Why the Fossil Record Can't Be Due To Noah's Flood

[TB2]

I don't know how to compress several years of understanding about oral transmission, but I studied it under Waltke, Cassuto, etc. Then it is in Malone's MOSES CONTROVERSY explained fairly well.

Problem is there are problems with "Patterns of Evidence: Moses Controversy"

Numerous critiques. Here's but two examples:

Review 1

Critique of Mahoney's Petrovich source

Good overall advice from Review 1:

"This brings up another, more troubling problem. For some Christians, any evidence that supposedly supports the Bible is good enough. This is why pseudo-archaeologists who claim to have found the ark of the covenant in Jerusalem or chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea will always have a die-hard following. It is also the reason why some Christians will continue to believe that NASA found evidence of Joshua’s long day. A cursory look at the information handily disproves all of these beliefs. Christians should not accept anything but the best evidence that can withstand intense scrutiny."

 

[EarlyActs]

And it's an interesting theory, but you need to show that this is how people in Bible times understood Gen 2.14. Until then it's just unsupported speculation. It also still doesn't work. If what you say is true, then Gen 2.14 should say "what we call the Tigris River today that flows East of Ashur is just a marker to represent the approximate location of the original Tigris which is buried somewhere beneath it"

Unfortunately the material is much too terse for that.

 

[EarlyActs]

No! I even posted photos of rapid deposition! Please get rid of that tired old strawman argument that "geologists assume Lyell's slow deposition uniformitarianism present is the key to the past." It is misrepresentation at worst, or ignorance at best, showing a complete lack of knowledge about modern geology. As I stated several times now, modern geologists recognize all rates, slow deposition, fast deposition, catastrophic, non-catastrophic based on the evidence, not assumptions

So modern would be after sciencexstipped fraudulent suppression of Pelegríni and Bretz, is that correct for modern?

 

[EarlyActs]

Problem is there are problems with "Patterns of Evidence: Moses Controversy"

Numerous critiques. Here's but two examples:

Review 1

Critique of Mahoney's Petrovich source

Good overall advice from Review 1:

"This brings up another, more troubling problem. For some Christians, any evidence that supposedly supports the Bible is good enough. This is why pseudo-archaeologists who claim to have found the ark of the covenant in Jerusalem or chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea will always have a die-hard following. It is also the reason why some Christians will continue to believe that NASA found evidence of Joshua’s long day. A cursory look at the information handily disproves all of these beliefs. Christians should not accept anything but the best evidence that can withstand intense scrutiny."

Sounds like you don’t read the material, you only read counters. You even find dramatic quotes about other goofy things instead of the subject.

It has an exquisite demonstration of fraud about Cassuto from U Toronto. Find a counter specific to that and I will listen.

The real frauds are the text experts who have to date material as late as they can push for their hostile reasons. Ever notice how the ‘objective’ scientists are never affirmative and often products of Jewish Marxism in upper education? There are exceptions but it happens a lot. It is a feature of prophetic proportions. See the last OT quote of Isaiah in Acts.

May I ask, do you understand the essential thrust of F Schaeffer about modern theology?

 

[EarlyActs]

So modern would be after sciencexstipped fraudulent suppression of Pelegríni and Bretz, is that correct for modern?

Corr: ‘science stopped…’

 

[EarlyActs]

About a year ago i extensively engaged a retired prof who had an issue elsewhere in Gen 2. He ended up saying ‘this means the text is hopelessly broken, but that doesn’t matter; it is still true.’ What was remarkable was that he could not see any operative difficulty in ‘truth’ like that.

You can find odd interp methods in how the NT uses the OT but not that.

If you counter the exodus, you counter Stephen in Acts 7, for whom the enthroned Christ stood to receive as he died. Of course you can also counter that, in which case I would say ‘adios Bible; nice try.’

 

[EarlyActs]

Problem is there are problems with "Patterns of Evidence: Moses Controversy"

Numerous critiques. Here's but two examples:

Review 1

Critique of Mahoney's Petrovich source

Good overall advice from Review 1:

"This brings up another, more troubling problem. For some Christians, any evidence that supposedly supports the Bible is good enough. This is why pseudo-archaeologists who claim to have found the ark of the covenant in Jerusalem or chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea will always have a die-hard following. It is also the reason why some Christians will continue to believe that NASA found evidence of Joshua’s long day. A cursory look at the information handily disproves all of these beliefs. Christians should not accept anything but the best evidence that can withstand intense scrutiny."

Lyell despised the ‘physico-theologians’ and introduced irrational belief to the world exactly where natural evidence had been asserted by Christian teachers, though not perfectly. So this is no straw man issue. You practice the same thing.

Btw I don’t take one off-target topic and give up. I would need to hear counters to Carson, Tackett, etc from my list . And I’m not hearing the slightest peep about opisthotonics—the whole subject.

