In my own personal experience with young-earth creationists, the main argument I have heard used against old-earth believers is that they are "comprimisers" who "place science above scripture". They tend to argue that scripture should never be "reinterpreted" based on scientific discoveries.


The young-earth believers I am familiar with accept the scientific evidence of heliocentrism.
My problem with this though, is that this makes their own arguments become inconsistent with their own beliefs.



Before the scientific concept of heliocentrism was accepted, verses such as Joshua 10: 12-13 were cited as clear evidence of geocentrism because "the sun stood still" would obviously imply that it is moving around the earth. Thus when heliocentrism was proven, people looked to scripture and discovered that there were actually passages that imply heliocentrism and that verses like the one above were interpreted incorrectly. Science was able to shed light on how scripture should be interpreted.

My question for these believers would be how do they justify condemning others for doing precisely the same thing they themselves do? Is this not clearly hypocrisy? (I'm not trying to antagonize anyone using the word hypocrisy, it simply seems to fit. Please correct me if I am making any false assumptions or errors.)

I am a young earth creationist. http://www.answersingenesis.org/ reinforced by belief. It makes more sense.

Hoochman : You are completely avoiding my question. Why don't you answer my question directly? Can you explain how you justify letting science influence your interpretation about geocentrism, but not letting it influence any other part of your interpretation. How are you not just as much a "compromiser" as the old-earth people you label as "compromisers"? (I'm assuming you label old-earth people as compromisers, please correct me if I'm wrong)

I fail to see any sense in this whatsoever. Most young-earth creationists seem to think every belief they have is righteous and they cannot possibly be wrong. But if even their most widely used argument is contradictory to their own beliefs, how can they be so sure they cannot possibly be wrong?

Also, please do not make blanket statements like "it makes more sense" that imply your beliefs make more sense than mine, especially if you are going to run away from the question and not provide any evidence supporting your claim. It may make more sense to you personally, but not me.

I honestly do not have any problem with young-earth creationism, but I do have a problem when people who hold this belief claim that their interpretation is the only literal interpretation supported by scripture when old-earth interpretations are both literal and supported by scripture.

I hear you dmalbrecht. If I had thumbs to give, I'd give some to you for this. Everyone wants answers. Now that we have some, I think it's best if we open ourselves up to them.

dmalbrecht : You're making a lot of assumptions here. But anyways, I'll carry on...
What we have here are two completely different scenarios. When it comes to heliocentric vs geocentric beliefs, it was all merely overlooking other verses to concentrate on that one as claim for their evidence.
But for old earth vs. new earth, there's a flaw in your argument: You've neglected to mention that there are no verses that give proof to an old-earth theory. Now if you have some that you think agree, by all means post them and we can discuss. But as you mentioned yourself, the shift in vision from geocentric to heliocentric was backed by Biblical verses, not just science being "able to shed light on how scripture should be interpreted". So, give me Bible verses supporting old earth theory (or at least in your mind) or else you've failed to address our reasons.

I think by claiming scripture exists outside of science, people are actually setting up their own trap. It also seems to be marginalizing any "intelligence" or insight they claim scripture has by essentially admitting it's outdated, or denying science/all of human invention (and I don't see why someone can justify that the same "science", as a general study, that's brought electricity and computers and penicillin and water/gas/etc... infrastructure, etc... that they use in their daily lives is such a farce.

I don't really care about religion, but I'm neither an atheist nor an agnostic, either (and, if I were to define my beliefs, Christian is the closest). And I've read key (and not so key) texts from every major world religion (and a few minor ones), and it seems it should be taken as allegory/metaphor (and they all, at their core, say roughly the same). The purpose of the Bible isn't to give a scientific analysis of the earth - it's a historical document explaining man's place, journey, etc... as affected by God/natural laws. Point being, I think Christians would actually garner more respect and be taken more seriously (not that they aren't already - let's face it, in most of the Western world, Christianity rules, despite what some Christians like to claim) if they were to accept/admit that scripture and science aren't necessarily at odds, and that scripture can in fact benefit (in interpretation and perhaps validation) from accepting science and applying it to the texts.

The line "the sun stood still", for example, would be from our perspective on Earth - not meant as a scientific fact, but as our *place*. The Bible seeks to explain man's, um, "quest" on this planet, not the core scientific processes of the universe. Same for new/old Earth. As for Genesis/creation, it also seems clear it's not meant to be taken literally... first of all because later there are passages about a day being a x amount of time (and the time varies depending on situation), and secondly because God is obviously giving commands... who would God be commanding? It's obviously intended to be a poetic telling.

As for the Bible saying things... keep in mind the Bible also says men should shave except when mourning, etc, etc, etc... It seems clear it shouldn't all be taken at face value/as hard and strict fact.

tl;dr

RimbaudRambo : People use that "day is a thousand years" quote out of context quite a bit.
2 Peter 3:8-9 read:
"‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’"
So, what does the verse mean? Firstly, this verse has nothing to do with the issue of a literal seven-day creation and young earth theory. It is saying that God exists outside the realm of human time. Also, it doesn't say a day is a thousand years, just that it is like a thousand years, a simile, reinforcing that God exists outside time.
But anyways, that has nothing to do with the Genesis accounts, which although inspired by God were written by Moses. If God meant for Moses to show them as lasting thousands of years, he probably would have said to say a thousand years. Not certain, but still probable.
Another problem with the "day is a thousand years" theory is the framing: Every account is concluded with "And there was evening, and there was morning, the xth day". Um, yeah, doesn't really fit years... but there is one evening and one morning on literal days, so it fits perfectly.
EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot to add this article, it explains it better than I can
http://creation.com/2-peter-38-one-day-is-like-a-thousand-years

the earth i rather old and there's evidence of that

bigNATE : I completely understand I am making many assumptions here about young-earth creationists (which is why I admitted that fact earlier). I fully understand that not everyone who believes in a young-earth holds the exact same beliefs. I am simply addressing some issues I have the young-earth beliefs I have personally encountered, which seem generally true from the research I have done.

First of all I disagree about your claim that an old-earth is not supported scripturally. There is actually a pretty large amount of evidence so I hope you don't expect me to type it all.

