The Flood, from Biblical Theme to Apologetic Device (part 1 of 2)

(Spectrumbot) #1

(On January 10, 2015 Adventist geologist Gerry Bryant (PhD – University of Toronto) spoke to the Greater New York Adventist Forum, in two sessions – morning and afternoon. This article is a written version (not transcript) of his morning talk. In a few days we will post another article detailing his afternoon talk – editor.)

Last summer, Seventh-day Adventist General Conference President, Ted Wilson, reiterated his administration's intent to revise Fundamental Belief number six, dealing with Creation, paired this initiative with the importance of a "global flood" and presented these teachings as a standard for employment and even membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

“If one does not accept the recent six-day creation understanding then that person is actually not a ‘Seventh-day’ Adventist since the seventh-day Sabbath would become absolutely meaningless historically and theologically and most of our Biblically based doctrines centered in Christ and His authoritative voice would become meaningless as well. The person may claim to be an “Adventist,” but in reality without the clear Biblical understanding of the foundational Sabbath doctrine and God’s authority as Creator and Sovereign of the universe, it is really impossible to arrange a meaningful theological construct that would lead to or be acceptable for a belief in a literal second coming of Christ.

. . . As teachers on the campuses of Seventh-day Adventist academies, colleges and universities, and leaders in God’s church, through God’s power, hold firmly to a literal recent creation and absolutely reject theistic and general evolutionary theory. I call on you to be champions of creation based on the Biblical account and reinforced so explicitly by the Spirit of Prophecy and as voted by the world Seventh-day Adventist Church at the 2010 General Conference Session. Next year at the 2015 General Conference Session, we will have the opportunity to vote an even clearer wording of Fundamental Belief No. 6 about God’s authoritative voice in creation. A church employee who teaches theistic or pure evolutionary theory should not even exist in a Seventh-day Adventist school or church pulpit.” – August 15, 2014

“When we indicate we are Seventh-day Adventists, we stand for a literal creation and global flood. It cannot be reinterpreted in any other appropriate way.” - August 24, 2014 (From online editions of Adventist Review)

These announcements were made in my hometown of St George, Utah, at a conference convened to promote a Flood-based model for geology to an international assembly of Adventist educators and administrators. It came as a further development in an initiative that erupted from a multi-year cycle of international Faith/Science Conferences, a broad discussion that was terminated in 2004 when the General Conference Executive Committee, at Annual Council, voted to accept the “Affirmation of Creation” document produced by the organizing committee of those Conferences. This initiative was further advanced by recommendations from the 2010 Annual Council and General Conference sessions. The currently proposed revisions to Fundamental Belief #6 are problematic, in that they may be used to require science teachers to teach a position for which there are no available scientific models. My specific concern in today's discussion is the propagation of Flood-based hypotheses regarding the geologic record as a supporting argument for the current initiative – and as a substitute for a functional scientific model – and the specter of future revisions embedding this apologetic into SDA doctrine. References to a global flood may seem innocuous enough; but there is an entire epistemological tradition attached to that simple term which we would do well to consider before we embrace these doctrinal innovations.

I am going to spend quite a bit of time today talking about the Biblical Flood and how it is used as an apologetic device within Adventism. I will enumerate several reasons why it is a mistake, in my opinion, to attach this rationale to our doctrinal statement. However, I'd like to start with a positive example of one way in which I do integrate the Flood account into my own belief system. I was invited to speak to you because of my expertise in sedimentary geology, which is the scientific discipline most applicable to the development of a Flood model for Earth history. But before I was a geologist, I was an elder in a small SDA church in Utah, where the elders did most of the preaching. I have since moved to another small church in Utah where the elders also preach. In fact, we are without a pastor right now and it is my responsibility to put together the preaching schedule. I take this job seriously. I don't preach about geology. I preach about Jesus.

So, what does the Flood have to do with Jesus?

Looking back on the first few chapters of Genesis, we see that the Flood does not appear as an isolated event, a singularity of judgment. It is part of a development, beginning with the sin of Adam and Eve, where the evil emerging in humanity is mirrored in the loss of those features of the created ecology most prized by an agricultural community. Consider those first two chapters of Genesis from the perspective of a Hebrew slave in Egypt: somebody else planted a garden that provided for every alimentary need and desire of its occupants. No hard labor, no crop failures, no dependence on the vagaries of weather, no water shortages. The sun, moon and stars were luminous calendars, marking blessed cycles of rest and worship, seedtime and harvest, not capricious gods. And the One in charge had not just your survival, or even your comfort, but your pleasure in mind. That was paradise, indeed.

