"Science" (vs) Genesis

[POI]

I've debated many apologists and/or theists in my day. In doing so, many of the same overarching comments are ultimately often made...

"Science has it's limitations"
"Science is merely about discovering the undiscovered."
"Science cannot or will not account for this/that"
"Science has changed it's stance upon things"
etc....

I understand there exists both YEC's - (young earth creationists), as well as OEC's - (old earth creationists).

I also understand that 'science' does not yet, or maybe never, have all the answers.

However, Genesis makes many claims which appear to fly in the face of 'scientific' discovery. Let's start with the flood claim, and see where this goes.... The two theist positions, which think this event actually happened, are as follows:

1) Global
2) Local

Another part of this claim, is the following:

A) ~4500 years ago
B) much longer

Before we head into this debate, I must mention a couple of caveats:

-- Just because you do not know, for certain, the ultimate answer to something, does not mean you cannot effectively rule out certain claims. Meaning, I do not know exactly how old any mature oak tree is; but I can still logically rule out that the answer could be 'ham sandwich' or "1 day old".

-- Same goes for earth. I may not know the exact shape of earth --- (egg-shaped, pear-shaped, perfectly round, etc), but I still know it is not flat.

For debate:

X) Theists, please select two answers above (i.e.): 1A or 2B. And then please explain why you have chosen this answer?

Y) How is it that a YEC and an OEC can BOTH read the same verses, and can BOTH equally justify their own conclusions respectively? Doesn't this demonstrate that the Bible is quite flawed in it's information delivery?

Z) How do you reconcile that 'science' does not suggest any such flood phenomenon?


My hypothesis? No flood, no bible. Meaning, if the Bible is wrong about this event, then it is logical to dismiss this book as just another mythological story.

[Tcg]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I don't know if this answers your query directly or not, but Genesis gets it wrong right off the bat. It claims that the earth was created before the sun and that light on earth existed before the sun. We know from science that both of these claims are wrong.

If there were to be a throwdown between Genesis and science, Genesis loses in the first round. Even before we get to the absurd claims of a global flood.


Tcg

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I don't know if this answers your query directly or not, but Genesis gets it wrong right off the bat. It claims that the earth was created before the sun and that light on earth existed before the sun. We know from science that both of these claims are wrong.

If there were to be a throwdown between Genesis and science, Genesis loses in the first round. Even before we get to the absurd claims of a global flood.


Tcg

I'm aware. For now, I wanted to start with the flood, and how absurd it is that two opposing viewpoints can use the same book to support their position. (i.e.) global vs local <and> 4.5k years ago vs long ago.

More than once, I have tried to have a three-way conversation with both a YEC and an OEC from the same congregation. They never seem too keen on doing so... Meaning, I have requested meetings with two pastors from the same church to hash it out. They want no part in it... I wonder why?

[AquinasForGod]

I have a different answer. Genesis was not written as a historical account or as a science book. It is not even an eye-witness account, such as the gospels. It is a collection of stories that seem to focus on answering moral questions and questions about why we are the way we are. Like why are women lesser? Why do men work the field and woman do otherwise? Where do we come from? Where did we get languages?

So the flood doesn't have to be a story that happened historically, although, it seems likely it was based on a local flood. I am sure some events in history caused Jews and others to write about a big flood. It is like Troy existed but it is unlikely Achillis did. There was a war, but most of what the Illiad says is probably not true.

Just because a book in inspired by God, and in this case, God inspired the stories and wanted it included in the canon, doesn't mean everything it says is accurate. For example, God might inspire someone to write "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" in order to teach a moral lesson to our children in such a way they understand it and enjoy the story. It is to hold their attention while being told the story.

Humans believe stories, like My great grandfather told me such and such more than we believe in dry facts. That is just how most people work. God knows this.

The main point of the story of Noah is that even if God ask you to do something that everyone else thinks is stupid, then do it. Keep the faith. You will be rewarded. In many ways, we are treated like Noah was if we believe in demons in 2022. The story of Noah tells us, hey, keep the faith. The whole world can be wrong.

[Miles]

I have a different answer. Genesis was not written as a historical account or as a science book. It is not even an eye-witness account, such as the gospels.

And the gospels aren't even that. There were no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospels events. Written works didn't arrive until quite a bit after the events described.

