If the flood of Noah was only local...

[ChristBearer]

Why did he have to make an ark?
and put 2 of each sort of animal in to save them from death?
Couldn't he have just walked to another area?
Couldn't the animals just escape from that region if it were a local flood?
Why did he need to take birds on the ark, if they could have just easily flew to another area?


If God promised not to allow another disaster as the flood, and the flood was local, hasn't He broken his promise?

 

[Mallon]

Why did he have to make an ark?
and put 2 of each sort of animal in to save them from death?
Couldn't he have just walked to another area?
Couldn't the animals just escape from that region if it were a local flood?
Why did he need to take birds on the ark, if they could have just easily flew to another area?

Because that's just the way the story goes.
I might similarly ask where the floodwaters went to. How did an olive tree survive the Flood? How did so many freshwater and saltwater fish survive? How did Noah get so many different animal species onto the ark?
The details don't matter. The message is what counts.

If God promised not to allow another disaster as the flood, and the flood was local, hasn't He broken his promise?

I don't know. Have we since seen a flood like the one that ravaged Noah and his family?

 

[ChristBearer]

Because that's just the way the story goes.
I might similarly ask where the floodwaters went to. They're still here. They make up the oceans we have today. How did an olive tree survive the Flood? If could have grown over the 120 days after the flood stopped. How did so many freshwater and saltwater fish survive? You're assuming the water we have today and the fish that have adapted to it were the same in Noah's day. How did Noah get so many different animal species onto the ark? He didn't. God said bring two of each kind, not each variation within the kind.
The details don't matter. The message is what counts.

I don't know. Have we since seen a flood like the one that ravaged Noah and his family? We've had many devastating floods that have killed many.

You didn't answer any of my questions. It seems completely unnecessary to go through all that trouble of getting birds if it were only local. Not only that, it's plain illogical.

 

[icedtea]

Obviously, it wasn't local.
Birds can't fly for 40 days and there would've been nowhere to rest.

 

[Deamiter]

Obviously, it wasn't local.
Birds can't fly for 40 days and there would've been nowhere to rest.

... And olive trees can't grow branches in just a couple months... Obviously it wasn't global.

 

[Mallon]

You didn't answer any of my questions. It seems completely unnecessary to go through all that trouble of getting birds if it were only local. Not only that, it's plain illogical.

I didn't realize logic was so important to you.
After all, you insist on the historicity of a global flood for which there is no geological, biogeographical, genetic, or biostratigraphic evidence.
Moreover, your answers to my querries are completely ad hoc. You force yourself to assume that the world of Noah was completely alien, with invisible barriers to heritability and homogeneous water bodies, all in an attempt to preserve your preconvictions about the historical accuracy of Genesis. Is that logical?
My point is simply that Noah's story was meant to convey a deeper message than simply a family on a big boat. Hence, arguing with evolutionary creationists about the repercusions of whether the story was meant literally is pointless. It's missing the forest for the trees.

 

[icedtea]

From the time the flood started to the time they left, it was 1 year.

 

[Deamiter]

Obviously, it wasn't local.
Birds can't fly for 40 days and there would've been nowhere to rest.

From the time the flood started to the time they left, it was 1 year.

So... what? Are you claiming that the olive tree started growing immediately when the rain started? Are you claiming that an olive tree can produce branches within this time?

 

[icedtea]

You said a couple of months. I was just letting you know it was a year.

 

[ChristBearer]

I didn't realize logic was so important to you. You don't need to insult your brother in Christ.
After all, you insist on the historicity of a global flood for which there is no geological, biogeographical, genetic, or biostratigraphic evidence. The historicity? What about all the flood legends. What about all the fault lines? What about the grand canyon? I may not know much about science, but it wouldn't matter because I'm talking strictly in terms of what the BIBLE is trying to say, not what we want it to say.
Moreover, your answers to my querries are completely ad hoc. You force yourself to assume that the world of Noah was completely alien, with invisible barriers to heritability and homogeneous water bodies, all in an attempt to preserve your preconvictions about the historical accuracy of Genesis. Is that logical? I would answer you but I don't understand you.
My point is simply that Noah's story was meant to convey a deeper message than simply a family on a big boat. Hence, arguing with evolutionary creationists about the repercusions of whether the story was meant literally is pointless. It's missing the forest for the trees.

