A literal reading of Scripture requires a local flood?

[Vance]

The following link gives an interesting analysis of Psalms 104, which most commentators believe is a restatement of God’s Creation. The author goes on to show how this chapter, verse 9 in particular, proves that the flood had to have been local if you are a Biblical literalist.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/youngearth/psalm104.html

On the following page, he goes into a very detailed analysis as to why the Scriptural account of the flood, without even any reference to the physical evidence, shows that it was local:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/apologetics/localflood.html#01

Again, this is based NOT on reading the account as an allegory or using symbolic language, but based on a literal reading.

 

[Ark Guy]

The bible is quite clear it was a world wide flood.

GEN 7:18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.

GEN 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

GEN 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

Now, when someone tells us how the mountains were covered with water...and the flood NOT be world wide...then you may have a point.

Untill then, nice try vance.

 

[Vance]

Did you check out the site I linked? Rather than just take pot-shots, how about reading it and responding to the analysis found there?

As for the answer to your question, here is what the author of the site says:
The Hebrew word "har" occurs 649 times in the Old Testament. In 212 instances, the word is translated "hill" or "hills" or "hill country". In Genesis, it is translated "hill" in 10 out of 19 occurrences. Of course, 4 out of 9 times that it is translated as "mountain" is in the flood passage (the translators were wearing their global glasses when they did that translation!). In every instance in Genesis, the text could be translated "hill". Since no specific mountain range is mentioned in this verse, it is likely that the word refers to the hills that Noah could see.

Also, from an earlier post of mine, talking about Ararat:

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.

 

[Ark Guy]

A note on Psalm 104:9
Whether this verse is referencing the flood or creation is up for debate.

If this verse is about the creation and not the flood then you need to read it correctly.
Below I have presented two translations of said verse.

Psalm 104:9
Thou didst set a boundry that they may not pass over:
That they may not return to cover the earth. (NAS)

Psalm 104:9 You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth. (NIV)

It appears to me that God "drained the earth" and created a place for the waters to reside. The boundary that God set up for the waters keeps them from returning and flooding the earth.

Notice that the NAS never says never. Even the KJV bible does not say never.
The NIV, which is a freestyle bible and not considered as a literal interpretation such as the NAS and KJV does contain the word never.

Often in a freestyle bible such as the NIV, words are introduced into the text to help us...in the opinion of...the translator(s) to understand the verse.

Perhaps the translators of the NIV understood the verse to be talking of the flood. In that case they would be correct in adding the word never.

 

[Vance]

Also, here is another analysis of this (from an anti-evolutionary, btw):According to Genesis 7:19, the waters "rose greatly ... and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." The English translation seems to imply that even Mt. Everest was submerged under the flood waters. The Hebrew word for "high," however, simply means elevated" and for "mountain," means anything from "a small hillock" to "a towering peak." The Hebrew verb for "covered" allows three alternatives: (1) inundated, (2) rained upon, or (3) washed over as by a rush of water. In any of these cases, 15 cubits of standing water, 15 cubits of sudden rainfall, or a 15-cubit rush of water, there would be no human or animal survivors.

As for the reference, "under the entire heavens," such expressions must always be understood in their context. What would constitute under the entire heavens for the people of Noah's time? The extent of their view from the entire region in which they existed or operated. Perhaps a verse from the New Testament will clarify my point. In Romans 1:8 the Apostle Paul declares that the faith of the Christians in Rome was being "reported all over the world." Since "all over the world" to the Romans meant the entire Roman Empire (and not the entire globe), we would not interpret Paul's words as an indication that the Eskimos and Incas were familiar at that time with the activities of the church at Rome.


www.reasons.org

 

[Ark Guy]

vance, no one kknows where the ark landed. You are presenting speculation into your argument and passing it off as fact...this is a no no.

If the ark did indeed land in the mountains then the flood had to have been world wide.