Then, Adam and Eve opted to breach their own fences and suddenly they were confronted with a garden full of weeds. Later, Cain scorned God's provisions, relying on the produce of his own labors and the might of his arm and lost the advantages of a favored soil. The Flood was the capstone in this development. Consequent to the spread of Cain’s violent arrogance, and the establishment of a more general devotion to evil, the Flood devastated the pleasant places of Earth. Eden was gone, wastelands appeared. Now, the most productive ground was confined to riparian enclaves where man, through engineering genius and hard labor (the kind performed by slaves, like those Hebrews in Egypt), could keep the fields watered and tended. Sin was bad news for everyone. Not just the kind of internal distress that gives you indigestion and robs you of sleep. It was a tangible woe in the Earth. And that appears to have been the point of God's sequential judgments. The problem of sin was not going to just disappear into the depths of the subconscious, it was going to be dealt with by a motivated population.

Jesus built upon this thematic development in his parable of the sower and the seed, in Matthew 13:1-23. Four types of ground: good soil, the Edenic ideal; weedy soil, the curse of Adam; shallow soil, the curse of Cain; and the unproductive beaten path, the curse of the Flood. Jesus' lesson plan was reverse engineered: Genesis asserts that these agricultural woes entered human experience because of sin, Jesus claimed that their diverse impediments represent the devastations of sin in every soul. Like Adam and Eve, we are too easily confused in our priorities. Like Cain, we want God's approval, but on our own terms. Like the antediluvian world as a whole, we become hardened to the entreaties of the Spirit. We are prone to arrogance and lives devoid of charity. The kingdom of God seems ever more distant and obscure as we pursue self-centered interests. This parable is not just an appeal for self-awareness, it is a statement of intent. Jesus is the farmer, the one trying to plant his word in a productive place in your life. He wants to overcome the challenges presented by your indifference, the shallowness of your spiritual experience, and the distractions of your competing priorities. For me, these stated priorities of Jesus' ministry illuminate some of the most doctrinally difficult gospel passages. Let me illustrate by looking in some detail at Jesus' teachings recorded in John 6.

Jesus caught the interest of those distracted by the cares and enticements of the world (thorns and thistles) by making bold, challenging statements to arrest their attention. He ministered to those of shallow commitment (rocky soil) by requiring a decision. He addressed the deep needs of the slow of heart (beaten path) by stimulating their understanding through metaphor and riddles - many of which were very long-developing, as in the case of Nicodemus (John 3).

If my own experience is any measure of yours, then this is the first time that you have heard an Adventist present the Flood in this way. Why is that? Has no one else thought of this before? I doubt that, because my own thinking along these lines, as a young man, was stimulated by reading Patriarchs and Prophets, Desire of Ages, and Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing. I am sure there are plenty of Adventist preachers with those same books in their library. Perhaps we tend to ignore the thematic richness of the Flood within the Genesis narrative because we are so intently focused on novel applications of that event. Thus the Flood isn't about our souls and the inroads that sin has made in our hearts, it is about the distribution of particles in the cosmos and it is about our own privileged status as God's special people. The Flood has been reduced to an apologetic device, whereby our cherished views are shielded from the challenges of outsiders and heretics. This was certainly the thrust of the conference in St. George, where even non-Adventist advocates of Flood-based geological models were invited to present, while qualified Adventist critics of this approach were excluded.

The theological rationale for favoring Flood explanations of the geologic record has been emphatically presented, on multiple occasions, by Andrews University professor (now emeritus), John Baldwin, most notably in the book he edited titled, "Creation, Catastrophe, And Calvary: Why A Global Flood Is Vital To The Doctrine Of Atonement" (2000, Review and Herald Publishing Association). I do not wish to target John with my criticisms, only to provide a clear reference for my claims of current concern within Adventism regarding the impact of mainstream geological theory for the SDA doctrine of Creation. As it happens, John and I enjoyed a two-hour conversation on the topic as we drove some lonely roads in Arizona together on the day that one of his follow-up articles appeared in the Adventist Review (October 24, 2013). John kindly presented the sermon in the Red Cliffs SDA Church that Sabbath, at my invitation, and his talk was well received. We don't spend our time together dwelling on our points of disagreement. John heard that I was scheduled to speak here and emailed me, yesterday, an encouragement to use the resources he has provided. He also offered a succinct summary of his current thinking, along these lines:

· The Biblical account of a 6-day creation implies that God did not create life over millions of years through death, disease and extinction. Thus, He is a good creator, not Darwin's cruel devil.

