Showing posts with label Noah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Noah. Show all posts
Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday, September 28, 2009
The flood of Noah (part 11)
The biblical and scientific evidence against a universal catastrophic flood is virtually an open and shut case. Only when one takes a literal interpretation in the English language could one possibly conclude the flood was universal. The Hebrew is clear that the flood was not universal or global in nature. The use of the word "world" also seems to indicate that Moses was not talking of a global event, but speaking of the flood in the sense of the known world.
The scientific evidence against the flood being global is overwhelming. We do have evidence of a catastrophic event that wiped out the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago. The evidence that exists for an asteroid impact is clear in the impact site (Yucatan, Mexico area) and the layer which contains iridium (a rare element found in abundance in asteroids) the world over. If the flood were global in nature and relatively recent, wouldn't you expect to find a mountain of evidence for its occurrence? The simple fact is no evidence for a global catastrophic flood can be found anywhere in the rock record.
The flood of Noah does appear to be a local or regional event. Whether or not all mankind was wiped out during this flood is a subject of a different debate. There is evidence of a flood that occurred 7,600 years ago in the region of the Black Sea. Perhaps this local flood is, in fact, the flood of Noah.*
* Svitil, Kathy, Forty days and forty nights, more or less, (Discover, January 1999), p. 69
The scientific evidence against the flood being global is overwhelming. We do have evidence of a catastrophic event that wiped out the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago. The evidence that exists for an asteroid impact is clear in the impact site (Yucatan, Mexico area) and the layer which contains iridium (a rare element found in abundance in asteroids) the world over. If the flood were global in nature and relatively recent, wouldn't you expect to find a mountain of evidence for its occurrence? The simple fact is no evidence for a global catastrophic flood can be found anywhere in the rock record.
The flood of Noah does appear to be a local or regional event. Whether or not all mankind was wiped out during this flood is a subject of a different debate. There is evidence of a flood that occurred 7,600 years ago in the region of the Black Sea. Perhaps this local flood is, in fact, the flood of Noah.*
* Svitil, Kathy, Forty days and forty nights, more or less, (Discover, January 1999), p. 69
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Flood of Noah (part 10)
One of the big problems with a world wide flood is the water left behind and erosional features. Where did all the water go? If the flood took place relatively recently then we should see evidence of this in erosional features and in the rock record. The Grand Canyon is often pointed to as the result of the flood, but clearly the canyon was the result of a slow process over time. There is no scientific evidence that the Grand Canyon was the result of a flood.
We do have evidence of a flood in the recent geologic past. This flood, the Missoula flood, flooded the Pacific Northwest of the United States. One of the features that resulted is the Burlingame Canyon. This canyon is 1,500 feet long, 120 feet deep and 120 feet wide. If the erosion r
ate which quickly carved the Burlingame Canyon during the Missoula flood were equal to the Grand Canyon erosion rate, then one would still have to wait 1.5 million years for the formation of the Grand Canyon. As has been noted earlier, the Grand Canyon is clearly not the result of a flood.
ate which quickly carved the Burlingame Canyon during the Missoula flood were equal to the Grand Canyon erosion rate, then one would still have to wait 1.5 million years for the formation of the Grand Canyon. As has been noted earlier, the Grand Canyon is clearly not the result of a flood.Burlingame Canyon
Another problem with a world wide flood deals with the lack of surface erosional features. If the flood was indeed worldwide and recent (within the last 5,000 years), then there should exist a bevy of evidence supporting the flood. For example, the Missoula flood is clear and can be found all over the Pacific Northwest. It is believed that this flood took place some 13,000 years ago. One of the unique features of the Missoula flood are the abundance of giant ripple marks. If the flood of Noah were universal we should find similar features worldwide, but this is not the case. Also, a flood layer worldwide should be evident, but this too is lacking. The lack of surface erosional features is one more strike against the flood being universal in nature.
Monday, September 7, 2009
The flood of Noah (part 9)
Probably the biggest evidence against the Grand Canyon being flood formed centers around the fossils present in the canyon itself. It is important to note that flood waters always mix the sediment up. It is easy to discern in rock strata (rock layers) when water was moving rapidly(such as a flood) or slowly (such as a lake bed) . The Grand Canyon shows no evidence of mixing, but instead the fossils are sorted in different layers. For example, two brachiopods (marine fossils) are found in the Grand Canyon called eosphirs and olenothyrus. Both are similar in density and size. The differences are subtle in the markings and shape of the shell. These two brachiopods are not found mixed in the Grand Canyon and are separated by 1000 feet of rock.1 If the Grand Canyon is flood formed and the flood was universal we should find evidence throughout the canyon of fossil mixing, but this is not what is present. Instead the fossils that are present show a succession from bottom to top. If Noah's flood caused the Grand Canyon, then why do we see no evidence of mixed fossils?
