. Here are some objections to my theory as to what 'kind' means, coupled with responses:

It could merely be listing any recognizable species within their 'kinds'.
Response:
It tells them to avoid 'any KIND of falcon.' We know there are numerous 'kinds' within genus Falco. You can't have it any other way. It tells you right there in the most obvious light that there are several kinds of falcons.

According to your reasoning, anything with fins and scales ought to be a single 'kind', as it tells us in the previous passages that these you can eat.
It neglects to say all creatures with fins and scales are a single 'kind', so I don't think all things with fins and scales are a single 'kind'.

It's in a different context.
It's in the very same context to describe as 'kind'. There is no way around it. 'kind' means roughly the species level.
It identifies the stork as a single Kind. Storks form Family Ciconiidae.
We do not know what type of stork it was referring to. For all we know, there might have only been on recognizable species in that region at that time. There might even be just one genus/species of stork living in that region today.

So if 'kind' refers to genus/species level, then what about animals that can interbreed outside of genus?
The answer is short and simple. They have very similar/almost identical genes on the Family level. Obviously, either God guided evolution or God created animals with genetic similarities. Animals that did not naturally bring forth 'after their kind' can still reproduce.
In Genesis, God tells the animals to reproduce after their kinds. Essentially, no animal can be what its parent was not. Every scientist agrees on this. It also means they will naturally bring forth within their species/genus in nature.
So does this mean the ark would have had to hold several times more 'kinds' than estimated?
It most certainly does!
If the Hebrews could recognize individual species as 'kinds', then it is certain that 'kind' is at the genus or species level. Clearly, the ark would have no room to accomidate all the 'kinds'.


Any thoughts?


#2 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 08 May 2012 - 12:21 PM

Any thoughts?

Yip.

Holding bariminology to the strictures imposed by evolutionary dogma is not the way to honestly assess the YEC case.

#3 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 08 May 2012 - 02:08 PM

Yip.

Holding bariminology to the strictures imposed by evolutionary dogma is not the way to honestly assess the YEC case.


I don't quite understand what you mean, but I was arguing from a Biblical perspective. Surely you don't deny Deuteronomy 14 telling us there are more than one 'kind' within families/genera?
I don't quite see how this is evolutionary (though I wouldn't see how it would be wrong). I was merely arguing from an honest straightforward reading of the text.

#4 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 08 May 2012 - 04:39 PM

Talking about "if 'kind' refers to genus/species level" restricts the definition of "kind" to the evolutionary model. Your analysis of the text may be correct as a means for dividing what is and isn't a kind, but to then make that a rule for how kind can be folded into the evolutionary classification is a mistake.

#5 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 08 May 2012 - 05:03 PM

Talking about if "if 'kind' refers to genus/species level" restricts the definition of "kind" to the evolutionary model. Your analysis of the text may be correct as a means for dividing what is and isn't a kind, but to then make that a rule for how kind can be folded into the evolutionary classification is a mistake.


I understand that may be your personal opinion, but I was addressing more of the general YEC claim that 'kind' was most likely at the Family level. For example, some animals can interbreed within their Families, but never outside of them, as the genetic variation is too isolated/different.
Most young-earthers believe that if an animal can interbreed with another, it guarantees that the two are of the same kind. No animals have been interbred outside of their order. They have, however, been shown to breed within Family.

The reason I state that if 'kind' was on the Family level Noah would give rise to chimpanzees. They've already classified chimps and gorillas more closely related to humans than to orangs. They're at the opposite side of the classification chart. If that isn't enough, Chimpanzees and Orangs have been sequenced (as well as humans) and this shows we are placed within tribe Homini, while orangs are placed in subfamily Ponginae. Now if orangs and chimpanzees were the same created 'kind', then surely humans would be too. I object to this, as we are spiritual and the apes are not. Noah obviously was a spiritual man, and did not give rise to gibbons or gorillas.

In order to fit the animals in the ark, you need to narrow it down to two created 'kinds'.

Many YECs state that if an animal can interbreed with another, it's of the same kind.
red kites and black kites have been shown to interbreed.
However, Deuteronomy classifies them as different creatures. It could have just said 'any kite' or 'any owl' instead of going to the bother of naming all the species/genera.
By simple logic, we can conclude that simply because an animal can interbreed doesn't mean it's the same kind, as obviously animals outside of this kind would be genetically similar. I think 'bring forth after their kind' means that the child cannot be something its parents were not. The offspring will be the same species as the parents. Every biologist, even evolutionary biologists, agree on the matter.

Surely you agree with me that there would have been multiple kinds of hawks, ravens, owls, herons, and falcons?
Scripture goes directly against young-earth teaching that all goats and goat-type animals are descended from a single pair of goats on the ark. The family Bovidae consists of wild goats, domestic goats, ibex, sheep, and antelope. These are all presented as different 'kinds', as the context indicates.

Don't you think it's a possibility the Flood could have been local, given how Deuteronomy goes against YEC teaching?

