Regional Flood, or Global? Let's look at the Scripture

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The physical evidence regarding the local v. global flood has been hashed out here many times I am sure, but I thought I would present some thoughts for those (if any) interested in at least one Christian’s consideration of the Scriptural and religious bases for these positions. I conclude that the flood described in Genesis was local. I know this is generally considered to be the case among a very large number of Christian communities, so this is nothing new. But some may find it interesting.

To start with, while a “plain reading” would seem to indicate God (through the writer) was referring to a flood covering the whole planet, we have seen too often that a “plain reading” ends up being “plain wrong.” The obvious example is when the Church argued that the “plain reading” of Genesis 1 was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. They condemned heliocentrism as entirely contradictory to the “plain reading” of Scripture. Well, that “plain reading” didn’t hold up (even though I do remember pamphlets from our fundamentalist church as late as the 60's still arguing the point).

So, what did the writer of Genesis mean by “all the Earth” or “the whole Earth”? The Hebrew words are “kol” which means all and “erets” which means land, earth, ground or country. The important point is that there are numerous uses of this term “kol erets” throughout the Old Testament to mean almost every combination of these possible definitions. In some places it even refers to a people and not the land at all. There are about 200 uses of the term “kol erets” and the large majority of them refer to local geography (I can give numerous examples, if desired).

And, of course, this use of the term “all the earth” to refer to local areas is consistent with the mindset and method of reference in ancient times generally. Even much later, ancient historians would say that Alexander the Great “conquered all the world” and then wept for “other worlds to conquer”.

So, the term “kol erets” can be interpreted many different ways: everything from the entire world to a very local area or even a group of people. Further, although I am not a Hebrew scholar, I have heard that there is another word “tebel” used in the Old Testament which always refers to the entire world or the entire inhabited world. This word is never used to describe the flood.

In fact, within the flood story itself, the use of “kol erets”indicates a local area. In Genesis 8:5, it indicates that Noah was able to see the mountains. But in Genesis 8:9, the dove found no resting place because the water was on the surface of “kol erets”. Since there were mountains visible to Noah already, the “all the earth” referred to in Genesis 8:9 can only be referring to a local area.

In short, then, the only reason *not* to believe it was a local flood rather than a global flood is if anything *else* in the Biblical record requires such a belief. There are a couple of factual statements that might argue in favor of a global flood:

-God said He meant to destroy all the people on the Earth. Well, that gets back to what was meant by “Earth”. If He meant to destroy all the people of a region, but found one man of that people worthy to live, and told that man to gather up all the animals of the region so that this man, and the region, could start fresh, this would correspond with the story factually. But what about theologically? If God meant to start the world afresh, and “all flesh had become corrupt” how could a local flood accomplish this? Again, this refers to “erets” and can be referring to a local group of people. God very often in these early days interacted with particular local groups, such as the Hebrews once they developed as a defined group. He did not hesitate to bring down punishment on this local group to the exclusion of others. If that region had become corrupt and God wished to destroy that region, the theological message is equally clear.

-The Ark is said to have landed upon the “mountains of Ararat” and it is commonly believed that this must refer to one of the peaks named Ararat in Turkey. Since these peaks are thousands of feet high, this would indicate the Ark was lifted high enough for the flood to have been global. At the time of the writing of the book of Genesis, however, the two mountain peaks now named Ararat in Turkey were not named such. There is evidence in the Bible (Jeremiah 51:27 and 2 Kings 19:37 in the RSV), however, that Ararat was a specific region of what was later called Armenia. Much of that region, even what local inhabitants might have called “mountains” or “hills” (see below regarding “har”), is relatively flat.

-The flood rose to about 8 feet above the “mountains”. The word used here is “har”, which can be mountain or hill, and it is very often translated as hill in the Old Testament. The translators chose the “mountain” translation since they, obviously, thought the passage referred to a global flood and this made sense. Translators are human and fallible.

Also, on a side note: Olive trees do not grow in the mountains, I believe, but only in low lying areas. So that dove was most likely in a low-lying area when the ark came to rest.

-God said He would not flood the world again. If it was a local flood, then wouldn’t this mean God lied since there have been many local floods? God repeats often in Genesis 9 that His covenant is with the people and life on the earth. The entire covenant can just as easily be read to say that He promises never to bring a flood to destroy all the life of a region, or could be even read as specifically referring to that specific region. This can be read as an intent never to bring complete judgment in that fashion, but allowing the natural activities do go about its business (thus any floods, however destructive, would not be an act of judgment). Or, it can be read more literally: that God will not allow any flood to destroy all life in a region. As far as I know, there has never been a flood which destroys a region to the last man. Again, the message of punishment, grace and redemption are all there for us to learn from, whether local or global.

