'biblical' problems with a local flood...

Hello Steve. You will find few who will agree with you here. I am one who does agree.

There are many here will try and refute you and the Bible by saying the flood was local and God didn't create in six days.

This place is a den of wolves, so be watchful and keep in God's Word.

The promise was that there would be no more floods which would destroy everything. If it was a local flood, then it would mean a destruction of everything in that entire area. There has never since been a flood recorded that has destroyed every living thing in an area.

What do you think Peter meant by "that then was"? Many "local flood" advocates say this refers to a particular local area, the same way it also said that the whole world was to be taxed. Well, we know that it was not folks over in China, or the American Natives. So, even in the Gospels, the "whole world" does not always mean the "whole world".

And I will establish my covenant with you

Click to expand...

who is the 'you'?
Noah, only Noah, or him + his sons, some subgroup of humanbeings or all mankind?

who does God establish His covenant with?
it clearly is using Noah to refer to a larger group, but is that larger group well-defined?
likewise with the covenant to Adam, what is the extent of federal headship? is this the same thing as the covenant with Noah in extent?

NONE of these crucial questions can simply be answered from the text but are the result of looking at Scripture as a whole. but only universalists take the words ALL to mean all mankind. i am not a universalist why should i deny the ALL mankind in the covenant and yet force ALL the earth to mean all the globe?

the theological issues are far greater than the extent of the flood but directly bear on issues of salvation and critical issues of the extent of the atonement.
fortunately i am a particularist through the whole thing. the all is for emphasis.
YECists are inconsistent at this point, most YECists are not universalists, nor are they covenant theologians, but probably dispensationalists.
....

Vance said:

The promise was that there would be no more floods which would destroy everything. If it was a local flood, then it would mean a destruction of everything in that entire area. There has never since been a flood recorded that has destroyed every living thing in an area.

What do you think Peter meant by "that then was"? Many "local flood" advocates say this refers to a particular local area, the same way it also said that the whole world was to be taxed. Well, we know that it was not folks over in China, or the American Natives. So, even in the Gospels, the "whole world" does not always mean the "whole world".

Click to expand...

"then was" = tote = at the time that, that time, then.

It does not describe an area of size, not even close.

So Jesus really didn't want the Gospel taught to the whole world then(because the by your teachings whole world doesn't always mean that)?

This is some seriously flawed theology here Vance.

earth is "erets".

"Erets" is used much more often in Scripture to refer to a local area than to the entire planet. Often you will see the same word translated elsewhere as "the land", or "the dirt" or even a given people.

'erets can mean dirt, but the Bible never uses it to mean dirt. The Bible rather uses aphar to mean dust and [size=-1]tiyt to mean dirt.

Vance doesn't even know Hebrew, so his own idea of 'erets is based off of his persumptions.

If you look at the hebrew Bible and compare the word 'erets with what Strongs says about it, you will earth is the first definition of 'erets. The Biblical authors used 'erets for land quite often, 1,543 times. This doesn't mean that now 'erets cannot mean earth, for the Biblical authors use it for earth 712 times. 'Erets can also mean sheol, and it has about 20+ other meanings. So what do we do? We look for context, context, context.

If one looks to Genesis 6:5,11,12,14 - if you have a Hebrew Bible look at it - 'erets is used here for earth and it goes in the exact context of Genesis 1:1.

If one is to suggest that 'erets means something different in Genesis 6:5,11,12,14 then logically all must change as well as Genesis 1:1. The context of each of these verses are the same in the Hebrew writing. All mean earth, the whole planet earth, not part of it, less you suggest God only created a piece of the earth and the rest we see is some figment of our imagination.
[/size]

Hi Vance,

It's also very interesting to note, Vance, that many other religions all around the whole world have similar stories (not as precise though) to the Bible about, according to them, a global flood. We would expect this if all of mankind descended from Noah's family who survived a global flood.

God Bless,
Delta One.

Hi rmwilliamsll,

who is the 'you'?

Noah and all his descendants, i.e. us. Read Genesis 9:7-13 and you'll see that, You must have many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth."
God said to Noah and his sons, "I am now making my covenant with you and with your descendants, and with all living beings - all birds and all animals - everything that came out of the boat with you".........

It's interesting to note that the words "over all the earth" is also used here. If all over the earth does not mean exactly that, then why are we spread all over the earth? God forcably separated mankind at Babel to ensure that they follow His commands to spread all over the earth. At that time, in Genesis 11:4 we read that the people said "so that we can make a name for ourselves and not be scattered all over the earth". In other words, they were saying "We're not going to do what God told us".

Vance you may wish to try and explain away the wording that describes the global flood, but you must be consistent and apply the same "meanings" to the next few chapters that use exactly the same phrases.

This place is a den of wolves, so be watchful and keep in God's Word.

Click to expand...

Isn't that flaming? After all, "wolves" was used by Jesus to mean people directly doing Satan's work.

As for me, I think that to have a consistent literal interpretation, the best would be to assume that the flood was local geographically, but global biologically.