#6 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:19 PM

I understand that may be your personal opinion, but I was addressing more of the general YEC claim that 'kind' was most likely at the Family level.

Where did you hear this and was it just a generalisation?

Don't you think it's a possibility the Flood could have been local, given how Deuteronomy goes against YEC teaching?

Taking kind and forcing an evolutionary regime upon it is not a very compelling reason. And the plain meaning of plentiful scripture teaches a global flood.

What you're doing is using a very obscure angle to promote an obviously incorrect opinion.

#7 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 08 May 2012 - 10:15 PM

Where did you hear this and was it just a generalisation?


http://www.answersin...apid-speciation
All hybrids presented in the video are within 'Family'. Answers in Genesis also believes there was an original 'bear' kind (Family Ursidae), an original 'cat' kind (Family Felidae), and original 'horse' kind (Family Equidae) an original 'dolphin' kind (Family Delphinidae), an original 'canine' kind (Family Canidae), and etc. Nobody has succesfully bred a bear with a skunk (both Order Carnivora) or a giraffe with a hippo (both Order Artiodactyla) or a sloth with an anteater (Order Xenarthra).
All young-earthers I've met use the 'kind=roughly Family' argument. It doesn't have to be restricted to Family, as YECs believe today's classification systems are flawed. however, given the context of Deuteronomy, it is describing species or genus levels, contrary to the genus/family levels interpreted by YECs.


Taking kind and forcing an evolutionary regime upon it is not a very compelling reason. And the plain meaning of plentiful scripture teaches a global flood.

What you're doing is using a very obscure angle to promote an obviously incorrect opinion.


I'm not taking 'kind' and forcing it into an evolutionary regime, nor am I doing it by an obscure angle. I'm going contrary to YEC claims that 'kind' is roughly at the Family level, because the Hebrews obviously recognized different species even as we do today.
I think the plain meaning of the Scripture teaches a local flood. Nowhere in the Bible does it speak of all this volcanism, tectonic uplift, continental drift, meteor impacts, raging torrents, or rapid speciation needed in the young earth global flood model. Is it really possible to have a huge barge-shape boat, obviously designed for calmer seas, surviving the 190 mph water currents estimated by Baumgardner and Barnette?

Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion, but keep in mind, this verse is most likely another reason against the flood being global.

#8 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 08 May 2012 - 10:44 PM

All young-earthers I've met use the 'kind=roughly Family' argument. It doesn't have to be restricted to Family, as YECs believe today's classification systems are flawed. however, given the context of Deuteronomy, it is describing species or genus levels, contrary to the genus/family levels interpreted by YECs.

OK. So just a generalisation then. And you understand the reluctance to forcing an evolutionary stricture on the YEC term.

Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion, but keep in mind, this verse is most likely another reason against the flood being global.

Another? You haven't given one yet!

Arguments from silence aren't rational reasons any more than your oblique attack on "kind" is.

The bible very explicitly states "the whole Earth" and for a number of reasons rules out a local flood.
1. Only eight people survived.
2. Mountains and hills were covered.
3. All land-based, air-breathing creatures died.
4. Global judgement by water prefigures global judgement by fire.

#9 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:40 AM

OK. So just a generalisation then. And you understand the reluctance to forcing an evolutionary stricture on the YEC term.


I can understand how some people would be reluctant, but if YECs views on Kind were correct, it would most likely be at the Family level. Remember, most classification revolves around genetic similarities and differences. Order lies directly outside that range of reproduction.

Another? You haven't given one yet!


I'm sure you were there when I was arguing for 'post flood migration'. I realize it's not on this thread, just thought it was obvious that was to what I was referring to. I'll be clearer in the future.

The bible very explicitly states "the whole Earth" and for a number of reasons rules out a local flood.


First, it says the whole 'erets'. There's a difference between 'world' and 'planet'.
Then let's look at these reasons:

1. Only eight people survived.

Every old earther ought to believe only eight people survived. We believe 1,500 years is far too short to have humanity migrating across the globe, so humanity was most likely still restricted to the middle east.

2. Mountains and hills were covered.


I, too, agree that mountains and hills were covered, as there are such things where the Flood would have been. It's all in the Caspian sea drainage basin and the Mesopotamian flood plains.

3. All land-based, air-breathing creatures died.


All land-based, air-breathing creatures associated with humanity died. The Bible states the waters covered all the land/world (erets). It was in ALL the world, the ENTIRE spectrum of humanity and the places they populated. This was the whole world to the ancients.
Perhaps in the future, if we colonize other planets and moons, we would consider the whole solar system part of 'the world', because humanity would have conquered it already. Likewise, to humanity, the 'entire world' was covered in water. That doesn't mean to say the planet was (tebel?), but it means to say the world was (erets).

4. Global judgement by water prefigures global judgement by fire.


Actually, worldwide judgement by water prefigures worldwide judgement by fire. It's only global if humanity has spread across the planet, which we now have done this.

