A literal reading of Scripture requires a local flood?

[Ark Guy]

Vance, your entire argument is based upon the meaning of the words earth and world.


Thats it.

You need more.

 

[Vance]

But the entire argument for a global flood is based on an alternate reading of "earth".

So, you need more than that as well.

Luckily, I DO have more than that. Given the two alternative readings, even if they are equally supported by the text (and I think the local alternative is more supported by the text), then I will go with the alternative which is supported by the vast weight of the evidence from God's Creation.

 

[Ark Guy]

No vance, I argued that a water level high enough to cover the mountains would have been much larger than a simple local flood.

I argued that Noah would not have a need to build an ark...he could have just moved the animals.


I can also argue that God promises not to send another flood. If the flood was local..then God fibbed, that is considering that many local flood have occured since the days of Noah.

I can argue that you're kind was predicted in 2nd Peter.

And yes, I can also argue the meaning of the word earth/world etc.

Would you like more arguments...or will you continue to filter your bible through the wisdom of evolutionism?

 

[Vance]

To answer your first question:

Has God sent a local flood with the purpose of destroying every living thing in that area? Has a local flood since then EVER destroyed every living thing in its area? No. God has not "fibbed".

as to your second question, I would again refer you to the author of the site I linked:

Why didn't God send Noah on a long trip?

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.

 

[Vance]

And what does believing in a local flood have to do with evolution? Just another attempt at "guilt by association" for those who improperly find evolution unpalatable. Very poor argument.

I could just as easily say that you are filtering all your interpretation through your own "young earth" filter, reading every Scripture to fit this presupposition.

In fact, I do say that.

 

[Vance]

Oh, and Neph and I had much of this discussion a while back in another thread, if we could find it! I think he ultimately agreed that the two versions were both possible, but he preferred the global because he has particular other beliefs regarding the Nephilim which correspond to a global flood. He could explain it better, I am sure.

 

[Vance]

BTW, here is another analysis of the literal text, which argues that the proper reading of the Hebrew is not that the waters rose 15 cubits above the hills, but that it rose 15 cubits TOTAL, and that this covered the local hills. I have not had a chance to research whether this is an accurate Hebrew translation, but I thought I would post it to see if anyone has any more information on this:

"Mountains is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word harîm meaning hills in this context. The King James Version of Genesis 7:19 translates hills correctly. There is no mention of draft or deep or depth in the Hebrew text of Genesis 7:20. A literal translation from Hebrew is "Five ten cubits upward rose the waters and they covered the hills." Note that "hills" is not in the same clause as cubits or rose. The 15 cubits was how much the water rose, not how deep the water was. The depths would be different at different places. The tops of the hills in the clause "and they covered the hills" were less than 15 cubits above the normal water level during the annual inundation and were therefore covered when the water rose 15 cubits higher. "Under the whole sky" means within Noah's visible horizon. All of the hills within Noah's visible horizon were covered by the water when the river rose 15 cubits. If the flood water had been more than ten thousand cubits deep, the authors of Genesis would have said so. Fifteen cubits is consistent with a local flood."

 

[Ark Guy]

BTW, here is another analysis of the literal text, which argues that the proper reading of the Hebrew is not that the waters rose 15 cubits above the hills, but that it rose 15 cubits TOTAL, and that this covered the local hills. I have not had a chance to research whether this is an accurate Hebrew translation, but I thought I would post it to see if anyone has any more information on this:

"Mountains is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word harîm meaning hills in this context. The King James Version of Genesis 7:19 translates hills correctly. There is no mention of draft or deep or depth in the Hebrew text of Genesis 7:20. A literal translation from Hebrew is "Five ten cubits upward rose the waters and they covered the hills." Note that "hills" is not in the same clause as cubits or rose. The 15 cubits was how much the water rose, not how deep the water was. The depths would be different at different places. The tops of the hills in the clause "and they covered the hills" were less than 15 cubits above the normal water level during the annual inundation and were therefore covered when the water rose 15 cubits higher. "Under the whole sky" means within Noah's visible horizon. All of the hills within Noah's visible horizon were covered by the water when the river rose 15 cubits. If the flood water had been more than ten thousand cubits deep, the authors of Genesis would have said so. Fifteen cubits is consistent with a local flood."