Nobody has yet figured out where all the water came from, or where it went.

shernren said:

As for me, I think that to have a consistent literal interpretation, the best would be to assume that the flood was local geographically, but global biologically.

Click to expand...

Can you go into this in more depth?

Hi sherren,

As for me, I think that to have a consistent literal interpretation, the best would be to assume that the flood was local geographically, but global biologically.

But the Bible, if we read it at face value, says that the whole earth was under water, i.e. waters encompassed the entire face of the earth...

Nobody has yet figured out where all the water came from, or where it went.

AiG, for one, has issued a few guesses of where the water came from using various Biblical verses and where it all went. See the Answers Book, but I think they have the answer to your statement on their website, just wait a minute while I have a quick look....

*Goes off in a search*
.....
*Eureka!*

I found the link so that you may wish to check it out: <http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp> to see if they have "figured it out" yet. Of course, like all fallible man made theories, it is subject to change - but the fact that the Scripture is God's Word and that Genesis was meant to be taken at face value is not subject to change. Even if you don't believe all of what AiG has written, they work straight from the Bible and using its verses to make inferences about what most likely would have happened.

BrotherSteve said:

The flood could not be local and the bible be true.

Click to expand...

You left out a key term here. The flood could not be local and the bible literally true.

It can still be true in any way that really counts i.e for teaching, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. That is how Peter is using it.

Okay Remus, I'm looking at this from a scientific point of view so to understand me you have to assume that point of view. (I'm not saying you have to agree. But if you understood, that would be great to start with.)

At the time of the Flood, do we know that man had filled the entire earth as we know it today? Maybe not. What if man had only filled, say, the Mesopotamia River Valley?

Then if I said "world", maybe I meant only the Mesopotamia River Valley. Whether or not other parts are included in the "world", depends.

For example, was South America part of the "world"? To God, yes, since He quite obviously had created it. But to people, maybe not, since they may not have found it and therefore it exists in nobody's mind but God's.

So when God sent a flood to destroy "the world", maybe He meant to destroy everything that humans have ever known and touched. How, then, is this interpretation of "the world" consistent with the Genesis 9 promise? To be honest, I don't know.

Anyway, it *is* true that God has not sent another flood to destroy everything that humanity knows and experiences. I suppose that to be more accurate, the Flood may have been "local from God's point of view, but global from man's point of view" (using global as "worldwide" and not as "pertaining to the globe" since they may not have known it was a globe back then!) ; it happens that with modern advancement and spreading all over the world global from man's point of view is now (more or less) also global from God's point of view, so that the distinction may not be as clear.

Have I made myself understood?

But the Bible, if we read it at face value, says that the whole earth was under water, i.e. waters encompassed the entire face of the earth...

Click to expand...

At whose face value? An Israelite during Moses' time reading the Flood story may not have felt the need to imagine the Flood as something that historically happened, when reading it at face value. He might be surprised to see us analyzing the science of flood hydrology!

Eh, this is the link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

I think there are more problems than this that I'm pointing out, but:

If you're assuming that the Earth was essentially flat with shallow oceans, were there deep-sea vents, and therefore deep-sea vent ecosystems, before the Flood? If yes, then the Earth couldn't have been flat and the theory is inconsistent, and anyway the ecosystems would have been ripped apart by those colossal releases of volcanic energy. If no, then we have gone from a barren habitat (newly-formed deep sea vents at the end of the Flood) to a complete ecosystem, with a chemosynthesis suspiciously reminiscent of first life, with complete and balanced energy cycles, in 6000- years!

This is powerful evidence for "macroevolution" and "speciation". By admitting the Flood you prove evolution.

shernren said:

At the time of the Flood, do we know that man had filled the entire earth as we know it today? Maybe not. What if man had only filled, say, the Mesopotamia River Valley?
...
Have I made myself understood?

Click to expand...

I believe so. Would you think that this would extend to all the land animals as well?

That I don't know. ... It might be that the proper interpretation would be all land animals that man had interacted with. At that time, those animals would also be geographically restricted to the Meso region. The question may be posed: When man hears that God is going to wipe out all animals, does he naturally extend it to include animals he has never seen or heard of in places he has never been or heard of?

That's what I mean: local from God's perspective and global from God's perspective. That distinction is very much gone today, but not then.

shernren,

At whose face value? An Israelite during Moses' time reading the Flood story may not have felt the need to imagine the Flood as something that historically happened, when reading it at face value. He might be surprised to see us analyzing the science of flood hydrology!

Firstly, you don't know what reading a book at "Face Value" is, do you? Reading a book at face value is just reading it as it appears...

Um, it is commonly believed that Moses himself either wrote and/or put together the first few chapters of Genesis.

Eh, this is the link

Oh, my bad. Stupid link included the ">" sign too! I mean the following link:
explains where all the water came from and where it all went after the Great Flood... On that link they talk about the fountains of the great deep and the windows of heaven (two phrases used by the Bible to describe where the water came from) and apply them to modern day language and understanding.

