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

[TB2]

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.

For your 'latency' argument to work you have to demonstrate that people in Bible times would have read and understood Gen 2.14 in the way you claim it

 

[David1701]

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

Genesis 2:10-14 (VW)
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divided and became four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which circles around all the land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 and the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there.
13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which circles around all the land of Cush.
14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it is the one going toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is Euphrates.

If, as you claim, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are same ones mentioned in Genesis, then please answer the following:

1) Show the location of the river that comes out of Eden and divides into four heads

2) Indicate the location of the river Pishon

3) Indicate the location of the river Gihon

4) Show where the rivers Tigris and Euphrates divide from the larger river.

5) Show how "...going towards the east of Assyria" is anything to do with any modern city

6) Prove your assumption that, in spite of drastically different geology, the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, in Genesis 2, are the same as the modern ones (hint: this question is rhetorical, since it's obviously impossible)

You are spouting nonsense, and you could affect immature believers. You need to stop it - now.

 

[TB2]

If, as you claim, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are same ones mentioned in Genesis, then please answer the following:

I don't claim it. The Bible indicates it. For thousands of years people have understood that when the Bible speaks of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers that it means the same Tigris and Euphrates Rivers throughout. There is *nothing* in the Bible that suggests the Bible is referring to completely different rivers with the same names. And no one ever questioned the literal, straightforward understanding of Scripture *until* recent times when it was discovered that the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are underlain by 5-6 miles of fossil record, which contradicts the *non-biblical* YEC *assumption* that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. That is doing exactly what YECs accuse OECs of doing: changing Scripture to fit modern science instead of believing what Scripture says.

 

[EarlyActs]

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

But TB, the misunderstanding of the latency is that you think the text means the city was there before. Barring the possibility of rebuilding afterward, I'm saying he used the current name to identify things that were there before.

Then there is the question of known usage of the term Assyria, etc. For which this comes up by way of a brief search:

The Old Assyrian period (ca. 2000–1600 B.C.) is the earliest period for which there is evidence of a distinct culture, separate from that of southern Mesopotamia, flourishing in the city of Ashur (also called Qal'at Sherqat), located on the Tigris River in modern Iraq.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/assy_2/hd_assy_2.htm#:~:text=December 2017-,The Old Assyrian period (ca.,Tigris River in modern Iraq.

The Old Assyrian Period (ca. 2000–1600 B.C.) | Essay​

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/assy_2/hd_assy_2.htm#:~:text=December 2017-,The Old Assyrian period (ca.,Tigris River in modern Iraq.
So Joseph may have clarified; or even an earlier oral coach (the young people would practice their memorized 'sections' around the campfire and be checked by elders.).

As may you know there is no reference to Assyria between Nimrod's development in Gen 10 and an Isaiah 36 reference to invasion. It doesn't even seem to be a conquer-and-rename situation. But there is Caleh in his Gen 10 list, and a stem in the above list from metmuseum.org. If that's Assur, then Nimrod planted it; if not, then it came even later.

 

[TB2]

But TB, the misunderstanding of the latency is that you think the text means the city was there before. Barring the possibility of rebuilding afterward, I'm saying he used the current name to identify things that were there before.

Then there is the question of known usage of the term Assyria, etc. For which this comes up by way of a brief search:

The Old Assyrian period (ca. 2000–1600 B.C.) is the earliest period for which there is evidence of a distinct culture, separate from that of southern Mesopotamia, flourishing in the city of Ashur (also called Qal'at Sherqat), located on the Tigris River in modern Iraq.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/assy_2/hd_assy_2.htm#:~:text=December 2017-,The Old Assyrian period (ca.,Tigris River in modern Iraq.

The Old Assyrian Period (ca. 2000–1600 B.C.) | Essay​

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/assy_2/hd_assy_2.htm#:~:text=December 2017-,The Old Assyrian period (ca.,Tigris River in modern Iraq.
So Joseph may have clarified; or even an earlier oral coach (the young people would practice their memorized 'sections' around the campfire and be checked by elders.).

