A question about the local flood theory

[Xinnamon]

Hi. I drop by this forum occasionally, and if this question has been asked before, I apologize.

I would like to ask the TEs a question about the local flood theory: Why do some TEs suggest a local flood in place of the global flood? Why not just say that no flood has ever occurred, and the story of Noah is a myth, like the creation account in Genesis? Is it because of the different versions of flood stories in different cultures circulating around the world? If you believe in a local flood, do you also believe that Noah did collect a pair of all the animals in his region?

As a disclaimer, I do believe that a global flood is highly unlikely in the face of evidence, but I'm just interested to see where some TEs stand on the local flood theory.

 

[gluadys]

Hi. I drop by this forum occasionally, and if this question has been asked before, I apologize.

I would like to ask the TEs a question about the local flood theory: Why do some TEs suggest a local flood in place of the global flood? Why not just say that no flood has ever occurred, and the story of Noah is a myth, like the creation account in Genesis? Is it because of the different versions of flood stories in different cultures circulating around the world? If you believe in a local flood, do you also believe that Noah did collect a pair of all the animals in his region?

As a disclaimer, I do believe that a global flood is highly unlikely in the face of evidence, but I'm just interested to see where some TEs stand on the local flood theory.

It would be presumptuous to assert that no flood occurred. We cannot identify any particular local flood with Noah's flood, but given that many legendary stories are founded on historical events, it is possible there was a local flood that inspired the biblical flood story (or its predecessors).

No, I don't think the historical counterpart to Noah gathered a pair of each kind of animal. He probably just gathered as many of his own farm animals as he could save.

 

[Jase]

Hi. I drop by this forum occasionally, and if this question has been asked before, I apologize.

I would like to ask the TEs a question about the local flood theory: Why do some TEs suggest a local flood in place of the global flood? Why not just say that no flood has ever occurred, and the story of Noah is a myth, like the creation account in Genesis? Is it because of the different versions of flood stories in different cultures circulating around the world? If you believe in a local flood, do you also believe that Noah did collect a pair of all the animals in his region?

Well, I'm sure you'll find TE's disagreeing on this. Some may believe in a local flood, others just attribute all of it to allegorical myth. I personally lean towards local floods being the origin of the original flood stories like the Gilgamesh, which may have influenced the Noah Story. Not sure if there was a real ark or not.

 

[Jadis40]

Hi. I drop by this forum occasionally, and if this question has been asked before, I apologize.

I would like to ask the TEs a question about the local flood theory: Why do some TEs suggest a local flood in place of the global flood? Why not just say that no flood has ever occurred, and the story of Noah is a myth, like the creation account in Genesis? Is it because of the different versions of flood stories in different cultures circulating around the world? If you believe in a local flood, do you also believe that Noah did collect a pair of all the animals in his region?

As a disclaimer, I do believe that a global flood is highly unlikely in the face of evidence, but I'm just interested to see where some TEs stand on the local flood theory.

I'm not a TE persay, but I'm more in their camp when it comes to the flood. If you had asked me at any time up to a few years ago if I thought the flood was global, I would have answered in a resounding "yes." But now, as I study more about stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon and study a bit of geology, I'm lead to the conclusions that the Biblical account of the Great Flood could be local in scope. I'm not just basing that on geology but also in historical facts, backed up by archeological evidence. I graduated with a B.S. in History, so this is an area which is really interesting to me.

First and foremost, I've come to the realization that the Bible only deals with a limited scope of the entire span of human and world history. As I pointed out in another thread, the main actors if you will in the Old Testament deals were the Jews and the prophecies of the coming Messiah. What was taking place in one part of the world probably would have been unkown in another.

Case in point, recently I was exploring wikipedia a bit, and came across some information that I never new before, and that's the extent that humans were already spread out over the area of what is now Europe and the Orient:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skara_Brae (Scotland)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomon (Japan - dates from about 10,000 BC up to 300 BC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovenweep_National_Monument (United States) What fascinated me was this information:

Paleo-Indians searched for big game throughout the Hovenweep country as early as 14,000 years ago. Hunter-gatherers continued to use the area well after the appearance of agriculture about AD 500.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalenian (France)

The culture spans the period between c. 18,000 and 10,000 BP, towards the end of the last ice age.

Also, there is a continual record of human settlements dating not only before 10,000 B.C. but in a continous span from the 10th millennium BC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_millennium_BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_millennium_BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_millennium_BC

What's fascinating about the 7th millennium BC is this information:

Circa 6000 BC – Between 12,000 BC and 5,000 BC it appears that massive inland flooding due to catastrophic glacier melt was taking place in several regions of the world, making for subsequent sea level rises which could be relatively abrupt for many worldwide.