As you very well know, water seeks it's own level and a water level deep enough to flood into the mountains would have surely spread out over an area much larger than would be considered as local.

If the flood was indeed local as you are claiming, then why build an ark? Why not just move the animals to another area?

Why does the language contained with in the bible surrounding the flood speak of a world wide catastrophic event?

 

[Vance]

Is the word "not" any less clear that "never"? If God says something will not happen, is this saying it will never happen? These other verses are also indicative of what God did during Creation:

...For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it. (Jeremiah 5:22)
"Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb...And I placed boundaries on it, And I set a bolt and doors, And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop'? (Job 38:8-11)

when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. (Proverbs 8:29)

 

[Vance]

vance, no one kknows where the ark landed. You are presenting speculation into your argument and passing it off as fact...this is a no no.

If the ark did indeed land in the mountains then the flood had to have been world wide.

As you very well know, water seeks it's own level and a water level deep enough to flood into the mountains would have surely spread out over an area much larger than would be considered as local.

If the flood was indeed local as you are claiming, then why build an ark? Why not just move the animals to another area?

Why does the language contained with in the bible surrounding the flood speak of a world wide catastrophic event?

The literal Scripture says it landed on Ararat, but this could not mean the mountains called Ararat in Turkey because they were not called that when this Scripture was written. The only reference to an Ararat at that time is the one I referred to.

And sure, it spread out VERY wide, I have no problem with that. If there were small hills that were covered, then it must have covered a very wide area, no doubt.

As for the "why build an ark", if you are in the middle of that wide area, you better have something! Also check out the author's answer to that one.

And where is there specific reference to a world-wide catastrophic flood? Every reference to "all" refers to in the "erets", which is more often used as a local region or people than globally.

Why didn't God use the specific word which ALWAYS means the entire world if the flood was actually global? Why did he use an alternate word that most often means something less than global?

 

[Ark Guy]

All over the world...I love the way you need to assign an alternative meaning to words for the flood to have been local.

This is often the case when the evos try to fit the bible into their evolutionary view.

In the case of Romans 1:8, the same word for world is used just a few verses later in Romans 1:20

ROM 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

..was Paul talking about the local area in this verse? obviously according to the vance view he was.

 

[Ark Guy]

Is the word "not" any less clear that "never"? If God says something will not happen, is this saying it will never happen? These other verses are also indicative of what God did during Creation:

...For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it. (Jeremiah 5:22)
"Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb...And I placed boundaries on it, And I set a bolt and doors, And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop'? (Job 38:8-11)

when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. (Proverbs 8:29)

So? God set a boundry to keep the water in place...that is all it says. For the sake of your failed argument you are adding aditional meaning to the verse.

 

[Vance]

Well, now we are talking about the Greek and not the Hebrew, but regardless, your reference proves my point. Even in Greek, the word for "world" can mean both local and global. We know for a fact that Paul was not referring to the entire planet in 1:8, but that he was referring to the entire planet in 1:20 since it is referring to God's Creation (and Genesis 1 makes clear that this was the entire planet).

 

[Vance]

So? God set a boundry to keep the water in place...that is all it says. For the sake of your failed argument you are adding aditional meaning to the verse.

Again, look at 104:9 even under the NAS you prefer: how does the "not" mean anything different than "never"? When does "not" not mean "not"?

 

[Ark Guy]

The ironic and interesting point is that guys like you Vance were predicted in the book of 2nd Peter.

Second Peter tells us that guys like you would deliberately forget that the flood destroyed the earth.

 

[Ark Guy]

Well, now we are talking about the Greek and not the Hebrew, but regardless, your reference proves my point. Even in Greek, the word for "world" can mean both local and global. We know for a fact that Paul was not referring to the entire planet in 1:8, but that he was referring to the entire planet in 1:20 since it is referring to God's Creation (and Genesis 1 makes clear that this was the entire planet).

I'm glad that you pick and choose to serve your needs...that's scary.