1 http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec03/AmericasCanyonlandsTellOfGodsHandiwork.html
Strata layers of the Grand Canyon. There is no evidence of fossil mixing or that the canyon was the result of a flood. The sedimentary rock layers were all formed slowly over time.
Notice how the fossils are sorted in this diagram. This is exactly what we see in the Grand Canyon. If the Grand Canyon was the result of a flood we should find the fossils highly mixed, but this is not case in any of the layers of the canyon.
1 http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec03/AmericasCanyonlandsTellOfGodsHandiwork.html
Strata layers of the Grand Canyon. There is no evidence of fossil mixing or that the canyon was the result of a flood. The sedimentary rock layers were all formed slowly over time.
Notice how the fossils are sorted in this diagram. This is exactly what we see in the Grand Canyon. If the Grand Canyon was the result of a flood we should find the fossils highly mixed, but this is not case in any of the layers of the canyon.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
The flood of Noah (part 8)
One of the hotly debated issues about the flood of Noah revolves around the geology of the earth. If the flood was global then geologic evidence can be discerned. And, if the flood were global and recent (within the last 10,000 years) then evidence should be easy to discover the world over. The problem is, we have no markings anywhere of a flood that covered the entire earth. There is no universal flood layer.
Many that say the earth was covered by a global flood point to the Grand Canyon as evidence. Was the Grand Canyon, indeed cut by a flood? First it is necessary to say that floods are responsible for carving the earth in a specific way. Floods, especially a flood that covered the entire earth would never meander, unless the water had receded and slowed substantially. Floods usually carve relatively straight paths and would not be responsible for menders, as meanders represent a slow moving water source. Below are photos of what a meandering (winding) stream looks like and also a photo of the Grand Canyon which is an entrenched meander. In other words, the Grand Canyon is not caused by a flood, but is in fact due to a slow (meandering) body of water that carved it way through the rocks over time as the land was uplifted. Next I will consider more evidence to show that the Grand Canyon can not possibly be the result of a flood.
A meandering stream. These streams only form when the water has slowed substantially. Floods are the result of fast moving water as opposed to slow mendering waters.
This is an ariel shot of the Grand Canyon. It is clear that the canyon is an entrenched mender and not the result of fast moving waters from a flood.
Many that say the earth was covered by a global flood point to the Grand Canyon as evidence. Was the Grand Canyon, indeed cut by a flood? First it is necessary to say that floods are responsible for carving the earth in a specific way. Floods, especially a flood that covered the entire earth would never meander, unless the water had receded and slowed substantially. Floods usually carve relatively straight paths and would not be responsible for menders, as meanders represent a slow moving water source. Below are photos of what a meandering (winding) stream looks like and also a photo of the Grand Canyon which is an entrenched meander. In other words, the Grand Canyon is not caused by a flood, but is in fact due to a slow (meandering) body of water that carved it way through the rocks over time as the land was uplifted. Next I will consider more evidence to show that the Grand Canyon can not possibly be the result of a flood.
A meandering stream. These streams only form when the water has slowed substantially. Floods are the result of fast moving water as opposed to slow mendering waters.
This is an ariel shot of the Grand Canyon. It is clear that the canyon is an entrenched mender and not the result of fast moving waters from a flood.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The flood of Noah (part 7)
One of the big divides between the global and local/regional view has to do with the issue of time. Can the scientific dating methods be trusted? Those who hold to a global catastrophic view many times come from the Young Earth camp. These Christians view the flood as occurring in the recent past since the earth is usually dated no later than 10,000 years old.
According to one source (J.Osgood) from the YE camp, the flood of Noah occurred around 2304 B.C. This, of course, would place the flood some 4,300 years ago. This is important to understand given that geologic history can be discerned in the rock record. Everyone understands that fossils, rocks, and various events (such as a floods) can be interpreted by looking at the rock record.
Let's say the flood took place up to 10,000 years ago. In geologic time, this would be a relatively recent event, for those who accept current scientific dating methods. The Cretaceous-Tertiary asteroid, which struck the Yucatan peninsula some 65 million years ago is believed by most scientist to have wiped out the dinosaurs. If you accept this age, then the impact occurred much later, geologically speaking, than Noah's flood. The point here is, if we can find evidence of a global catastrophic event in the rock record that is older than Noah's flood (By the way, the evidence for this asteroid impact is virtually indisputable) then the flood of Noah should be easy to discern given its recent history and global nature. Herein lies the problem, there is no evidence whatsoever of a global flood. There is much evidence of local and regional floods of the past and that is what I would like to examine next.