· Such a conclusion seems to be fatally undermined by conventional geology’s conclusion of deep time, in which the fossil record accumulated gradually.

· One of God’s purposes for including the flood story in the Bible is to offer the geologic community an alternative, rapid model of formation for the geologic column, thus validating a literal 6 days of good creation and representing death as judgment, not design.

· This Creation/Flood story is clearly articulated in Genesis, and then referenced throughout the Bible.

· The reference in Revelation 14:7 may specifically invoke the Flood, as "fountains of waters", emphasizing both the reality of divine judgment and the significance of the Flood event for geological interpretation.

I share John's concerns. I see no simple way to reconcile an extensive pre-history of predation and extinction with the designs of the gracious God revealed in Jesus - just as there is no obvious testimony to the goodness of God in the modern experience of suffering, calamity, and death. However, as we will discuss this afternoon, I do not believe that the Flood event, as presently conceived, provides a viable resolution to the tension between the just claims of science and our treasured heritage of Biblical interpretation. Flood geology sounds good to the faithful but in fact it belies the very values that it has been constructed to defend. Let me highlight this claim by way of analogy to the experience of Abraham. You remember how God promised that he would father many nations and how that promise was long unfulfilled. Proactively, Abraham fathered a child by a family servant – Hagar, as prompted by his wife. This was not defiance of God, nor was it an extraordinary measure, by contemporary standards, but it was outside God's providence. God had specific plans to fulfill His own promise and he did not need heroic measures from Abraham to do so. He was looking for trust and patience – qualities that a more mature Abraham was to display abundantly, a bit later on. My point is that Abraham chafed under the chronic tension between his beliefs and his experience, which he resolved to the best of his own ability, and those actions resulted in dire consequences for his genetic legacy, throughout their generations, and a diminished witness among his contemporaries. I maintain that the institutionalization of Flood geology within Adventism is just such a mistake. It is a Hagar solution, a sincere but inappropriate attempt to fulfill prophetic destiny, glorify the Creator, oppose the godlessness of the current age, and promote true beliefs.

In my discussions with John Baldwin, the concept of "propositional truth" has been a prominent feature in his advocacy of the authority of Scripture in organizing our perceptions of the natural world. I have heard others tout "a plain reading of Scripture" and, more recently, "the Biblical perspective", as though our enlightened application of the historical/grammatical method of exegesis provides unique solutions and utterly reliable interpretations of the Genesis narrative. Some have even claimed that the doctrinal stance advocated in the current initiative is merely a return to the view held by Christians, generally, before science made its inroads into theology during the last two centuries. However, Augustine, writing around the turn of the century – the fifth century – had this to say, along with some very pointed remarks about the difficulties involved in the literal interpretation of Genesis:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men .... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor, 1982, p.42-43)

This resonates with me, as a scientist. Not just because I see it happening all around me, but because I too am indicted, from ignorant and careless claims that I have made as a developing Sabbath School teacher. If nothing else, the discipline of science has made me a more careful expositor of Scripture. If there is hope for me, there is hope for all of us. From this perspective, I present a summary list of my reasons to oppose the attachment of "global flood" terminology to our doctrinal confession. These points are ordered for convenience of presentation, not priority of importance:

1. The initiative to "clarify" FB6 has been characterized by exclusivity. 2. The "global" concept is extra-Biblical. 3. The "global Flood" reference validates an unsubstantiated hypothesis. 4. Support for a "global Flood" apologetic derives from an obscure epistemology. 5. Adventist scholars will be disadvantaged by the new wording. 6. This reliance upon dogma to promote and protect faith departs from traditional Adventist values, the practice of the apostolic church, and the consistent example of Christ, as recorded in the gospels.