I think this could account for the widespread story of a flood, but nothing on the scale where humanity was completely destroyed except for 8 people, as recorded in the Bible. If that was truly accurate, it doesn't account at all for the continuing improvement in technology throughout the span of human history, the proof of civilization the world over notwithstanding. If the flood was global, why are these sites preserved? A case in point is Jericho:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

It seems a flood, if it was global, would have completely obliterated not just the archeological remains of this civilization, but others all over the world.

Also, the Epic of Gilgamesh was written in the 3rd millennium BC, while the story of the flood in the Old Testament wasn't written until the 1st millennium BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_millennium_BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_millennium_BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_millennium_BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium_BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_millennium_BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_millennium_BC

Also, it's under the 1st millennium when the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) was written. There's 9000+ years of human history that took place before that time, with cultures rising and falling all over the globe. There are some which have stood the test of time, among those being China, with the beginnings of agriculture dating back to 5000 BC.

 

[jereth]

I would like to ask the TEs a question about the local flood theory: Why do some TEs suggest a local flood in place of the global flood? Why not just say that no flood has ever occurred, and the story of Noah is a myth, like the creation account in Genesis?

Before I give my POV, I'd like to endorse what glaudys, jase and jadis have said. I think they've all provided some very insightful answers.

Personally, I feel that Noah's flood has a historical basis for a number of reasons. Firstly, the narrative reads as if it telling a real story (shock horror!) -- it has a fairly down-to-earth feel to it. This suggests that there is a tie to some genuine human experience, and the story wasn't just spun out of someone's imagination. Secondly, I do think that history is important in the book of Genesis (shock horror!), although it becomes more "misty" the further back in time you go. Thirdly, because the table of nations (Genesis 10) seems authentic to me, which means that Shem, Ham and Japheth were real people. Fourthly, because big devastating floods really do happen. Fifthly, because God really can save people from natural disasters.

There is not a false dichotomy between myth and history, as many here have suggested. All history has an element of myth to it, especially narrated and oral history. The story of Noah certainly has mythical elements, but that does not stop it from having some grounding in a real event (or events).

If you believe in a local flood, do you also believe that Noah did collect a pair of all the animals in his region?

It would seem likely that Noah did collect male and female animals of animals and birds in the region that was to be flooded, yes.

 

[RPGfreak]

I'm not a TE persay, but I'm more in their camp when it comes to the flood. If you had asked me at any time up to a few years ago if I thought the flood was global, I would have answered in a resounding "yes." But now, as I study more about stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon and study a bit of geology, I'm lead to the conclusions that the Biblical account of the Great Flood could be local in scope. I'm not just basing that on geology but also in historical facts, backed up by archeological evidence. I graduated with a B.S. in History, so this is an area which is really interesting to me.

First and foremost, I've come to the realization that the Bible only deals with a limited scope of the entire span of human and world history. As I pointed out in another thread, the main actors if you will in the Old Testament deals were the Jews and the prophecies of the coming Messiah. What was taking place in one part of the world probably would have been unkown in another.

Case in point, recently I was exploring wikipedia a bit, and came across some information that I never new before, and that's the extent that humans were already spread out over the area of what is now Europe and the Orient:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skara_Brae (Scotland)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomon (Japan - dates from about 10,000 BC up to 300 BC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovenweep_National_Monument (United States) What fascinated me was this information:

Paleo-Indians searched for big game throughout the Hovenweep country as early as 14,000 years ago. Hunter-gatherers continued to use the area well after the appearance of agriculture about AD 500.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalenian (France)

The culture spans the period between c. 18,000 and 10,000 BP, towards the end of the last ice age.

Also, there is a continual record of human settlements dating not only before 10,000 B.C. but in a continous span from the 10th millennium BC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_millennium_BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_millennium_BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_millennium_BC

What's fascinating about the 7th millennium BC is this information:

Circa 6000 BC – Between 12,000 BC and 5,000 BC it appears that massive inland flooding due to catastrophic glacier melt was taking place in several regions of the world, making for subsequent sea level rises which could be relatively abrupt for many worldwide.