Your list of all the kinds of rates ‘modern ‘ geology accepts is fine, but all we were talking about was the denial of rapid deposition and of rapid tectonic change. Why list all the non-issues?

 

[CrowCross]

And it's an interesting theory, but you need to show that this is how people in Bible times understood Gen 2.14. Until then it's just unsupported speculation. It also still doesn't work. If what you say is true, then Gen 2.14 should say "what we call the Tigris River today that flows East of Ashur is just a marker to represent the approximate location of the original Tigris which is buried somewhere beneath it"

Somewhere beneath it could be Pittsburg.

 

[CrowCross]

Problem is there are problems with "Patterns of Evidence: Moses Controversy"

Numerous critiques. Here's but two examples:

Review 1

Critique of Mahoney's Petrovich source

Good overall advice from Review 1:

"This brings up another, more troubling problem. For some Christians, any evidence that supposedly supports the Bible is good enough. This is why pseudo-archaeologists who claim to have found the ark of the covenant in Jerusalem or chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea will always have a die-hard following. It is also the reason why some Christians will continue to believe that NASA found evidence of Joshua’s long day. A cursory look at the information handily disproves all of these beliefs. Christians should not accept anything but the best evidence that can withstand intense scrutiny."

For some reason you leave out the evidence that shows humans and dinisaurs lived contemporaneously.
There are footprints,
figurines,
depictions....the list goes on and on.

......but obviously all are faked. Right?

 

[TB2]

So modern would be after sciencexstipped fraudulent suppression of Pelegríni and Bretz, is that correct for modern?

Speaking of terse, you're statement makes no sense and is unclear

 

[TB2]

Sounds like you don’t read the material, you only read counters. You even find dramatic quotes about other goofy things instead of the subject.

It has an exquisite demonstration of fraud about Cassuto from U Toronto. Find a counter specific to that and I will listen.

The real frauds are the text experts who have to date material as late as they can push for their hostile reasons. Ever notice how the ‘objective’ scientists are never affirmative and often products of Jewish Marxism in upper education? There are exceptions but it happens a lot. It is a feature of prophetic proportions. See the last OT quote of Isaiah in Acts.

May I ask, do you understand the essential thrust of F Schaeffer about modern theology?

As I told you, I've already seen the original in the series, and it was horribly inaccurate. You should stick with reputable resources.

 

[TB2]

Lyell despised the ‘physico-theologians’ and introduced irrational belief to the world exactly where natural evidence had been asserted by Christian teachers, though not perfectly. So this is no straw man issue. You practice the same thing.

Btw I don’t take one off-target topic and give up. I would need to hear counters to Carson, Tackett, etc from my list . And I’m not hearing the slightest peep about opisthotonics—the whole subject.

Your list of all the kinds of rates ‘modern ‘ geology accepts is fine, but all we were talking about was the denial of rapid deposition and of rapid tectonic change. Why list all the non-issues?

Who cares about Lyell anymore? Only those who don't know anything about modern geology and just want to keep using him as a strawman

 

[EarlyActs]

As I told you, I've already seen the original in the series, and it was horribly inaccurate. You should stick with reputable resources.

The pastor with a Ph.D. Who showed it at his monthly science film dinner was reputable. I can’t just take your word for it. I’m sure there is a minor problem or two but “horribly inaccurate” just reeks with misunderstanding.

I read Cassuto about JEPD for my language studies.

 

[EarlyActs]

Who cares about Lyell anymore? Only those who don't know anything about modern geology and just want to keep using him as a strawman

He introduced the science version of what Schaeffer called ‘the upper story’ irrational leap of modern thought. See ESCAPE FROM REASON , THE GOD WHO IS THERE, etc.

Wow I had no idea he was as uncelebrated as you say.

In the 1950s Lewis made a remark on that same split of knowledge in his own way. Perhaps you do not realize what Schaeffer is saying, or his stature in 20th century theology and Chr philosophy, or what Lewis meant.

 

[EarlyActs]

As I told you, I've already seen the original in the series, and it was horribly inaccurate. You should stick with reputable resources.

Where was your Biblical languages study since apparently you are an expert also in textual criticism?

The original was about the Exodus, but he explains in Moses that he found that he should have made the Moses first; he didn’t realize what the higher critics were doing and what their game was.

Beside the fraud about Cassuto at U Toronto, he found that the German archeologist of the Goshen area deliberately ignored the reference under Goshen (under in the archeological sense) to a compound that speaks of Joseph’s presence.

 

[TB2]

He introduced the science version of what Schaeffer called ‘the upper story’ irrational leap of modern thought. See ESCAPE FROM REASON , THE GOD WHO IS THERE, etc.

Wow I had no idea he was as uncelebrated as you say.

