As I've remarked on more than one occasion, long-range Bible prophecies picture the future in terms of the past. They use imagery that would be intelligible to the original audience. If we take futuristic Bible prophecy seriously, we have to mentally update it.
With that in mind, consider the stock objections to a global flood: On the one hand, it isn't big enough to accommodate a representative sample of every animal. On the other hand, a wooden ship that large already lacks structural integrity.
How would animals cross natural barriers before and after the flood? How could such a tiny crew care for so many animals? What about specialized diets? What about specialized habitats? What about waste disposal? What about dinosaurs?
What about aquatic animals? Are they on the ark? If not, how do they survive the blending of fresh water and salt water? What about flora?
Since I incline to the local flood interpretation, my own position sidesteps most of the stock objections to the global flood. Mind you, most of the stock objections make anachronistic assumptions by reading things into the text that aren't there.
Suppose, just for fun, we do a futuristic take on Noah's flood. In the 23C AD, God dispatches the angel Gabriel to recruit Noah. Noah is sent back in time to build the ark and save the planet. He brings a tech team.
The ark is a floating storage facility for DNA samples. The ark is powered by a fusion factor. Aerial drones and underwater drones collect DNA samples from all terrestrial, marine, and fresh-water species–including insects. Samples are stored in onboard freezers at –80°C. After the flood, faunal and floral species are recreated from stem cells, using advanced robotics.
I could go into more details about engineering and terraforming but that would disrupt the timeline by giving Triablogue a preview of future technology. I had to sign a nondisclosure agreement and run a draft past the Archangel Gabriel (head of celestial security) to redact classified information. In fact, there's the possibility that we're actually caught in a time-loop, having done all this before, because the timeline was already disrupted by the initial temporal incursion.
Whenever anyone brings up stock objections like "If the sun stood still, everyone would fly off the Earth when it stops spinning!" or "Donkeys can't talk, DUH!" I wish to remind them that we're talking about an INFINITELY POWERFUL GOD OF MIRACLES & REALITY MANIPULATION, WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING.
ReplyDeleteOf course, with the sun standing still, there's the fact that we're talking about a frame of reference between two moving objects. The Earth could keep spinning without altering anything if the sun changes position in the sky. Granted, who knows what that would do to the solar system? But even setting that aside, one only needs to have the appearance of the sun standing still in the sky, and anyone who's seen a sun dog has seen the sun appearing in multiple places simultaneously, based on the reflection of light through ice crystals. Those happen with just ice in the sky. God could put all sorts of things in the atmosphere to reflect light in such a manner that the sun would appear to be standing still.
DeleteAnd of course, you could even have a bubble of time that ran at a different rate, such that all physical processes on the battlefield sped up relative to the background physical processes. Time is just the measurement of cycles, and if all the cycles speed up concurrently (i.e., all clocks, all cellular metabolism, all everything else) in one place on earth, it would be indistinguishable for the subjects there from time itself speeding up, even if the Earth's rotation itself doesn't change.
But I mean these are just easy and simple ways to imagine it. I'm sure God's way was probably much more grand.
Funnily enough, I only recently came across that line of thinking which also purports that the solar shift would slow Earth's orbit, and would precisely account for multiple ancient calendars switching from 360 days to 365.25 days a year.
Deletehttp://xwalk.ca/360vs365.html
--As I've remarked on more than one occasion, long-range Bible prophecies picture the future in terms of the past. They use imagery that would be intelligible to the original audience. If we take futuristic Bible prophecy seriously, we have to mentally update it.--
ReplyDeleteThis is why I find Revelation's locusts and horses with riders to plausibly describe drones (I used to say combat helicopters, until the Navy literally launched Project LOCUST) and main battle tanks.
Hi Steve, you have some very good points concerning the flood.
ReplyDeleteAll though I tend to believe the Bible's account of the flood.
Genesis 7:19-20 “The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. (20) the water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.”
According to the Bible there was no local flood interpretation.
The Lord Jesus Christ told Noah that He will bring them in by two to Noah (Gen. 6:20), and also the birds by two etc.
Well, I guess that Noah couldn’t have chased the birds and all the animals in order to bring them into the ark :-)
To those who have stock objections; either the Lord Jesus did fit them into the ark, or He couldn’t fit them into the ark. What do you think ?
I think, certain things we need to read into the text, things that are plain and simple.
The Bible doesn’t say that Noah had to gather food for the animals, but only for the people (Gen.6:21).
No food, no waist disposal.
And, do you mean a time loop as in deja vu ? :-)
Paul G
Delete"Genesis 7:19-20...According to the Bible there was no local flood interpretation."
Hm, I don't see how the verse necessarily rules out a local flood interpretation:
1. For one thing, can't the Hebrew for "earth" in this verse refer to something more generic like land, ground, or something along those lines?