So you admit it was meant to be taken literally? That is all my concern is.

 

[Melethiel]

If Noah only took 2 of each "kind" (whatever that is), then you must believe in super-hyper-evolution to reach the millions of species we have today.
Same goes for the fish.

If the floodwaters make up the oceans, does that mean you think there were no oceans in Noah's day?

Flood legends mean that a lot of civilizations lived near water which was prone to flood. If you examine the legends, you'll find that while similar, they all have unique aspects.

Fault lines and the grand canyon are much better explained by our current understanding of geology than by a flood.

The point of the flood story is not all the silly details you are bringing up, but that God is all-powerful. Noah built the ark because God told him to - why should we question that?

 

[Mallon]

So you admit it was meant to be taken literally? That is all my concern is.

I believe it to be a story with humble beginnings, blown up to monumental proportions, snowballing as it was verbally passed down the generations. Wouldn't be the first time this has happened (look at how Job describes crocs and hippos).
And again, regardless of how the story is told, it still retains the truths He intended we inherit.

 

[Deamiter]

You said a couple of months. I was just letting you know it was a year.

And clearly there was only a few months in which the tree could have been growing due to the floodwaters you claim covered the entire earth for the majority of this year.

I know perfectly well what you claim happened. I just have no idea how you propose an olive tree grew in the available time.

 

[icedtea]

If Noah only took 2 of each "kind" (whatever that is),

But he didn't! People don't read carefully enough.
It says he took 2 of every unclean and 7 pairs of clean animals.
This is so he could sacrifice the clean animals to God afterwards, which he most certainly did.

 

[Melethiel]

But he didn't! People don't read carefully enough.
It says he took 2 of every unclean and 7 pairs of clean animals.
This is so he could sacrifice the clean animals to God afterwards, which he most certainly did.

doesn't make any difference. same problem.
though that raises the question of how Noah knew which animals were "clean" before God revealed the Law to Moses.

 

[Deamiter]

You said a couple of months. I was just letting you know it was a year.

But he didn't! People don't read carefully enough.
It says he took 2 of every unclean and 7 pairs of clean animals.
This is so he could sacrifice the clean animals to God afterwards, which he most certainly did.

Congradulations on being right. Now can you address the point of the comments -- how do you account for the observed diversity which would require more variation and faster evolution than any evolutionary scientist has ever proposed.

In essence, if the creationists' historical reading of Genesis is correct, they require more and faster evolution then scientists have ever observed and proposed. If such incredibly fast evolution were true, it'd easily account for the diversity of the species in the last few billion years.

 

[Jadis40]

And clearly there was only a few months in which the tree could have been growing due to the floodwaters you claim covered the entire earth for the majority of this year.

I know perfectly well what you claim happened. I just have no idea how you propose an olive tree grew in the available time.

Not to mention that a flood would have killed off all the plant life too. It takes a while to grow back, if it's going to grow back at all.

A case in point happened here back in July of 2003. We have a local reservoir that was within 2 feet or so of going over the top of the bridge. The tree line is lot higher up on shore than it used to be.

I found an actual picture of this here:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1151125628054353970qpVjsG

Here's another picture:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1151126463054353970RAPaTt

That faint smudge in the background toward the right in the first picture is the top potion of a building on an observation mound...but look at the tree line in both pictures. This was a flood where it didn't last long, but it's a case in point. The trees that used to be there were killed off and haven't grown back yet, and it's been more than 2 years. (I recently drove past there, but I honestly can't remember if there are seedlings there or not, but I don't believe so, because of erosion.)

For a better idea of how big this flood was, I refer you to this page.

http://www.lars.purdue.edu/home/2003_Flood.html

There's quite a bit of difference. My local reservoir is the one in the far upper right.

A global flood would have basically obliterated ALL plant life. Look at both pictures and then tell me that after being buried under all the water of a global flood that a tree is suddenly going to sprout up when the root system would have been waterlogged and basically worthless.

The only way you're going to have trees, of any type, survive a flood is if the flood was only local in scope.