So, since there are two different possible and legitimate honest interpretations of the Scripture, I am more likely to believe the one that seems to be supported by the vast weight of the evidence found in the world around us, including history, geology, biology and, yes, a certain amount of common sense. Of the greatest persuasion to me is the historical evidence since that is my background. There is no indication from the historical record that there was any widespread destruction of humanity in places like Egypt during the proposed flood period. In fact, the historical evidence basically belies this possibility entirely.

I know there has been objective (ie non-Biblical) evidence put forward to support the idea of a global flood, but all that I have seen are either somewhat ridiculous or seem to be evidence of a variety of local catastrophic floods. All of this evidence seems just of the type to be presented if one had started with the proposition of a global flood and went in search of every possible piece of potential evidence to support this preconceived idea.

The problem is that Church doctrine was set in stone before we knew all that we now know. Once Church doctrine is set in stone, it is VERY difficult to pry it out of certain Christian groups within the Church, no matter how wrong it is. I think it was not until around 1900 that the Church acknowledged that it’s interpretation of Genesis 1 in regards to heliocentrism was simply dead wrong.

Why do I care about Christians considering these possible interpretations? After all, it is not a salvation issue. The problem is that in areas such as this, certain Christian groups are doing serious harm to the work of the Church (the spread of the true message of God’s redemptive gift). I can not imagine the many thousands (millions?) who have abandoned their Faith or would never even consider a Faith such as Christianity when it insists that the only way to interpret the Scripture is *their* way, and that *way* is one which these potential Christians can not, with any internal honesty, believe. As I have said before, Satan has many subtle weapons to destroy the message.
 

nephilimiyr

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open
Jan 21, 2003
23,432
1,799
60
Wausau Wisconsin
Visit site
✟40,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Vance said:
To start with, while a “plain reading” would seem to indicate God (through the writer) was referring to a flood covering the whole planet, we have seen too often that a “plain reading” ends up being “plain wrong.” The obvious example is when the Church argued that the “plain reading” of Genesis 1 was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. They condemned heliocentrism as entirely contradictory to the “plain reading” of Scripture. Well, that “plain reading” didn’t hold up (even though I do remember pamphlets from our fundamentalist church as late as the 60's still arguing the point).[/b]

No where in Genesis 1 does it plainly say that the sun revolved around the earth. The interpretations the "dark ages" church rendered to be true was that of a false truth and one they got by their interpretation of that scripture that neither says the earth revolved around the sun or that the sun revolved around the earth. Therefore you can't use the teachings of the church in the middle ages as saying they were useing the "plain reading" of the text because in fact they weren't.

So, what did the writer of Genesis mean by “all the Earth” or “the whole Earth”? The Hebrew words are “kol” which means all and “erets” which means land, earth, ground or country. The important point is that there are numerous uses of this term “kol erets” throughout the Old Testament to mean almost every combination of these possible definitions. In some places it even refers to a people and not the land at all. There are about 200 uses of the term “kol erets” and the large majority of them refer to local geography (I can give numerous examples, if desired).

What you say here is true but it doesn't support your idea of a regional flood. In order for us to know which meaning the Hebrew author wanted to convey we can, as we must, look at the context of the story. The context clearly points to God wanting to send judgment on the whole earth, not just a certain part of it. Neither does the the word "kol" point to the meaning of a people if you use the correct context of the story otherwise it simply doesn't make sense. God doesn't just send judgment to a people but to all living things.

Now whether you can provide examples of the meaning of "kol" doesn't mean much because one of it's meanings referrs to the whole earth and since that's the case you must take that in concideration when determining the context of the passage. And the context of the passage points to God sending judgment on all his creation.

And, of course, this use of the term “all the earth” to refer to local areas is consistent with the mindset and method of reference in ancient times generally. Even much later, ancient historians would say that Alexander the Great “conquered all the world” and then wept for “other worlds to conquer”.
Good point you provide here but again as long as the context of the passage where the word "kol" is used shows the meaning to be that of the whole earth there's no need to pursue other meanings.

So, the term “kol erets” can be interpreted many different ways: everything from the entire world to a very local area or even a group of people. Further, although I am not a Hebrew scholar, I have heard that there is another word “tebel” used in the Old Testament which always refers to the entire world or the entire inhabited world. This word is never used to describe the flood.
Sorry to say I'm not a Hebrew scholar either but so I don't repeat myself too much here I still say you must look at the context of the story to find the true meaning of "kol". So far you haven't explained what you believe is the context of the story except that you believe it's talking about a regional flood but I argue this isn't true.

In fact, within the flood story itself, the use of “kol erets”indicates a local area. In Genesis 8:5, it indicates that Noah was able to see the mountains. But in Genesis 8:9, the dove found no resting place because the water was on the surface of “kol erets”. Since there were mountains visible to Noah already, the “all the earth” referred to in Genesis 8:9 can only be referring to a local area.
Again you make a great point but do you know what that point you made is? Here is where if we use the correct context of the passage we see the meaning of "kol erets". Here the context shows that the meaning could be showing that it's of a land or regional area. *;5 being the whole earth and 8:9 being that of an area.