I could argue that the context of Genesis 1 strongly agrees with the long day interpretation. For example, God always says "Let there be". This would imply to me that the universe was created in Gen. 1:1 and God proceeded to "let" or allow the earth to form by the natural laws that He Himself created. That seems reasonable enough doesn't it? Why condemn someone for that?

As you might or might not know the Hebrew word yom has three different literal interpretations: sunrise to sunset, a 24 hour period, or an unspecified amount of time.

Now some people claim that Genesis days must be 24 hours because whenever the Hebrew words ereb (evening) and boqer (morning) are used with the word yom (days), yom always means a 24 hour day. This is not true. People fail to recognize that these words can also be literally translated to "ending" or "beginning". The words "and there was" are also added to make the english flow more naturally. The order of these words is pretty unusual as well, evening then morning. This seems to suggest to me that text is saying the ending of one day followed was followed by the beginning of the next. I would also say it is important that the seventh day doesn't seem to have ended. In fact, Hebrews 4: 4-11 seems to suggest that we can enter God's seventh day of rest. Therefore, the seventh day continues to the present. Again I would say these reasons are pretty reasonable aren't they?

Another claim is that the words echad yom (one day, few days, etc.) used together always refer to 24 hour days. Also not true.

Here's a link with some verses where echad yom, ereb, and boqer are used that do not indicate 24 hour time periods. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Some more evidence. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

I could also get into how young earth beliefs seem to depend on the great flood being global, while I would say that it seems to be local. I don't see how a 450x75x45 ft arc could hold every single insect, much less every single dinosaur. Again I can provide evidence if I must but I think I'm done for the day.

*Edit: I would also like to add that all I'm asking for is a little humility from young-earthers. I by no means think my interpretation is without error or that it is impossible that it is wrong. It just seems a lot more likely to me.

dmalbrecht : Good, you've addressed it well. There are couple flaws in your argument though:
The evening/morning placement was due to the Hebrew method of measuring days: They measured from sunset to sunset, so in other words the evening would come first for them.

Also, your Noah's ark argument is overlooking numbers:
2 of every unclean animal
14 of every clean (for eating and sacrifice)
Plus, you're forgetting that it never specified anything regarding age or size: he could have had small, young dinosaurs and elephants and all that on the ark. They didn't have to be full-sized. But regardless, if it was only local, he would have only had to take animals that were native ONLY to his land. Why take animals that can be found elsewhere if it's just local?
There's more I could say, but it can wait till I gather a better argument.

dmalbrecht : Well, now that I can write about this, instead of responding to your message. I'll start with your topic at hand.

It is very possible for both sides to use scripture to conform with science. We don't want to do that. We need to know what the verse is saying, and actually trust it.

Now in reference to your two points on "yom" and "a local flood":

Young Earth Creationists don't say that "yom" means a 24-hour day wherever it is placed. We know that "yom" have different meanings. It all depends on context. This context is clearly talking about a day. Every version of the Bible has translated "evening" and "morning" as the context to be "evening" and "morning." Also, there is one more verse that one can tell about the context saying that it is a "day" :

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." (Genesis 1:3)

God called the light "DAY" which is the same "yom." Day and night is defined here, and starts the series of "evening" and "morning".

A good site for you to look is blueletterbible.org, which writes out the greek and hebrew, compare the same usage of the original language, different translation, commentaries, and other things that can help look at the context.

As for the flood, it is definitely a global flood. If you read the description: "forty days and forty nights," "covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet," "The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days." These descriptions are no local flood.

If we take those descriptions out (which we should not), if the flood was local, and God warned Noah about it...why make an ark? Spend sooo much time building the ark, when they could have just went somewhere else, move the animals to another location.

It is without a doubt a global flood.

RimbaudRambo : There were a few things that I agree with you, however, just some clarification.

"Point being, I think Christians would actually garner more respect and be taken more seriously if they were to accept/admit that scripture and science aren't necessarily at odds, and that scripture can in fact benefit from accepting science and applying it to the texts."

I know that a majority of Christians believe the scripture and science are not at odds against each other. But it is the idea that the Bible is infallible while science can be fallible.

A preacher named Steve Lawson said this pretty well: "The Bible never catches up to science, science always catches up to the Bible."

One must not forget that some significant discoveries are found by people who do believe in God and are motivated by their believe in God:

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." -Albert Einstein

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator." -Louis Pasteur

Matthew Maury discovered the currents under the sea after reading this verse in the Bible:
"the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas." (Psalms 8:8)

James Maxwell, the Electromagnetism guy, believed that as a Christian, we need to study what God has created in this world as an act of worship.

"first of all because later there are passages about a day being a x amount of time (and the time varies depending on situation), and secondly because God is obviously giving commands... who would God be commanding? It's obviously intended to be a poetic telling."

bigNATE put it very well in terms of your first point...it is out of context. As for your second point, God is commanding creation...the idea is that God spoke everything into existence.

"As for the Bible saying things... keep in mind the Bible also says men should shave except when mourning, etc, etc, etc... It seems clear it shouldn't all be taken at face value/as hard and strict fact"

You need to understand the hermeneutics of the Bible, which in this case, is a cultural difference. I don't remember whether the Bible actually says that men are SUPPOSE to shave when mourning, but either way, you are talking about a cultural difference, and this should be taken in face value according to the context, culture, time period, and covenant in this verse.

bigNATE : Where in the world have you been?!?!

play4fun : I really want to keep this going. I wish I had more time focus on this but I've been pretty busy lately. Whenever I get the chance I'll be sure to respond to some of your arguments.

I'll edit my post since I can't have two replies in a row.

play4fun: "It is very possible for both sides to use scripture to conform with science. We don't want to do that. We need to know what the verse is saying, and actually trust it."

I still do not understand how young-earth creationists justify their own belief in heliocentrism. You conveniently say heliocentrism is trustworthy, but how? I can honestly say that if I was reading the Bible without any knowledge of the concept of heliocentrism, then it would seem very obvious to me that the sun revolves around the earth. No matter how you try and spin it, you are using science to interpret the Bible, which is precisely why young-earth creationists condemn old-earth creationists. I am very confused by these contradictory beliefs.

There are even geocentrists today that argue heliocentrism has no support scientifically or scripturally. Does this sound familiar?