In the 1950s Lewis made a remark on that same split of knowledge in his own way. Perhaps you do not realize what Schaeffer is saying, or his stature in 20th century theology and Chr philosophy, or what Lewis meant.

Sure, you just keep peddling your strawman and jousting windmills. Who cares about the actual facts, right?

 

[David1701]

WHY THE FOSSIL RECORD CAN'T BE DUE TO NOAH'S FLOOD

• This is not an argument against the biblical Flood.

• This is an argument against the common assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood.

1. The Bible doesn't actually say that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. That is an assumption.

2. There are biblical reasons to question this assumption.

3. There are scientific reasons to question this assumption.

‐-----‐‐----------------------------------------------‐------------
*Here is a biblical reason to question the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah Flood:

1. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as two of the four rivers associated with the Garden of Eden before the Flood.

2. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as still existing after the Flood.

3. But if the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, then the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers should no longer exist today, but should be buried underneath >5 miles of fossil record sediment.

View attachment 316

*Counterargument: The usual reply to this is that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers in Genesis 2 (Pre-Flood) are not the same rivers as the (Post-Flood) Tigris and Euphrates Rivers referenced later in Genesis.

Problems with this Counterargument: (1) There is nothing in Genesis to suggest that two entirely different rivers (with the same names) are being referred to. (2) Genesis 2 identifies the (Pre-Flood) Tigris River with reference to (Post-Flood) Asshur (ancient capital of Assyria). (3) It is a completely ad hoc counterargument only proposed in order to try to save the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. (4) The straightforward, literal understanding of Scripture that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers are referring to the same rivers throughout Scripture (and not different rivers by the same name) was never questioned until recently in modern times, when oil drilling in the Middle East revealed that the Tigris & Euphrates are underlain by >5 miles of fossil record.

Oh, good grief!

The world's geology was completely altered by the Flood. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers, from Genesis, do not exist any more (nor does anything else from the before the Flood). The ones that exist now were clearly named after them, in spite of your cavilling.

Where Was the Garden of Eden?

Most Bible commentaries state that the site of the Garden of Eden was in the Middle East, but what does Scripture actually tell us?

answersingenesis.org

If the whole Earth were covered by raging waters, what would you expect to find? You'd find billions of dead things, rapidly covered by sedimentary layers and fossilised, all over the Earth, which is exactly what we find.

 

[EarlyActs]

Sure, you just keep peddling your strawman and jousting windmills. Who cares about the actual facts, right?

Isn't there a Biblical expression for when the very thing we hotly object to is something we are doing ourselves?

The 'actual facts' about MOSES by Malone that I was referring to are the dating of the exodus and Joseph that match the Biblical narrative. What did you mean? Also the emergence of the Hebrew alphabet through Joseph, resulting in the engraved stone found in Cana in this generation with instructions in early Hebrew about how to get food in Egypt.

The 'actual facts' about Lyell that I was referring to were his snide remark about the 'physico-theologians' about whom he insisted they stop looking at natural reality. Another is that he is the first place where the irrational-faith concept shows in science. 'The Bible is historically-false, but socially necessary.' Because he knew as a 'fact' what happens to kids not raised on the 10 Commands, for example.

 

[TB2]

Oh, good grief!

The world's geology was completely altered by the Flood. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers, from Genesis, do not exist any more (nor does anything else from the before the Flood). The ones that exist now were clearly named after them, in spite of your cavilling.

Where Was the Garden of Eden?

Most Bible commentaries state that the site of the Garden of Eden was in the Middle East, but what does Scripture actually tell us?

answersingenesis.org

If the whole Earth were covered by raging waters, what would you expect to find? You'd find billions of dead things, rapidly covered by sedimentary layers and fossilised, all over the Earth, which is exactly what we find.

Correct! You wouldn't expect to find it! You'd expect the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers to be buried under 5-6 miles of fossil record! And yet Genesis 2.14 identifies the PRE-Flood Tigris River in relation to the POST-Flood ancient Assyrian capital city of Ashur (whose ruins are still visible today on the surface of the earth resting *on top* of the fossil record). Gen 2.14 indicates the PRE-Flood Tigris River was still identifiable in POST-Flood days.

The problem is Genesis 2.14 identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River in relation to the Post-Flood ancient Assyrian capital of Ashur:

"14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates"

Ruins of Ashur, ancient capital of Assyria

 

[EarlyActs]

Sure, you just keep peddling your strawman and jousting windmills. Who cares about the actual facts, right?

btw, shouldn't the title of this thread actually be 'why the fossil record of the Tigris-Euphrates can't be due to Noah's flood'? I'm just trying to help, because there often are exceptions to broad events, even though on this one, I still fail to see the point.

Compare the language in ch 6 about the Nephilim and giants. The oral material had to 'flatten' history sometimes to get across a point, to use later names to get across a point about a location.