I am with Ken on this. Although I suspect the attribution to Moses is probably not wholly accurate.

We will have to ask Jesus when we get to heaven. I think he will affirm what he has previously said during his earthly ministry.  If I am wrong, I will apologize to you.

Frank

Frank Savage - 18 July 2008 08:34 AM

Hi Bob

There’s no such period as ‘pre-history’ if we assume, as the NT writers and Jesus did, that Adam was made at the beginning of creation. Written history in Genesis goes back to the very beginning.

Frank

Hi Frank

I figured you’d turn up on this thread before too long! :-)

Leaving aside the particular term - I wasn’t sure how historians defined ‘Ancient’ and ‘Pre’ in this regard - I think my point still stands.

Bob

Just a heads up that there is 266 odd posts on this topic in a similar thread from last year, covering (from memory) everything from dealing with animal excrement, feed supplies, why they would/wouldn’t eat each other and so on. We linked to some guy who attempted to crunch the numbers. We also linked to some other guy who thoroughly refuted it. If you want to read more, knock yourself out ;)

Ken,

The book of Genesis, and the story of Noah and the Flood, are said to have the authorship of Moses?

But I believe that a complete written version, by scribes, was not completed until after the return from exile in Babylon?

Is this true history?

Which question are you asking about?  Or are you asking about both?

HI Bob

Yes, we are old friends now! You probably know what I am going to say before I say it.
Yes, your point stands.  But regardless, so does Craig’s. The ark itself was the only way of escape.

Frank

Hi Luke,

thanks for your friendly reminder of a previous discussion.

People have been talking about the flood umpteen zillion times in the last 4500 years (the approximate date of the flood), judging by the hundreds of flood legends in cultures worldwide. 

Probably will come up again.  Interesting topic.

Frank

Bob Cameron - 18 July 2008 12:24 PM

Frank Savage - 18 July 2008 08:34 AM

Hi Bob

There’s no such period as ‘pre-history’ if we assume, as the NT writers and Jesus did, that Adam was made at the beginning of creation. Written history in Genesis goes back to the very beginning.

Frank

Hi Frank

I figured you’d turn up on this thread before too long! :-)

Leaving aside the particular term - I wasn’t sure how historians defined ‘Ancient’ and ‘Pre’ in this regard - I think my point still stands.

Bob

Prehistory is a term often used to describe the period before written history.

Luke Stevens - 18 July 2008 02:57 PM

Just a heads up that there is 266 odd posts on this topic in a similar thread from last year, covering (from memory) everything from dealing with animal excrement, feed supplies, why they would/wouldn’t eat each other and so on. We linked to some guy who attempted to crunch the numbers. We also linked to some other guy who thoroughly refuted it. If you want to read more, knock yourself out ;)

Let me see Luke - would the first guy be John Woodmorappe by any chance?  Then who would the second guy be?

*Googles* yup, this was the review in response. Woodmorappe’s response to the review is pretty hilarious. Nothing says credibility quite like an angry guy ranting on his web site in multi-coloured, fluro fonts on a black background. Oh internet, how you have blessed us.

Thanks Luke.  I thought Glenn Morton might have been the one.  Having just skimmed down his review it strikes me that he does give a certain amount of credit to Woody for his research and documentation at least.  But the following leaped out at me:

“Since CO2 is normally associated with volcanism and high thermal gradients, an explanation of where the CO2 came from would seem to be in order. None is given.”

Even if Woody doesn’t give it, other creationist writers certainly point out the extensive volcanism that surely accompanied the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep à la Genesis 7, which would account for both the phenomena associated with the CO2 release.  But what really surprises me about this is that Morton has elsewhere cited the massive release of heat and of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as causing a serious heating problem for the immediate Flood and post-Flood world.  Strange how he apparently failed to consider how the simultaneous expulsion of so much volcanic dust and ash into the stratosphere wouldn’t have a nuclear winter effect that would largely compensate the heating effect.  Wasn’t England’s “year without a summer” in 1816 caused by the eruption of Mount Tambora the previous year?

Luke,

Aah, the internet.  Thank you, God, for the internet. 

“[M]ulti-coloured, fluro[sic] fonts on a black background” were pretty cool back in the mid to late 90s.  Just having a web presence was cool.  That page is dated 27th April 1997. 

I got my first internet-connected computer that year so that I could be in email contact with the school where I was doing my Grad Dip.  The school was using Pine.  Or maybe it was PINE.  It was stupendously clunky and all I can say is, thank God, too, for Office 97 and Outlook Express.  Also, there was no such thing as a Web Designer back then. 

Dan,

I understand that most YECers blame all that heat, as well as the dust and ash in the atmosphere, for the onset of the ice ages.  The initial heat caused more water to be evaporated which, in the polar regions, resulted in greatly increased snow fall which, due to the dust and ash in the atmosphere, subsequently accumulated and extended towards the equator.  I don’t know if it’s true or not but it’s not an unreasonable scenario.

Yes Janice, that’s about right.  The point about the lingering dust/ash cover is that it served to cool the continents at more polar latitudes (particularly inland) so that the precipitation from all that increased evaporation fell as snow rather than rain - and lots of snow at that.  Conventional evolutionary models have a hard time explaining a simultaneous massive warming of the oceans and massive cooling of the continents:  if climate change is caused by solar changes or fluctuations in greenhouse gas levels, both would warm and cool together.  If warming, the precipitation wouldn’t fall as snow; if cooling, there would be less oceanic evaporation in the first place.

An ice age is in fact an inevitable by-product of a global flood.

This also explains how the mass of snow and ice in Antarctica is inland, even though today most snowfall is coastal.

The flood is important because of its theological implications.  Do the many layers of sedimentary rock, and billions of fossils, come from millions of years of earth history, and the gradual evolution of life from goo to you via the zoo?  or is it all the result of a one year flood?

If from long ages and evolution, it means God used the suffering and death and extinction of countless living creatures over millions of years as his process of creation of a ‘very good’ earth.  What a cruel concept of God that would be. It would mean also that creation is still evolving, not ‘finished’ as stated at the end of the sixth day.

If from a one year flood, the sedimentary layers and fossils are shocking evidence of the seriousness of the sin of man, that a just God would have to impose such a judgement on man and his habitation.  But God in his grace provided a way of escape. The flood is then a warning of a final judgement, and the need to turn to Christ for salvation.

Frank Savage - 19 July 2008 09:41 AM

The flood is important because of its theological implications.  Do the many layers of sedimentary rock, and billions of fossils, come from millions of years of earth history, and the gradual evolution of life from goo to you via the zoo?  or is it all the result of a one year flood?

If from long ages and evolution, it means God used the suffering and death and extinction of countless living creatures over millions of years as his process of creation of a ‘very good’ earth.  What a cruel concept of God that would be. It would mean also that creation is still evolving, not ‘finished’ as stated at the end of the sixth day.


If from a one year flood, the sedimentary layers and fossils are shocking evidence of the seriousness of the sin of man, that a just God would have to impose such a judgement on man and his habitation.  But God in his grace provided a way of escape. The flood is then a warning of a final judgement, and the need to turn to Christ for salvation.

Frank
I must say this is the most powerful argument I’ve heard for the Young Earth / Global Flood position, not least because it argues biblically and theologically.  I’ll have to mull it over some.
Bob