I think this could account for the widespread story of a flood, but nothing on the scale where humanity was completely destroyed except for 8 people, as recorded in the Bible. If that was truly accurate, it doesn't account at all for the continuing improvement in technology throughout the span of human history, the proof of civilization the world over notwithstanding. If the flood was global, why are these sites preserved? A case in point is Jericho:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

It seems a flood, if it was global, would have completely obliterated not just the archeological remains of this civilization, but others all over the world.

I'm not TE, I don't even know what that means. The point though is that at the time of the flood (and this requires that the bible is at least partly true) the population of the world was not yet spilt in to different nations and tounges (Noahs flood Gen 6, Tower of Babel Gen 11). All of the poeple would be speard out some yes but not to the extint that we are today. I believe (yes I said believe) that at the time of the flood the earths land masses (continants) were all conected in some way and spaced closer together if not one big land mass so certian places would not yet exsist, case in point Jericho. Now remember that in those times that Noah was the only godly man left so it is safe to say that the sinful people that cared not a bit for God would rise an entire city in His name and for his glory. Now think, if at one time all the water that was traped under ground all over the earth were to rush up and break through the crust of the earth at the same time would that not be enough force to split the continants and form roughly waht we have today, I think yes. The force of all that water is also able to have formed stuff like the Grand Canyon and other canyons and even some small mountian ranges cause all that dirt and rock has to go somewhere. Now it is said in the bible that every man is from Noah's line and I'll bet you that the founder of Jericho is the same. It all comes down to the question, do YOU believe that the bible is true? The answer is either yes or no there is no middle ground. The bible is either 100% or 0% true.

 

[Jase]

I'm not TE, I don't even know what that means.

A TE is a theistic evolutionist. A theist who believes God used evolution to create life's diversity.

I believe (yes I said believe) that at the time of the flood the earths land masses (continants) were all conected in some way and spaced closer together if not one big land mass so certian places would not yet exsist, case in point Jericho.

Well, all the continents were one giant continent called Pangea, a couple hundred million years ago, but I'm guessing you disagree with the age?

Now think, if at one time all the water that was traped under ground all over the earth were to rush up and break through the crust of the earth at the same time would that not be enough force to split the continants and form roughly waht we have today, I think yes.

Well, considering that underneath the continental plates is the asthenosphere, which is what moves the continental plates, I'm not sure where all this water is supposed to come from. The asthenosphere is 3000 degrees fahrenheit. Far too hot for water to be contained.

The force of all that water is also able to have formed stuff like the Grand Canyon and other canyons and even some small mountian ranges cause all that dirt and rock has to go somewhere.

Geology disagrees with any of this happening. And if the flood did cause this in such a short span of time, it would incinerate the entire planet due to the energy release.

Now it is said in the bible that every man is from Noah's line and I'll bet you that the founder of Jericho is the same. It all comes down to the question, do YOU believe that the bible is true? The answer is either yes or no there is no middle ground. The bible is either 100% or 0% true.

This is a false dichotomy. The Bible does not have to be 100% literally correct for it to have meaning. Unless you believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, and the Earth has corners, the Bible is not 100% literally accurate.

 

[gluadys]

I'm not TE, I don't even know what that means. The point though is that at the time of the flood (and this requires that the bible is at least partly true) the population of the world was not yet spilt in to different nations and tounges (Noahs flood Gen 6, Tower of Babel Gen 11). All of the poeple would be speard out some yes but not to the extint that we are today.

People have been spread out all over the world since long before the biblical flood. There is archeological evidence of human civilizations in all parts of the globe prior to the flood.


http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10923986#post10923986

I believe (yes I said believe) that at the time of the flood the earths land masses (continants) were all conected in some way and spaced closer together if not one big land mass so certian places would not yet exsist, case in point Jericho.

That, however, was long before there were any hominids on earth at all, even before most mammals had appeared. Pangea began to split up about 195 million years ago and the continents were separated 94 million years ago although they had not yet moved to their current positions.


http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm

Now remember that in those times that Noah was the only godly man left so it is safe to say that the sinful people that cared not a bit for God would rise an entire city in His name and for his glory. Now think, if at one time all the water that was traped under ground all over the earth were to rush up and break through the crust of the earth at the same time would that not be enough force to split the continants and form roughly waht we have today, I think yes. The force of all that water is also able to have formed stuff like the Grand Canyon and other canyons and even some small mountian ranges cause all that dirt and rock has to go somewhere. Now it is said in the bible that every man is from Noah's line and I'll bet you that the founder of Jericho is the same.

There is no way that much water could be trapped underground without it turning to steam. So you would have gushers of super-heated steam, not water, breaking through and it would superheat the atmosphere and kill every living thing on earth including the passengers on the ark.