There are no scriptural problems with local Flood. Here are the objections I have to a global Flood:

1. Psalms 104 says that God set a boundary for the waters that could not be crossed ever again, some period after laying the foundation of the earth. This would imply there were at least some parts in the global flood model that would have to be above water.
2. There is lack of biblical evidence for volcanism, meteor imapcts, tectonic activity, continental drift, rapid speciation, ice ages, etc...
3. There is a lack of scientific evidence for any of this happening recently. Creation 'Scientists' began with their own interpretation of scripture, then looked at the science to prove it, rather than to validate it.
4. According to the Bible, God's divine works are clearly seen in nature. Scientists have clearly seen how nature works. 'Creation Science' is only a response to what has been clearly seen. We have clearly seen there was no global flood. :P

#10 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:23 AM

I can understand how some people would be reluctant, but if YECs views on Kind were correct, it would most likely be at the Family level.

You're imposing an evolutionary stricture upon a YEC model. Why would you do that?

Remember, most classification revolves around genetic similarities and differences. Order lies directly outside that range of reproduction.

Genetic similarity is a measure fraught with inconsistency and exception. The way to do baraminology is through historical investigation. There's very few biological clues that might say for sure what descended from what.

In all likelihood, we will never know past the very broadest of generalisations.

First, it says the whole 'erets'. There's a difference between 'world' and 'planet'.

The whole "world" was flooded. The whole "planet" was flooded. No necessary difference presents itself. :dono:

Every old earther ought to believe only eight people survived. We believe 1,500 years is far too short to have humanity migrating across the globe, so humanity was most likely still restricted to the middle east.

What Middle East?

I, too, agree that mountains and hills were covered, as there are such things where the Flood would have been. It's all in the Caspian sea drainage basin and the Mesopotamian flood plains.

Can you show one hill that has ever been covered by any local flood?

All land-based, air-breathing creatures associated with humanity died. The Bible states the waters covered all the land/world (erets). It was in ALL the world, the ENTIRE spectrum of humanity and the places they populated. This was the whole world to the ancients.

Great. Can you show any local flood that could wipe out all of one nation?

Actually, worldwide judgement by water prefigures worldwide judgement by fire. It's only global if humanity has spread across the planet, which we now have done this.

What factor is it you believe restricted humankind to only the alleged existing Middle East?

There are no scriptural problems with local Flood.

(bald assertion) Sure, there are. :)

1. Psalms 104 says that God set a boundary for the waters that could not be crossed ever again, some period after laying the foundation of the earth. This would imply there were at least some parts in the global flood model that would have to be above water.

:blink: Uh .. what?

There is lack of biblical evidence for volcanism, meteor imapcts, tectonic activity, continental drift, rapid speciation, ice ages, etc...

Arguments from silence aren't very good arguments.

There is a lack of scientific evidence for any of this happening recently. Creation 'Scientists' began with their own interpretation of scripture, then looked at the science to prove it, rather than to validate it.

(ad hominem) Evolutionists, you mean.

According to the Bible, God's divine works are clearly seen in nature. Scientists have clearly seen how nature works. 'Creation Science' is only a response to what has been clearly seen. We have clearly seen there was no global flood.

(begging the question) Let us know when you're going to present some evidence. :rolleyes:

#11 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 09 May 2012 - 12:05 PM

You're imposing an evolutionary stricture upon a YEC model. Why would you do that? Genetic similarity is a measure fraught with inconsistency and exception. The way to do baraminology is through historical investigation. There's very few biological clues that might say for sure what descended from what.


Did you hear everything I said?
Nobody has identified a valid 'kind' outside of Family.
All kinds considered by YECs are at the Family/genus level.
Genetic similarity guarantees certain relationships among animals.

The whole "world" was flooded. The whole "planet" was flooded. No necessary difference presents itself. :dono:


Nope. 'erets' in most times used in the Old Testament refers to the human population. There is absolutely NO need to flood the places where humanity was not living in. There is a difference between 'world' and 'planet', even in English the meaning can vary.
To humans, the world is whatever area we know of exists, or that we ourselves have populated. People didn't get across the planet in 1,500 years. It's absurd.


What Middle East?


In my worldview, the middle east has always been with humanity.

Can you show one hill that has ever been covered by any local flood?[...]
Great. Can you show any local flood that could wipe out all of one nation?


You're not quite understanding that I belive the local flood was huge. No local floods today span the extent of the Caspian sea drainage basin/mesopotamia. Doubtlessly, many mountains would have been covered.


What factor is it you believe restricted humankind to only the alleged existing Middle East?


The real question is what causes humanity to separate and expand. What causes people to migrate?
Environmental conditions, disputes, famine, flourishing.
After the Fall, humanity was thrown into a world that was yet to be explored. Doubtless, they would have been somewhat apprehensive and would have clung together, like at Babel.
Migration is caused by things like famine, which forces people to move, flourishing, which allows people to expand, disputes, which can cause people to try to escape or such, and environmental conditions. Or supernatural intervention (but there is no Biblical evidence God did anything to promote the spread of humanity).
To say people spread across the planet in 1,500 years is absurd, at most. Why on Earth would people migrate so fast?