In short, then, the only reason *not* to believe it was a local flood rather than a global flood is if anything *else* in the Biblical record requires such a belief. There are a couple of factual statements that might argue in favor of a global flood:

-God said He meant to destroy all the people on the Earth. Well, that gets back to what was meant by “Earth”. If He meant to destroy all the people of a region, but found one man of that people worthy to live, and told that man to gather up all the animals of the region so that this man, and the region, could start fresh, this would correspond with the story factually. But what about theologically? If God meant to start the world afresh, and “all flesh had become corrupt” how could a local flood accomplish this? Again, this refers to “erets” and can be referring to a local group of people. God very often in these early days interacted with particular local groups, such as the Hebrews once they developed as a defined group. He did not hesitate to bring down punishment on this local group to the exclusion of others. If that region had become corrupt and God wished to destroy that region, the theological message is equally clear.
Very interesting...I would say that back then peoples or a people were most often referred to by their tribe or family or nation. In these passages if God just wanted to send judgment on one of these tribes or peoples the author most certainly would have stated that as being so. In all of the Old Testament whenever this occurs the name of the tribe or nation is given, such as the Canaanites or the Philistines, but there's no indication of this being the case in Genesis. I must conclude therefore that when the author says "people of the earth" or "all flesh" he's talking about all the people of the earth or all living things of all the earth.

-The Ark is said to have landed upon the “mountains of Ararat” and it is commonly believed that this must refer to one of the peaks named Ararat in Turkey. Since these peaks are thousands of feet high, this would indicate the Ark was lifted high enough for the flood to have been global. At the time of the writing of the book of Genesis, however, the two mountain peaks now named Ararat in Turkey were not named such. There is evidence in the Bible (Jeremiah 51:27 and 2 Kings 19:37 in the RSV), however, that Ararat was a specific region of what was later called Armenia. Much of that region, even what local inhabitants might have called “mountains” or “hills” (see below regarding “har”), is relatively flat.

Please look at this! Jeremiah 51:27, Set ye up a standard in the land, blow the trumpet among the nations, prepare the nations against her, call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashchenaz; cause the horses to come up as the rough caterpillers.
The kingdoms of Minni and Ashchenaz were both in and around the mountains of Ararat and the belief is by most scholars that the kingdom of Ararat was there too.

Now the passage is talking about a specific place and since the kingdoms of Minni and Ashchenaz are center in that region so must the kingdom of Ararat.

II Kings 19:37, And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.
Here the nation or land is striaght out called Armenia so there's no need to confuse it with Ararat.

-The flood rose to about 8 feet above the “mountains”. The word used here is “har”, which can be mountain or hill, and it is very often translated as hill in the Old Testament. The translators chose the “mountain” translation since they, obviously, thought the passage referred to a global flood and this made sense. Translators are human and fallible.
Again since the meaning of the word can both be of a mountain or a hill the context of the passage should first come into play. I believe the context puts the meaning as that of a real mountian. You are giving me no reason why I should think otherwise. I mean just because in other places the meaning is used to discribe a hill doesn't negate the fact that it also is used to discribe a mountain.

Also, on a side note: Olive trees do not grow in the mountains, I believe, but only in low lying areas. So that dove was most likely in a low-lying area when the ark came to rest.

The passage in Genesis 8:4 shows the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat but the dove didn't find the olive leaf until well after they had landed. The passages leading up to verse 11 where the dove came back with an olive leaf shows that it took at least 47 days untill this happend and during this time the waters were recaedingat a steady pace, Gen. 8:5, And the waters decreased continually
Therefore your anology of olive trees not growing in moutains doesn't mean a thing here because the passage neither says where the dove found the olive leaf but it is quite possible the bird flew off far from the ark. Gen. 8:11, And the dove came in to him in the evening, this suggests that the bird was gone all day.

My conclusion is that the dove didn't find the olive leaf on the mountain side but perhaps in the foot hills.

-God said He would not flood the world again. If it was a local flood, then wouldn’t this mean God lied since there have been many local floods? God repeats often in Genesis 9 that His covenant is with the people and life on the earth. The entire covenant can just as easily be read to say that He promises never to bring a flood to destroy all the life of a region, or could be even read as specifically referring to that specific region. This can be read as an intent never to bring complete judgment in that fashion, but allowing the natural activities do go about its business (thus any floods, however destructive, would not be an act of judgment). Or, it can be read more literally: that God will not allow any flood to destroy all life in a region. As far as I know, there has never been a flood which destroys a region to the last man. Again, the message of punishment, grace and redemption are all there for us to learn from, whether local or global.
Your adding so much into the scriptures I can't possibly know where to start. Your so hung up with the meaning of 'kol erets" meaning a region but as I have stated, in the context of the story the meaning is showed to be of the whole earth. Just because it's possible for the meaning to be something else doesn't mean you automatically have to use the other meaning. You must find the true context for the meaning.