It all comes down to the question, do YOU believe that the bible is true? The answer is either yes or no there is no middle ground. The bible is either 100% or 0% true.

It all comes down to the purpose of scripture and the various ways in which literature can impart truth. Truth need not be given in terms of scientific fact, especially when it is not about science.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Hi. I drop by this forum occasionally, and if this question has been asked before, I apologize.

I would like to ask the TEs a question about the local flood theory: Why do some TEs suggest a local flood in place of the global flood? Why not just say that no flood has ever occurred, and the story of Noah is a myth, like the creation account in Genesis? Is it because of the different versions of flood stories in different cultures circulating around the world?

Because flood myths are common all throughout history, as are floods. Water is life, and every ancient civilization starts on or near a river. Flooding comes with the territory... literally.

We know, for example, that around 3500 BC, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers suffered a local but extremely nasty flood, which has been the basis for several stories, including the Flood story found in the Epic of Gilgamesh... which predates Noah by about 1,000 years, but bears some remarkable similarities.

Proof? No... but it supports a hypothesis.

If you believe in a local flood, do you also believe that Noah did collect a pair of all the animals in his region?

Personally, I think that Noah (or the historical character he was based on) did rescue a lot of people and/or animals during the historical flood. And, like any other case of Oral Tradition...it's one of those stories that gets a little better every time it's told.

As a disclaimer, I do believe that a global flood is highly unlikely in the face of evidence, but I'm just interested to see where some TEs stand on the local flood theory.

Well, I'm a TE, and this is my stance.

 

[Xinnamon]

Thank you everyone for your insights, it has given me food for thought. I guess I still have a lot to learn when it comes to interpreting the bible like the authors intended.

RPGfreak, thanks for answering, but my question is not about global vs local flood. The bible does not have to be 100% literally true to be a valuable inspired work.

 

[vossler]

I'm not TE, I don't even know what that means.

Stick around here and I'll guarantee you'll find out.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

A.People have been spread out all over the world since long before the biblical flood. There is archeological evidence of human civilizations in all parts of the globe prior to the flood.

B.It all comes down to the purpose of scripture and the various ways in which literature can impart truth. Truth need not be given in terms of scientific fact, especially when it is not about science.



C.Because flood myths are common all throughout history, as are floods. Water is life, and every ancient civilization starts on or near a river. Flooding comes with the territory... literally.

We know, for example, that around 3500 BC, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers suffered a local but extremely nasty flood, which has been the basis for several stories, including the Flood story found in the Epic of Gilgamesh... which predates Noah by about 1,000 years, but bears some remarkable similarities.

Proof? No... but it supports a hypothesis.


1.was Noah's flood local or global?
the first problem is confusion with the word "global"?
often what is actually meant is "universal", that is all human beings, or all land dwellers, or all living things.

2.the second big problem is that literary genre issue. Is this history or is it something else? usually referred to as the figurative vs literal battle but these are not very good labels for the situation.

and to answer 2. seems to require answering B above first. We determine literary genre not just from internal evidences from the document but from how it fits into the whole thing, both the entire Scriptures and into our theology. what is the purpose of the description of Noah's flood? does the purpose determine or same the genre of the writing?

3. how do we go about discovering what the passage means? this is where A and C come in. General revelation can and ought to help us determine what the more difficult passages in Scripture mean. It's light, and we need to use it to illuminate.

When is Noah's flood?
generations after Adam.
Where are people?
The Bible says all over the land. does this mean globe?

see A. people are all over the global from at most 60Kya. In Australia, moving across the Pacific in the original island hopping, and moving out of Siberia towards the Americas.

How can we date Adam? is Adam historical? a single person or a conglomerate of some type?

without answering these questions, i'd note that his punishment from God is to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. Adam is post Neolithic and the agricultural revolution brought on by growing crops. The earliest you can date Adam is 10-12Kya, Noah must be subsequent. people are all over the globe.

there is no evidence for a global flood, and considerable that it did not happen. it's not global but some form of local.

but what about the universality of the claims?
all people, all life? etc.

are they exaggerations for effect?
are they because these are the only important people, those with whom God is building a particular relationship?


or is it a race memory? a reworking of an old story with a basis in history but now overlaid with mythic implications?

or is it a bunch of floods put together in cultural memory?
or a borrow story from Gilgamesh?
if so where did it come from?


lots of questions, few answers, even fewer principles to use to try to sort out the competing ideas.

tell us here when you solve it, thanks.