"The New Testament Gospels] were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. Where did these people get their information from? After the days of Jesus, people started telling stories about him in order to convert others to the faith. When Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke the traveling companion of Paul). Because our surviving Greek manuscripts provide such a wide variety of (different) titles for the Gospels, textual scholars have long realized that their familiar names (e.g., "The Gospel According to Matthew") do not go back to a single "original" title, but were added later by scribes."*

* Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of a New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 248-249; B. Ehrman, Lost Christianities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 235; B. Ehrman and W. Craig, "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman" (March 28, 2006).

The main point of the story of Noah is that even if God ask you to do something that everyone else thinks is stupid, then do it.

Although god has been known to make a blunder or two.

Keep the faith. You will be rewarded. In many ways, we are treated like Noah was if we believe in demons in 2022. The story of Noah tells us, hey, keep the faith. The whole world can be wrong.

Because keeping the faith, holding on to a concept that can just as easily be wrong as right, is the brave thing to do. Not always the smartest, but certainly pretty brave.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have a different answer. Genesis was not written as a historical account or as a science book. It is not even an eye-witness account, such as the gospels. It is a collection of stories that seem to focus on answering moral questions and questions about why we are the way we are. Like why are women lesser? Why do men work the field and woman do otherwise? Where do we come from? Where did we get languages?

So the flood doesn't have to be a story that happened historically, although, it seems likely it was based on a local flood. I am sure some events in history caused Jews and others to write about a big flood. It is like Troy existed but it is unlikely Achillis did. There was a war, but most of what the Illiad says is probably not true.

Just because a book in inspired by God, and in this case, God inspired the stories and wanted it included in the canon, doesn't mean everything it says is accurate. For example, God might inspire someone to write "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" in order to teach a moral lesson to our children in such a way they understand it and enjoy the story. It is to hold their attention while being told the story.

Humans believe stories, like My great grandfather told me such and such more than we believe in dry facts. That is just how most people work. God knows this.

The main point of the story of Noah is that even if God ask you to do something that everyone else thinks is stupid, then do it. Keep the faith. You will be rewarded. In many ways, we are treated like Noah was if we believe in demons in 2022. The story of Noah tells us, hey, keep the faith. The whole world can be wrong.

Couldn't you have just said "I agree - it isn't true"?

[DaveD49]

SCIENCE says clearly that there was a flood. It was spoken about in virtually ever culture world wide. And yes, it was a world-wide flood, but not a world-covering flood. Here is a map of the world as it was approximately 16,000 BC at the peak of the last Ice Age: https://external-preview.redd.it/Sftjsm ... 3ea81c5621 . Note on the map the diminished size of the Mediterrean, the land-locked nature of the much smaller Black Sea and the non-existence of other seas, the HUGE land-bridge (not ice-bridge) between North America and Asia. The vast majority of people at that time lived along the coasts. When the flood came THEIR "entire world" would have been destroyed. In the Black Sea region (and elsewhere) it would have even been extremely sudden when the land bridge with the Mediterrean was broken. The entire flooding process could easily been sped up by a large meteor hitting the polar ice pack producing the 40 days of rain described in the Bible. So it is silly to take the position that there was no flood, simply because it ain't so.

What I am certain the story is based on is a man who,,, foreseeing the coming flood... built a large boat for his family and breeding stock of all his animals. Is there a degree of myth to the story? Of course. The story existed orally for thousands of years before it was written down some 4,000 years ago.

[DaveD49]

Oh, one more thing. Was the Bible "inspired by God"? I certainly believe so. Does that mean that all the stories are factually true? NO. Where the truth lies is in the MESSAGE that God wished the story to convey.

[TRANSPONDER]

SCIENCE says clearly that there was a flood. It was spoken about in virtually ever culture world wide. And yes, it was a world-wide flood, but not a world-covering flood. Here is a map of the world as it was approximately 16,000 BC at the peak of the last Ice Age: https://external-preview.redd.it/Sftjsm ... 3ea81c5621 . Note on the map the diminished size of the Mediterrean, the land-locked nature of the much smaller Black Sea and the non-existence of other seas, the HUGE land-bridge (not ice-bridge) between North America and Asia. The vast majority of people at that time lived along the coasts. When the flood came THEIR "entire world" would have been destroyed. In the Black Sea region (and elsewhere) it would have even been extremely sudden when the land bridge with the Mediterrean was broken. The entire flooding process could easily been sped up by a large meteor hitting the polar ice pack producing the 40 days of rain described in the Bible. So it is silly to take the position that there was no flood, simply because it ain't so.