According to one source (J.Osgood) from the YE camp, the flood of Noah occurred around 2304 B.C. This, of course, would place the flood some 4,300 years ago. This is important to understand given that geologic history can be discerned in the rock record. Everyone understands that fossils, rocks, and various events (such as a floods) can be interpreted by looking at the rock record.
Let's say the flood took place up to 10,000 years ago. In geologic time, this would be a relatively recent event, for those who accept current scientific dating methods. The Cretaceous-Tertiary asteroid, which struck the Yucatan peninsula some 65 million years ago is believed by most scientist to have wiped out the dinosaurs. If you accept this age, then the impact occurred much later, geologically speaking, than Noah's flood. The point here is, if we can find evidence of a global catastrophic event in the rock record that is older than Noah's flood (By the way, the evidence for this asteroid impact is virtually indisputable) then the flood of Noah should be easy to discern given its recent history and global nature. Herein lies the problem, there is no evidence whatsoever of a global flood. There is much evidence of local and regional floods of the past and that is what I would like to examine next.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The flood of Noah (part 6)
One of the passages commonly referred to concerning the flood of Noah is Psalms 104. The passage reads: "5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.6 You covered it with the deep 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."
For those who espouse a global catastrophic view, these verses directly tie into the flood of Noah. However, a local or regional interpretation would see these verses as pertaining to the creation story and having nothing to do with Noah's flood. For example, the earth being completely covered with water would refer to Genesis 1:6. The mountains forming in the Psalms passage would refer to Genesis 1:9. If this is in reference to the creation account, the flood must have been local or regional since the reference is made in the passage that the waters would never again cover the earth.
In the coming posts, I will examine the scientific evidence of Noah's flood.
For those who espouse a global catastrophic view, these verses directly tie into the flood of Noah. However, a local or regional interpretation would see these verses as pertaining to the creation story and having nothing to do with Noah's flood. For example, the earth being completely covered with water would refer to Genesis 1:6. The mountains forming in the Psalms passage would refer to Genesis 1:9. If this is in reference to the creation account, the flood must have been local or regional since the reference is made in the passage that the waters would never again cover the earth.
In the coming posts, I will examine the scientific evidence of Noah's flood.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Flood of Noah (part 4)
There are three keys words in the Old Testament that surround the flood story of Noah. The three words are: kol, erets, and tebel. The word kol can be translated to mean "all." Erets can be translated to mean "earth," "land," "country," or "gound." So, taken together (kol erets) as found in the flood story seems to indicate a global catastropic flood. Kol erets are the two Hebrew words that are used exclusively when the flood story of Noah is told in the book of Genesis.
The catch is kol erets are used elsewhere to describe an area of ground that does not mean the entire earth. For example, In Genesis 2:13 kol erets is used to describe the Gihon river, which clearly does not encompass the entire planet. Both words are also used in conjunction in Genesis 41:57 when describing all of the earth's inhabitants coming to buy grain in Egypt. One again, this is a clear example where kol erets can not apply to the entire earth. If this were to be translated literally to mean all people of the earth, then how did they all get to Egypt from the six inhabited continents?
The New Testament, which was written in Greek also has some examples where the terminology of "all" can not be taken in a literal sense. In Acts 15:21, in making reference to Moses, Luke states that Moses had preached in every city. In Colossians 1:23, Paul comments that the gospel has been proclaimed to every creature under the heaven. Again, the word "every" can not mean every single person on the face of the earth. There are clear examples in both Testaments to confirm that "all" or "whole" are not to be taken in a global view.
Next time we will look at the significance of the Hebrew word tebel and how it relates to the flood of Noah.
The catch is kol erets are used elsewhere to describe an area of ground that does not mean the entire earth. For example, In Genesis 2:13 kol erets is used to describe the Gihon river, which clearly does not encompass the entire planet. Both words are also used in conjunction in Genesis 41:57 when describing all of the earth's inhabitants coming to buy grain in Egypt. One again, this is a clear example where kol erets can not apply to the entire earth. If this were to be translated literally to mean all people of the earth, then how did they all get to Egypt from the six inhabited continents?
The New Testament, which was written in Greek also has some examples where the terminology of "all" can not be taken in a literal sense. In Acts 15:21, in making reference to Moses, Luke states that Moses had preached in every city. In Colossians 1:23, Paul comments that the gospel has been proclaimed to every creature under the heaven. Again, the word "every" can not mean every single person on the face of the earth. There are clear examples in both Testaments to confirm that "all" or "whole" are not to be taken in a global view.