(bald assertion) Sure, there are. :)


No, there aren't.

:blink: Uh .. what?


Psalm 104:
6 You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
8 They flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.
9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.
Given the context of this passage, it's obvious it is describing shortly after the formation of the foundations of the Earth, which is just the passage before it. Some YECs I know acknowledge this was a reference to things happening during creation, yet they try explaining it by saying 'tidal waves cross this boundary all the time'.
This is NOT a reference to the Flood. This happened a longer time ago, during Creation Week.

Arguments from silence aren't very good arguments.


I was making an argument against the 'truth' that YECs hold to the most straightforward interpretation of scripture. Surely you think so.

(ad hominem) Evolutionists, you mean.


First, it's not ad hominem. I was making an complaint against the YECs' reasoning, not the YECs themselves.
Second, no. scientists looked at nature and clearly saw the Earth was old and animals (quite possibly) evolved. Creation science developed as a response to what was clearly seen in nature. They already began with the interpretation that the Earth was young, then looked at science to force it unnaturally into the Bible. Unlike the people who actually observe nature firsthand.

#12 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 09 May 2012 - 12:29 PM

Nobody has identified a valid 'kind' outside of Family.

Great.

All kinds considered by YECs are at the Family/genus level.

Super.

Genetic similarity guarantees certain relationships among animals.

Like what?

Nope. 'erets' in most times used in the Old Testament refers to the human population.

The word is used THIRTEEN TIMES before people are even created. The Sun, Moon and stars shine their light on it. Grass grew upon it. Birds fly above it. Animals abound on it. Perhaps you're right that erets can mean a limited portion of the Earth. Perhaps you're even right that it's used that way more often than not, but you have no justification in saying that because it can be so that it is so.

There is absolutely NO need to flood the places where humanity was not living in.

Physics.

There is a difference between 'world' and 'planet', even in English the meaning can vary.

It can vary. It's up to you to provide evidence that it does so.

To humans, the world is whatever area we know of exists, or that we ourselves have populated.

The sun gives its light to the world in Genesis 1:15. Do people have to be everywhere there is light?

People didn't get across the planet in 1,500 years. It's absurd.

Perhaps if you think the Earth then was as it is now.

In my worldview, the middle east has always been with humanity.

Perhaps you shouldn't force your worldview upon another when trying to critique what he believes.

You're not quite understanding that I belive the local flood was huge. No local floods today span the extent of the Caspian sea drainage basin/mesopotamia. Doubtlessly, many mountains would have been covered.

Your water is magic. :)

The real question is what causes humanity to separate and expand. What causes people to migrate? Environmental conditions, disputes, famine, flourishing.

Conflict.

After the Fall, humanity was thrown into a world that was yet to be explored. Doubtless, they would have been somewhat apprehensive and would have clung together, like at Babel.

"Doubtless"?

Really?

To say people spread across the planet in 1,500 years is absurd, at most. Why on Earth would people migrate so fast?

Why would they all congregate in the Caspian sea drainage channel? Do you realise how specifically placed the entire human population would have to have been?

Given the context of this passage, it's obvious it is describing shortly after the formation of the foundations of the Earth

It might encompass both times the Earth was covered in water.

And I still don't know what you're getting at.

I was making an argument against the 'truth' that YECs hold to the most straightforward interpretation of scripture. Surely you think so.

When you make an argument, avoid logical fallacies. :)

#13 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 09 May 2012 - 04:47 PM

Like what?


the YEC claim that if an animal can interbreed, it's of the same kind. If it's genetically similar enough, it can interbreed. Provide an example of a demonstratable 'kind' outside of Family that have been shown to interbreed.

The word is used THIRTEEN TIMES before people are even created. The Sun, Moon and stars shine their light on it. Grass grew upon it. Birds fly above it. Animals abound on it. Perhaps you're right that erets can mean a limited portion of the Earth. Perhaps you're even right that it's used that way more often than not, but you have no justification in saying that because it can be so that it is so.


You've missed my point entirely.
Genesis is in an entirely different context, as its describing creation. The reason for the flood was to do away with humans and sin, in the entire world. If we can demonstrate that the only people prior to the Flood would have remained in that region for some time, there is no point to having the entire planet underwater, as humans wouldn't be there to corrupt everything.
I never said that just because it could did not mean it would. However, it's more likely it did.

Physics.


Therefore?

It can vary. It's up to you to provide evidence that it does so.


It seems like a self-contradicting statement.
If I were to say 'the world suffers from starvation' or 'the world is sinful' that wouldn't mean the planet was sinful. It would mean the people that made up the world were sinful.

The sun gives its light to the world in Genesis 1:15. Do people have to be everywhere there is light?