When reading some of these geocentric arguments, I found it extremely ironic that their arguments were almost completely identical to other young-earth arguments condemning old-earth creationists. Honestly, I found these arguments oddly convincing because I didn't know how to respond to them.
Geocentrists even have "scientific" arguments to support them. They claim that geocentrism is "pure physics, mathematically tractable, and realistic, and consistent with scripture" just how young-earth creationists claim their "flood geology" is purely scientific.
They believe that the entire world has been brainwashed by fallible science into believing heliocentrism just like young-earthers believe everyone else has been brainwashed into believing the earth is old.
They also condemn anyone who accepts heliocentrism as a heretic going against the Word of God. This sounds very familiar.

geocentric arguments: http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/fresp/index.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part6.html
http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/

Now concerning the flood. Obviously the context describes the flood as a giant disastrous event. Noah building the arc was a constant warning to the people. They had so much time to believe so that in the end they had no excuse for their mistake. Maybe God was just giving them every opportunity to have faith in Him. If Noah had simply left one day, that would not have been much of a warning to the people. Yes, God could have sent Noah on a long journey but he didn't, so you don't have much of an argument unless you think you can explain how God thinks. God does what He wants.


Also "all the earth" (kol erets) does not refer to the entire planet in most cases.

Gen 8:5 the mountain tops were now visible, but in Gen 8:9 water covered the surface of all the earth. Obviously the entire surface could not have been covered if the mountains were visible. Who's to say the rest of the flood account refers to the entire planet? Also, the Hebrew word for mountains could also be translated as hills.

dmalbrecht : "I still do not understand how young-earth creationists justify their own belief in heliocentrism. You conveniently say heliocentrism is trustworthy, but how? I can honestly say that if I was reading the Bible without any knowledge of the concept of heliocentrism, then it would seem very obvious to me that the sun revolves around the earth. No matter how you try and spin it, you are using science to interpret the Bible, which is precisely why young-earth creationists condemn old-earth creationists. I am very confused by these contradictory beliefs."

Here is what I meant by pushing science onto scripture (I don't know if this is what other people mean). When I say that, I mean that if there is something stated in the Bible that was written and meant by original intent to mean one thing, but to have a scientific theory to come up and then, in order to feel compatible and relevant to the scientific community, they change the meaning to something that was not intended to be changed, especially when examining context, historical background, covenant, time, and other information. That is what I believe that theistic evolution is. It is not compatible between Christian beliefs and evolution.

This is what we call Eisegesis, which means interpreting into scripture with your presuppositions and ideas already used as a lens to interpret scripture, when we should be practicing Exegesis, which means that we take everything out from scripture in context without trying to put our understanding into it.

"There are even geocentrists today that argue heliocentrism has no support scientifically or scripturally. Does this sound familiar?"

No, and I feel that this is a huge minority.

If you don't mind, I'm not going to read through the links that you gave me, because if you are to go back to the scriptures that they posted, they are referring back to verses that are written in the point of view of man observing the sky. Neither the geocentric view or the Heliocentric view contradict scripture. There is just not really much talking about the idea of the world. And you might be right that if read the Bible with no understanding of these ideas, one might say that it is geocentric, but there is just not enough extensive verses that would make a claim like that. And we believe in heliocentric view not only because I dont see much scriptural discussion about it. Especially since we have space probes and the understanding of gravity.

(also...I don't have time to right at this moment. If you really really want me to read them, let me know, and I'll do them as soon as I can.)

"Now concerning the flood. Obviously the context describes the flood as a giant disastrous event. Noah building the arc was a constant warning to the people. They had so much time to believe so that in the end they had no excuse for their mistake. Maybe God was just giving them every opportunity to have faith in Him. If Noah had simply left one day, that would not have been much of a warning to the people. Yes, God could have sent Noah on a long journey but he didn't, so you don't have much of an argument unless you think you can explain how God thinks. God does what He wants."

That is a good concept, that the time Noah took to make the ark was also a second chance for others, although the rest were wicked, and take no heed to the warning, however, the time was given for Noah to make this huge vessel so that it would survive a flood that would leave no place for safety on earth.

"Also "all the earth" (kol erets) does not refer to the entire planet in most cases.

Gen 8:5 the mountain tops were now visible, but in Gen 8:9 water covered the surface of all the earth. Obviously the entire surface could not have been covered if the mountains were visible. Who's to say the rest of the flood account refers to the entire planet? Also, the Hebrew word for mountains could also be translated as hills."

The verses you are referencing is when the "40 days and 40 nights" of raining ended and when "The water receded steadily from the earth" (verse 3). Remember how they were before they start to recede: "covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet," "The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days." We could not see the mountains till the 10th month after the rain stopped.

This is really something that is clear. The only reason that one does not believe this is what scripture is saying is that the person himself has a presupposition that there was no global flood (eisegesis).

play4fun : "Here is what I meant by pushing science onto scripture (I don't know if this is what other people mean). When I say that, I mean that if there is something stated in the Bible that was written and meant by original intent to mean one thing, but to have a scientific theory to come up and then, in order to feel compatible and relevant to the scientific community, they change the meaning to something that was not intended to be changed."

"This is what we call Eisegesis, which means interpreting into scripture with your presuppositions and ideas already used as a lens to interpret scripture, when we should be practicing Exegesis, which means that we take everything out from scripture in context without trying to put our understanding into it."

I could throw the same argument right back at you. How exactly do you know that you aren't the one forcing presuppositions upon the Bible? Didn't geocentrists say the same exact thing to heliocentrists and was it not the geocentrists who were forcing their own presuppositions on the Bible? How do you know you aren't making the same mistake?

I honestly just can't comprehend the difference between the situation now and the situation then. I didn't expect you to read all the geocentric arguments, but if you did read them they might sound similar to some young-earth arguments. I only skimmed over them but from what I've read they seem to have an argument to answer every possible question you could ask them. Basically, they say that gravity is not enough proof and that heliocentrism is based on assumptions. I think they also address satellites. Yes, I think their arguments are ridiculous but I also think most young-earth arguments are just as bad; for example, the speed of light has decreased exponentially over time and that's why stars only appear to be far away, or the flood somehow coincidentally rearranged the sediment layers so that humans are nowhere near dinosaurs. How are these arguments any different from geocentric arguments? I just don't see it, although I'm sure you would disagree.