As may you know there is no reference to Assyria between Nimrod's development in Gen 10 and an Isaiah 36 reference to invasion. It doesn't even seem to be a conquer-and-rename situation. Since the city name is not there yet (in Nimrod's list), doesn't that mean it came later?

It's quite simple. To support your latency theory you have to deny the literal, straightforward understanding of Scripture

 

[EarlyActs]

For your 'latency' argument to work you have to demonstrate that people in Bible times would have read and understood Gen 2.14 in the way you claim it

see post 164

 

[EarlyActs]

It's quite simple. To support your latency theory you have to deny the literal, straightforward understanding of Scripture

The city and designation existed after Nimrod... The metmuseum reports a city with the stem cal- as an alternate for Assur. Caleh is one of Nimrod's cities.

Please review my ice analogy; I don't think you have commented and it may help here.

 

[EarlyActs]

Post #133 has the ice-buried location analogy, which may help clarify how an oral tradition coach would used a current location to explain where an ancient site was.

 

[EarlyActs]

One of the general observations (from Cassuto I think) was that the sections to be memorized in Gen 1-39 had headings as their first feature of four (heading, existing situation, new material, summary). He says that the teacher would call out a section heading and the student was to recite it.

To preserve his people's heritage Joseph not only collected all this, but was endued with the concept of an alphabet, or applied structure observed from Phoenicia, and used figures as markers of spoken sounds and as infinitely interchangeable elements of words. Most of these were 3 letters, but strings and variations factor in.

 

[TB2]

Post #133 has the ice-buried location analogy, which may help clarify how an oral tradition coach would used a current location to explain where an ancient site was.

I do understand and appreciate what you're trying to say. But for it to work it still requires that we deny the plain, literal meaning of Scripture.

Your theory requires that when we read this in Gen. 2.14....

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.

.... that instead of taking Scripture at face value that we... well, we can't even actually apply your theory to this verse, because this is not a Post-Flood reference to the Tigris River like Daniel 10.4...

4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris,

Here, you could reject the plain, literal meaning of Scripture with your theory and say that the "Tigris" Daniel is standing beside is not the same as the Pre-Flood Tigris River mentioned in Genesis 2.14.

But that doesn't work with Genesis 2.14, because Genesis 2.14 is speaking about the Pre-Flood Tigris River and indicating that is still identifiable in relation to a Post-Flood ancient city.

But even the Daniel 10.4 verse requires denying the plain, literal meaning of Scripture.

It is similar for the Euphrates River. There are 30 references to the Euphrates River in the Bible. The Bible says the Euphrates River was one of the four rivers associated with the garden of Eden (Gen 2.14). The Bible identifies the Euphrates River as marking the eastern border of the Promised Land in God's covenant with Abraham (Gen 15.18). Even in Revelation, the Bible identifies the Euphrates River as the river that the six bowl judgment will be poured out on, drying up the river (Rev 16.12).

Let me ask you a serious question: if you were born on a deserted island with nothing to read but the Bible and knew nothing about science or geology or any other subject and all you had to go by was the Bible. Based on the Bible alone, would you think the Bible was talking about completely different rivers with the same name? (And if so, what *in the Bible* would lead you to believe that?). Do you believe Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible like tradition holds? If so, why then does Moses make seven references to the Euphrates River in the first five books without clarifying that he is speaking of two different rivers with the same name if that's what he really intended for us to understand?


Genesis 2:14 NAS
14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Genesis 15:18 NAS
18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

Genesis 31:21 NAS
21 So he fled with all that he had; and he arose and crossed the Euphrates River, and set his face toward the hill country of Gilead.

Genesis 36:37 NAS
37 Then Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth on the Euphrates River became king in his place.

Exodus 23:31 NAS
31 "I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you.

Deuteronomy 1:7 NAS
7 'Turn and set your journey, and go to the hill country of the Amorites, and to all their neighbors in the Arabah, in the hill country and in the lowland and in the Negev and by the seacoast , the land of the Canaanites, and Lebanon, as far as the great river, the river Euphrates.