 

[ChristBearer]

If Noah only took 2 of each "kind" (whatever that is), then you must believe in super-hyper-evolution to reach the millions of species we have today. I do believe in evolution, but it depends on what you mean by the word. And it's not super hyper evolution. With a huge climate change like the one after the flood it wouldn't take long for the animals to diverge and adapt several times. I don't want to get into evolution, I just want to know what the scriptures that we have today say.
Same goes for the fish.

If the floodwaters make up the oceans, does that mean you think there were no oceans in Noah's day? Garden of Eden conditions were much much different. The earth was made to be inhabited by man. Genesis and psalms are clear that water was under the earth, the flood started once the water made cracks in the earth and shot up.

Flood legends mean that a lot of civilizations lived near water which was prone to flood. If you examine the legends, you'll find that while similar, they all have unique aspects. I find that kind of a stretch, if they lived near a flood all there stories wouldn't have the same key elements where one family went on the ark and after a global flood they repopulated the earth.

Fault lines and the grand canyon are much better explained by our current understanding of geology than by a flood. Please explain what caused the earth to be broken up with cracks and what geology says about the Grand Canyon (I believe it has been disproven that the Colorado river formed it over many years)

The point of the flood story is not all the silly details you are bringing up, but that God is all-powerful. Noah built the ark because God told him to - why should we question that? Usually in the Bible God says everything for a reason. I feel as though the intentions of God were clear, he was wiping out a world full of wicked people with a global flood. There is nothing wrong with questioning things it gets us ahead and I believe that the flood was global, and I believe that is what the scriptures clearly imply.

I believe it to be a story with humble beginnings, blown up to monumental proportions, snowballing as it was verbally passed down the generations. Wouldn't be the first time this has happened (look at how Job describes crocs and hippos). Are you talking about the Behemoth? I believe it was referring to a dinosaur with a huge tail.
And again, regardless of how the story is told, it still retains the truths He intended we inherit.

It's an interesting view that you think the scriptures got blown out of proportions... But I think God preserves His word for us accurately. I don't think He would allow it to be corrupt. I mean the Bible... It's something else!

And clearly there was only a few months in which the tree could have been growing due to the floodwaters you claim covered the entire earth for the majority of this year. The tree had 120 days to grow after the flood. I've been taught this if it is unscriptural please point it out to me and I will check it out.

I know perfectly well what you claim happened. I just have no idea how you propose an olive tree grew in the available time.

 

[gluadys]

Why did he have to make an ark?
and put 2 of each sort of animal in to save them from death?
Couldn't he have just walked to another area?
Couldn't the animals just escape from that region if it were a local flood?
Why did he need to take birds on the ark, if they could have just easily flew to another area?


If God promised not to allow another disaster as the flood, and the flood was local, hasn't He broken his promise?

If the flood of Noah was only local...
the biblical story of the flood is a story not history.
Aspects of the story have been invented and/or exaggerated to fit the story, not the history.

Nevertheless:
Why did he have to make an ark?
Because God told him to.

and put 2 of each sort of animal in to save them from death?
If there was a real-life prototype of Noah, he probably saved a few chickens and sheep and saved as many as he could.

Couldn't he have just walked to another area?
Not necessarily. Water can travel a lot faster than most people can walk. A raft or boat of some sort may have been the best way to get to safety.

Couldn't the animals just escape from that region if it were a local flood?
Some could and some couldn't.

Why did he need to take birds on the ark, if they could have just easily flew to another area?
Not all birds can fly (or swim). Chickens don't fly well or swim at all. And even good fliers have limits to how far and how long they can fly.

If God promised not to allow another disaster as the flood, and the flood was local, hasn't He broken his promise?
Not unless another flood has destroyed all flesh in the same locality in which the flood occurred. If the flood was local, the promise could be applicable only to the area where all flesh was destroyed by the flood.

Personally though, I think it is better to take the promise as tied to the story rather than to history.

 

[gluadys]

I may not know much about science, but it wouldn't matter because I'm talking strictly in terms of what the BIBLE is trying to say, not what we want it to say.

Are you not talking in terms of what you want the bible to say? Is it not your desire that the bible be speaking literally in the account of the flood?

How do you know for sure that this desire of yours is really in accord with what the bible is trying to say?