TaN: In a video on a talk delivered by Hugh Ross (PhD), I learned and cleared up a lot of my questions regarding creation and the Great Flood or Deluge — and I tend to agree with him in many aspects, but not all. I really cannot bring myself to imagine how it could have happened if the account of Noah and the Great Flood were to be taken with literal fidelity.
First, it is logical that, without violating the laws of physics and nature by God, when the Holy Scriptures mentioned that Noah was to accommodate a pair or even more of all animals into the ark he was instructed to build, I think that it is not literal in that all animals were accommodated but only those that were considered evil by God and those that are needed to be retained (like domesticated and/or familiar animals). Moreover, it was mentioned that not all animals were boarded in pairs because these animals will have to repopulate the land and the prey need a “head start” otherwise the predators would either eat themselves into starvation and extinction or would have to refrain from eating until a sufficient preys have bred to sustain the predators. This would imply the prey animals had to be more than a pair.
Second, it is logical that, although its extent is beyond one’s comprehension, the Great Flood could not have been as all all encompassing as to be global. For one thing, there are numerous accounts of it in various, remote and supposedly unrelated and isolated (primitive) cultures and pockets of humanity — aside from the other universal account, the Christmas star, which was supposedly discovered later that it was a supernova. This would imply that there are witnesses (and survivors) in places other than that of Noah’s locale and they were not privileged to join Noah and his family in the ark so how did they survive (and lived to tell of the incident).
Third, it is but logical that not all animals were in the ark unless “all animals” had a different connotation, because the aquatic non-lung animals would have easily survived since water is their natural element. In addition, the only way aquatic creatures would have been “wiped” out during the Great Deluge would be that the oxygen level dropped dramatically and/or the water became so muddied and polluted that gills were rendered inoperative.
In conclusion, it is very interesting to realize that, in order to make sense of many puzzling things and events, it is critical that one must know when (and where) to apply or discern the need to be literal and when figurative must be applied otherwise it would make no sense at all. In understanding Biblical accounts, it is important to remember that events and things must still conform to the laws of physics and nature because I doubt if God will violate the laws He put in place.
TaN: There is perfection in this temporal and imperfect world — it is relative perfection. Our temporal definition of perfection is when something behaves or fits exactly to its intended design or function. A knife is said to be perfect when it is used to cut — but imperfect when one tries to use it as a screwdriver, even when it somehow gets the job done.
In this sense, care must taken whenever we refer to perfection and imperfection. There should be either some universal agreement and understanding of what is the default definition of perfection and there must be a qualification (for clarification) whenever we refer to perfection and imperfection.
It becomes confusing and a point and fodder of many arguments and disagreements when someone has a different understanding of what is perfection or imperfection different from ours. As someone has once said — I think it could be Montaigne, but I could be wrong — and I paraphrase: Most of the disagreements and conflicts in the world is due to semantics.
Therefore it becomes a must that we either refrain from generalizing or universalizing perfection (or imperfection) or we universally adopt a standard definition of perfection (and imperfection). And we should religiously adhere to the definition in our usage. [Isn’t it amazing that the mind can conceive of such complicated ideas and concepts?!]
Similarly, there is infinity in the finite and vice versa. A simple enough explanation would be numbers. Between zero (0) and one (1), there is an infinite number of fractions and the mere fact that we have a word that “describes” infinity means or implies that we can quantify it, which invariably means there is an end or limit.
Finally, as we are in the topic of the relativity of perfection versus imperfection and of infinity versus finity, there also the relativity of time where in people entertain the possibility of going back in time, failing to realize that even if it is granted, for argument’s sake, that it has become possible to return to the past, the time traveler is still bound by his/her own time — i.e., s/he may go back in time but his/her age continues to proceed forward; s/he does not regress in age, which is his/her time.
TaN: The trouble with secrets is that when it is “revealed”, the veracity or truthfulness often cannot be verified or confirmed and thus becomes doubtful or questionable even when it is already the truth. Since it has been kept hidden, there is very little possibility of confirming the (degree of) truthfulness. Only the privileged few who have intimate knowledge of the secret can really be certain of its truthfulness.
Truth must always be volunteered. If there is some amount or degree of coercion or force in its revelation, there will always be a cloud of doubt as to whether it is really the truth — i.e., the complete truth, otherwise partial truths are not truths either.
Even truths that come from whistleblowers can be doubtful because there is always the possibility that there is an ulterior motive behind the whistleblower’s motive or intention. It could be as an act of revenge, in which case there could be a tinge of bias; there could be some untruths embedded which would mitigate or infringe on the credibility, thus the acceptability.
Biased truths are not truths. They are still and also lies.
Revelation of hidden truths should that its covertness is unintentional — i.e., its secrecy is because it was never discovered or there no malice or intent to conceal it. In other words, the truth is just unknown and not hidden.