Deuteronomy 11:24 NAS
24 "Every place on which the sole of your foot treads shall be yours; your border will be from the wilderness to Lebanon, and from the river, the river Euphrates, as far as the western sea.

Joshua 1:4 NAS
4 "From the wilderness and this Lebanon, even as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and as far as the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun will be your territory.

1 Kings 14:15 NAS
15 "For the LORD will strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water; and He will uproot Israel from this good land which He gave to their fathers, and will scatter them beyond the Euphrates River, because they have made their Asherim, provoking the LORD to anger

​

Revelation 16:12 - The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, to prepare the way for the kings from the east.

Revelation 9:14 - Saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.”

 

[Instant]

I do not worry about whether fossil records are affected by Noah's flood. I question the entire method of determining the age of things. It is all theoretical. I just believe the Bible is true.

As for the age of the earth, I have no idea. I have no idea how long it was from the time God created the earth and seas till he made man, but I am open to the gap theory. We really have no way of knowing these things for sure. We were not here when God made everything. We try to figure it all out, but we never will. We think we have it solved, but we don't. Consider how God responded to Job and his friends when they were claiming to know how everything got here and how it all works in Job 38:1-41:34.

 

[TB2]

I do not worry about whether fossil records are affected by Noah's flood.

This thread does not challenge that

I question the entire method of determining the age of things. It is all theoretical.

That would not be accurate to say it's just theoretical. Please, see "Radiometric Dating: a Christian Perspective."

We really have no way of knowing these things for sure. We were not here when God made everything. We try to figure it all out, but we never will.

There are a lot of things we do know and can (and have) figured out. But you're absolutely right, we're never going to figure everything out. Thank you for reminding us of this!

 

[EarlyActs]

I do understand and appreciate what you're trying to say. But for it to work it still requires that we deny the plain, literal meaning of Scripture.

Your theory requires that when we read this in Gen. 2.14....

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.

.... that instead of taking Scripture at face value that we... well, we can't even actually apply your theory to this verse, because this is not a Post-Flood reference to the Tigris River like Daniel 10.4...

4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris,

Here, you could reject the plain, literal meaning of Scripture with your theory and say that the "Tigris" Daniel is standing beside is not the same as the Pre-Flood Tigris River mentioned in Genesis 2.14.

But that doesn't work with Genesis 2.14, because Genesis 2.14 is speaking about the Pre-Flood Tigris River and indicating that is still identifiable in relation to a Post-Flood ancient city.

But even the Daniel 10.4 verse requires denying the plain, literal meaning of Scripture.

It is similar for the Euphrates River. There are 30 references to the Euphrates River in the Bible. The Bible says the Euphrates River was one of the four rivers associated with the garden of Eden (Gen 2.14). The Bible identifies the Euphrates River as marking the eastern border of the Promised Land in God's covenant with Abraham (Gen 15.18). Even in Revelation, the Bible identifies the Euphrates River as the river that the six bowl judgment will be poured out on, drying up the river (Rev 16.12).

Let me ask you a serious question: if you were born on a deserted island with nothing to read but the Bible and knew nothing about science or geology or any other subject and all you had to go by was the Bible. Based on the Bible alone, would you think the Bible was talking about completely different rivers with the same name? (And if so, what *in the Bible* would lead you to believe that?). Do you believe Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible like tradition holds? If so, why then does Moses make seven references to the Euphrates River in the first five books without clarifying that he is speaking of two different rivers with the same name if that's what he really intended for us to understand?


Genesis 2:14 NAS
14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Genesis 15:18 NAS
18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

Genesis 31:21 NAS
21 So he fled with all that he had; and he arose and crossed the Euphrates River, and set his face toward the hill country of Gilead.

Genesis 36:37 NAS
37 Then Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth on the Euphrates River became king in his place.

Exodus 23:31 NAS
31 "I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you.

Deuteronomy 1:7 NAS
7 'Turn and set your journey, and go to the hill country of the Amorites, and to all their neighbors in the Arabah, in the hill country and in the lowland and in the Negev and by the seacoast , the land of the Canaanites, and Lebanon, as far as the great river, the river Euphrates.