You also mention theistic evolution. I don't think I've tried to defend such an idea. Actually, from what I've researched it seems that the more scientists learn, the less likely evolution seems to be. Scientists believed "junk DNA" was proof of our evolution because this DNA was seemingly useless and unnecessary, so why would God have created us with useless parts? Recently, scientists have discovered that this junk DNA probably isn't junk at all, which reinforces intelligent design. Also, recent molecular biology studies suggest the first humans could have appeared as early as 50,000 years ago. This would agree pretty well with the Bible which states that its message has been heard through 1000 generations. I don't think these are all coincidences.


My whole problem is that I just don't understand why young-earth creationists think heliocentrism should be an exception to their own rule. Yes, I'm sure some of my arguments may be flawed since am I am by no means a Biblical scholar, but I don't see how what I'm saying is corrupting the scripture.

I realize the passages I quoted are after the rain had stopped. That does not change the fact that the Bible says the entire surface of the earth was covered in water just after it stated that the mountains were visible. I was just giving you proof that "whole earth" doesn't necessarily mean the entire planet. If you think about the historical context of the flood, then a local flood would make sense because humans at that time lived in the same geographic region. The whole earth could just be referring to the people's own scope of the earth or just the entire human population of the earth, which existed in the same region. I can provide examples in the Bible where kol erets (all the earth) refers to the people of the earth if you want.

Also, if the arc had been at such high elevations as you describe, how could all the animals breath? This would reinforce the idea that mountains should be translated as hills and would also suggest that the translations are skewed by presupposition to support a global flood. Sure you can argue divine intervention allowed the animals to breath but that wouldn't be very fair because I don't think there is any evidence to support that. It's certainly a possibility but arguing that would border on eisegesis wouldn't it?

dmalbrecht : "I could throw the same argument right back at you. How exactly do you know that you aren't the one forcing presuppositions upon the Bible? Didn't geocentrists say the same exact thing to heliocentrists and was it not the geocentrists who were forcing their own presuppositions on the Bible? How do you know you aren't making the same mistake?"

Exegesis reexplained:
Exegesis is basically you read what it actually says and then get things out from what it says. An example of interpreting into the text is like you know a theory and you interpret everything according to that theory in order to fit it, instead of first plainly read it, and then know the background of the text, other information, and THEN interpret it based on those information, not from a specific idea that you have already.

heliocentrisity vs geocentricity based on Bible?:
There is no problem here, at least to me, on heliocentrisity and geocentricity because of the fact that the Bible DOES NOT make an EXCLUSIVE CLAIM about it, but only descriptions of what happened to the sun and the moon and the stars in a man's point of view. You can't get geocentricity from the Bible either, because those descriptions are from our eye's point of view, and that description supports both view, but know nothing of the outside picture.

From your examples:
So for one of blog sites that you listed, he's wrong about saying that heliocentric is not supportive with the Bible, because there's no claim from it. As for those who say that it would be "mathematically accurate"....the math would technically be the same. The only difference would be the reference frame(Home frame, Away frame) would be different, and by the theory of relativity, the times would be different, but if you move one frame on top of the other, you should get the same time data, mathematically. Also, heliocentricity is not just based on the movement of the planets, but also comets and asteroids. If you hold to the view of geocentricity, the comets and asteroids would not be going in a straight vector, but in swirls. this goes the same with your outer planets, they would be swirling.

"Yes, I think their arguments are ridiculous but I also think most young-earth arguments are just as bad; for example, the speed of light has decreased exponentially over time and that's why stars only appear to be far away,"

How is that even a young earth argument? I don't think that is even a widely supported argument.

"or the flood somehow coincidentally rearranged the sediment layers so that humans are nowhere near dinosaurs."

well biblically, that is wrong, because there is a description of a dinosaur in the Bible. So we can forget about the rearrangement argument.

To be honest, I have never heard of any of these arguments that claim to be "young earth". Are you sure these are credible?

"You also mention theistic evolution. I don't think I've tried to defend such an idea."
I only used it as an example of eisgesis.

"I realize the passages I quoted are after the rain had stopped. That does not change the fact that the Bible says the entire surface of the earth was covered in water just after it stated that the mountains were visible. I was just giving you proof that "whole earth" doesn't necessarily mean the entire planet. If you think about the historical context of the flood, then a local flood would make sense because humans at that time lived in the same geographic region. The whole earth could just be referring to the people's own scope of the earth or just the entire human population of the earth, which existed in the same region. I can provide examples in the Bible where kol erets (all the earth) refers to the people of the earth if you want."

kol erets issue:
Again, giving examples of where kol erets is not referring to the whole earth does not mean that all places mean that. You need to look at the context. Example: Eret is used in Genesis 1:1.

magnitude of the flood:
What I was trying to tell you is that a local flood would not have descriptions of that magnitude, and would not have taken that long for the waters to recede.

"surface" issue:
Also, as for the "surface", it is talking about the lower ground, not the mountains. look at the context: "But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark." (Genesis 8:9) Now look at the verse BEFORE the verse: "Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground." (Genesis 8:8) So at this point, the higher grounds are visible now, but not the lower grounds where humans and animals and plants actually live. This is why we wait till verse 11: "When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth."

And what did Noah do? Everybody off the boat!!

"Also, if the arc had been at such high elevations as you describe, how could all the animals breath? This would reinforce the idea that mountains should be translated as hills and would also suggest that the translations are skewed by presupposition to support a global flood. Sure you can argue divine intervention allowed the animals to breath but that wouldn't be very fair because I don't think there is any evidence to support that."

2 things:
1. You can't just choose whatever definition you want on a word that could have different meanings. That is not good scholarship. You need to go back and look at the context if it does have different meanings. This works for English as well. When an English word has a different meaning, you look at the sentences surrounding that word to know what it actually means. Also, translation really depends on whether you got a Bible that is a "word for word translation Bible", but I don't think any of them interpret them to be hills. Finally, read where the ark is located in the end: "MOUNT Ararat". And to say that the people will not see the peaks of the mountains until 3 months later, we can say that it is near the top.