[End of morning talk. An exposition of each of these 6 points is the substance of Gerry’s afternoon talk. That article will be posted in a few days – editor ]

Gerald Bryant, PhD, is a sedimentary geologist specializing in ancient dune deposits and associated quicksand features. These studies provide the primary research focus for the diverse programs he is developing as director of the Colorado Plateau Field Institute at Dixie State University.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

(Elaine Nelson) #2

A recent letter to the Adventist World encapsulates this problem writing about Creationism a a science:

“I am uncomfortable with the Creation story as science as it starts with an answer and looks for evidence to support that answer. Selective perception is an ironic danger for Christians who really believe that 'the truth will set you free.” If the evidence is there, it will eventually come out. Trying to prove the biblical creation story with science is about the same as trying to scientifically prove the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, the feeding of the five thousand with five loaves of bread, and the possibility of life after death. We are talking about miracles.

“Wilson seems to encourage teachers and preacher in our church to begin with conclusions and seek evidence to support those conclusions, and ignore the inconvenient evidence that may challenge our thinking. As an Adventist teacher I always encouraged my students to think, as questions, and not be afraid of evidence.”

(Gene Fortner) #3


No one thinks creationism is a science.

Creationism is a doctrine based on Genesis.

Can you use the scientific method to determine the accuracy of statements in the Bible?

You bet.

Is there evidence to support the Biblical account of origins?

You bet.

(efcee) #4

Am I the only one that perceives a wild leap needed in order to defend the above statement? How does a variation of viewpoint on the literal 24 hour 6 day creation negate God’s desire for his creation to observe a 7th day sabbath? If God has given that day meaning and called for the institution of it, how then can the various views of origins promoted by certain individuals negate that meaning?

This repeated definition of an oversimplified dichotomy between a literal, “twenty-four-of-our-hours”, 6 day creation event and general evolutionary theory does not take into account the spectrum of views that exist. The desire to hold everyone else to ones’ own “plain reading of scripture” is most definitely NOT a Seventh-day Adventist practice.

I vote to reinsert the preamble from the 1872 Declaration of Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by Seventh-day Adventists:

“IN presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline, aside from the Bible. We do not put forth this as having any authority with our people, nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by them. We often find it necessary to meet inquiries on this subject, and sometimes to correct false statements circulated against us, and to remove erroneous impressions which have obtained with those who have not had an opportunity to become acquainted with our faith and practice. Our only object is to meet this necessity.”

How is it that a group of modestly educated folk from the nineteenth century had enough foresight to acknowledge that various perspective would inevitably exist among any group of believers and that the putting forth of a list of “fundamentals” as a creed to divide the orthodox from the heretic would be undesirable?

(jeremy) #5

i think the standard answer would be that god himself gives, as a reason for observing a 24-hr sabbath, the fact that he created the world in six 24-hr periods…if these six 24-hr periods are in fact not 24-hr periods, it’s hard to see why the 24-hr sabbath should be…

i’ve heard theistic evolutionists interpret genesis 1 in terms of an orderly presentation of creation not meant to reflect a literal reality…it’s hard to see how anyone can truly think this way, but we know that when it comes to belief, anything is possible…many people believe elvis presley is alive, for example, or that sasquatch exist, or that flying saucers with little green men in them are the government spying on us…

(efcee) #6

Jeremy, are you not making an assumption that the days of creation as God experienced them are the same 24 hour periods as you experience them? There is a certain amount of logic to the making of that assumption, but others may hold different and equally valid points of view.

While it is true that the wording in Genesis implies this, it is also possible that God has set up a paradigm for us that is related to our own experience for the purpose of conceptually memorializing his creative act. His own experience, as someone who exists outside of time, might vary from our own. This does not mean that God would be “lying” to us in Genesis, but rather that he is framing His experience in a way that we can comprehend, appreciate, and find relevant. We must also remember that God’s inspiration of the Genesis text is not an exact download of precise words of God. According to the accepted “Adventist” view of inspiration, the writer of Genesis would have written the words he himself chose to describe images that appeared to him in vision.

If there is a possibility that God experienced the creation event differently from our 24 hour days, it wouldn’t do us much good to observe a sabbath every X number of years whereas we would benefit most from experiencing it every seven days. It would make sense for Him to find a parallel unit of time that is somehow equivalent to our experience as finite humans. One can hardly insist that God experiences time in the same manner that we do…especially when He, and portions of creation, existed prior to the sun and the moon which he “ordained” to mark time (Ps. 104:19).