No, as again, it's describing the creation of the heavens and earth in Genesis, NOT humans. There were no humans to witness the light.

Perhaps if you think the Earth then was as it is now.


When faced with a difficult issue (or one that's impossible to solve) young earthers I debate tend to say 'the earth would have been different prior to the Flood' even though there's no evidence, Biblical or otherwise, to suggest the earth or people were at all different from today.

Perhaps you shouldn't force your worldview upon another when trying to critique what he believes.


Where did you get that idea? I wasn't trying to force my worldview on you, we're reasoning and debating, aren't we? simple reason and logic should be brought up in debates.
You had said 'what middle east'. Since you declare yourself a Walt Brown club member (hydroplate theory), it was logical to believe that what you meant here was that there was no middle east prior to the Flood.


Your water is magic. :)


It seems global flood water is more magical than the local flood water.
According to you, there are no mountains in or around the Caspian sea drainage basin or in Mesopotamia? Of course there are.

Conflict.


That's what I meant by 'dispute'. However, conflict alone probably wouldn't be enough to get humans across the globe in 1,500 years. Perhaps it would, but that's an awful lot of conflict.

"Doubtless"? Really?


Yes, it is doubtless. This was an entire planet they were to explore here. I think they would cling together. Why wouldn't they?

Why would they all congregate in the Caspian sea drainage channel? Do you realise how specifically placed the entire human population would have to have been?


Perhaps you haven't seen the enormous size of the Caspian sea drainage basin, which stretches from Iran to very near Finland. The flood-waters probably overflowed this basin at some points, probably touching the Black Sea even, or the Mediterranean. It all depends on the currents (if any).
I think that the Garden of Eden might be located in or around present-day Tabriz. People probably migrated east of the Garden (wherever Adam and Eve went). Even if they decided to turn around and go back around the garden, they would get flooded out, as Tabriz would have been underwater, and several miles beyond it to the point of the Black Sea. However, it's likely they were just on one side of the garden - to the east of it. That's right in the middle of the Basin. Who knows - they might have even reached the Caspian sea and built cities around it, then were all destroyed in the deluge.
They didn't all 'congregate'. They migrated or settled from the Garden to the east, most likely. This was a rather vast region in comparison to what is implied by your quote.
Even if the garden was in a different location, it would be easy to flood Mesopotamia, as much of that country is already flood plain.

It might encompass both times the Earth was covered in water.

And I still don't know what you're getting at.


My point was that God set boundaries the waters could not cross sometime after laying down the foundations of the earth. It couldn't ecompass both times the Earth was covered in water, because the boundary would need to have been broken at least once. That goes contrary to God's command.
The reason I brought it up was that the Flood wouldn't have been global. If it was, then the waters crossed the boundary and flooded out humanity, which had somehow managed to migrate across all seven continents (assuming you believe in Pangea) within 1,500 years.

When you make an argument, avoid logical fallacies. :)


I agree. I don't intend to make logical fallacies on purpose, of course. It's to my knowledge I haven't made any yet.

#14 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:20 PM

You've missed my point entirely.

I refuted your point entirely. "Erets" can mean the entire planet.

Therefore?

To cover a hill of requires that level of water everywhere.

If I were to say 'the world suffers from starvation' or 'the world is sinful' that wouldn't mean the planet was sinful. It would mean the people that made up the world were sinful.

And if I say "the world was covered in water" that means a global flood.

When faced with a difficult issue (or one that's impossible to solve) young earthers I debate tend to say 'the earth would have been different prior to the Flood' even though there's no evidence, Biblical or otherwise, to suggest the earth or people were at all different from today.

You should stop making these blanket assertions. Of course there is evidence for what I say!

It seems global flood water is more magical than the local flood water.

Not really. There's nothing magical about covering the highest mountains the planet over to 15 cubits above their peaks. It's just really difficult to achieve energy budget wise. It's impossible to cover the hills in only a small area of the Earth.

According to you, there are no mountains in or around the Caspian sea drainage basin or in Mesopotamia? Of course there are.

What? :blink:

Perhaps you haven't seen the enormous size of the Caspian sea drainage basin, which stretches from Iran to very near Finland.

And eveyone lived in it. :rolleyes:

The flood-waters probably overflowed this basin at some points, probably touching the Black Sea even, or the Mediterranean. It all depends on the currents (if any).

Seeking out every last person, I guess. :lol:

Even if the garden was in a different location, it would be easy to flood Mesopotamia, as much of that country is already flood plain.

Show us that. When was Mesopotamia last flooded? How many of its hills were covered?

My point was that God set boundaries the waters could not cross sometime after laying down the foundations of the earth

Yeah .. that's obviously a reference to the post-flood promise.

The reason I brought it up was that the Flood wouldn't have been global. If it was, then the waters crossed the boundary and flooded out humanity, which had somehow managed to migrate across all seven continents (assuming you believe in Pangea) within 1,500 years.