2. If it is something of divine intervention, why would you need prove for it?

Few more things that indicate that it is a global flood from the reading of scripture:
1. If it is a local flood, the future verses will contradict that view. Many of the verses reference to the flood as destroying the whole earth, to the point of comparing it to the great judgment to come.(Isaiah 54:9,Matthew 24:37–39,2 Peter 3:6–7) Even Jesus reference it.
2. The rainbow, God's covenant: "And God said, 'This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.'" (Genesis 9:12-16) If this were a local flood, then God has broken His promise. (more than multiple times).

I'm just gonna be the typical believer of what them evil scientists say, and believe in the old Earth. For one, layers! I can't think of the Earth as under at least a million years old without feeling confused. I don't understand how our mountains could be formed in such a small period of time. How could creatures become what they are today in that period of time? We have a crapload of evidence of biblical events happening, like the discovery of Noah's ark. We also have a crapload of evidence of tons of change.

I'll use the growing example. When a teenager grows, you can see stretch marks. This is a sign of growing up. If we cut down certain trees, for all we know, we might find rings over 6000 years. I'm not trying to disprove anything, but rather, say why I believe something.

KlawedFlaw : Looking in the Antarctic ice sheet will do the same too but in hundreds of thousands of years. Seriously, you can go down there and count the layers (each layer is formed from the snow from each Winter).

play4fun : Sorry I've been avoiding the board cause I've been busy and didn't want to get sucked into time consuming debates.

"Exegesis reexplained:
Exegesis is basically you read what it actually says and then get things out from what it says. An example of interpreting into the text is like you know a theory and you interpret everything according to that theory in order to fit it, instead of first plainly read it, and then know the background of the text, other information, and THEN interpret it based on those information, not from a specific idea that you have already."

Ok, this doesn't really answer my quesiton. I still don't understand why this doesn't apply to you. Do you not understand how similar this argument is to the heliocentric/geocentric argument? One side had a presupposition they forced upon the Bible. This presupposition was proven wrong and the interpretation of the Bible was altered. Can you explain how holding onto the young-earth interpretation despite overwhelming evidence against it is any different? Yes, you think heliocentrism is "trustworthy", but why is it more trustworthy than any other scientific discovery that you reject. You are still forcing a specific idea that you have on the Bible.

Also, if you don't think the speed of light has decreased then how on earth can you explain the fact that stars are billions of light years away? Surely you know that light must travel to earth for us to see it and some stars we see don't even exist anymore because they are so far away they have burned out before the light had time to reach us. I assume you know that when we see the moon we actually are seeing it at its position 3 seconds before and the sun 3 minutes before (I might be wrong about the time, but you get the idea). Obviously if a star is a billion light years away, the light from it has traveled a billion years making the universe much older than you claim it is. Of course this argument isn't credible but that's seems to be the only way young-earthers can explain this problem. Maybe you have a better explanation.

As for dinosaurs in the Bible, if they truly coexisted with humans how is it that there is absolutely no evidence of this? If they existed together why are dinosaurs found so far beneath humans in the sediment layers? I hope you don't try and use the alleged dinosaur footprints with human footprints found inside them as proof. Those are pretty obviously dinosaur footprints and they have been researched and proven to be dinosaur footprints. Henry Morris intentionally misrepresented them as human footprints even after he was shown proof and admitted himself that they were most likely dinosaur footprints. It also doesn't make sense that humans would be living in such close proximity to dinosaurs; logically they would not be walking next to them in riverbeds, they would avoid them.

I have heard this particular argument in a young-earth service that I personally attended and I watched as the entire congregation accepted it without question, so I do know for a fact that the sediment rearrangement argument is used by some.

I assume you think the behemoth described in Job is a large dinosaur like a brachiosaurus since it says it has a tail like a cedar. A plain reading of the passage will show this cannot be true or at least is extremely unlikely. It goes on to say that it lies under the lotus plants and is hidden among the reeds. Now what kind of lotus plant could provide shade to a brachiosaurus and what kind of reed could possibly conceal one; especially if its tail alone is as large as a cedar tree? It seems pretty obvious to me that this interpretation is flawed.

The language describing these animals is poetic and dramatic so I don't exactly think it should just be taken at face value. Does a horse literally laugh at fear? Are they really afraid nothing? I have horses and they are pretty easy to scare; you just have to make a sudden movement, so obviously this is just for dramatic effect just like the leviathan breathing fire. I've heard this argument over and over so I'm sure you'll probably say something about different cultures having dragon stories. Didn't both the greeks and egyptians have sphinxes? Does that mean that the sphinx is real? Why would the dragons also have such different images? Correct me if I'm wrong but the Chinese/Oriental dragon looks similar to a snake and other dragons have wings etc. Why would they differ between cultures unless they were fictional? I'm not against the idea of dragons existing, I think it would be pretty awesome if they did but it just doesn't make sense to me to believe something based on such flimsy reasoning. If you could prove dragons existed I would love it, it would feel like I was in a Harry Potter book lol.

Now, regarding the dove and the olive branch; birds cannot fly for unlimited distances, they will eventually get tired and have to rest. I would reason that the entire earth was not completely covered but the ground was not yet in the bird's range of flight. Also how could the ark land at the top of the mountain if the water had receded to the point that olive trees could grow? They cannot grow on top of mountains. How was there even enough time for the tree to grow if the entire world was destroyed? The fact that animals could not breath at high elevations and all the other facts mentioned provide the context that the water was not covering the entire earth. I do not have to assume something not indicated in the text to support my interpretation.

When there is divine intervention in the Bible doesn't the text indicate it? For example, doesn't it indicate that the Israelites clothing was prevented from detereorating in the desert? When mana falls from the sky isn't it indicated in the text that God provided it? There is absolutely no indication in the Bible that God in some way allowed the animals to breath at high elevations. By saying that divine intervention allowed the animals to breath you are adding something to the Bible that is not there based on your own theory. How is adding something not indicated in the text to fit one's theory not eisegesis? My interpretation does not add anything but uses what the Bible presents to determine what happened.

Mount Ararat does not necessarily mean the top of Mount Ararat, the only reason to believe it does is if you want to believe in a young-earth. Like I have said before if you simply use logic and do not add things that are not indicated in the text, then it is pretty reasonable to believe in a local flood.

