Is it wrong for christians to believe there is any truth to a local flood?

[AmericanChristian91]

Is it?

Some Christians seem to think that there is scriptural evidence for a local flood happening instead of a global flood.

The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

How should we interpret the Genesis flood account? | BioLogos

and im sure more could be found.

And of course there is large amounts of scientific evidence that goes against the idea of a global flood (though im sure said evidence would not matter for some here)

And even before reading those sources, i have always had doubts about a global flood happening. Because it sure doesn't explain how millions and millions of species, even if there is only 2 of each type, could fit onto the ark, and also how said species could all be fed (what about the meat eaters?). And wouldn't a global flood wipe out much of the resources that animals eat on the planet (so the survivors would sure have a hard time)? Also for the land animals separated by large amounts of water to where the ark is (on a different land mass), how did they get to the ark?

So i am leaning towards the flood being a local flood(s) (maybe several large floods happened throughout the world).

But i want to know, is it wrong, especially as a christian, to believe in this idea?


What are your belief on this matter?

 

[elopez]

But i want to know, is it wrong, especially as a christian, to believe in this idea?

Ask yourself this: Do you think it's wrong for those who believe in a global flood to do so? I don't see why. I just don't see this specific matter as a issue of salvation.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Ask yourself this: Do you think it's wrong for those who believe in a global flood to do so? I don't see why. I just don't see this specific matter as a issue of salvation.

No i don't think its wrong/sin, for some people to believe in a global flood.

And i know for sure, that believing one or the other, is not a requirement for salvation.

 

[Metal Minister]

No i don't think its wrong/sin, for some people to believe in a global flood.

And i know for sure, that believing one or the other, is not a requirement for salvation.

^^This is the basic point you should focus on. If you'd like an academic exercise, ask yourself this: If the flood was local, why did God have Noah build an ark? Why not have them simply leave the area? Also, science is not a hermeneutic for the scriptures. "Naturalistic Only" science may claim there was no global flood, but to be honest, how would they know? That kind of thing would be catastrophic on a scale our minds can't imagine, so how would we even know what to look for? It's never happened before or since, so there's no other history to go on. Trust in God, and His word first, and foremost, and you'll be ok! God Bless!

 

[AmericanChristian91]

^^This is the basic point you should focus on. If you'd like an academic exercise, ask yourself this: If the flood was local, why did God have Noah build an ark?

If your interested in reading views that are used to try to explain that question, there is info in the "common objections to a local flood" part in the 1st link i posted.

Anyways thanks for responding to my topic, and giving your input It is nice to here other opinions from other Christians, even if said opinions disagree.

No matter what, your right that i have to trust in God, and that would be the case no matter what flood theory i believe in.

 

[miamited]

Is it?

Some Christians seem to think that there is scriptural evidence for a local flood happening instead of a global flood.

The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

How should we interpret the Genesis flood account? | BioLogos

and im sure more could be found.

And of course there is large amounts of scientific evidence that goes against the idea of a global flood (though im sure said evidence would not matter for some here)

And even before reading those sources, i have always had doubts about a global flood happening. Because it sure doesn't explain how millions and millions of species, even if there is only 2 of each type, could fit onto the ark, and also how said species could all be fed (what about the meat eaters?). And wouldn't a global flood wipe out much of the resources that animals eat on the planet (so the survivors would sure have a hard time)? Also for the land animals separated by large amounts of water to where the ark is (on a different land mass), how did they get to the ark?

So i am leaning towards the flood being a local flood(s) (maybe several large floods happened throughout the world).

But i want to know, is it wrong, especially as a christian, to believe in this idea?


What are your belief on this matter?

Hi AS,

Well, as I understand it, it's all going to be about whether His children believed the truth or not.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[enlightened1]

Hi AS,

Well, as I understand it, it's all going to be about whether His children believed the truth or not.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Exactly! The bible offers the Best Proof of the idea that the Flood was global, but only those who believe GOD'S WORD will accept it. GEN 7:21-23 says that ALL FLESH DIED; therefore, it must have been a gobal flood. For those who would use science to disprove GOD, please read 1TIM 6:20, which says that the science of man is falsely called science, meaning it is fallible. Therefore, those who would use science to prove what is the truth, are already lost, having rejected the TRUTH from the Bible.