I understand the reasons why one might read the Genesis text and arrive at the viewpoint of the 6 creation days describing 24 hour periods of time. It makes sense and a person’s intelligence should not be discounted for holding that point of view. But I do not understand why that same person would insist that everyone else see things in exactly that way as well or suffer being branded as something “other” than a Seventh-day Adventist.

(jeremy) #7

well, the standard answer to this is that egw, in addition to moses, saw creation in vision, and according to her, the six-day creation consisted of six 24-hr periods…

keep in mind that the only reason adventists question a recent fiat creation is the evidence from modern science, and in particular, its time frame…but when we consider that that time frame is based on a number of unprovable assumptions, its difficult to see why it has such weight…

(Thomas Schwartz) #8

Did you notice the last quoted piece of the original article? Then one which was originally written some 1500 years ago? Before there was a modern science?

(k_Lutz) #9


Trust the Process.

(Kevin Paulson) #10

Not the Darwinian process, I hope! The question, “What does the Flood have to do with Jesus?” is easily answered by the fact that Jesus compared this global catastrophe to the coming catastrophe that will befall the impenitent at the end of time (Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27). As the New Testament is quite clear as to the literal nature of Christ’s second coming, it is difficult to imagine the Lord using an event that never happened to illustrate an event which in fact will happen.

The Genesis Flood is not presented in the Bible as either myth or metaphor, and neither is the return of our Lord in the clouds of heaven. The attempt by this author to spiritualize what the Bible declares to be literal will not work.

(Bill Garber) #11


Your point is so true, it is difficult to imagine, and for some more than others. That is why Jesus did the imagining for us. He spoke in parables. Why should we be surprised if the whole of inspiration isn’t best appreciated in the same way.

Some who are believers in the Bible as verbally inspired and inerrant, which is a good deal more fundamental than Seventh-day Adventists are willing to include in our fundamental beliefs, follow Jesus example and imagine that the creation stories in Genesis are parables as well, based not the readers’ desire to spiritualize away the literal, but on their realization that the Hebrew word for create is used in Genesis as in, for example, Our forefathers created a great country! Before they came it was without organization or oversight, but they day by day took responsibility for its seashore, then its rivers and streams, and its flora, and its fauna, its minerals, and its people and their relationships, as well as for its holidays. Indeed their first holiday was Founders day, celebrated weekly. Or something like that.

What doesn’t work is literalizing the metaphors regarding what Ellen White calls the ‘science of salvation.’ which she believes the study of which will occupy us for the first several thousands of years of eternity That would hardly be necessary if salvation, as well as creation, indeed the whole of the bible were to be universally understood literally. Literal just doesn’t work when it comes to God and what God does. Spiritual just isn’t literal. It is real as real can be though.

(Steve Mga) #12

As Seventh day Adventists who have our roots going back to the 1840s and 1850s we have to look at a number of things happening in the world.