Like I said previously "whole earth" often refers to the people of the earth, so yes the flood would be similar to the final judgement because all the people of the earth will be judged just like all the people of the earth were judged during the flood. This supports my interpretation because comparing it to the final judgement makes it pretty obvious that "whole earth" means the people of the earth when judgement is referred to because God would not judge the earth itself, that wouldn't make sense.

Also the Hebrew word "tebel" always refers to the earth on a global scale. If the flood was truly meant to be interpreted as global, why is this word never used to describe the flood when it is used multiple times describing the creation? Is it just a coincidence that "erets" which can mean a portion of the earth is used?

"Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life."
Maybe you overlooked this sentence. I don't recall any more floods destroying all life. Are we all dead? Obviously God has not broken his promise.

dmalbrecht : "Ok, this doesn't really answer my quesiton. I still don't understand why this doesn't apply to you. Do you not understand how similar this argument is to the heliocentric/geocentric argument? One side had a presupposition they forced upon the Bible. This presupposition was proven wrong and the interpretation of the Bible was altered. Can you explain how holding onto the young-earth interpretation despite overwhelming evidence against it is any different? Yes, you think heliocentrism is "trustworthy", but why is it more trustworthy than any other scientific discovery that you reject. You are still forcing a specific idea that you have on the Bible."

If you read the second paragraph, I said that heliocentrism and geocentrism does not go against what the Bible says, because there is nothing in there that proves heliocentricity or geocentricity, neither does it explicitly claim that. So I'm not imposing any of my understanding into scripture to interpret it. The Bible never makes a claim for that, and I can just read it. Heliocentricity vs geocentricity is only a science issue, and there is nothing in the Bible that contributes to that discussion, so we can rely on what science and mathematics to tell us.

"Also, if you don't think the speed of light has decreased then how on earth can you explain the fact that stars are billions of light years away? Surely you know that light must travel to earth for us to see it and some stars we see don't even exist anymore because they are so far away they have burned out before the light had time to reach us. I assume you know that when we see the moon we actually are seeing it at its position 3 seconds before and the sun 3 minutes before (I might be wrong about the time, but you get the idea). Obviously if a star is a billion light years away, the light from it has traveled a billion years making the universe much older than you claim it is. Of course this argument isn't credible but that's seems to be the only way young-earthers can explain this problem. Maybe you have a better explanation."

Ok, now I know what you are talking about. I'm assuming it is the starlight conundrum. Well, I don't think any credible Creationist or intelligent design scientist would believe that the speed of light would be decreased. (There is actually conversations of whether that is true among the scientific community concerning whether speed of light actually slows down) The reason is that the speed of light is not only a constant, but it is dependent on other laws of physics, like studies in quantum mechanics and relativity. If that value changes, these laws would produce different values and it would change the way the world works. I can admit that the starlight problem is a difficulty that Creationist have, but it should not compromise the light speed numbers. There is a solution to that problem that has been suggested, and that is Synchrony Convention, which has some relation to Einstein's theory of relativity: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention.

"As for dinosaurs in the Bible, if they truly coexisted with humans how is it that there is absolutely no evidence of this?"

I'll let these guys answer that. I'm not that familiar in the process of fossilization. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/human-and-dino-fossils-together

"I have heard this particular argument in a young-earth service that I personally attended and I watched as the entire congregation accepted it without question, so I do know for a fact that the sediment rearrangement argument is used by some."

What do you mean young earth service? The only thing that I know of about sediment layers is that it is one of the evidences of a global flood. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n3/transcontinental-rock-layers

"I assume you think the behemoth described in Job is a large dinosaur like a brachiosaurus since it says it has a tail like a cedar. A plain reading of the passage will show this cannot be true or at least is extremely unlikely. It goes on to say that it lies under the lotus plants and is hidden among the reeds. Now what kind of lotus plant could provide shade to a brachiosaurus and what kind of reed could possibly conceal one; especially if its tail alone is as large as a cedar tree? It seems pretty obvious to me that this interpretation is flawed."

We don't know what these lotus plants and reeds that the author was talking about, so we cannot base it off of what we know in our time. Also, the verse said that the lotus plants and reeds are where it lives or its habitat: "Under the lotus plants he lies, in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh." The point of the whole thing is that Behemoth is HUGE:

15"Behold, Behemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
16Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.

19"He is the first of the works of God;
let him who made him bring near his sword!
20For the mountains yield food for him
where all the wild beasts play.
21Under the lotus plants he lies,
in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh.
22For his shade the lotus trees cover him;
the willows of the brook surround him.
23Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened;
he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth.
24Can one take him by his eyes,
or pierce his nose with a snare?

Even to say that "He is the FIRST of the WORKS of God" This animal must be so huge and so magnificent to have that rank. I don't think they fully think that it is a brachiosaurus, but we do know that it is something big. And it show the magnificent and the magnitude of God's creation.

"The language describing these animals is poetic and dramatic so I don't exactly think it should just be taken at face value. Does a horse literally laugh at fear? Are they really afraid nothing? I have horses and they are pretty easy to scare; you just have to make a sudden movement, so obviously this is just for dramatic effect just like the leviathan breathing fire."

Leviathan and Behemoth are not dramatic descriptions, especially with what they use those descriptions for. They use those to describe how big God is for creating them, so talking about mythical animals does not show how great God is...if He did not create them. I'm agnostic towards the existence of dragons (the ones that spits fire), but when you read these "dragons" description, it may be from the description of dinosaurs. Since Hebrew does not have a word for dinosaurs, the bible use the words that translate to sea monsters or dragons.

Now, regarding the dove and the olive branch; birds cannot fly for unlimited distances, they will eventually get tired and have to rest. I would reason that the entire earth was not completely covered but the ground was not yet in the bird's range of flight. Also how could the ark land at the top of the mountain if the water had receded to the point that olive trees could grow? They cannot grow on top of mountains. How was there even enough time for the tree to grow if the entire world was destroyed? The fact that animals could not breath at high elevations and all the other facts mentioned provide the context that the water was not covering the entire earth. I do not have to assume something not indicated in the text to support my interpretation.

umm...the birds returned because there is no evidence of land available for them to land. They did not fly unlimited distances. The tree was not from the mountain, which is why Noah did not send the birds out immediately. Read how long it takes for Noah to wait until he can release the birds. Then read how long he had to wait when the bird came back empty handed. That is why the olive branch is really important. It's an indication that "the water had receded from the earth. He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him." (Genesis 8:11-12) Remember, the surface of the earth is the ground level. No one calls mountains "the surface of the earth". If you want, we can reanalyze the those verse and see the timeline of the events of the flood. It is soo descriptive, it's amazing.