 

[miamited]

Exactly! The bible offers the Best Proof of the idea that the Flood was global, but only those who believe GOD'S WORD will accept it. GEN 7:21-23 says that ALL FLESH DIED; therefore, it must have been a gobal flood. For those who would use science to disprove GOD, please read 1TIM 6:20, which says that the science of man is falsely called science, meaning it is fallible. Therefore, those who would use science to prove what is the truth, are already lost, having rejected the TRUTH from the Bible.

Hi E1,

Yes, and the Scriptures also tell us that the water covered the highest mountain. Now, unless this happened in some completely closed in 'valley' that had a 'mountain' in the middle of it that wasn't really the highest mountain, then it could not have been a local flood. The nature of water is that it seeks to level itself. You cannot have a body of water that is covering the highest mountain and yet the water itself is contained in just a local area. It would run out into the valleys and low places surrounding it and then establish a level below the highest mountains. It would have to be like taking a bowl and setting a mound of dirt in it that wasn't quite as high as the rim of the bowl, and then pouring in water to cover the mountain. As far as I know there is no such place that has ever existed on the face of the earth that would be large enough that one would have to build a ship to save himself for all the time that the Scriptures tell us that the flood lasted. Now yes, just as when a dam bursts there is a period of time that the water would be seeking level that other lower areas may not yet become flooded, but it wouldn't hold that position for months. Even if the waters creating the flood were only in a local area, water, by its nature would continue to run out over all the earth until it found level.

For me, this idea of a local flood that fits the description given in the Scriptures, is ludicrous. It couldn't happen unless God Himself by His command held the waters in a great wall somewhere as He did in the parting of the sea. The Scriptures don't give us any indication that that was the case.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi AS,

I hope you will read the above post. You see, this argument stands right next to the evolutionary argument. It is accepted because we just have no other way to understand how there could be any other answer, but when you take and write down and study all of the facts given to us about the flood, those same 'laws of science' that are touted as supporting such positions, quickly tear them down.

I mean here in South Carolina if we get two days of pretty steady rains we have local floods in various places, but even in those the water seeks level. In a matter of just a few days the flood waters carry down the rivers and valleys until the local waters are again back to where they were. The Scriptures tell us that in the case of the great flood that it rained for 40 days AND NIGHTS! We're also told that the springs of the deep opened up. Basically it's a picture of a very, very lengthy and steady rain for 40 days with the added water coming out of fissures in the ground. Friend we have no concept of the amount of water that was pouring out of and on to the earth. However, neither can we hardly imagine that so much water poured out for such a length of time and yet the flood could be contained in some local geographic bowl.

It just isn't scientifically possible!

So, my encouragement, if you would really like to test this idea of a local flood is to sit down for a good hour or so and contemplate just exactly how such an event could possibly have occurred. It's something like trying to imagine the 'infinity' of space. Our mind naturally builds a wall somewhere out there, but then we have to force ourselves to 'know' that it goes beyond said imaginary wall and we move it out further. But then we know that it goes beyond the next one and the next one and so forth. Similarly, with the flood we think that it's local, but then we have to force our mind to understand that according to the description, wherever we might think the barriers of such a local flood would be, would also be overwashed by the waters and we have to move the barrier out further and further until finally we throw up our hands and say, "There's just no way that some local flood meets the criteria of the facts given to us about the flood."

So, I'd ask you to do just that. Sit down and decide for yourself where such a boundary of a local flood might be and then go back and read the account. I think that you'll quickly find that there is just no way that ANY of the 'facts' given us in the account of the flood could be true if the flood were just a local event.

It couldn't have rained for forty days and nights and the springs of the deep opened to just allow for a regionally local flood.

The waters could not have covered the highest mountain in any geographical place of the earth and it be a regionally local flood for the period of time that we are told the flood waters remained in the area before they began to recede.

So, you're welcome to continue to believe the local flood 'theory', but then you just have to throw out the whole account as not true.

It would not be true that all flesh on the earth would have died if the flood were a regionally local event. So, we would be foolish to try to trace our lineage back to Noah and his family because, according to the local flood 'theory' there would still have been people in various places on the earth and many of the tribes of the earth today would have descended from them.

