Global Flood?

[juvenissun]

The wind is not moving the body of water, it is drying it. Air can absorb small amounts of moisture, and the wind allows the air to make contact with the water, absorb some of the water, and then be replaced with more dry air which will absorb more water. Thus the wind makes it dry faster than it would if there was no wind by moving the water to a location that is drier. If the entire planet it was flooded, blowing wind across the water would be like filling a bucket of water on one end of a pool and then dumping it back in the other side.

 

[gluadys]

That's ok if you want to treat the text simply as a story

Yes, that is what this thread and section of the forum is about - theological discussion about the text itself, if in doubt refer to the OP.

Is it your claim that the flood took place only in the text or also in reality? Or does it not matter to you one way or the other?

 

[1whirlwind]

I want to present two things, but reflect the same general idea, that I think indicate that a global flood is not in view in Genesis. The points here are that there are specific people/groups besides Noah and his family that survive the flood. The first is the Nephilim who we run across just prior to the rain (Gen 6) and who also are living in the land after the Exodus (Num 13). The second is the survival of descendents of Cain. We run into the Cainites in several places after the flood (Gen 15, Num 24, Judg 1, Judg 4, 1 Sam 15, 1 Sam 27, 1 Sam 30) who are seen wandering the Negev region just as Genesis 4 said the descendents of Cain would be wanderers. The survival of these 2 groups of people should be an indication that the flood was not global in the way we think of it. There were people other than Noah and his family who survived.

I agree with much of what you are saying. But, there was a "global flood" and it was what ended the first earth age. In the second flood, that of Noah there were, as you point out, other people with Noah and his family on the ark. Two, male and female of all races were with them. However, as the reason for that flood were the Nephilim and their offspring, the giants...they wouldn't have been on board. There was a second influx of the fallen angels for they made an appearance again.

As for Cain's descendants...yes, they were there. The Kenites are the tares so they'll be with us until the last day.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

The giants are "new" giants. We don't really know anything about them. They are called the "Anakim" in Joshua. It would be interesting to know more about the history of the giants on both sides, but I don't believe in the so called "scripture" of the apocrypha. We'll know about the whole chimichanga very soon, as all mysteries will be revealed. There is nothing that is hidden that will not be made known.

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Gen 6:17 (KJV)

<For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Gen 7:4 (KJV)

God said that He destroyed everything except the 8 in the ark. When know that His Word is true. The Holy Spirit confirms that again and again that you can always trust the Word. If there is an understanding about Cainites, it's in the Word.

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1 Peter 3:18-20 (KJV)

It seems that some of the "spirits in prison" Jesus preached to after His death were among those lost in the flood. Do you see that, or am I reading that into this?

All flesh that was on the earth perished but what of the "all flesh" Noah took on the ark with him?

Genesis 6:18-19 But with thee will I establish My covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
​

Genesis 7:15-16 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
​

We have been programmed to see "all flesh" as elephants, giraffes, dogs, cats, lions, tigers, etc walking up the plank to enter the ark two by two. But, is that what is being said?

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 6:12-13 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

​

Here we see "all flesh" as man and then suddenly all flesh becomes animals only when they enter the ark.

Flesh with the breath of life, two by two, male and female...were taken aboard the ark with Noah and kept alive. God didn't destroy all the races He created. And, all races didn't come from Noah.

.

 

[1whirlwind]

Are Canaanites descendants of Cain?

No, the descendants of Cain are termed Kenites.

#7014 ~ Kain/Cain/Kajin/Qayin... Kajin, the name of the first child.


.

 

[bdfoster]

Hi, Brent. Until now, I realized that you worked in the CGS. There are only fewer than a handful of geologists fooling around in CF. So, I feel very happy to see you come back. Hope you have good reason to hanging around here.

Thanks. CGS was a great place to work.

I guess there could be problem if the CPT only took place within the past 6000 years. For one thing, the talus deposits could be tremendous if it were true.

But that's the point. The point of CPT is to make the oceans for the flood waters to drain into, and raise mountains which presumably didn't exist before the flood. CPT has to have taken place during the flood year and shortly thereafter. The seismicity would have been catastrophic so it must have subsided soon after the flood.

On the other hand, I really don't think the OE model need to insist a billions of years old earth. May be a few million years old earth would also work in an acceptable way. Of course, this is a thought goes along the geological point of view. There are, indeed, several other ways (semi-scientific) to explain the Global Flood without calling the idea of CPT.

Well a few million years would be acceptable to the scientific mainstream if it weren't for the reams of radiometric dates that are not consistent with that, and the work of astronomers developing models of stellar evolution that are more consistent with a multi-billion year history.

