TK,
Thanks for the reply. That would be amazing if they ever did find the Ark, wouldn't it? I think your agnostic co-worker is probably representative of most unbelievers. Unbelievers find the flood unbelievable, whether the facts are presented by a partial-flooder or a full-flooder. After they become believers, they fall into one camp or the other. I will check out that website.
Steve 7150,
steve7150 wrote:I read a book by Ralph Woodrow who talked about several bible subjects including the flood and he claimed the flood was regional for several reasons. One reason was that it would take much longer then 120 years for slow moving animals and insects to travel thousands of miles to get to the Ark.
I have not read Woodrow, but it sounds to me that he might be making some unnecessary assumptions. Perhaps he assumes that earth’s climate, atmosphere, and geography before the flood were comparable to the way they are today. That assumption seems improbable.
We don’t know exactly how God arranged for all those animals to get to the Ark in time, but that was not Noah’s job. It was God’s. I have no doubt God could have gotten them there in 120 seconds (or less) if He had wanted to. It doesn’t make sense to me to limit God to our mathematics. God does not have to do things according to our definition of “naturally.” Our tiny brains hardly understand nature, I think. God, being its Creator, knows it infinitely. I try not to hold Him to my understanding of nature. And I try not hold myself to it either.
steve7150 wrote:The atmosphere question is theoretical but i find it unlikely that you can elevate the sea level atmosphere 28,000 feet up and it would remain unchanged
But do we know how high the mountains were before the flood — or how deep the oceans were — or how much water there was in the atmosphere — or how much water there was under the earth — or how many continents there were — or what the distribution of plants and animals was like? We don’t know for sure. We probably can’t know for sure. Based on their research and experiments, however, many Christian scientists (not the denomination) believe that before the flood, the entire earth was covered with a thick canopy of water vapor, that there was a global green-house-like climate, that plants and animals were distributed rather uniformly everywhere, that mountains were not as high nor oceans as deep as they are now, and that there may have been only one continent. I don’t find any of those theories improbable. But even if none of these theories is correct, and if everything is today as it was then, I find it improbable to conclude that in order for God to make a global flood happen, He had to abide by the rules of physics and mathematics as we understand them now. If the flood was local/regional, it still was a whopper that only God could have accomplished. For God, one size flood would not be more difficult to accomplish than another, IMO. Personally, I find a global flood more likely than a local flood, and, based on God’s ability to do whatever He wants with His creation, I see nothing improbable about it.
steve7150 wrote:plus we still have the temperature issue as well as food and sanitary issues which are unsolvable by natural means.
Again, this assumes that the climate was the same then as it is now. You may be right that the food and sanitary issues are unsolvable by natural means. I’m glad God does not have to limit Himself to natural means to solve problems. If I can think of ways God might have overcome the problems you mentioned, how much easier it is for God to create solutions.
steve7150 wrote:Of course God could have intervened and transported the animals and kept them in a sealed warm contained space , but the bible never even hints about that.
I believe God did intervene, Steve. Scripture doesn’t say God transported the animals to the Ark (though He could have if He had wanted to). It says they went to Noah. This is a hint as to how it might have happened. It’s not improbable that the animals may have needed to travel only a few miles and that they went under their own strength in their natural manner. Certainly there are more hints about how all this happened than there are hints about how God created the stars. All we are told about that in the creation account is that, “He made the stars also.” (Genesis 1:16). That’s it! So, keeping elephants fed, clean, and warm seems like a snap to me. Probably God figured out a way to help Noah accomplish what sounds impossible to you and me.
steve7150 wrote:Additionally when Jesus referenced the flood he grouped it with the destruction of Sodom & Gemorrah a local event. I think it's odd to group a localized event together with a supposed worldwide flood since the gravity of the two are so different.
I think it’s odd to conclude that just because Jesus mentioned The Flood in one sentence and Sodom/Gomorrah in the following sentence that He was therefore equating them as both local. Must we segregate local things from worldwide things and discuss them only on different occasions lest someone conclude we are grouping everything as either local or global? I don’t think Jesus was necessarily “grouping” anything. And I see no logic in assuming that just because He mentioned Sodom (a local event) it necessarily required Him to be stating that The Flood was local as well. It seems a stretch to construct such a doubtful attachment between Sodom and The Flood in order to support your argument, brother. It is your assumption and I find no strength in it. Neither Sodom nor The Flood were Jesus’ subject in Luke 17:26-30. It was the lifestyle of people prior to His coming in judgment.
steve7150 wrote:It's true that the bible is about Jesus but for a skeptic to believe about Jesus the bible has to make sense to be credible to him.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Perhaps I’m reading it wrong. Are you arguing in favor of a local flood because an unbeliever would consider it more credible than a global flood, and that that credibility would help a skeptic to believe about Jesus? As I said before, I favor a global flood scenario because I think the arguments in favor of it are strong. But, I’m not dogmatic about it because I know I may be wrong! And I love my partial-earth brothers and sisters. They may be right. This is not a hill I choose to die on. But I don’t think we should choose where to stand on a particular point based on our concern for how credible it might be to the skeptic. That premise puts all of our beliefs at risk and puts the skeptic in charge. The resurrection is incredible, to the unbeliever. Everything about Jesus is incredible, to the unbeliever. Remolding the Bible until it is sufficiently “credible” to convince skeptics is not wise. We shouldn't worry about dressing Scripture in outfits that make it more appealing to its critics.
The Bible is what it is. And Christians are what they are. There are plenty of disagreements among us. These disagreements provide us opportunities to extend grace toward one another as we seek the truth and advance God's Kingdom. When a skeptic becomes a Christian, it doesn’t take him long to discover that there’s a lot of disagreement in the family. That’s allowed.
Here's a good discussion of the issue
http://www.thenarrowpath.com/mp3s/bible ... /gen07.mp3
God bless you,
Candlepower