Genesis 9:9-17

8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. 11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”


There's that "whole Earth" thing again. And rainbows. I guess you think we only have rainbows where there are people.

#15 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 10 May 2012 - 01:08 AM

Yes, it is doubtless. This was an entire planet they were to explore here. I think they would cling together. Why wouldn't they?


No it's not doubtless. What I doubt is that they would cling together when they were told not to:

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Gen 1:28

#16 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 10 May 2012 - 05:41 AM

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Gen 1:28

But remember - that word just means where people are according to Calum. So he reads this commandment as "fill where you are now". :gotcha:

#17 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 10 May 2012 - 10:26 AM

But remember - that word just means where people are according to Calum. So he reads this commandment as "fill where you are now". :gotcha:


Stripe, that 'erets' argument is worthless. Nonetheless, the theistic evo people usually cling to it because it's all they've got.

#18 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 10 May 2012 - 10:53 AM

No it's not doubtless. What I doubt is that they would cling together when they were told not to:

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Gen 1:28


You're forgetting something.
"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea[...]"

They didn't spread out after the Flood. They clung together right up until Babel.
"What I doubt is that they would cling together when they were told not to:"
But... they did.
Does this mean God's promise was broken?
Absolutely not.
It merely means some time went along before God caused them to spread out.
If humans had not spread out prior to the Flood, that would merely mean they hadn't filled the Earth YET.
We are all Adam's descendants. It was just Noah's line that was preserved. humanity has now spread through all the Earth, thus fulfilling the command.

Stripe:

But remember - that word just means where people are according to Calum. So he reads this commandment as "fill where you are now". :gotcha:


But it's in a different context. God is telling humanity to spread out and fill the Earth, which obviously hasn't been populated yet. The whole reason God flooded the world was to get rid of all the wicked people and nephesh animals associated with humanity. Which leads me to think that if there were no people outside of a certain region, God wouldn't need to kill the whole planet. Just the world.

I refuted your point entirely. "Erets" can mean the entire planet.


Yes, I know 'erets' can/might mean the entire planet (again, just use Tebel), but 'kol erets', as used in the flood account, most times means 'the whole land', or 'all the people of the world'. Many times to mean all the people that made up the world. God would have just used 'Tebel', at least one time in the entire OT to describe the flood, but he didn't.
I think the flood was meant to kill humans, not kill the planet.
For example:

(I've copied and pasted this from another site)
  • Shall not the Judge of all [kol] the earth [erets] deal justly?" (Genesis 18:25) (God judges the people of the earth, not the earth itself)
  • Now behold, today I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets], and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the LORD your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. (Joshua 23:14) (Joshua was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)
  • And all [kol] the people of the land [erets] entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground. (1 Samuel 14:25) (The words "the people of" are added to the English, since they are not found in the Hebrew. The actual translation would be "all the land entered the forest," obviously referring to the people and not to the land itself moving into the forest.)
  • While all [kol] the country [erets] was weeping with a loud voice, all the people passed over. (2 Samuel 15:23) (Obviously, the earth cannot weep with a loud voice.)
  • "I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets]. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. (1 Kings 2:2) (David was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)
  • He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (1 Chronicles 16:14) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)
  • Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day. (1 Chronicles 16:23) (The people sing, not the planet)
  • Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30) (This does not refer to earthquakes!)
  • Let all [kol] the earth [erets] fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. (Psalm 33:8) (People, not planets, fear the Lord)
  • For the choir director. A Song. A Psalm.) Shout joyfully to God, all the earth; (Psalm 66:1) (People shout, not the earth)
  • "All the earth will worship Thee, And will sing praises to Thee; They will sing praises to Thy name." Selah. (Psalm 66:4) (People worship, not the earth)
  • Sing to the LORD a new song; Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 96:1) (People sing, not the earth)
  • Worship the LORD in holy attire; Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 96:9) (People worship, not the earth)
  • Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Break forth and sing for joy and sing praises. (Psalm 98:4) (People shout, not the earth)
  • (A Psalm for Thanksgiving.) Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 100:1) (People shout, not the earth)
  • He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 105:7) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)
  • "The whole [kol] earth [erets] is at rest and is quiet; They break forth into shouts of joy. (Isaiah 14:7) (People shout, not the earth)
Furthermore, 'kol erets' usually refer to a local area:
  • "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.)
  • 'You shall then sound a ram's horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets]. (Leviticus 25:9) (The Hebrews were not required to sound a horn throughout the entire earth)
  • 'Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land. (Leviticus 25:24) (The law does not apply only to those who own the entire earth)
  • behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken." (Judges 6:37, see also 6:39-40) (kol erets could not refer to the entire earth, since it would not be possible for Gideon to check the entire earth)
  • 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.)
  • And David said, "My son Solomon is young and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for the LORD shall be exceedingly magnificent, famous and glorious throughout all [kol] lands [erets]. (1 Chronicles 22:5) (The temple was famous to all the lands in the Middle East, but was destroyed before the advent of globalism.)
  • And they were bringing horses for Solomon from Egypt and from all [kol] countries [erets]. (2 Chronicles 9:28) (It is unlikely that the Chinese brought horses to Solomon)
  • Many more examples8
Both are from http://www.godandsci...localflood.html

As you can see from above, there is a clear and obvious meaning to 'erets'. The whole reason God flooded the world was to get rid of humanity. ALL the world under ALL the heavens died.

