Why Noah's Flood was Local

[truthfinder9]

I often hear skeptics point to the belief in the global flood as a reason to not believe Christianity. I also see "Christian" creationist groups condem other Christians who believe the local flood is the literal interpretation. It's time we start telling "Christian" groups like ICR and AIG to stop turning people away from the Bible and tell them to stop their childish, immature attacks on other Christians (AIG recently refused to be subject to review, now there's the making of a cult!). And it's time for Christians to stop blindly believing everything they are told, just because it comes from other Christians.

Why the Local Flood is the Literal View

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I rely on the words of the bible and where my understanding departs from the words of the Bible, that gives me reason to question my understanding, not reason to question the Bible.

Amen.

[1000 silverlings]

a lot smarter

It's the gaiters, the suspenders and the Italian shoes.

[stands2reason]

The Washington flood was localized.

[Alex Murphy]

A follow-up question to my earlier one....

Are there any "old-earthers" (as opposed to young-earth literal creationists) who also hold to a literal Adam & Eve, created ex nihilo?

I had trouble finding an article on the "Research & Reason" website that openly addresses this one way or another. The closest thing I found - the link "Who was Adam?" on the homepage - leads to this book on Amazon.com, which appears to suggest a long period of theistic evolution leading up to the sixth day, after which Adam and Eve, distinct individuals representing a new species (not derived from earlier hominids), suddenly appear - created by miraculous intervention and delivered into a literal Garden of Eden approx. 70,000 years ago.

Do I understand this correctly, as the position that "Research & Reason" is taking?

[truthfinder9]

"Are there any "old-earthers" (as opposed to young-earth literal creationists) who also hold to a literal Adam & Eve, created ex nihilo?"

Virtually all old-earther literal creationists hold to a literal Adam & Eve, created ex nihilo. Those who don't are technically not OECs, but probably thiestic evolutionists.

"Who was Adam?" recounts the scientific evidence against evolution, arguing for the special creation (from scientific evidence) of all hominids and humans. I'm not sure where you found "theistic evolution" in that.

Much of the confusion comes from YECs who like to equate OECs with thiestic evolutionists. There are some major, obvious differences between them.

[Alex Murphy]

Much of the confusion comes from YECs who like to equate OECs with thiestic evolutionists. There are some major, obvious differences between them.

I was confused on that exact point myself, and it appeared others might have been as well. I greatly appreciate your answer and clarification.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal!

[ScubieNuc]

"The Washington flood was localized."

Out of my whole post, this is all you have to reply? I as much as said that, now, the scientific community accepts it as a HUGE local flood.

My point was that evidence can be ignored or misinterpreted, just like in the "Washington flood." You implied in post #195 that God hid the evidence of a world wide flood. I'm saying that history shows us that the information isn't necessarily hidden, just being ignored or misinterpreted.

Some people want God to be "proven" before they will believe in Him, but to believe in God requires faith, not proof.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Sincerely

[stands2reason]

HUGE does not equal worldwide.

There are broad areas of the American West that show no signs of flooding in the strata dated at the time the Great Flood was to occur.

[stands2reason]

God cannot be proven.

[P-Marlowe]

God cannot be proven.

The proof is in what God chooses to reveal. Indeed God has revealed himself to mankind,

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20 KJV)

but mankind refuses to look at the evidence.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:21 KJV)

[stands2reason]

What evidence are you referring to?

The man who wrote these words claims to have been revealed to the Reality of the Eternal God. That's all the evidence he would need.

I had the same type of revelation, though not near as elaborate as Paul's "road to Damascus" account.

But I wouldn't have just taken his word for it if I hadn't seen it myself.

[P-Marlowe]

What evidence are you referring to?

Just look around. The evidence is there for all but fools to see.

[stands2reason]

I don't see how an imperfect, ephemeral world is proof of a perfect eternal God. But that's just me.

You can't prove God created the world nor can it be disproven.

[truthfinder9]

FOR GOODNESS SAKE, I WAS RESPONDING POINT-BY-POIN TO P-MARLOW'S ACCUSTAIONS AND PERSONAL ATTACKS THAT HE KEEPS MAKING TOWARDS ME AND THE WORDS HE CLAIMS I SAY BUT DIDN'T, BUT YOU DELETE MY POST WHICH HAD NOTHING PERSONAL IN IT.

[truthfinder9]

"So may I assume that you are, in fact, Derrick Dean?"

No, keep guessing.

"that you accused of attacking other Christians"

It wasn't an accusation, it was based on fact:

AIG's Tactics

"accusing them of turning people away from the bible "

Again, not an accusation, but a verifiable fact. Check out virtually any skeptic book on creation or God and there's usually a section on YECism see how the skeptics use it as a reason not to believe in the Bible or God.

"accusing them of being cults"

No, I implied they were acting like cults. "but it is a position which holds scripture above science and not on an equal footing."

All YECs claim this only to claim on the same page the infallibility of their creation science. You can't have it both ways.

[xzins]

Are you an old earth creationist?

How is that different than a theistic evolutionist?

Serious question: I honestly don't know.

[truthfinder9]

I'm an old earth creationist (OEC).

OEC's believe that Darwinian evolution did NOT occur, that the evidence for antiquity of the universe is overwhelming, old age is not equivelent to evolution (that's a myth created by evolutionists who appeal to time to solve their problems and by young-earthers who have bought into the evolutionist's claim that antiquity is a evolution "proof"), the literal Adam, the special creation of man and animal life, that a literal and consistent interpretation of the Bible requires OECism. Etc.

Thiestic evolutionists (TE) believe God created the universe and let it go and allowed evolution to take control. Some TEs believe God occasionally interacted with the universe after letting it go, some do not. Some TEs believe there are signs of design in the universe (like OECs & YECs do), others do not.

There are actually a variety of creation views that don't support evolution (however, some YEC theories on animal speciation after the ark actually require some very fast evolutionary processes!), here are the four main ones:

Four Views of the Biblical Creation Account

These articles compare YECism and OECism:

Ten Major Similarities Between Calendar-Day and Day-Age Creationists
Ten Major Differences Between Calendar-Day and Day-Age Creationists

It's really like any other Christian topic, there are various theories considered acceptable by orthodox Christianity, but most people are familar with what they grew up with.

[Uri’el-2012]

..... we are more or less at year number 5766 according to the Jewish calendar.

....

This article may provide some insights as the current year from creation.

The Jewish Calendar's missing 240 years

b'shem y'shua