So, as I understand it, it's either that we believe it all or we believe none of it!

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Metal Minister]

Hi AS,

I hope you will read the above post. You see, this argument stands right next to the evolutionary argument. It is accepted because we just have no other way to understand how there could be any other answer, but when you take and write down and study all of the facts given to us about the flood, those same 'laws of science' that are touted as supporting such positions, quickly tear them down.

I mean here in South Carolina if we get two days of pretty steady rains we have local floods in various places, but even in those the water seeks level. In a matter of just a few days the flood waters carry down the rivers and valleys until the local waters are again back to where they were. The Scriptures tell us that in the case of the great flood that it rained for 40 days AND NIGHTS! We're also told that the springs of the deep opened up. Basically it's a picture of a very, very lengthy and steady rain for 40 days with the added water coming out of fissures in the ground. Friend we have no concept of the amount of water that was pouring out of and on to the earth. However, neither can we hardly imagine that so much water poured out for such a length of time and yet the flood could be contained in some local geographic bowl.

It just isn't scientifically possible!

So, my encouragement, if you would really like to test this idea of a local flood is to sit down for a good hour or so and contemplate just exactly how such an event could possibly have occurred. It's something like trying to imagine the 'infinity' of space. Our mind naturally builds a wall somewhere out there, but then we have to force ourselves to 'know' that it goes beyond said imaginary wall and we move it out further. But then we know that it goes beyond the next one and the next one and so forth. Similarly, with the flood we think that it's local, but then we have to force our mind to understand that according to the description, wherever we might think the barriers of such a local flood would be, would also be overwashed by the waters and we have to move the barrier out further and further until finally we throw up our hands and say, "There's just no way that some local flood meets the criteria of the facts given to us about the flood."

So, I'd ask you to do just that. Sit down and decide for yourself where such a boundary of a local flood might be and then go back and read the account. I think that you'll quickly find that there is just no way that ANY of the 'facts' given us in the account of the flood could be true if the flood were just a local event.

It couldn't have rained for forty days and nights and the springs of the deep opened to just allow for a regionally local flood.

The waters could not have covered the highest mountain in any geographical place of the earth and it be a regionally local flood for the period of time that we are told the flood waters remained in the area before they began to recede.

So, you're welcome to continue to believe the local flood 'theory', but then you just have to throw out the whole account as not true.

It would not be true that all flesh on the earth would have died if the flood were a regionally local event. So, we would be foolish to try to trace our lineage back to Noah and his family because, according to the local flood 'theory' there would still have been people in various places on the earth and many of the tribes of the earth today would have descended from them.

So, as I understand it, it's either that we believe it all or we believe none of it!

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hi Ted! Good to see you my friend! Well said here!

 

[Johnnz]

The Pharisees said the whole world had gone after Jesus - meaning lots of Palestinian Jews were following Him.

In these verses we also see a much more limited application.
Gen 41:57 And all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world. NIV
1 Kings 10:24 24 The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart.NIV
Acts 19:27 There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited, and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty." NIV
Acts 19:35 The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Men of Ephesus, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? NIV
Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.NIV

A flood that was locally extensive but not universal could be expressed as 'the whole world' very easily to an observer at the time.

Believing in a much more localised flood doe snot do Scripture any injustice.

John
NZ

 

[Papias]

AS wrote:

Is it wrong for christians to believe there is any truth to a local flood?

Hi, and welcome to the forums! As you have already seen, you'll here plenty of diverse views here.

As to your question, it is just as permissible for a christian to believe in a local flood as it is for a christian to believe that the earth is a sphere that goes around the sun.

After all, the positions of a global flood, a flat earth, and geocentrism, are all indicated by a limited, strictly literal reading of most bibles, and all are shown to be incorrect interpretations by huge amounts of revelation from God - his creation itself.

If anything, there is more scriptural support for the sun going around a flat earth than a global flood (other posters and you posted links show that the scripture need not say a global flood).

Practically all geologists (millions of whom are christians) agree that there never was a global flood, because the evidence would be obvious if there had been, yet there is zero evidence of a global flood.