So, since there are two different possible and legitimate honest interpretations of the Scripture, I am more likely to believe the one that seems to be supported by the vast weight of the evidence found in the world around us, including history, geology, biology and, yes, a certain amount of common sense. Of the greatest persuasion to me is the historical evidence since that is my background. There is no indication from the historical record that there was any widespread destruction of humanity in places like Egypt during the proposed flood period. In fact, the historical evidence basically belies this possibility entirely.
I believe the biblical account of the story to be true and I believe the account is that of a worldwide flood.

I know there has been objective (ie non-Biblical) evidence put forward to support the idea of a global flood, but all that I have seen are either somewhat ridiculous or seem to be evidence of a variety of local catastrophic floods. All of this evidence seems just of the type to be presented if one had started with the proposition of a global flood and went in search of every possible piece of potential evidence to support this preconceived idea.
It's not a preconceived idea on my part. I simply believe the word of God over what man says. I also believe I read the passages in the correct context.

The problem is that Church doctrine was set in stone before we knew all that we now know. Once Church doctrine is set in stone, it is VERY difficult to pry it out of certain Christian groups within the Church, no matter how wrong it is. I think it was not until around 1900 that the Church acknowledged that it’s interpretation of Genesis 1 in regards to heliocentrism was simply dead wrong.
I don't belong to a church nor have I for a long time. I read the bible and believe in gaining insight and knowledge from the Holy Spirit not from what some man or group of people has told me what to believe.
Why do I care about Christians considering these possible interpretations? After all, it is not a salvation issue. The problem is that in areas such as this, certain Christian groups are doing serious harm to the work of the Church (the spread of the true message of God’s redemptive gift). I can not imagine the many thousands (millions?) who have abandoned their Faith or would never even consider a Faith such as Christianity when it insists that the only way to interpret the Scripture is *their* way, and that *way* is one which these potential Christians can not, with any internal honesty, believe. As I have said before, Satan has many subtle weapons to destroy the message.
And what if I told you I believe that Satan is clouding your mind with this belief? Do we argue? Do we fight over this? All I ask of people here is to have an open mind and comsider what I say for in fact I have come to you in this thread with an open mind and do consider what you have said. If you disagree with my position please don't get upset but if you'd like to discuss our differences, I am willing!
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for such a detailed and thoughtful response:

You are right to focus on the context, but I would disagree with your conclusion that he must have been referring to the whole Earth. You acknowledge that there are two possible readings, but you see no reason to follow the regional interpretation rather than the global interpretation. The problem is that you start with the believe that because the translators have used global terms, we must start from there and only adopt another interpretation if it is mandated.

But the translators had the choice of either. There is nothing about the term "kol erets" which favors the global over the regional. We can start with either one and should really insist upon neither until we review the rest of the evidence.

As for the theological message, every time it refers to *why* God wanted to bring the flood, it uses the same terminology, which can equally apply to a region or a group of people, rather than the whole. So when God says he wants to destroy "all" of anything, it can mean all of that within the the group being discussed. We see often in Scripture where a group is referred to as "all the people" or the whole world. I will post a long list of these when I get the chance. When Paul talked about taxing "all the world" he was not referring to those living in the Americas at the time. This is just one example of dozens.

Then, of course, if there is an equal argument for either interpretation (and I think the argument is at LEAST equal, based solely on Scripture), then we must look to God's other message: his own creation. This so clearly evidences a lack of a global flood that it makes the choice of the two competing interpretations easy for me.
 
Upvote 0

nephilimiyr

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open
Jan 21, 2003
23,432
1,799
60
Wausau Wisconsin
Visit site
✟40,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Vance said:
You are right to focus on the context, but I would disagree with your conclusion that he must have been referring to the whole Earth. You acknowledge that there are two possible readings, but you see no reason to follow the regional interpretation rather than the global interpretation. The problem is that you start with the believe that because the translators have used global terms, we must start from there and only adopt another interpretation if it is mandated.

LOL, um, I believe in the word of God and that the word of God is true. I use the KJV because I believe it is the most perfect of all translations. I do understand what your saying very clearly but you are not giving me any reason to follow your belief. What your saying is that since it can be proven that the word "kol erets" can both mean that of a people or a land and that of the whole earth the Genesis flood therefore means it was regional. I'm telling you now until you explain to me why I should see the meaning to be that of a land, people, or region written in Genesis there's no need for me to throw away my belief in what the context is telling me and that is of a worldwide flood.

I don't start out believeing in a world wide flood just because the translators used global terms. I believe it's a world wide flood because that's what I believe the story is about. I believe this is what the context of the story is and that is God sending judgment on the whole earth.