Deuteronomy 11:24 NAS
24 "Every place on which the sole of your foot treads shall be yours; your border will be from the wilderness to Lebanon, and from the river, the river Euphrates, as far as the western sea.

Joshua 1:4 NAS
4 "From the wilderness and this Lebanon, even as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and as far as the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun will be your territory.

1 Kings 14:15 NAS
15 "For the LORD will strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water; and He will uproot Israel from this good land which He gave to their fathers, and will scatter them beyond the Euphrates River, because they have made their Asherim, provoking the LORD to anger

​

Revelation 16:12 - The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, to prepare the way for the kings from the east.

Revelation 9:14 - Saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.”

The name of the river was never in question; the reference to Assur or Caleh could not have existed until Nimrod or after.

If I was on a desert, I might have done what you said. However, I was not; I also have to deal with the reality of that.

I do try to go toward the literal meaning, but this is not that kind of question. I don't think you have grasped anything about the oral transmission, and the role of Joseph in linguistics and in Cassuto shows that 1-39 are to be thought of differently. There are interjections that might have helped in memorization. Some of these 'flatten' the movement of the narrative.

On the question of the existence of the rivers, I don't know why the narrative would explain the difference, or the detail of the difference might have been missed. There are probably 100s of changes over time that might be overlooked. For ex., most 'tel's in Israel have many layers. If there is a narrative about layer #2 and a later one about #6, are you going to fault the Bible for not mentioning 1, 3, 4, and 5?

In fact, there were probably 100 features of the NW of Mesopotamia that were different due to the cataclysm, but I don't know of any reference at all. Only the drastic reduction in the presence of Nephilim, giantism and longevity. How do you account for this?

 

[Instant]

This thread does not challenge that

That would not be accurate to say it's just theoretical. Please, see "Radiometric Dating: a Christian Perspective."

There are a lot of things we do know and can (and have) figured out. But you're absolutely right, we're never going to figure everything out. Thank you for reminding us of this!

I will accept what you said about radiometric dating not being a theory.

 

[EarlyActs]

I do not worry about whether fossil records are affected by Noah's flood. I question the entire method of determining the age of things. It is all theoretical. I just believe the Bible is true.

As for the age of the earth, I have no idea. I have no idea how long it was from the time God created the earth and seas till he made man, but I am open to the gap theory. We really have no way of knowing these things for sure. We were not here when God made everything. We try to figure it all out, but we never will. We think we have it solved, but we don't. Consider how God responded to Job and his friends when they were claiming to know how everything got here and how it all works in Job 38:1-41:34.

Well, with a little more study, you may find that when you believe the Bible is true, you need to provide support.

Let's take an example right out of the starting gate. There is that strange expression 'formless and void.' But I should back up. Isn't it intriguing that there is a line about the creation and yet the first thing we find is something rather undone!

You look around and find that this expression is only in Jer 4 after Jerusalem has been ruined, and ruined for its evil. Wow, we now have a dramatic start and a story going on in the 2nd verse, even before we can sort out the difference between v1 and 2 that we just saw.

If you were consistent in study and persistent, you might get quite a chunk into Genesis and realize there is a regular format pattern going on. (I did not, but others have and Rabbi Cassuto expressed it):

1, a heading/title
2, the pre-existing conditions
3, the new material
4, summary

You will find this over and over in Gen 1--39 which is the oral transmitted part of Genesis, before Joseph was collecting and seeking an alphabetic way to preserve his people's history. There is one at 2:4 and another at 5:1.

So now, back to 1:1, we see we have only a section title. It is not yet 'action' in the narrative. Then we see that there were pre-existing things. Etc.

Now remember how we were curious to hear of 'formless and void' (and submerged and dark) and its story. We now have to keep our senses open to fill in such blanks. Why for example would the most formidable evil creature of the universe arrive crawling along the ground, yet as clandestine as ever? What are so-called sons of God doing having sexual relations with human women? What might these mean if taken back into time, and would they explain these curious conditions?

