As long as someone doesn’t suggest that the Regional Flood killed all of Adam’s descendants except for Noah and his immediate family, we should be quite fine with the usual parameters for the genealogical progression.
But let’s do the math for a Noah-centric cataclysm:
The usual timing for the flood is 1,650 years or so … which leaves us 4000 - 1650 = 2350 years to 1 BCE. Generally speaking, 2000 years is a reasonable time frame, even if we have to start all over with Noah and his children!
Sadly, no. Starting over in 2350 BC doesn’t give the model enough time to spread Adamic descent worldwide. Especially if his descent only spreads through a limited region of the Middle East in 1650 years. Do you see how that would be a self-contradictory scenario?
How does one use “big and small strokes of natural law”? How does that sort of intervention differ from a miracle?
No, what would be required is not failure to lead but some kind of restriction. Perhaps a wall? Because people would naturally move around if not so restricted. How did God restrict the movements of Adam’s descendants? How did he prevent them from interbreeding with people in the next village or encampment over?
More required miracles. Note that @Swamidass’s model does not incorporate miracles or even “providential activity”.
When my Pilgrim ancestors arrived in the New World… if a large school of fish were harvested just in time to deflect a time of famine, that would be considered Providence, or a Providential action by God.
Does this mean God produced the school of fish by miraculous means? Or does it mean that God arranged for the forces and powers of nature to produce the school of fish just in time for it to be of great use to God’s faithful?
Naturally, every Christian has his own opinion on such matters. But there is no doubt that there is a difference between God using miraculous powers, versus God simply arranging natural processes to produce what he wants to happen.
Were you not raised in a home where such matters were discussed, John? I find it so very odd that I have to answer questions that many Christian youngsters are perfectly able to answer… or a man of the world, such as yourself!
And based on @swamidass’s first reply to me, he doesn’t appear to support what @gbrooks9 is suggesting, since it doesn’t appear to be scientifically tenable. Y’all’s argument seems pointless in that case.
And I’m left still confused about the flood. (though not looking for advice about it from people who don’t believe there even was a flood)
I think you might be confused by what @swamidass is saying and not saying.
Do you REALLY think Joshua rejects the idea of God harnessing the powers of nature ?
Doesn’t Joshua readily accept the idea that God could be using evolutionary processes to arrive at the creation he wants? Doesn’t Joshua readily accept that God can create rain storms by means other than the exquisitely miraculous >