2. For another, the mountains don't necessarily refer to, say, the Himalayas or Andes.
3. Would Moses and the ancient Israelites have known about the Himalayas or the Andes in the first place?
4. Moses didn't necessarily mean literally every mountain on the planet.
"To those who have stock objections; either the Lord Jesus did fit them into the ark, or He couldn’t fit them into the ark. What do you think?"
Just for a start, God wouldn't have needed to fit, say, fish into the ark. So surely this verse doesn't assume literally every kind of animal on the planet?
"The Bible doesn’t say that Noah had to gather food for the animals, but only for the people (Gen.6:21)."
That seems to be an argument from silence. The Bible doesn't say that Noah didn't gather food for the animals either, right?
"And, do you mean a time loop as in deja vu ? :-)"
I thought déjà vu was a glitch in the Matrix. An indication that someone had tampered with the code. If that's the case, then perhaps God altered the code so that Noah's ark became bigger on the inside than on the outside, therefore able to fit an unlimited amount of animals. In short, Noah's ark is a TARDIS. :)
I found this link (via a recent post on this blog we are on) useful for its arguments from the text: http://drmsh.com/argue-biblical-text-local-regional-flood-instead-global-flood/
DeleteThanks, Scott! I'll take a look now.
DeleteI quoted from the New American Standard Bible.
ReplyDeleteThe NASB is way too dynamic for my tastes. I only quote from (reverse) interlinear translations. However, in a pinch, I'll grudgingly use Young's Literal Translation.
DeleteAlso, when I write code, I write directly in machine code. I snub my nose at assembly. And C, C++, Java, to say nothing of Perl, Python, JavaScript, among others, might as well be the Message or the New Living Translation for all I care!
Delete1. + 2. Remember, before the flood there were no mountains like the Andes and the Himalayas. The earth was completely different than today, and then the Lord Jesus changed the whole face of the earth to what it is today.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Lord destroyed every living thing on the face of the earth, save eight people of Noah’s families and the animals in the ark.
If the Lord destroyed everything on this earth, then it is legitimate to say that "The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered”. (Ge. 7:20).
3. Moses was born after the flood, and he could only testify to what Noah has said.
Noah and his families were the only ones who could give an accurate account of the things before and after the flood, because they were there.
4. Not necessarily, but most likely.
Remember, the flood was major news on TV during Moses time :-)
And there were no fish in the ark, because they have no lungs, they stayed in the water.
All water was saltwater except that which fall from the sky.
Hmmm, a glitch in the Matrix ? I didn’t thought of that :-)
It is amazing of how many fish you can pack into a sardine ?
Perhaps like a tardis :-)
Thanks, Paul G. Interesting observations. :)
Delete1. If the following is true:
"Moses was born after the flood, and he could only testify to what Noah has said. Noah and his families were the only ones who could give an accurate account of the things before and after the flood, because they were there."
Then that seems to be in tension with "Remember, the flood was major news on TV during Moses time".
If it was major news in Moses' time, then lots of people would have known about the flood including Moses. Unless it was unreliable news. However, if it was unreliable news, then we don't know if what Moses recorded in the Torah or Pentateuch is reliable. If it was unreliable news, then maybe the entire account of the flood in Genesis is unreliable.
2. Speaking for myself, I don't rule out a global flood. However, I don't rule out a local flood either. Honestly, I could see reasonable arguments for both.
3. You might be interested in reading posts about the flood (at different times defending both global and local floods) that Triablogue has posted here.
Yes, as it is with all news on TV, they are certainly not reliable news, they were fake news in Terah, Abraham and Moses day just like today, everything is full of lies and deception.
ReplyDeleteTherefore I believe only the Word of God the Bible.
The 66 Books of the Bible is the only one source of information which is absolutely reliable and true, and I will adjust my understanding always to the Word of God.
And I don’t think that Moses contradicted Noah anywhere in the Bible.
By the way, I don’t believe Moses nor Noah, not even myself, we are all liars just as the Bible said, there is not one who is speaking the truth all the time, no, not even one.
Therefore I believe the Word of God the Bible to be the absolute truth without error.
The Bible is the Word of our Lord Jesus Christ and we both know that He never lied, because Jesus Christ is the incarnate TRUTH (John 14:6).
2. I am glad that you don’t rule out totally the global flood, but remember, you cannot believe in a local flood, and at the same time believe in a universal flood, that would be called an oxymoron or cognitive dissidence.
I haven’t got a problem by completely ruling out a local flood, since we always had local floods everywhere.
But those local floods are not of biblical concerns, but a global flood, that is of biblical concern.
A flood so great, that for 1656 years plus one year in the ark, nobody ever saw a rainbow, not even Noah. For the first 600 years Noah did not see the rainbow, only in his 600th and first year Noah saw the rainbow for the first time in his life.
Imagine, Noah chasing the rainbow, that would have been an unforgettable sight :-)
Thanks Steve for the link.