"When there is divine intervention in the Bible doesn't the text indicate it? For example, doesn't it indicate that the Israelites clothing was prevented from detereorating in the desert? When mana falls from the sky isn't it indicated in the text that God provided it? There is absolutely no indication in the Bible that God in some way allowed the animals to breath at high elevations. By saying that divine intervention allowed the animals to breath you are adding something to the Bible that is not there based on your own theory. How is adding something not indicated in the text to fit one's theory not eisegesis? My interpretation does not add anything but uses what the Bible presents to determine what happened."

It doesn't have to, there are many examples in the Bible when a supernatural phenomenon happened, they don't put "God did this" in there. So I don't need to make assumptions about whether God protected them or not. We already know that God is working here when He came to Noah and tell him to make a huge boat.

It would sound pretty funny to hear that too, especially for the audience at that time who reads the torah. "and God protected them from suffication when the waters rise above the earth because there is no oxygen in that high of an elevation and also warms the ark because the temperatures at those high levels are freezing." These are useless information to them. There is no need nor is it significant for having a mention of any of this, especially when these facts are not known to people at that time (cold temperatures and oxygen in higher levels).

Mount Ararat does not necessarily mean the top of Mount Ararat, the only reason to believe it does is if you want to believe in a young-earth. Like I have said before if you simply use logic and do not add things that are not indicated in the text, then it is pretty reasonable to believe in a local flood.

I know that, but it would have to be near the top with the *descriptions* of how long it takes for the waters to recede. It does not have to be the top, and by reading the descriptions, you can logically interpret that it must be pretty high up on the mountain.

Like I said previously "whole earth" often refers to the people of the earth, so yes the flood would be similar to the final judgement because all the people of the earth will be judged just like all the people of the earth were judged during the flood. This supports my interpretation because comparing it to the final judgement makes it pretty obvious that "whole earth" means the people of the earth when judgement is referred to because God would not judge the earth itself, that wouldn't make sense.

but the flood did not only affect the people, it also affected everything that lives around the area, and if you look at the future judgments, like the earthquakes, the natural disasters, etc, they do not only affect people either, the emphasis is on how universal these judgments are. If you read Revelation, these descriptions of judgments are affecting the earth and is not only affecting the people, but also the animals, the plants, etc. Comparing the flood to that in terms of the universal influence shows how destructive these disasters are.

"Also the Hebrew word "tebel" always refers to the earth on a global scale. If the flood was truly meant to be interpreted as global, why is this word never used to describe the flood when it is used multiple times describing the creation? Is it just a coincidence that "erets" which can mean a portion of the earth is used?"

This is not a good argument. Just because it does not have the word "tebel" does not mean that it is not a global flood. You can look at the context of the description to show that it is describing a global flood. Also, now you are flip-flopping your argument by saying that "eret" would represent a portion of the earth when you said earlier that you think that "kol eret" represents the people of the earth, which does not fit the context either. Just because a word can have different meanings, does not mean that you can pick and choose meanings for a sentence. It works that way in English or everyday conversation as well. Just because the word "crane" means a construction equipment does not mean that the sentence "A crane lives in the zoo" means a construction equipment lives in the zoo, which we know that the word "crane" can also mean bird. In this case, the bird definition makes more sense than the construction equipment. It's all about the context of the sentence.

"'Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.'
Maybe you overlooked this sentence. I don't recall any more floods destroying all life. Are we all dead? Obviously God has not broken his promise. "

Exactly...destroy all life. Floods can't destroy all life if it was a local flood. So if it were, why does God need to promise that it won't happen "again" if he did not break this promise in the first place?

Another note, you still haven't talked about the ridiculous descriptions of this flood: "rained forty days and forty nights," "covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet," "The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days." What kind of local flood can hold these types of descriptions? It is unheard of, at least from my years on earth, for a local flood with these descriptions. I mean, think about how huge the rain clouds would be to have this going for 40 days and 40 nights.

Again, I can be more sympathetic with those who believe in an old earth, but Noah's flood as a global flood is a biblical truth that is not negotiable. The only way that a person would have a problem with the global flood is to dull down the inspiration of scripture and the abilities of God to overcome what makes sense to us. Remember, "God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong" (1 Corinthians 1:27) Some things in the Bible are not going to make sense to the world or human reason. But trust the Bible in what it says, stay consistent on the hermeneutics, especially in knowing when to be figurative or literal (not good to mess this up), and it won't fail you.

Btw, I was looking at your profile, and I was wondering...what does Texas Lutheran University teach about Noah's Flood? (I have a small hunch about this, but I want to hear from you)

play4fun : "I said that heliocentrism and geocentrism does not go against what the Bible says, because there is nothing in there that proves heliocentricity or geocentricity."

It doesn't really matter that you yourself say that heliocentrism does not go against the Bible. The vast majority of people in the past and some today do say that it is against the Bible and they cite numerous Bible verses to support their claims. You say that heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is not a Biblical issue, but I think Copernicus and Galileo would disagree with you lol. The geo/heliocentric debate was most definitely a Biblical issue and the only reason it is not debated anymore is because most people actually accept the scientific evidence.
You fail to recognize that the only reason that you and I do not see geo/heliocentrism as a problem due to SCIENCE. Without the discovery of heliocentrism it is safe to assume that both of us would believe in geocentrism based on what is said in the Bible; however, the scientific discovery of heliocentrism provided us with a new context with which to interpret what was said in the Bible; therefore, by accepting heliocentrism you have set a precedent that science can provide the context used to interpret scripture.

The difference between young-earth and old-earth believers is that old-earthers continue to use science to help interpret the Bible and its context and young-earthers reject science and use their own idea of what they WANT the Bible to say to interpret the Bible, while warping and cramming science into their own narrow perspective. For example, saying the speed of light has decreased. Maybe you will try say that even without science you wouldn't think that the Bible supports geocentrism. I would say you're probably in denial.