Vance you are grasping at straws.

My previous post showed that the heigth of the land elevation plus the heigth of the water lever requires a flood that was larger than your claimed local flood.

Nice try

 

[Ark Guy]

Vance makes another fatal error which once again allows me to say..GOT-CHA

The area you mentioned known as Mesopotamian is down hill of Turkey, or where you claimed the ark landed.
Now unless water flows up hill, the ark would have floated with the current south...away from the Ararat "hills"

Well Vance.....

 

[Bushido216]

You're assuming there's a current.

 

[Bushido216]

As a matter of fact, why did the Ark move at all?

 

[Vance]

Well, first of all I never mentioned that the flood was of mesopotamia, and that is just one possibility. Another is that of a flood of the high plains of what is now northern Iraq, then the area of Armenia which was associated with the "ararat" in Scripture. There was actually an inland sea in that area an the distant past, IIRC, and a local flood could have covered the area of the ancient sea. Anywhere the ark landed in that area would be called "Ararat". The water would obviously have drained to the south, but if the ark had grounded on one of the low hills, it would not have moved south with the drainage.

Regardless, this area is just one possibility, and Ararat could refer to something else entirely, and now unknown to us. As you say, we just don't know exactly where the ark landed and there are many possible areas where the flood could have taken place.

I notice, though, that you completely ignore all the more difficult issues raised in my earlier posts. Talk about picking and choosing!

 

[Ark Guy]

Vance, you need to understand that water seeks its own level...and any water in the area you're talking about, especially of the depths the bible is talking about...would simply drain to the south and never flood the area...unless of course the flood was world wide.

 

[Vance]

There are many ways it could have happened. I live in an area where there was a big flood in 1904 and the water created one of the largest inland seas in the US. It is still there today because it is being fed by farm runoff, otherwise it would have drain and evaporated, never running into the ocean. If the flood water coming down into natural basin created such an "inland sea" area was greater than the ability for it to drain out, you would have a flood basin that would take a long time to drain. I have no idea that is what happened, nobody knows. We don't even know where it might have happened.

Believe me, the geological and hydrological problems with a local flood are infinitesimal (to the point of non-existent) compared to a worldwide flood. If you can adequately respond to the various threads in the science forum discussing the problems with a world-wide flood (all starting "X falsifies a worldwide flood"), then you might have something.

For now, we have two possible LITERAL Biblical interpretations, and one of these happens to be proven NOT to have happened by the evidence. The other very much *could* have happened, given the physical evidence. Given this, if the flood story IS literal, I will go with the latter literal interpretation.

 

[Ark Guy]

But vance, the are you describe where the flood happened was nothing like a basin.

Besides, the water level was much much to high for your scenario as presented and ignored by you in a previous post.

Like your model and theory...It just doesn't hold water.

 

[Vance]

First of all, we don't know for sure where it happened, the reference to ararat might mean an area of Armenia, or it might be a reference to some other place altogether. Second, there is a large area of armenia, I have heard, which was once an inland sea. If this is true, then any flood God would send to the area could definitely fill up that sea again, which would then drain again. I don't know that this is what happened, but it is possible.

As for the water level being to high, I don't see that at all. 15 cubits of water, by one translation, would be a big flood, but this WAS a big flood, obviously.

Again, these points are miniscule compared to the massive problems between the evidence we have in God's creation and the concept of a worldwide flood. These have NEVER been adequately addressed since the time when geologists (who were Christian, btw) first concluded that it could simply not have happened back in the early 1800's.

YEC's tend to run away from these problems, taking pot shots from their literalist bunker and tell themselves they are winning the good fight. But they are simply fighting for a false and utterly meaningless position.

It makes no theological difference whatsoever whether the flood was worldwide or local. It does not even make any theological difference whether a flood was literal or allegorical. Any more than any other allegorical tale in Scripture effects the validity of the rest.

All it does is weaken the Christian witness.