And even before reading those sources, i have always had doubts about a global flood happening. Because it sure doesn't explain how millions and millions of species, even if there is only 2 of each type, could fit onto the ark, and also how said species could all be fed (what about the meat eaters?). And wouldn't a global flood wipe out much of the resources that animals eat on the planet (so the survivors would sure have a hard time)? Also for the land animals separated by large amounts of water to where the ark is (on a different land mass), how did they get to the ark?

Yes. The Holy Spirit generally gives hints as to how a section of scripture is to be interpreted, and the fact that the Holy Spirit has inspired these things that cannot be literally true (just as in the Song of Solomon, where it says that a woman's eyes are doves), that suggests a deeper, more powerful message than that of a simple literal reading.

Another list of similar observations - that don't even require any consultation with geologists - is here: Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

As others have stated, I don't see one's view of the flood as a salvation issue, just as I don't see the belief that the earth is spherical and goes around the sun as a salvation issue. On all three points, millions of Christians have been on one or the other side of these issues of interpretation over the centuries.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Thank you all for responding to my post and giving me your opinions on this. I think i have come to some sort of conclusion on this matter.

 

[Calminian]

...As to your question, it is just as permissible for a christian to believe in a local flood as it is for a christian to believe that the earth is a sphere that goes around the sun.

Er, no. The Bible says all the mountains were covered by the flood, and does not mention orbital patterns of spheres. So the two are apples and oranges. One is mentioned in scripture, one is not.

After all, the positions of a global flood, a flat earth, and geocentrism, are all indicated by a limited, strictly literal reading of most bibles....

and wrong again. The global flood is taught in scripture. geocentrism and flat earthism are nowhere to be found in a literal reading of scripture. Geocentrism has to do with orbital patterns and the ancient writers had no idea what those were. They also never spoke of the earth in terms of a sea/land unit. Earth is merely the term for land, which has mountains and valleys and is by no means flat or spherical. In more modern times the term earth took on larger meanings such as the planet earth (which some thought was flat). But the biblical writers always described the world as heaven, earth, sea (i.e. sky land sea). It would be like accusing them of teaching a flat land—makes no sense.

So the whole comparison falls flat (pun intended). But you knew that.

 

[Coelo]

Some Christians seem to think that there is scriptural evidence for a local flood happening instead of a global flood.

The global flood took place around 250 million years ago. This is what they call the great dying. This was the time when the super continent of Pangaea began to break up. Just like at the time of Noah God preserved a remnant to repopulate the earth.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

If anyone is interested, here are some more sources which show evidence against a global flood

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

Noah’s Flood Not World-wide

By the way, i have made up my mind for good about it being a local flood, and im at peace with that, though it sure was hard to do (hard to go against something I have been told as truth since i was a young boy).

 

[Calminian]

If anyone is interested, here are some more sources which show evidence against a global flood

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

Noah’s Flood Not World-wide

By the way, i have made up my mind for good about it being a local flood, and im at peace with that, though it sure was hard to do (hard to go against something I have been told as truth since i was a young boy).

You mean hard to go against something that's so explicitly taught in the Bible? Yeah, I hope that't hard. For to resist scripture is to also resist the blessing of believing God's revelation.

Think of all the difficult things Abraham had to believe. No question in my mind I would have failed the Isaac sacrifice test. Yet he believed and became the father of our faith and reaped tremendous blessings.

Do you have to believe what scripture says about the Flood? No, God won't put a shotgun to your head and make you believe anything. In fact, He died for our sins and unbelief. For entrance into heaven we need to only be in Christ. That's the ultimate blessing, but that doesn't mean you can't experience additional blessings. If you're willing to trust God you'll be amazed at what He'll reveal to you.

There's a book called Flood Legends, that I highly recommend. It examines several Flood Legends from ancient cultures all over the world in every continent. They virtually all speak of a global flood and diaspora (the scattering of peoples afterward). From native Hawaiians to the american indians, to native Australians and everywhere else, we have legends that involve a global flood, and a family on a boat.

But I would trust scripture most of all. It's not easy sometimes, but the payoff is worth it. That's not to say their no peace available if you can't do it. But there's abundant peace if you can.

 

[Johnnz]

There's a book called Flood Legends, that I highly recommend. It examines several Flood Legends from ancient cultures all over the world in every continent. They virtually all speak of a global flood and diaspora (the scattering of peoples afterward). From native Hawaiians to the american indians, to native Australians and everywhere else, we have legends that involve a global flood, and a family on a boat.