"There is a Hebrew word that always refers to the entire earth or the entire inhabited earth. The word is tebel (Strong's H8398), which is found 37 times in the Old Testament. Curiously, this word is never used to describe the flood, although it is used extensively to describe the creation of the earth and the judgment of the peoples of the earth."
--Rich Deem

Again, 'Tebel' would be used.

"There's that "whole Earth" thing again. And rainbows. I guess you think we only have rainbows where there are people."


“This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

So you think there were no rainbows prior to the Flood?
I think rainbows existed on Earth for many years prior to the Flood. God just made it the sign of his covenant. Rainbows are a worldwide phenomena, and have been every since there was water in the air.

"I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth." (Genesis 9:13)

As you can clearly see, he says 'I have set my rainbow in the clouds'. Does this mean God created the rainbow for the first time? No, I think it means he set the previously existing rainbow in the clouds to become a sign for the covenant. So rainbows already existed for many years. Sort of like how there were lambs, bread, and wine before the Word became incarnated. God merely made it the symbol of his covenant. :get_a_clue:

Yeah .. that's obviously a reference to the post-flood promise.


I think it's appropriate to give many of the reasons why I think Psalms is describing creation:

Psalm 104:

verse3 "and lays the beams of His upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds His chariot and rides on the wings of the wind." (parallel to Amos 9:6 discussing creation)

verse5: "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." (compare to Psalm 102:25, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, many other examples)

verse6: "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains." (compare to Genesis 1:7, Genesis 1:2, Proverbs 8:27-28, Amos 9:6, etc)

verse 7 "But at Your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of Your thunder they took to flight;" (compare to Genesis 1:9, Psalm 24:2)

verse 8 "they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place You assigned for them." (compare to Genesis 1:10, Psalm 136:5-6)

verse9 "You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." (compare Job 38:8-7, Jeremiah 5:22)

Thus, I believe the Flood encompassed all of humanity under all the heavens, in all the world.
I'm not telling you to respond to every single verse. Perhaps you might supply something to indicate Psalm 104 is not describing creation.
I remain to believe that as God wanted to flood out humanity, he would flood out the populated world, hence 'erets'.

Seeking out every last person, I guess. :lol:


I was making it a possibility, as the Caspian sea drainage basin's edge is very very close to the Black Sea. I, however, think the garden of eden might have been in Tabriz, and as Adam and Eve went in one direction from Tabriz, it was either south into Mesopotamia or eastward. It all depends on where humanity was located. We obviously know they did not go back to the Garden.

And eveyone lived in it. :rolleyes:


Yes, because as I just said humanity travelled most likely in one direction from Eden. Again, they would not go back to the Garden. All they would need to do would be to migrate eastward.

Show us that. When was Mesopotamia last flooded? How many of its hills were covered?


Perhaps you haven't seen mesopotamia before. It's marshland, floodplain. Dotted with several hills and mountains. I can't count the number of hills in Mesopotamia as I've never been there <_<. If you'll look at pictures, you'll see that much of Mesopotamia has relatively low-lying hills. Of course to the people living in this region these would have been high mountains. Nothing like the Himalayas, though.
If the flood was mostly centered around the Caspian Sea drainage basin, this presents no problems. Somewhere, somehow, there were relatively small (in comparison to hydroplate model) underground water storages that burst forth in either the Caspian Sea or Mesopotamia. Both had mountains. Perhaps the Caspian sea flooded, and filled into Mesopotamia, if people lived there. Did God cause a volcano to open the stores of floodwater? I think it's possible. There was some mechanism that caused the Caspian Sea to Flood, or perhaps the rivers/marshlands in mesopotamia?

You should stop making these blanket assertions. Of course there is evidence for what I say!


Then provide evidence that the world would have been different. People migrate for all the same reasons. No reason to think they would have done so differently in the past than the reasons I just presented you, which are:
famine, flourishing, climate change/environmental conditions, dispute(conflict).

Calypsis4:

Stripe, that 'erets' argument is worthless. Nonetheless, the theistic evo people usually cling to it because it's all they've got.


1) I'm progressive creationist for the time being.
2) 'eret's is not worthless if you understand the whole point of the flood.
3) old earthers don't "cling to it because it's all they've got". We think it provides very good evidence for the local flood model, along with Psalm 104 and other lines of Biblical/scientific evidence.

#19 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 10 May 2012 - 11:23 AM

God wouldn't need to kill the whole planet. Just the world

And yet the text plainly teaches the the whole Earth was flooded.

