Seven reasons why we should accept millions of years - part 3: the flood did not destroy the evidence

Dr Mortenson’s 3rd argument is that the flood washed away all evidence of the earth’s history.

He starts by saying that evidence of the flood is overwhelming, which I fully accept, although we cannot be sure of how it all happened. Certainly there is geological evidence of a deluge and supporting evidence in the parallel chronicles of other near east cultures. 

But we can't use science to make the argument here, as it would be a non-sequitur. It must recuse itself from self-defense. What I mean is if we say there was a flood and that wiped away the evidence, then geological evidence either supports one view or the other.

However, using scripture to convince me that the flood was universal also doesn’t cut it. It was translators who made that “the whole earth”.

Peter was not convinced of a whole earth flood

He said: “The land was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water” (2 Pet 3:5-6).

He spoke of the “known world” not the entire earth: a political idea not a physical one.

The word translated as earth, is Erets and it has broader applications, for example:

•  Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and filled with violence. (Genesis 6:11) – that speaks of the world. The earth can’t be corrupt.
• And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth (Genesis 6:12). Same again.

Kol Erets is the Hebrew for “whole earth” or what was used to make that point, but it has far wider applications too, far too many to mention. Here is a sample.

• Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land. (Leviticus 25:24) - The law did not address the entire earth.
• Behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets]…  (Judges 6:37) - hardly the whole earth.
• Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout[kol] the land [erets], saying, "Let the Hebrews hear." (1 Samuel 13:3) - That was not for all the earth.  

Kol Erets does not imply the entire earth. The word for that is Tebel (Strong's H8398), which appears 37 times, but never in connection with the flood.

Now for some counter-controversy

I fully accept that the flood happened. I doubt completely that it covered the earth by 15 cubits (6m or 21 feet) above the highest mountain. That is bizarre if they included Everest, possible if they spoke of local mountains which were just hills.

The heavens could not have contained all the water involved in the flood. The bulk came from below, but voiding the earth with enough water to flood to a depth of over 10 kms, would have imposed 10,000 tons on each square meter, which would have destroyed the hollowed mantle.

We generally analyse scriptures to derive a good exegesis, by referencing context. That has been practiced throughout theological history. Thus, where Paul said women should cover their hair, context tells us that street women wore their hair loose. 

If context floors an interpretation, we go back and keep searching until it all fits - same with science. Well, it is not improbable, but impossible to flood the earth to a 10 km depth. Arguing that the ark ended on top of Ararat is as fallacious as olives don't grow to that height. 

It is thus, reasonable to ask whether you interpreted the text correctly, because the argument made is so unreasonable it damns the whole thesis.

I can, however, concede that flood phenomena were not limited to Mesopotamia, for the geophysical conditions that led to the flood, were universal.

The mists that covered the earth imply the existence of sufficient greenhouse conditions to support a high level of saturation in the atmosphere. Not enough for the full force of the deluge, but enough to trigger substantial precipitation.

Evolutionary theory also buys that in principle. So does the Genesis 1 creation sequence, because for whatever time before the flood, the earth was still hot enough to suspend water.

Thus, while I reject a flood of 10km depth, I also reject a universal depth of any form. But scripture and evidence of global silt deposits, leans to the idea of a global climactic event.

It may well have surged in pockets, where the crust was thin enough. It would not have raised the oceans directly, only through subsidence and the oceans may have been shallower.

Evidence of inland seas abound all over the earth and where I live. Could that explain it?

We are stretching things a bit

Whatever happened, for Mortenson to argue that every possible geological vestige of the earth’s formation was erased by the flood, is desperate logic.

Furthermore, to argue that a recent flood can account for very old geological formations that can be traced back on a far longer continuum, is naive. Thus, the Colorado left enough geological striations to extrapolate the timeline of the Grand Canyon, to eons.

Besides all that, other dating methods are available, plus many other reasonable arguments.

We have a misconception of God

An old earth theology does not contradict the bible, it contradicts the myopic view that God can only possibly be a wand-waving magician who spoke the world into being in a week, yet couldn’t do it any quicker, despite his preferring to be known as wise, not mighty.

However, new earth thinking does detract from scripture by portraying the kind of power that would have obviated the elapse of history, the cross and everything in between. If instant could do it, it should have.

A new-earther argued that Jesus changed the law, based on a misconstruction of: “a change of priesthood necessitated a change of law”. He added that Matthew 5:18, where Jesus said, “not a jot or tittle of the law will fail”, saw Jesus seemingly change the law. Actually he just clarified.

That is not a sound exegesis. The moral law never changed. The fundamental ten commandments stand. The right understanding is that Jesus reconciled us to the law. If he could change the law, he would have and that would have made him a reformer, not a savior.

Well that applies to creation thinking too. We don’t bend truth to suit our prejudice, we reconcile truth to reality. Thus, the invisible things of God are seen and understood by what is made. That is good theology and it is good science.

(c) Peter Missing @ Bethelstone.com

Reference: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html