What I am certain the story is based on is a man who,,, foreseeing the coming flood... built a large boat for his family and breeding stock of all his animals. Is there a degree of myth to the story? Of course. The story existed orally for thousands of years before it was written down some 4,000 years ago.

Ok. This is the limited Flood apologetic and a case has been made for the Black Sea flood as caused by the melting of the ice cap after the last Ice age. That fits into a rather old apologetic - explaining the Bible in Natural terms, such as red algae turning the Nile to 'blood' or the curative properties of mud and spittle explaining the Instant curing of a blind man, the Galilee John Dory having a mouth big enough to take a Shekel and Jesus having swooned rather than....oh no? I suppose there are limits to what can be 'Natural' rather than a miracle of God, hey?

Because therein lies the problem - in making the Bible credible through Natural explanations, one removes the divine from the picture. There may have been an actual flood (a general rising of sea levels) which would explain all the Flood legends, but it was not done for the reasons the Bible says - to eliminate all humanity and start again with Noah's family, which didn't in the event turn out to be much of an improvement. If that didn't happen, then in validating the Bible, it is totally debunked and Biblegod is disproved. Just as if one explains Jesus having swooned and recovered may make it credible narrative as having a natural explanation rather than a miracle done by God, it totally debunks the claim for Jesus and indeed God and the whole point of the Bible.

You may be fine with that, Dave; you tell us. I'm fine with it. But there are a few questions about the theory. The Noachian Flood looks more to be a Jewish version of the Babylonian Flood; and that appears to be Mesopotamian (of course) rather than a flood anywhere else. Thus, if there was an ancient general flood which could explain all those various flood legends ....Thank - you it does Not validate the Biblical Flood, on top of debunking God and His purpose in that Flood...On top of this of course, as the Chien Lung Emperor told the Jesuit missionaries that came banging on the palace door with Tracts: "We have no Flood - legend" and he should know and never mind Chinese Characters saying "8" and "Boat" and thus proving Noah's Flood Nor do the ancient Egyptians have a Flood legend, despite attempts to fiddle a creation myth and Sekhmet wading through Blood while trying to destroy humanity into a Flood myth, and forget about claimed seawater marks in the Great Pyramid.

So, in the end. Dave, I don't know what the purpose was in what one may call the 'Black Sea' apologetic, but validation of the Bible is not what it does; rather the opposite.

Oh, one more thing. Was the Bible "inspired by God"? I certainly believe so. Does that mean that all the stories are factually true? NO. Where the truth lies is in the MESSAGE that God wished the story to convey.

Ok, that sets out where you stand, clearly. Where I stand, clearly is that a 'limited Flood' totally clobbers the event (assuming there even was one) as anything that that a god did, and so pretty much debunks God even if the Creation inaccuracies and Eden absurdities hadn't already done a fair job of that.

So it will not astonish you that I must consider inspiration by God as a faithclaim without a shred of decent evidence for it and - thanks to your efforts - some evidence against it, and the Message, conveyed is simply the Questions that all humans have asked and have invented myths to explain them away if they cannot answer, which, ti seems is what the Bible does.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

X) Im undecided between 1B, 2B, and 3B, where 3 is mythical/metaphorical. I am generally aware of the various scientific, historical, literary, etc. issues but I havent done a deep exploration of it. I have done enough to know I dont think A is the truth.

Y) Its perfectly rational for groups to interpret a text in different ways when framing those interpretations by questions the text itself does not have in mind. This does not demonstrate that the Bible is flawed in its information delivery, but that humans can read texts out of context.

Z) I have not read enough to know what I think about whether science suggests a flood did or definitely could not have happened.

My hypothesis? No flood, no bible. Meaning, if the Bible is wrong about this event, then it is logical to dismiss this book as just another mythological story.

Why do you think it would be logical to reject the whole Bible (a wide array of books) because of one event in one of these books, especially if said book wasnt trying to be a modern science or history book?

More than once, I have tried to have a three-way conversation with both a YEC and an OEC from the same congregation. They never seem too keen on doing so... Meaning, I have requested meetings with two pastors from the same church to hash it out. They want no part in it... I wonder why?

I cant speak for those pastors or the other people youve talked to, but these sides do have debates on the subject, both in the literature and in live debates. The Unbelievable? radio show/podcast in the UK has had various sides represented, the National Conference on Christian Apologetics in Charlotte, NC has housed such debates, Im sure there are plenty others.