I believe you are right that there are many places to prove or show how the word is used in so many different ways. Again there's no need for you to prove this to me. You don't have to provide dozens of scriptures in list form because I do understand what your saying.

I kind of see you saying that we shouldn't read the passages the way the translators translated it because they didn't know what they were doing. I do believe the KJV translators of the Hebrew text were faithful to the texts they were working off of. They conveyed the passages I believe how the original author wanted them to be conveyed, at least to the best of their ability. You want for me to believe that they are the ones in error and not your interpretations. For right now I believe them over you, sorry. LOL, that may sound a bit insulting but I can't help it, I don't mean to insult you. You show me this has been a work of study on your part while it hasn't been for me. You show yourself to know what you are talking about.

But the translators had the choice of either. There is nothing about the term "kol erets" which favors the global over the regional. We can start with either one and should really insist upon neither until we review the rest of the evidence.
And you know what? The translators didn't flip a coin in the air to tell them which meaning they should convey. For now I will do as you say however and start with neither interpretation. The floor is yours. You need to show me how and why I should take the meaning of "kol erets" as being regional or a people. Remember however that just because the possiblity is there that the term or passage could mean other things as well doesn't prove I'm wrong. You therefore must prove why we should believe your interpretation is true. I say this because your first post doesn't prove a thing to me.
Understand? I'm saying that although you make some good points you don't explain how I am wrong when I disagree with you.

Oh and what's "the rest of the evidence"?

As for the theological message, every time it refers to *why* God wanted to bring the flood, it uses the same terminology, which can equally apply to a region or a group of people, rather than the whole. So when God says he wants to destroy "all" of anything, it can mean all of that within the the group being discussed. We see often in Scripture where a group is referred to as "all the people" or the whole world. I will post a long list of these when I get the chance. When Paul talked about taxing "all the world" he was not referring to those living in the Americas at the time. This is just one example of dozens.

Well go for it if you insist but as I said I do understand what your saying and there's no need to prove it for me. I understand that there are places where the word "world" doesn't refer to the whole world but regional parts but I'm saying you must prove to me why it doesn't mean whole world in Genesis. This you haven't done yet.

Also yes the terminology can equally apply to whatever other meaning there is but only if it doesn't disrupt the context of the story. Now sure when Paul talked about taxing the whole world he wasn't talking about the whole world meaning also over in the Americas or far east but how does this apply to Genesis 6-8? Yes the possiblity could be there that we can apply this to Genesis 6-8 but why then if we do? What would be the reason for this? Is it just so that it fits into your belief that there is no evidence of a world wide flood?

Then, of course, if there is an equal argument for either interpretation (and I think the argument is at LEAST equal, based solely on Scripture), then we must look to God's other message: his own creation. This so clearly evidences a lack of a global flood that it makes the choice of the two competing interpretations easy for me.
I'm not so much in agreement with you that there are two equal interpretations. There is only one truth as there is only one way to interpret these passages correctly. When you use the correct context you can see the correct interpretation.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
nephilimiyr said:
LOL, um, I believe in the word of God and that the word of God is true. I use the KJV because I believe it is the most perfect of all translations. I do understand what your saying very clearly but you are not giving me any reason to follow your belief. What your saying is that since it can be proven that the word "kol erets" can both mean that of a people or a land and that of the whole earth the Genesis flood therefore means it was regional. I'm telling you now until you explain to me why I should see the meaning to be that of a land, people, or region written in Genesis there's no need for me to throw away my belief in what the context is telling me and that is of a worldwide flood.

Luke 2:1 also says "the whole word". But we take extrabiblical knowledge and realize that Luke did not mean the "whole world" but the "whole world" as HE knew it.

Why doesn't the same apply to Genesis 6-8? The "whole world" of the people of the time is the Tigris-Euphrates Valley.

The reason the Flood is the whole world for creation science is because they need an explanation for geology and the fossil record. They need the Noachian Flood to do that.

So, the motives for taking the Flood as the whole world is not pure translation, either. There is the ulterior motive of explaining evidence that otherwise falsifies creation science.

Nephilmeyer, I strongly recommend the book The Genesis Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Knowledge by Davis A. Young. Young is both a geologist and an evangelical Christian and he summarizes the whole history of the changing position regarding the Noachian Flood. Christians who were scientists in the 18th and early 19th century, many of them ministers, falsified the Flood as a world-wide event.

I do believe the KJV translators of the Hebrew text were faithful to the texts they were working off of. They conveyed the passages I believe how the original author wanted them to be conveyed, at least to the best of their ability.

But the use of language and idiom changes. Yes, the translators of KJV did a literal translation of the Hebrew of the time into the English of the time. However, Hebrew is a living language and thus the Hebrew of 500 BC is not the same Hebrew of 1600 AD. Nor is the English of 1600 AD the same as the English of 2003 AD.

And you know what? The translators didn't flip a coin in the air to tell them which meaning they should convey.