  1. Beginning in the 1600s quite a few of Theologians were curious as to WHEN the world began. It is True that Bishop Ussher [Anglican] won the prize for his 4004 bc [and some say he said Oct 23 – note that date-- at 9am in the morning]. but there were a number of others with dates in the 3000s bc. All this Chronology was based somewhat on the Biblical genealogies, but were also compared to secular materials from history of old parchment records from various world kingdoms of antiquity.[Cuniform writing and Egyptian picture writing had not been broken. So no use to them.]
  2. It was also at the times of the 1600s and 1700s that EUROPEAN people [again a lot of them EUROPEAN religious clergy] began looking at the EARTH and began wanting to know a HISTORY of the Earth. And they began by just LOOKING and recording observations. The language of the EDUCATED in europe at this time was LATIN, so they could publish and write in Latiin and everyone of the European educated could read the articles and books published.
    Soon there was a division among the scholars. Some said the Universe was Eternal [no start, no end]. Others said it was Not Eternal, and it did have a start at some time by someone or something.
    All the way up to the 1850s almost ALL of this discussion about the HISTORY of the Earth was primarily confined to the European Continent by these learned men who were writing in either Latin or French, some German. Most of this had not crossed the Atlantic to America. America was primarily an “uneducated” class, was to busy to go to University, and not a lot of exploration of the world as half of the US was not even “settled” or explored.
    So our Adventist brethren were probably not aware of the goings on in Europe.
  3. They did find ‘bones’ of animals and plants in what seemed to be predictable spots on the various types of earth formations. And in doing so attempted to define how they got there based on the Flood theory. And had a lot of difficulty trying to get that to fit into the time frame.
  4. Eventually Geologists [those who look for minerals] were doing their digging, and noticed weird rocks in the wrong place. Eventually they found ice “skid” marks and came up with the theory of the Ice Age. But also found Ice Age remnants in South Africa and India as well as England, Scandinavia.
  5. They began to look at how and when mountain ranges were formed. Looked at volcanoes.
  6. Finally plate tectonics was discovered.
  7. But in researching the HISTORY of EARTH which began in trying to date Creation and the Flood it was just observation which kept playing with the tension of what they saw and what they “KNEW” to be “TRUE” from Religion.
  8. Since most of our SDA believers even up to 1900 were not into the sciences they did not understand the dynamics between the “scientists” of Europe at that time, including Darwin [printed his book in 1859] who was looked on with suspicion by some of his European contemporaries.

I have been reading a very good text book on the HISTORY of the EARTH. [Not describing Evolution, or promoting Evolution, JUST the History of the Earth as written by those persons of 1600 to the 1900s to each other in pamphlets and books, many of them highly illustrated.].
"Earth’s Deep History [How it was Discovered, and WHY it Matters], Martin J. S. Rudwick, University of Chicago Press:2014. Martin is a many years teacher of paleontology and is a geologist. Both at Univ of Calif-San Diego, and Cambridge University.
IF you REALLY want to be able to understand the PROBLEMS that our SDA teachers are talking about, Then, you REALLY Need to Read this great Textbook. I think if I was teaching Biology in either High School or College, I would make this a book on the reading list It is really a great HISTORY book of not only the Earth, but of the Men and a couple of Women who were attempting to reconcile what they saw and what they believed.

(Kevin Paulson) #13

Neither creation nor the Flood are presented in the Bible as parables. They are treated as literal events, as is evident in the apostle Peter’s references to the Flood story as an example of God’s judgment upon evildoers (I Peter 3:20; II Peter 2:5). If the Flood as described in the Bible really didn’t happen, then today’s doers of iniquity can console themselves that the ultimate consequences of their actions as foretold in Scripture won’t likely happen either.

(Bille) #14

There are no scientists who are claiming that there was no flood as is described in scripture. The problem comes when biblicists claim that there was 1) only ONE flood, 2) that this ONE flood accounts for all of the mountain building, 3) all of the geologic column, and 4) all of the fossil formation.

There IS plenty of evidence for floods in different localities at differing times which were widespread enough to have appeared to the inhabitants involved as though they were world-wide. Scripture will gain much more than it loses if one allows God’s First Book (His Works) equal standing with His Second Book (that of His Words).

(k_Lutz) #15

I am replying to myself to see Kevin’s reply, if indeed, he truly replied to a :thumbsup:

Trust the Process.

Edit: He did! Here’s an attaboy for you, @kevindpaulson: :thumbsup:

(Elaine Nelson) #16

The flood described in the Bible covered the entire world, even tops of mountains.
Scientists do not take this literally, but understand that the “world” that ancients knew was very limited as they had no idea of the world we know today.

This causes differing positions today as some still believe that the entire world that we know today was covered by water. Another example of interpreting literally what was believed thousands of years ago, but not today. Context is everything.

(jeremy) #17

i doubt whether many scientists have any concern for what’s in the bible…biblical and apparent scientific incongruence is a purely adventist dilemma…no-one else cares…

(Bille) #18

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

This response not only shows how little you actually know about the subject you are pontificating about but also is a gross insult to the many dedicated Christians who are also scientists… including our own Adventist scientists.

(Gerald Bryant) #19

What makes you think that the author is arguing against a literal Flood?

(jeremy) #20

who’s pontificating…i’m merely stating my opinion that biblical and scientific incongruence with respect to origins is an adventist dilemma…have you heard of any other denominations whose leadership has made belief in a fiat creation a test of employment and/or membership…