I think the flood was meant to kill humans, not kill the planet.

That's nice.

Not sure how one would kill a planet, but there you go.

As you can see from above, there is a clear and obvious meaning to 'erets'.

Just one now? A minute ago you conceed that erets can mean the entire planet.

Again, 'Tebel' would be used.

Or erets. Since that can be used to refer to the entire planet.

So you think there were no rainbows prior to the Flood?

Nice dodge. The rainbow was set as a promise to be displayed over the "erets". Unless you think rainbows are restricted to where humans are, your insistence that erets cannot mean the whole Earth is utterly defeated.

I think it's appropriate to give many of the reasons why I think Psalms is describing creation:

It does describe creation. It also describes a lot of other things. It also describes the flood of Noah.

Perhaps you haven't seen mesopotamia before. It's marshland, floodplain. Dotted with several hills and mountains. I can't count the number of hills in Mesopotamia as I've never been there <_<. If you'll look at pictures, you'll see that much of Mesopotamia has relatively low-lying hills. Of course to the people living in this region these would have been high mountains. Nothing like the Himalayas, though.
If the flood was mostly centered around the Caspian Sea drainage basin, this presents no problems. Somewhere, somehow, there were relatively small (in comparison to hydroplate model) underground water storages that burst forth in either the Caspian Sea or Mesopotamia. Both had mountains. Perhaps the Caspian sea flooded, and filled into Mesopotamia, if people lived there. Did God cause a volcano to open the stores of floodwater? I think it's possible. There was some mechanism that caused the Caspian Sea to Flood, or perhaps the rivers/marshlands in mesopotamia?

Floodwaters do not go over hills.

#20 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 10 May 2012 - 02:41 PM

Stripe:

And yet the text plainly teaches the the whole Earth was flooded.


No, the text plainly teaches the whole world was flooded.

The point of the Flood was to do away with humans. There would be no need to flood the places where humans were not living in.

That's nice.

Not sure how one would kill a planet, but there you go.


I meant the frogs, the flies, the cassowaries, the red pandas - animals with no affiliation with people. Worldwide animals that wouldn't have been affected by humanity. Again, the point of the Flood was to do away with humans and the animals associated with them, not to do away with all life on the planet.

Just one now? A minute ago you conceed that erets can mean the entire planet.


There is a plain and obvious meaning to erets in that context, given the whole point of the Flood.

Or erets. Since that can be used to refer to the entire planet.


In a modern setting, 'erets' could mean 'Earth', because we humans have conquered the world. Yes, erets can refer to the planet, but most times it refers to land, as in 'kol erets'. Clearly used in Genesis! The purpose of the Flood was to do away with PEOPLE that made up the world, not the entire creation.
As you said before:

And if I say "the world was covered in water" that means a global flood.



Only because we as humans have expanded over the entire planet, and now consider 'the planet' as 'the world'. 'The world' could be defined as wherever we live in or know. With the world wide web and aeroplanes and seaships, we have conquered the planet, and have just recently begun to think globally. Humans live on every continent today (Antarctica is the exception), but, say, 50,000-60,000 years ago, we would have all lived in the same areas, and thus the world would be that specific location. Nobody was living outside of 'the world', given its defining term, and thus the floodwaters, which covered all the world under all the heavens, would kill all people outside the ark.
As I said before, in the future the definition of 'world' may be different. Just like in the past the definition of 'world' was different to the people living at that time.

Nice dodge. The rainbow was set as a promise to be displayed over the "erets". Unless you think rainbows are restricted to where humans are, your insistence that erets cannot mean the whole Earth is utterly defeated.


Dodge? Nonsense. The covenant between God and humans is symbolized by this natural phenomena. The passage states that the rainbow is a promise never to Flood all humanity again (the world). Have any worldwide floods happened since Noah's? No. Rainbows are not restricted to where humans are. It's a universal symbol of the covenant never to flood the world again.
Besides, I agree 'erets' can mean the whole creation, but given the whole point of the Flood, I would say given the context it most certainly tells us it encompassed the entire area of land that defined world to the ancients.


It does describe creation. It also describes a lot of other things. It also describes the flood of Noah.


Nowhere in Psalm 104 does it describe the flood of Noah. It describes creation, in accordance with other verses about creation, but not the flood of Noah, as I have demonstrated.

Floodwaters do not go over hills.


Actually, floodwaters do not go over hills today. The Flood would have been significantly larger than any local floods recorded in recent times.

Here's something:
Genesis 8:14
  • Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NASB)
    After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NIV)
  • Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NASB)
    By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NIV)
  • and in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. (Genesis 8:14, NASB)
    By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry. (Genesis 8:14, NIV)
(http://www.godandsci...localflood.html)

If we were to take interpret these verses from a global perspective, it would imply the Earth was completely dry; a mud desert, basically. It makes much more sense to interpret the Flood to be local and worldwide/universal in extent.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: antelope, falcon, kind, ark, flood, young earth, bird, genetic

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users