No, they didn't flip a coin. But they did use the theology they thought was right and shaded the translation that way. That's more a bias than flipping a coin.

However, the mindset you want to go for is not the KJV translators, but the P and J authors of the Noah's Flood story. Yes, there are TWO Noah Flood stories that are intertwined by an editor.
http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/hb/dh/flood.htm
 
Upvote 0

nephilimiyr

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open
Jan 21, 2003
23,432
1,799
60
Wausau Wisconsin
Visit site
✟40,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
lucaspa said:
Luke 2:1 also says "the whole word". But we take extrabiblical knowledge and realize that Luke did not mean the "whole world" but the "whole world" as HE knew it.

Why doesn't the same apply to Genesis 6-8? The "whole world" of the people of the time is the Tigris-Euphrates Valley.
Very good, thanks, but like I've said I do believe that there are places that show this. I didn't ask for proof of this but wanted an explaination of why I must see Genesis 6-8 as appling the same principle.

Should it be said that whenever we see the word "world" or the phrase "the whole world" now because of Luke 2:1 that we must always see the meanings of those words as being something less odvious or in that meaning? I don't believe so.

See I believe that your interpration of Luke 2:1 is correct because that's what the context of the passage indicates. I don't believe the Genesis 6-8 passages indicate what is being said here.

You ask "Why doesn't the same apply to Genesis 6-8?" And this is a legit question but I also ask why does it have to? How do we get the answer to this? I believe we must follow the context of the story and to me the context points to that of meaning the whole earth or in other words the story is talking about a world wide flood.

I would have no problem with believeing that in certain parts in Genesis 6-8 the word "kol erets" indicates something other than the actual whole world but only as long as that's what the context shows. I see me being asked here to believe that whenever that term or word is written it means something other than that. It has been said here by vance that "kol erets" in Genesis 6-8 always is used to indicate that of a region or certain area of the earth or even perhaps of a people. I would like to know why he believes this to be true. What is it that makes him believe this.

The reason the Flood is the whole world for creation science is because they need an explanation for geology and the fossil record. They need the Noachian Flood to do that.

So, the motives for taking the Flood as the whole world is not pure translation, either. There is the ulterior motive of explaining evidence that otherwise falsifies creation science.

Nephilmeyer, I strongly recommend the book The Genesis Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Knowledge by Davis A. Young. Young is both a geologist and an evangelical Christian and he summarizes the whole history of the changing position regarding the Noachian Flood. Christians who were scientists in the 18th and early 19th century, many of them ministers, falsified the Flood as a world-wide event.
Well I'm not into creationism. If you must know I believe in the gap theory if that helps you at all. You look to possess strong beliefs and or opinions on Creationists, I have my opinions on them as well.

I came to this thread pretty much with just one question. I'm into so much right now and reading so much on other topics than this that I probably won't find the book, but thanks anyways :)
That doesn't mean our conversation is a waste of time!!! :D

Oh, and it's Nephilimiyr... :wave:

But the use of language and idiom changes. Yes, the translators of KJV did a literal translation of the Hebrew of the time into the English of the time. However, Hebrew is a living language and thus the Hebrew of 500 BC is not the same Hebrew of 1600 AD. Nor is the English of 1600 AD the same as the English of 2003 AD.
I believe this also!

No, they didn't flip a coin. But they did use the theology they thought was right and shaded the translation that way. That's more a bias than flipping a coin.
OK, very well, but how then do we know what is the correct translation? How do we know what the original author of Genesis wanted to convey? Why do you or how do you know that the KJV translators shaded it in the way they wanted and not in the way the original author wanted it? I believe they did their best to convey the meaning in how the author wanted it conveyed.
Now because of the language of that time both in the time Genesis was originally written and the time the KJV translated it there were bound to be some slight misinterpretations on their part. Whenever even now, that is meaning today, translations from language to language on anything written there are misinterpretations, mostly slight. Because of this I believe we must look to the original Hebrew to show us the correct meaning. Now I am not a Hebrew scholar as I have already stated but from the research I've done on other parts of the Old Testament such as Genesis 1 I realize this importance.

I believe in the gap theory not so much because what the english says in any of the english translations but what the original Hebrew says and how it is put into context. Therefore I understand where you guys are comeing from, honestly I do! I do understand what you guys are saying I just am not convinced. I see you guys saying there's another possible interpretation of Genesis 6-8 but your giving me no reason to believe it. Your going about this as trying to prove to me there's another interpretation of this that fit's well into the stories context and although I understand what your saying I just simply disagree with the interpretation your giving.