Next time we will look at the significance of the Hebrew word tebel and how it relates to the flood of Noah.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
The Flood of Noah (part 3)
Genesis chapter six provides the opening to the flood story of Noah. It is here where division exists between the the Global Catastrophic view and the view that I believe to be most consistent, the Universal Flood view. Recall, that the catastrophic view has the entire earth under water, where the universal view has only a large region of the earth under water.
The catastrophic view sees verses such as verse 7 (wiping man off the face of the earth), verse 13 (I (God) will destroy the earth), and 17 as being critical for their view. Verse 17 is particularly interesting and reads, "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." From this one verse it appears that the case is shut and closed for all views that are not in line with the catastrophic view.
In the coming blogs I will look at the Hebrew words and consider their importance in trying to decipher which of the three views is most consistent with Scripture.
The catastrophic view sees verses such as verse 7 (wiping man off the face of the earth), verse 13 (I (God) will destroy the earth), and 17 as being critical for their view. Verse 17 is particularly interesting and reads, "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." From this one verse it appears that the case is shut and closed for all views that are not in line with the catastrophic view.
In the coming blogs I will look at the Hebrew words and consider their importance in trying to decipher which of the three views is most consistent with Scripture.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Flood of Noah (part 2)
One of the evidences for the flood of Noah comes by way of cultural tales around the Black sea area. Although it is possible that some of these stories have been embellished a bit by missionaries, there is actually much support for some type of catastrophic flood from various cultures of the past. Some of the cultures that relate a flood story include: Sumerians, Babylonians, and Hurrians.
One interesting part of the stories involves the commonality they share with the Genesis story. For example, the name of Noah is similar within the Hurrian culture. The birds being released in the Sumerian story closely matches the Genesis account. The Summarian account even has a story of how long the people lived before the flood took place, which is again consistent with the Genesis account.
There is outside support for some type of cataclismic flood. Although cultural stories are somewhat similar to the Genesis account, a solid case cannot be made solely on these past stories. However, it is interesting that past cultures have recorded a story like Noah's account and with other scientific evidence, a strong cumulative case can be made for the flood story as recorded in Genesis 6 and following.
* Bowman, Robert, Scripture: Outline Studies in Authority, Canon, and Criticism, p. 62
One interesting part of the stories involves the commonality they share with the Genesis story. For example, the name of Noah is similar within the Hurrian culture. The birds being released in the Sumerian story closely matches the Genesis account. The Summarian account even has a story of how long the people lived before the flood took place, which is again consistent with the Genesis account.
There is outside support for some type of cataclismic flood. Although cultural stories are somewhat similar to the Genesis account, a solid case cannot be made solely on these past stories. However, it is interesting that past cultures have recorded a story like Noah's account and with other scientific evidence, a strong cumulative case can be made for the flood story as recorded in Genesis 6 and following.
* Bowman, Robert, Scripture: Outline Studies in Authority, Canon, and Criticism, p. 62
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Flood of Noah (part 1)
I would like to begin a somewhat lengthy series on the flood of Noah. Is their evidence for the flood? Was the flood a global flood? The Judeo/Christian view for the most part is that the flood of Noah was literal, though some might say that it is a mythical story. If you believe that the flood literally took place in the past, then the second question is the one that is usually hotly debated.
There are actually three views concerning Noah's flood. The first, called The Global Catastrophic Flood, is a view that states the entire globe was covered with water. The second view, called The Universal Flood, sees the flood covering a large region, whereby only those on the ark survived. According to this view, all mankind was living in this region and therefore was wiped out. The third view is called, The Local Flood view. The Local Flood View has a flood again covering a large region, but some survived that were not part of Noah's world.
I am probably opening a can of worms with this series, but I believe that the evidence from the Bible and from science, both strongly support the Universal Flood View. I will provide evidence from various sources and refer to a paper that I wrote on this subject as part of my Master's degree in Christian apologetics.
There are actually three views concerning Noah's flood. The first, called The Global Catastrophic Flood, is a view that states the entire globe was covered with water. The second view, called The Universal Flood, sees the flood covering a large region, whereby only those on the ark survived. According to this view, all mankind was living in this region and therefore was wiped out. The third view is called, The Local Flood view. The Local Flood View has a flood again covering a large region, but some survived that were not part of Noah's world.
I am probably opening a can of worms with this series, but I believe that the evidence from the Bible and from science, both strongly support the Universal Flood View. I will provide evidence from various sources and refer to a paper that I wrote on this subject as part of my Master's degree in Christian apologetics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)