by jimwalton » Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:06 pm
> I should have specified whether you believed there was evidence of Young Earth Creationism.
No, but I don't believe in YEC because (1) I don't think that's what the Bible teaches, and (2) I think the evidence is weak.
> If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark?
Noah was living out a parable that God was using to represent many different truths, and as such the ark represented other realities. Some of those are:
- The ark was shaped like a coffin, and so Noah was "subjected to death" and then "risen out of the tomb."
- The deluge of water represents baptism, and again, the idea of being saved from death.
- Being saved through the storm is a spiritual truth; running away from danger is not.
There are plenty of people in the Bible whose literal lives are also parables for the rest of us: Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Jonah, even the nation of Israel. Noah is the same. God instructs him to do the ark thing because of all it's going to represent.
> f the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death?
God is still making provision to preserve the species of the region, and to be able to repopulate the region after the flood.
> If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed?
It wasn't near big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed. Fossil evidence around the globe shows that there was an abundant animal population in every continent. Plus, they had one week to get 42,000 on board. Even if God brought them to the ark, that's a traffic jam that would take more than one week to unsnarl.
> If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board?
Birds migrate according to things like seasons and barometric pressures (I think), and a "freak flood" would disorient them and catch them off guard. Again, God was preserving species of the region to repopulate the region. A massive regional flood that lasts for months would probably kill many birds anyway, but for all we know many species did wing across to nearby places. The point wasn't to kill all the bird life of the region. If they flew away, good for them; if they didn't, some of their kind were preserved.
> If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)?
The language in vv. 19-24 is likely the language of appearance rather than necessarily literal. In the ancient world, the mountains like the Alps were considered to be the pillars holding up the heavens, the dwelling place of the gods, the foundation and navel of creation. These are not the mountains of which the author speaks, because these were where the gods lived. The flood covered the local mountains.
But let's talk about the universal language. I would argue that "all" is not always absolute in biblical usage.
In Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the…fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Few would contend that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan and perhaps a few others.
In Gen. 41.57 (same author): Joseph opens the storehouses of Egypt, and "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain... because the famine was severe in all the world." I do not know of anyone who contends that therefore the Eskimos, Australians, or Aztecs must have been included.
Acts 17.6: "These men have caused trouble all over the world." Really? Paul caused trouble in South Africa?
Acts 19.35: "All the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of..." Hmm. The Native Americans know this?
Noah was not a preacher of righteousness to the people of Africa, India, China, or America, but to that group of cultures from which Abraham eventually came. The language of the story is normal for Scripture, describing everyday matters from the narrator’s vantage point and within the customary frame reference of his readers.
**Covering the mountains.** And when 7:19 refers to the mountains being covered, it uses the Pual form of the verb *ksh*. This verb is used for a wide variety of "covering" possibilities.
- A people so vast they cover the land (Nu. 22.11)
- Weeds covering the land (Prov. 24.31)
- clothing covering someone (1 Ki. 1.1)
- something can be covered in the sense of being overshadowed (2 Chr. 5.8 – the cherubim over the ark; clouds in the sky, Ps. 147.8)
And what about being covered with water?
- Job 38.34; Jer. 46.8; Mal. 2.13: in these verses "covered" is figurative!
- If Genesis 7:19 is taken the same way, it suggests that the mountains were drenched with water or coursing with flash floods, but it does not demand that they were totally submerged under water. One can certainly argue that the context does not favor this latter usage, and I am not inclined to adopt it. The point is that it is not as easy as sometimes imagined to claim that the Bible demands that all the mountains were submerged.
- See also Ex. 1.7, where the Israelites "filled" the land (a different Hebrew word, but the same concept). It speaks of their great number, not literally meaning that they filled the country.
In other words, "covering" might not mean submerged.
**Fifteen cubits above**. In 7:20, the Hebrew text says, "15 cubits from above [milme'la] rose the waters, and the mountains were covered." It is therefore not at all clear that it is suggesting the waters rose 15 cubits higher than the mountains. It can mean "above"; it can mean "upward" or "upstream". If this were the case in Genesis, it would suggest that the water reached 15 cubits upward from the plain, covering at least some part of the mountains.
> If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.
I don't consider the flood to have been local, but massively regional, even continental. For instance, geologists have surmised that it was about 5.5 million years ago that the Mediterranean was not a sea at all, but it was then that the Straight of Gibraltar, once a solid dam holding back the Atlantic Ocean, was broken, and the ocean water inundated the entire continental region. This is the kind of event I'm talking about. It's far more than a local flood, and it hasn't happened (as far as I know) since Noah's flood, whatever kind of event that was.
> Also, how did you deduce that Noah's flood took place 20,000 years ago?
Just various scholars' estimates. Based on everything we know from science and the Bible, Dr. John Walton speculates that it was at least 10,000 BC or earlier; Dr. Francis Schaeffer says 20,000 years ago or earlier. No one really knows, but from archaeology, we know it hasn't been more recent than 10,000 BC. It's just not possible.
> but wouldn't Egypt still keep a historical record of the ten plagues?
No. In the ancient world they kept genealogical records, financial records, and records of the accomplishments (some true, some enhanced by exaggeration) of their kings. Something like the 10 plagues would never have entered their records. In addition, if it was a humiliation for the Egyptians (which it was in many ways), they wouldn't record that for posterity.
> Could you provide a few examples [of correlation points for the Exodus]?
Sure. I have about 20, but I'll give a few.
1. The place names of Ra'amses and Pithom (Exodus 1) in Egypt accord with the Late Bronze Age (around 1200 BC), when there was extensive construction in the Nile delta region.
2. There is abundant evidence of Semitic populations, including nomadic shepherds, inside of Egypt providing cheap labor in the region. Immigrants regularly entered and settled in Egypt.
3. Matzah (unleavened bread) has its origins in Bedouin life.
4. A well-preserved village has been found at Deir el-Medina. It is most likely not Israelite, but certainly speaks of circumstances similar to what the Bible records about the Israelites, so the biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt conform to known facts. Little is known about many of the working population of the Nile Delta in that era.
5. A pillared, 4-room Israelite house has been found along the Nile near the biblical city of Ra'amses. It bears no similarity to any Egyptian structure, but is identical to the houses of Canaan after the Israelite presence is known. It is dated to 1200-1000 BC.
6. An Egyptian papyrus reveals an Asiatic slave with a Biblical name identical to the name of a midwife mentioned in Exodus: Shiphrah (Ex. 1.15). It is reasonably certain that the papyrus came from Thebes. The point is not that this is the same woman, but that such names date to that era in that area.
7. The Israelites were told not to go the Way of the Sea upon their exodus, but to stay inland and pursue a different route that was specified. We now know that the Way of the Sea was dotted with Egyptian fortresses that would have meant certain demise or capture to the fleeing Israelites.