As for the fossils, I have asked TB if he would clarify why one relatively small puzzle would overturn piles of information and evidence around the world. I always am aware there might be exceptions, but I find something amiss about taking this one item at large.

 

[Instant]

Well, with a little more study, you may find that when you believe the Bible is true, you need to provide support.

I will try to examine the rest of your post when I have more time because there is much to consider, but with regard to this, I wanted to address it right now. I do not need to provide support that I believe what the Bible says, and that it is absolute truth, at least not for me. I have spent a lot of time in scripture, and I am thoroughly convinced and unmovable, but I can see how someone else might want support. I just don't see what kind of support will make them believe. If they don't believe the Bible, what can I possibly say to make them believe?

I can give them a possible way to understand how the earth and seas can be any age, even millions of years old, and still fit within the Genesis account of creation, but I am still just relating theory, in this case, the gap theory. That is not going to convince a true skeptic because they will say I am just coming up with an excuse. I see no time with providing support to skeptics. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. I usually suggest skeptics read the Bible to gain faith, because it all fits into place, and I mean everything, from why we are here to where we are going.

Anyway, that is how I see it. I am not dismissing the rest of your post, but I have limited time right now, and it deserves more than my just skimming through it and giving a hasty response. I am familiar with the angels mating with women and the giants, but not necessarily every point you were trying to make.

 

[TB2]

As for the fossils, I have asked TB if he would clarify why one relatively small puzzle would overturn piles of information and evidence around the world. I always am aware there might be exceptions, but I find something amiss about taking this one item at large.

And as I have stated because there are not "piles of information and evidence around the world" for the global flood. There is no geologic evidence that a global flood covering the entire earth has occurred at any time in Earth's history. I learned that from top YEC geologists.I studied under while earning my paleontology degree.

 

[TB2]

Let's take an example right out of the starting gate. There is that strange expression 'formless and void.' But I should back up. Isn't it intriguing that there is a line about the creation and yet the first thing we find is something rather undone!

Yes, it certainly is. And the best way to understand that is to understand what that would have meant to people in Bible times in the Ancient Near East (not what it means to us or what we think it means today). And when we do that we see that there is a direct parallel between the opening verses of Genesis and the Ancient Near East belief that the created world came out of a pre-existing primordial state of formless, watery chaos. We further see that Genesis 1 reads like a line by line rebuttal of Egyptian pagan creation myths and teaches that there is only one true God (Elohim).

 

[EarlyActs]

I will try to examine the rest of your post when I have more time because there is much to consider, but with regard to this, I wanted to address it right now. I do not need to provide support that I believe what the Bible says, and that it is absolute truth, at least not for me. I have spent a lot of time in scripture, and I am thoroughly convinced and unmovable, but I can see how someone else might want support. I just don't see what kind of support will make them believe. If they don't believe the Bible, what can I possibly say to make them believe?

I can give them a possible way to understand how the earth and seas can be any age, even millions of years old, and still fit within the Genesis account of creation, but I am still just relating theory, in this case, the gap theory. That is not going to convince a true skeptic because they will say I am just coming up with an excuse. I see no time with providing support to skeptics. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. I usually suggest skeptics read the Bible to gain faith, because it all fits into place, and I mean everything, from why we are here to where we are going.

Anyway, that is how I see it. I am not dismissing the rest of your post, but I have limited time right now, and it deserves more than my just skimming through it and giving a hasty response. I am familiar with the angels mating with women and the giants, but not necessarily every point you were trying to make.

Very good. Be encouraged! It will hold up.

Btw, was going to mention one other overall thing. The creation set up a cycle of time we know as a week, and it ended on the sabbath. One of the first references back to creation later is that the day of rest was being commanded. It would thus be quite puzzling to have a national observance that had no basis in reality! Of course it does, but I'm just considering arguments against Genesis here.

 

[TB2]

The name of the river was never in question; the reference to Assur or Caleh could not have existed until Nimrod or after.

If I was on a desert, I might have done what you said. However, I was not; I also have to deal with the reality of that.

Fair enough. But then like I said, in order to support your theory you have to deny the plain, literal meaning of Scripture