Noah’s flood 50,000 years ago ?!?!? Help

Many progressive creationists put Noah’s flood at 50,000 years ago. I don’t know if this is tenable considering how the context of history given to Noah’s sons includes the Canaanites and other groups that are dated to about 3,000 years ago, and Nineveh is said to have been built only a few thousand years ago, not 50,000 years ago. But Noah’s flood was said to wipe out all humanity. Now if it happened only 6,000 years ago, how could we have our current population ?!?! This is honestly driving me crazy trying to figure out. Any thoughts or considerations would be much appreciated! Also, for progressive creationists, how do you stretch out the genealogy from 100,000 years ago ( Adam’s creation for progressive creationists , give or take ) all the way to Abraham merely a few thousand years ago ? I have hope that there are answers to these questions.

3 Likes

I’m no historical scientist, but I think what they do is judge the age of a historical event by observing current conditions. But the very existence of such a flood would so warp observations as to make aging impossible

I noticed that you’ve asked a number of similar questions - are you able to share a little of why this is bothering you so much?

I cannot answer the part of your question from a progressive creationist point of view as I have not studied it and will be interested in hearing others input. A good resource for this view is, Hugh Ross, and the team from Reason to Believe has many articles and a good search tool on the site. www.reasons.org

Creation.com (young earth creationism) has an article that works through a possible population growth model since the flood for part of your question.
https://creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model
the other main resource for a young earth creationist viewpoint is answersingenesis.org

Can I ask a more important question ; are these intellectual questions causing you to sincerely doubt your faith? Do you feel as though you have to choose intellectually between these two different viewpoints; and due the amount of information to sift through it feels impossible to come to your own conclusion?

If so, be encouraged, because the promise in James is ‘if we draw close to God, He will draw close to us’.

I’d suggest that while we can research to our hearts content, and come to our own conclusions, it is more important to think about the implications of not really having a complete answer (yet). Does the lack of answer to this question completely eliminate God as the creator of the universe? if not, then does it compromise the core message that God is eternal, Jesus is God, and that he died, was buried and rose again on the third day. This post by SeanO might be of interest about ‘Levels of Doctrine’ in the thread below - and helps us to think about our questions and put them into proper perspective.

We do need answers; both intellectual ones and ones that reach to our heart (perhaps called the seat of our emotions).

As Jesus said ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength’. We certainly are not called to a non-intellectual ‘blind’ faith as someone like Richard Dawkins puts it.

I grew up as a young earth creationist and havnt quite changed views just yet, but it was helpful for me to take a step back and ask the larger question on origins. Why is there something rather than nothing?

From the article from one of John Lennox’s books:

Take, for instance, Hawking’s statement quoted above: “Because there is a law of gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Clearly, he assumes that gravity (or perhaps only the law of gravity?) exists. That is not nothing. So the universe is not created from nothing.

Worse still, the statement “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” is self-contradictory. If I say, “X creates Y,” this presupposes the existence of X in the first place in order to bring Y into existence. If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent. One might add for good measure the fact that when physicists talk about “nothing” they often mean a quantum vacuum which is manifestly not nothing. Could this be “much ado about nothing”? Hawking here is using the same incoherent “argument” as Oxford chemist Peter Atkins, also a well known atheist, who believes that “Space-time generates its own dust in the process of its own self-assembly.”(3)

Atkins dubs this the “Cosmic bootstrap” principle, referring to the self contradictory idea of a person lifting himself by pulling on his own bootlace. His Oxford colleague, philosopher of religion Keith Ward, is surely right to say that Atkins’s view of the universe is as blatantly self-contradictory as the name he gives to it, pointing out that it is “logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being in existence.” Ward concludes: “Between the hypothesis of God and the hypothesis of a cosmic bootstrap, there is no competition. We were always right to think that persons, or universes, who seek to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps are forever doomed to failure.”(4) What this shows is that nonsense remains nonsense even when talked by world-famous scientists.

Just take it slow and God will give you answers as you continue to seek Him and reflect on the person of Jesus Christ and what He has done on the cross. If you would like, feel free to share why this particular question is causing you to have some concerns, and as you say ‘honestly driving you crazy trying to figure out’. :slight_smile:

How could we have the current population if the world is 6,000 years old? That is the amount of time many Christian scientists give us.

It boils down to a couple factors. Back in those times, people had many many children, and it was seen as a gift from God to have those kids.
And even though God cut their life spans after the flood, people still had longer lives than what we have today. Abraham was close to about 180 year by the time he died.

So let’s imagine one man and one woman have about 10 children and they live a lifespan similar to our’s. That’s not any stretch of the imagination, and their children have similar amounts of kids. So by a few generations later, we already have thousands of people from one pair of parents.

This is the Reasons to Believe position. It is a resource to stimulate more discussion on this issue.

1 Like