"Among those who insist that the Flood described in Genesis cannot be actual history, two reasons stand out more than all others.
First, naturalism demands a gradual development of everything over “deep time” from simple to complex. Thus, the worldwide deposit of billions of fossils could not have been rapidly buried by a
global cataclysm as described in the Bible.
Second, those who might otherwise accept the message of the Bible are appalled by the sudden and horrific destruction of the planet by a “loving” God. Thus, the Flood must be a localized or tranquil event rather than the wrathful judgment described in Genesis. Many who embrace this kind of thinking insist that “my kind of God” could never do such a thing.
The first rationalization insists that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Peter 3:4) and that the Bible must be understood in the light of evolutionary naturalism.
The second rationalization ignores the holiness of God (Isaiah 5:16) and would also ignore the clear biblical teaching that godless rebellion brings the “wrath of God upon the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 5:6).
The first deny the evidence in the earth.
The second deny the evidence in the Word.
The first group rejects the facts of science.
The second group distorts the facts of Scripture.
Both change “the truth of God into a lie” (Romans 1:25).
HMM III
First, naturalism demands a gradual development of everything over “deep time” from simple to complex. Thus, the worldwide deposit of billions of fossils could not have been rapidly buried by a
Second, those who might otherwise accept the message of the Bible are appalled by the sudden and horrific destruction of the planet by a “loving” God. Thus, the Flood must be a localized or tranquil event rather than the wrathful judgment described in Genesis. Many who embrace this kind of thinking insist that “my kind of God” could never do such a thing.
The first rationalization insists that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Peter 3:4) and that the Bible must be understood in the light of evolutionary naturalism.
The second rationalization ignores the holiness of God (Isaiah 5:16) and would also ignore the clear biblical teaching that godless rebellion brings the “wrath of God upon the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 5:6).
The first deny the evidence in the earth.
The second deny the evidence in the Word.
The first group rejects the facts of science.
The second group distorts the facts of Scripture.
Both change “the truth of God into a lie” (Romans 1:25).
HMM III