"There is a solution to that problem that has been suggested, and that is Synchrony Convention, which has some relation to Einstein's theory of relativity"


I appreciate that you admit it's a problem. From what I gathered from your link this suggests that the universe was created fully matured and that God made the light reach the earth through divine power. I will admit this makes more sense than most theories about a young-earth, but this leads to the appearance of history debate and calls into question God's truthfulness.

Here are some problems with your theory (from http://godandscience.org/youngearth/appearance.html):

"There are a number of different scientific techniques and measurements that indicate that the universe and earth have a long history. For example, the red-shift of distant objects (Doppler effect) indicates that the universe is at least 14 billion years old. The most distant objects in the universe exhibit the largest red-shift values, which one would predict from a universe the Bible claims is expanding.2 Star color luminosity fitting indicates that the universe must be at least 14 billion years old.3 The decay of Uranium-238, seen in its Spectral line in distant objects shows the universe to be at least 12.5 billion years old.4 Supernova standard candles indicate that the universe is a minimum of 12 billion years old.5 Globular Clusters show that the universe is a minimum of 12 billion years old.6 Gravitational lensing indicates it is at least 11 billion years old.7 Light travel-time based on quasar-light sources indicates that they are a minimum of 10 billion years old. Cepheid variable stars are a minimum of 9 billion years old.8 Expanding photosphere indicates that at least some stars are a minimum of 9 billion years old.9 Star stream interactions in galaxies indicate that they are at least 8 billion years old. All these different ways of measuring the age of the universe come to the same conclusion - that the universe is a minimum of billions of year old. Since these measurements are based upon different techniques, it would be extremely unlikely that they are all wrong.

These studies are somewhat technical, but others use easily understandable concepts. For example, geometric measurement to the quasar 3C 279 indicates that the quasar is 5.9 billion light years away.10 Either the light from that quasar has been traveling for 5.9 billion years or God created a deceptive light that does not really exist at that point in space. Even easier to understand are the annual layers found at multiple site throughout the world. Carbonate deposits from the Great Bahama Bank, off the coast of Florida, has multiple layers over 14,500 feet thick, representing 12.4 million years of annual deposits. This is not rocket science - scientists need only count the layers to determine the period of time over which they were laid down. Deposits from the Green River are seen as annual layers of alternating Summer calcium carbonate and Winter organic layers. There are four million of these alternating layers, which could not have been formed by one single event, like the great flood. Many other examples of layer have been found all over the earth, including 420,000 year old ice cores from Antarctica.

In examining our Solar System, one needs to ask why God created Mercury, the Moon, and Mars completely covered with craters whereas there are almost none visible on the earth. Did God feel it was necessary to make these worlds look like they had been bombarded for millions of years with meteors? Was God so bored that He decided to throw millions of rocks at these bodies? Why did God feel the need to create the 110 mile diameter Chicxulub crater beneath Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula? On what creation day did He do this? Why are there large amounts of iridium in this crater, which is also found in meteors and in the sedimentary layers that demark the boundary of the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods?

If one is teaching that God created the universe and earth to look old, shouldn't he be able to cite some sort of biblical evidence detailing that God actually did this? On the other hand, if God created the universe to testify of His truthfulness, then one would expect to be able to find biblical support for that position. It turns out that there is zero biblical support that God created any part of His creation to merely look old. In contrast, David tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God and speak to the entire universe of this glory:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)

Job says that the creatures of the earth and the earth itself declares that all creation is the work of the hand of the Lord:

"But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you. "Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you; And let the fish of the sea declare to you. "Who among all these does not know That the hand of the LORD has done this, In whose hand is the life of every living thing, And the breath of all mankind? "Does not the ear test words, As the palate tastes its food? (Job 12:7-11)

Paul says that God has revealed the reality of his existence and attributes through His creation. The testimony is so strong that unbelievers are without excuse in rejecting God, even with only the testimony of creation.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

Does the creation declare that one of God's attributes is that He likes things to look old, even though they are young?"

"We don't know what these lotus plants and reeds that the author was talking about, so we cannot base it off of what we know in our time. Also, the verse said that the lotus plants and reeds are where it lives or its habitat: "Under the lotus plants he lies, in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh." The point of the whole thing is that Behemoth is HUGE"

Like I said before, I'm not sure how an enormous dinosaur would find shelter in a marsh. Most young-earthers believe the earth is about 6000 years old so it should be pretty safe to assume the vegetation has not changed dramatically in only a few thousand years. So unless you know of certain gigantic species of plants that inhabited this area of the Middle East that are capable of sheltering or concealing an enormous dinosaur, then your interpretation is off. (Correct me if I'm wrong about where the Book of Job takes place)

Also, I never said the words Behemoth and Leviathan were dramatic descriptions, I said the language describing them was; for example, breathing fire, tail like a cedar, etc. If you're going to take everything literally, then you would also have to believe that horses laugh, etc. Also, the text says its tail "sways" like a cedar, which could just be indicating its tail flexible and able to bend like a cedar and does not necessarily have any bearing on the creature's size.

I also think you are misinterpreting the word local. I am not talking about a flood like in New Orleans, I am also talking about an enormous flood but a regional one. At this point in time humans had not scattered over the earth, so all humans were still eliminated. When the all life on the earth is referenced it is referring to Noah's scope of the earth at that time. I'm also not sure how the flood could have been global if there was already an olive tree growing right after the flood ended. Also look at this verse:

For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the land was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. (2 Peter 3:5-6)

Why does Peter say "the world at that time", why wouldn't he just say "the world" if the entire world had been destroyed. Peter is referring to the fact that the world at that time was confined to the Mesopotamian Plain.

"It doesn't have to, there are many examples in the Bible when a supernatural phenomenon happened, they don't put "God did this" in there. So I don't need to make assumptions about whether God protected them or not. We already know that God is working here when He came to Noah and tell him to make a huge boat."

Any examples of this? Yes, it SAID God told Noah to make a boat and that He caused it to rain.

I don't really know what they teach, I've only been here two semesters. It seems like they don't believe in any type of creationism, but I've never really cared enough to ask anyone because I didn't come here because of religion. I'm guessing your school specifically teaches young-earth creationism?