 

[Ark Guy]

The book of Genesis uses the word earth, erets, strongs 776 to describe the creation event.

It's quite obvious that the opening chapters of Genesis was referring to the entire earth...and not a local creation.

Guess what word Genesis uses for earth in the flood story?

GOT-CHA

 

[Vance]

I'm glad that you pick and choose to serve your needs...that's scary.

Just the type of response I have come to expect when you run out of legitimate points to make (as well as the reference to Peter).

When you have a word that has more than one meaning, you HAVE to choose. As with Paul's use of the word "world" in close juxtaposition you were so kind to point out, it is obvious that even a plain, literal reading requires that you choose which of the possible meanings is appropriate. In that case, I assume that you would agree that one instance, the word does NOT literally mean the whole planet, where in the other instance it does.

Similarly, with the multitude of uses of "erets" in Scripture, we have to determine in every instance whether this means local region, group of people, whole earth, the actual dirt itself, etc. The translators did their best to do this, but it behooves us to NOT just take their translation at face value.

What is more ironic is that Biblical literalists make such choices all the time and on the fly and don't even seem to realize it, or just ignore the fact that they do this when they want to assert that a particular choice in a particular verse MUST be the correct one.

 

[Vance]

The book of Genesis uses the word earth, erets, strongs 776 to describe the creation event.

It's quite obvious that the opening chapters of Genesis was referring to the entire earth...and not a local creation.

Guess what word Genesis uses for earth in the flood story?

GOT-CHA

Are you saying that a word with multiple meanings must always correspond to the way it is used in nearby verses? What about your Romans reference?

Not a very strong argument at all.

 

[Vance]

Consider the following analysis as well:

So we begin with a brief examination of the Hebrew word eretz which is translated "earth," as in Genesis 6:4, 5, 6, 11, 12, etc. According to Young's Analytical Concordance, the Hebrew word is translated "country" 140 times, "ground" 96 times and "earth" and "land" frequently. It is also rendered "field" once and by several other words in a very small number of instances. Assuming that Young's list is exhaustive, actual count shows that the word is translated "earth" about 677 times and translated "land" 1,458 times. Moreover, of the 677 occurrences, in at least one hundred instances the word may be equally, if not more appropriately, rendered "land" rather than "earth." Whereas in the cases where it is translated "land" in the English, the instances in which "earth" would have been more appropriate are rare. That is to say, the choice of "earth" or "land" as a translation of the original in any particular instance is a matter of context: and on the whole, if we exclude the account of the Flood, usage elsewhere shows that the context favors the word land rather than earth. To put this another way, Hebrew writers evidently employed the word with its much more restricted meaning about four times as frequently as they employed it with a broader meaning. Where they wished to make it absolutely clear that they meant "earth" in the sense of soil, the word adamah was used, as for example in Genesis 2:5, "there was not a man to till the ground." And where they wished to convey the idea of the whole habitable earth, they used the word tetel, as in Psalm 24:1, "the world and they that dwell therein."

 

[Vance]

And we must remember here that I am working with the LITERAL reading of the text, not even using the possible allegorical interpretation.

I am not even basing the choice of which way to translate the words of the text based on the physical evidence which so strongly points against a global flood (which would be an appropriate factor to consider when choosing between these two literal alternatives).

No, this analysis is based solely on the Scripture itself. The link provided actually looks at the text to conclude it was local and not global, not bringing in these other factors.

 

[Ark Guy]

According to the following web site the lowest elevation of Armenia is 400 meters.

http://www.parev.net/armenian-about-geography.htm

This is a water level..at the lowest point of about 1,300 feet

Now considering the area isn't a basin, the waters at the lowest point would have seeked it's own level, spilled out of the area and would have been much more larger than a local flood.

Now considering that the waters were much higher than 400 meters during the flood, that is high enough to cover your hills..there is no way flood could have been local.

GOT-CHA again vance.