If you're assuming that the Earth was essentially flat with shallow oceans, were there deep-sea vents, and therefore deep-sea vent ecosystems, before the Flood? If yes, then the Earth couldn't have been flat and the theory is inconsistent, and anyway the ecosystems would have been ripped apart by those colossal releases of volcanic energy. If no, then we have gone from a barren habitat (newly-formed deep sea vents at the end of the Flood) to a complete ecosystem, with a chemosynthesis suspiciously reminiscent of first life, with complete and balanced energy cycles, in 6000- years!

I have never implied or said that the earth was essentially flat - that would be an assumption that is not Biblically supported (take for example Genesis 6:19). Since the following the Great Flood is really not my area of expertese, I would suggest that you view that article above (it should work this time! ).
Delta One.

Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God altered the earth’s topography. New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.

Click to expand...

(from AiG's explanation of where the Flood waters went)

That's precisely what I'm talking about. Either there were no deep-sea vent ecosystems before the Flood (due to there being no deep-sea vents before the flood) or the deep-sea vent ecosystems were completely and catastrophically destroyed by this process. Then, we have the complete evolution of an entire ecosystem from scratch (to worms that can withstand 50+ degrees temperature difference between their heads and their tails, for example, mind you) that is completely suited to its environment, within 6000 years. And you say macroevolution is impossible?

Now, firstly, if I read this "at face value":

Firstly, you don't know what reading a book at "Face Value" is, do you? Reading a book at face value is just reading it as it appears...

Click to expand...

I would assume that you think I don't know how to read, and that would be a very grave insult.

Secondly, to read the Bible "at face value" as you imply, you have to know Hebrew and read the original scrolls. Oops.

Thirdly, there is no such thing as just reading something at face value. There will always be an underlying first interpretation through which information must pass before it makes any sense. The only reason you think it is "at face value" is because you are reading it through underlying first interpretations that have been so completely ingrained that they seem like second nature to you.

The Western mindset regards truth as being objective, historical and factual in nature.
So when you read a book, the first thought that comes to mind is, "When did this happen?" "How did this happen?" "Who did this?" etc. When you hear the word "myth", immediately it brings connotations of primitivity, lies, rumors, etc.

Whereas the Eastern mindset regards truth as experiential, personal and relational in nature.
So when the Eastern reads, he asks: "What does this mean to me?" "How can I achieve / apply this?" "What does this matter to me?" "How does this change how I view the world?"

What I'm trying to get across (in this extremely reductionist manner) is that there are many different viewpoints. There is no such thing as having "no viewpoint" i.e. being "completely objective". That position doesn't exist.

In fact, the idea of "complete objectivity" is precisely what has led to the mess of higher theology in our day. You see, if there really is some sort of objective truth, and it is preferable to subjective truth, then the best observer is the objective observer.

To use your vocab: Christians don't read the Bible at face value, you know? They assume that the Bible is God's Word, that it is infallible, that it has a salvation message, that it is unique. But that's biased! That's a completely unfair way to look at the Bible! Theology should be done by people who read the Bible at face value: they must be people who don't assume anything: i.e. don't assume that it is the Word of God, don't assume that it is infallible... if you insist on "reading the Bible at face value" that's what you'll get.

To return to my vocab: Since the best observer is an objective observer, then theology shouldn't be done by Christians, because Christians are not objective, by definition. They "don't take it at face value": they take it as truth, and that's wrong. Theology should be done by atheists! They are the only objective ones, the ones who really "read the Bible at face value" instead of assuming there is a God behind it.

Now you see how truly dangerous it is to ask me to "read the Bible at face value"? For a fuller exploration you can check the excellent (though slightly technical book) by Alister McGrath called "The Enigma of The Cross", and C.S. Lewis' article on "Looking At and Looking Along" (if I'm not mistaken). If you really took the Flood "at face value", without having to assume that it was literal truth, you'd dismiss it as just another cult myth.

Delta One said:

Um, it is commonly believed that Moses himself either wrote and/or put together the first few chapters of Genesis.

Click to expand...

Well, no it's not. It is widely understood, and taught in most theological schools today, that the Torah/Pentateuch was attributed to Moses by the post-exilic rabbinical schools, but that none of it was actually writtten by Moses.

Here is an interview with Richard E. Friedman on this topic.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/139/story_13986_1.html

Here is a brief outline of the Documentary Thesis
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html

Here is the flood story separated into its two original sources
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jp-flood.html

Here is another outline of the Documentary Thesis which includes a short explanation of some of the evidence for it:


(Bolding added)

http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/torah_torah_torah/torah1.php

shernren said:

The question may be posed: When man hears that God is going to wipe out all animals, does he naturally extend it to include animals he has never seen or heard of in places he has never been or heard of?

Click to expand...

Well, let's first take a look at what we have to work with.

Genesis 7:4 - "For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made."
Genesis 7:21 - All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
Genesis 7:22 - of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
Genesis 7:23 - Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

There are a couple more references that we can use, but I think these give us the idea. In your opinion, do you believe that it's possible that the Bible is referring to anything but all the animals that were alive at that time?