What we don't know abut those stories is when they arose and what flood they might be referring to. Also there are some peoples with no flood stories. We must be careful when we try to associate non biblical stories with the Genesis one. Here is a well researched commentary:
Genesis 6:17 Archaeological evidences of flood. There is presently no convincing archaeological evidence of the biblical flood. The examination of silt levels at the *Sumerian cities of *Ur , Kish, Shuruppak, *Lagash and *Uruk (all of which have occupation levels at least as early as 2800 B.C.) are from different periods and do not reflect a single massive flood that inundated them all at the same time. Similarly, the city of Jericho, which has been continuously occupied since 7000 B.C., has no flood deposits whatsoever. Climatological studies have indicated that the period from 4500 to 3500 B.C. was significantly wetter in this region, but that offers little to go on. The search for the remains of Noah’s ark have centered on the Turkish peak of Agri Dagh (17,000 feet) near Lake Van. However, no one mountain within the Ararat range is mentioned in the biblical account, and fragments of wood that have been carbon-14 dated from this mountain have proven to come from no earlier than the fifth century A.D.
(from IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, Copyright © 2000 by John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas. Published by InterVarsity Press. All rights reserved.)

Also he assumes a universal flood that covered Everest but as others have noted here the actual text does not unequivocally support that the entire earth is meant in that story.

John
NZ

 

[AmericanChristian91]

You mean hard to go against something that's so explicitly taught in the Bible? Yeah, I hope that't hard. For to resist scripture is to also resist the blessing of believing God's revelation.

But im not going against something taught in the bible. I sure am going against a specific interpretation though. But just because i disagree with an interpretation that you and others follow, does not mean me and other Christians with a similar view on the flood are going against the bible.

By the way have you looked at any of the 4 sources i presented in this topic?

Have you ever done any research on the side that disagrees that there was a global flood?

 

[Calminian]

What we don't know abut those stories is when they arose and what flood they might be referring to. Also there are some peoples with no flood stories. We must be careful when we try to associate non biblical stories with the Genesis one. Here is a well researched commentary:
Genesis 6:17 Archaeological evidences of flood. There is presently no convincing archaeological evidence of the biblical flood. The examination of silt levels at the *Sumerian cities of *Ur , Kish, Shuruppak, *Lagash and *Uruk (all of which have occupation levels at least as early as 2800 B.C.) are from different periods and do not reflect a single massive flood that inundated them all at the same time. Similarly, the city of Jericho, which has been continuously occupied since 7000 B.C., has no flood deposits whatsoever. Climatological studies have indicated that the period from 4500 to 3500 B.C. was significantly wetter in this region, but that offers little to go on. The search for the remains of Noah’s ark have centered on the Turkish peak of Agri Dagh (17,000 feet) near Lake Van. However, no one mountain within the Ararat range is mentioned in the biblical account, and fragments of wood that have been carbon-14 dated from this mountain have proven to come from no earlier than the fifth century A.D.
(from IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, Copyright © 2000 by John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas. Published by InterVarsity Press. All rights reserved.)

Also he assumes a universal flood that covered Everest but as others have noted here the actual text does not unequivocally support that the entire earth is meant in that story.

John
NZ

I think you put way too much faith in modern scientific theories. Science changes its mind all the time, and replaces old theories with new ones. I actually see the legends of a universal flood that appear all over the world as a much more convincing line of evidence. Having read so many of these legends first hand, it's just uncanny that so many include common elements.

What I would challenge you to do is take a look at the book a linked above. The author examines 3 legends in depth, and then lists numerous others in the index. It's an excellent treatment of the subject. Just keep an open mind and take a look.

Now you had mentioned that the flood covered Everest, but that needs some further explanation. For we don't know if Everest was even there before the flood. Creationists believe that one of the flood mechanisms God may have used was the breaking up of the Pangea. Rather than a gradual break up as naturalists surmise, it was rapid and catastrophic. No additional water would have been needed to flood the entire earth than we have right now. If all the mountains and valleys were flattened out, water would cover our entire planet to a depth of 2 miles.