However, the mindset you want to go for is not the KJV translators, but the P and J authors of the Noah's Flood story. Yes, there are TWO Noah Flood stories that are intertwined by an editor.
http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/hb/dh/flood.htm
Hummm, ok, I'l check it out...I'l be back!
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A few points:

First, what is it about the context which would lead you to believe in a global rather than a regional condemnation. We have seen that when God says "kol erets", he sometimes is referring to the whole Earth, but actually is more often referring to something more limited. What about the context of needing to punish makes it more likely that God is punishing ALL of mankind rather than a group? Nothing in the text itself requires it since every reference can be read either way. To my mind, there is not one reason to think that the context is more supportive of a global punishment than a regional punishment of a specific people.

Second, if God had actually wanted to refer to a global flood without confusion, there is a specific word He could have used: tebel. This word *always* refers to the whole earth, or the whole inhabited earth. And, God did use it 37 times in the Old Testament. And while it used very often to refer to God's creation and the judgment of the peoples of the earth, it is NEVER used in connection with the flood account.

Third, if we came to the conclusion that there were two competing interpretations and they were equally supported within the text itself and by reference to context (which I think is at least the case), then we should look to the physical evidence of God's Creation. The evidence here is overwhelming in a wide variety of areas. But that is another thread entirely. Suffice it to say that if the flood occured when it is SAID to have occured, it could not have been global. Check out the "Egyptian Dynasties" thread here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t52191
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
lucaspa said:
Luke 2:1 also says "the whole word". But we take extrabiblical knowledge and realize that Luke did not mean the "whole world" but the "whole world" as HE knew it.


So what was the "whole world" as Luke knew it?


Luke writes of places in Europe, Africa, the East, and north into Russia.

So, was the "regional" flood covering only half the world? From your statement, and Luke's, I can KNOW that the world was underwater from Spain to India.


~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Malaka, your joking, right?

Are you saying there must be some correlation between what Luke meant by "all the world" and what a similar phrase in another part of the Bible meant? Are you saying that the phrase meant the same "region" every time it was used? The point is that it did not mean the entire globe.

We can see dozens of uses of the phrase "kol erets" and a different meaning for each. The point is that it can mean a variety of things and we must look beyond the plain text to determine what it means in a given Scripture.

So, you can't "know" anything about what "kol erets" meant in the flood story from what Luke said. All you can know from what Luke said is that you the phrase then, as now, means a number of different things.

Actually, Lucaspa, Luke (being an educated man) probably knew that there were other parts of the world which lay outside the Roman Empire (some not to far east of where he was at the time), and so *he* even knew that it was just a figure of speech which would be understood by his readers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Vance said:
The physical evidence regarding the local v. global flood has been hashed out here many times I am sure, but I thought I would present some thoughts for those (if any) interested in at least one Christian’s consideration of the Scriptural and religious bases for these positions. I conclude that the flood described in Genesis was local...

...

Why do I care about Christians considering these possible interpretations? After all, it is not a salvation issue. The problem is that in areas such as this, certain Christian groups are doing serious harm to the work of the Church (the spread of the true message of God’s redemptive gift). I can not imagine the many thousands (millions?) who have abandoned their Faith or would never even consider a Faith such as Christianity when it insists that the only way to interpret the Scripture is *their* way, and that *way* is one which these potential Christians can not, with any internal honesty, believe. As I have said before, Satan has many subtle weapons to destroy the message.



I think that you have omitted the most pertinent statement in the Bible concerning the flood.

Genesis 7:4
For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forrty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made."

What? There was nothing living outside Mesopotamia?



After all, God claimed to having killed every living thing.

Genesis 8:21
... nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done."



I won't even address your condemnation of particular denominational beliefs for certainly, "Satan has many subtle weapons to destroy the message." Even ministers, teachers, deacons, and bishops of the church can be used to destroy the message.... and some do.


~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You missed the whole point of the discussion:

Yes, God is saying that He is destroying every living thing He created "kol erets" which, as we have seen, can be read "in the land" as correctly as "on the whole earth". I am sure the flood *did* destroy every living thing he created in the "land" or region. Nothing odd there, it is exactly what God would say if He was referring to a region, not the whole earth.

And, of course, 8:21 simply discusses the destruction which did occur. It is the same as Luke following up with something like "and Ceasar said he will never tax every living person again." The first event explains the second reference.

So, no issues there.
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Vance....

As far as I am concerned. your postings have become jokes, or rather your instrument of admonishment to anyone who does not believe exactly as you do or who does not bow to your teachings.

I was making a point based upon the specific statement of a member... and I fall to your ridicule... just as I did a few days ago. Ya know... I am beginning to see a pattern here.

I am going to have to learn to be demeaning and hateful to survive very long on this forum. It isn't about "discussion", is it? Well, my friend, keep your ridicule to yourself.

~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
"You missed the whole point of the discussion:"


No, you missed what the Word of God said because it doesn't fit in with your theory of what God MEANT to say.

With your assumption... then the North American Continent and South American continent at the time of the flood contained no living thing. How did that happen? and prove it.

~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Malaka:

I have looked back through this thread and I do not see where I have been rude or antagonistic. Yes, I did ask one time whether you were joking since your statement about the flood being from Spain to somewhere else was either rude and sarcastic or meant as a joke or you just didn't grasp what point he and I were making. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming one of the latter two and answered accordingly.

I think by any comparison of our two series of posts, not many would think I was being more hostile or antagonistic than you have been.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Alessandro

Alive In God
Feb 6, 2003
5,198
389
41
SOCAL
✟17,139.00
Faith
Christian
The flood was global. Why would Gods Word say the flood was global unless it actually WAS GLOBAL. Make sense.

Why would Noah need to build an ark to eascape a local flood, he could have just took his family and travelled to a diffrerent region. Why did he need to take animals with him on the ark if it was only a local flood, as there would be animals in a different region if it was a local flood. Why did he have to take birds on the ark if was a local flood, birds could have flew to a different region to avoid this local flood. And so on.

All this does not make sense if you are referring to a local flood. The flood was global, if the flood was local the entire region should be under considerably more water than its surroundings. And so on.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Malaka said:

"With your assumption... then the North American Continent and South American continent at the time of the flood contained no living thing. How did that happen? and prove it."

Well, see, this just proves that you did not grasp what I was saying at all (or you *do* understand, but are being purposefully contrary as a matter of policy). I will say it again: God could just have likely (based on the words used) been referring to all He created which existed WITHIN the region He is talking about. This has nothing to do with anything he created outside of that "land" He is referring to.

I honestly don't know whether you are getting it, but being contrary as a matter of policy or whether you are not understanding what I am saying. I don't care whether you agree with my conclusion or not, that is another matter.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Allessandro:

The whole point is that the Bible does NOT say that it was global. It can be read that way, but it can also be read to refer to a region.

As for the why's and wherefore's, if the flood covered a large enough reason, it is possible that Noah could not have herded all of the animals he needed to from that region out to a safe area in time. He was just doing what God told him to do, a lesson for us all.

Besides, these types of logistical details pale by comparison to the lost list of impossibilities and improbabilities of a global flood.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Allesandro:

Why Sodom and Gamorrah and not the rest of the local cities? Because it was that region which was turning from God. As for the point that you raised earlier, here are some general thoughts on them from Rich Deem:

"If the Genesis flood were local, why didn't God just sent Noah and his family packing. Once they were out of the Mesopotamian flood plain, God could have judged the unrighteous without making Noah go to all the trouble of building a huge ark. It is true that God could have done this, although there are some good biblical reasons why He chose not to do so. Why did God make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down? Why did God make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness? Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness? Were any of these things actually required for God to do His work? No! God could have just wiped out all the evil people in the world, as He did later to the all the Egyptians' first-born. Maybe God had good reasons for Noah to build the ark? God has a purpose for each person of faith to join Him in preaching His message. God's plan will be accomplished regardless of our participation in it. However, God gives obedient humans the privilege of participating in God's plans. Likewise, God had a plan for Noah, part of which was for him and his sons to demonstrate their commitment and perseverance to the Lord.
One will notice in the judgments that God renders, He almost always gives a warning to those who are being judged. For example, God sent angels to Sodom before it was to be destroyed,13 sent Jonah to Ninevah to warn them of the judgment to come,14 and will send two prophets to warn the people of the earth of the final judgment.15 The building of the ark was a great testimony of the coming judgment, since it was preached for 100 years during the building of the ark. The New Testament states this idea directly, since it says that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness":

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:4-5)

If God had told Noah to just migrate away from the flood area, the people would not have been warned of the impending judgment. Ultimately, they were without excuse in their rebellion against God, since the impending judgment was proclaimed to them for 100 years before it happened. Likewise, God will send two preachers for 1260 days prior to the ultimate judgment of God.15 Those who get on God's ark (Jesus Christ) will be saved from the judgment and pass from death to eternal life.

Why did God required Noah to take animals if the flood was local?
Some animals are indigenous only to that area. More importantly, it would have taken hundreds of years longer to replace the fauna if everything had been wiped out and had to migrate back in. In addition, Noah would have had a huge problem replacing his herds.
Why were birds on the ark?

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? They could simply have flown to a nearby mountain range. Most birds (other than a few migratory birds) have a very localized territory. They would have been killed in the local flood, since they are not designed to fly long distances. Certainly archaeopteryx was not a strong flyer. Hummingbirds would drop dead in 20 minutes or less. One thing that you will notice when there is a strong rain is that birds do not fly. Flying in heavy rain is not easy. They would have sat on their perches until the water drowned them."

And really, a global flood makes no sense at all when you look at the evidence of God's Creation. The physical evidence of this earth is that no global flood occured. One example alone would be the complete continuity of the societies which were already in existence at the time the flood took place (based on the dating by AIG itself). Please check out the Egyptian dynasties thread on this point.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.