One of them, in response to your fault argument, is that the CPT does not have to work the same way as the sluggish regular PT. If the whole crust, or the lithosphere, were disengaged from the mantle (like the decollement of an overthrust), then the movement could be very fast, and needs only a few major steep fault with short ramp. If you like to consider a similar process, may be the surge of a glacier is a proper one.

The lithosphere is indeed thought to be decoupled from the underlying asthenophere, which is thought to be partially molten. And it's thought to work just like you suggest, providing a surface of reduced friction. But there are physical limits to how fast the process can work. The physical properties of the crust, mantle, and asthenosphere can be determined within reasonable limits based on seismic data. Unreasonable viscosity cannot be ascribed to the asthenosphere just to speed things up. Models have to be consistent with what we know about the structure of the earth.

 

[bdfoster]

Quote the verse that invalidates this please?.

Actually my original statement was, "Well the text does indicate that there were mountains and that they were high in the author's opinion.", followed by the statement you quoted, "And earlier in Genesis the text indicates that there were oceans and they were deep again according to the author, so that is invalidated by the text.". I was responding to your question, "Is any of the above invalidated by the text? if your answer is no, there is no internal contradiction.". Your statement, "Pre-Flood, the world was mostly land, if there were oceans they were not deep, if there were mountains they were not high.", is invalidated by the flood account itself which indicates that, "all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered". If you want to claim that these "high mountains" did not exist pre-flood I will ask you for scriptural support.

Genesis 1:10 - God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. - indicates that there were oceans on the pre-flood earth. These seas are not here described as deep. But neither do I see scriptural support for your assertion that, "...they were not deep.".

I just put it forward as a possibility, not being dogmatic about it. There may well be others..

Then why even suggest it? It's not even consistent with your own self-imposed sanction on extra-biblical information. There is nothing in the text to lead in that direction. Is it just a response to criticism? You wanted to just discuss the text right? Then why suggest something that is only necessary because of our modern view of he world (a full globe with mountains). The earth collapsing, water pouring in, ridges rising up wouldn't be necessary with the less extensive, non-spherical earth that was then known.

That may be true, but I assume that God does share our modern concept of a globe, so it doesn't matter what you think ancient man thought..

God doesn't share any of our concepts. If we're lucky we can think God's thoughts after him as Einstein said. But it does matter what ancient man thought about the extent of the earth, if our goal is a good interpretation. If our goal is to support a pre-supposed notion of what the text means, then wrong assumptions are not a problem.

 

[marktheblake]

If you want to claim that these "high mountains" did not exist pre-flood I will ask you for scriptural support.

A mountain is high, if it wasn't it is not a mountain. I did mean to say something like that the mountains were not as high as they are now. Sorry about that. But you did get the gist of that in regard to the oceans so not sure why you are making a thing of it.

But neither do I see scriptural support for your assertion that, "...they were not deep.".

You made the assertion that pre-flood oceans were deep.
I made no assertion, I made it clear that I was only proposing a possibility, you couldn't have missed that.

Then why even suggest it?

See you did not miss that.

The Genesis account does not explain everything, there is no reason why one cannot consider possibilities how things might have happened.

 

[juvenissun]

Thanks. CGS was a great place to work.

But that's the point. The point of CPT is to make the oceans for the flood waters to drain into, and raise mountains which presumably didn't exist before the flood. CPT has to have taken place during the flood year and shortly thereafter. The seismicity would have been catastrophic so it must have subsided soon after the flood.

Well a few million years would be acceptable to the scientific mainstream if it weren't for the reams of radiometric dates that are not consistent with that, and the work of astronomers developing models of stellar evolution that are more consistent with a multi-billion year history.

The lithosphere is indeed thought to be decoupled from the underlying asthenophere, which is thought to be partially molten. And it's thought to work just like you suggest, providing a surface of reduced friction. But there are physical limits to how fast the process can work. The physical properties of the crust, mantle, and asthenosphere can be determined within reasonable limits based on seismic data. Unreasonable viscosity cannot be ascribed to the asthenosphere just to speed things up. Models have to be consistent with what we know about the structure of the earth.

Of course, the sluggish lithosphere/asthenosphere interaction is what the "current" situation is. But, we are talking about an ONE TIME process, not a constant process. So, we have to figure out a set of unique conditions of the earth that only happened ONCE and will not happen again. This provides a very interesting challenge.

I always try to make a possible linkage between the Global Flood model with the formation of kimberlitic magma. Do you see the similarity between the two? Also, if we open our eyes wider, the possible tectonic history of Venus would provide another critical clue to the construction of the Flood model. (We know the Venus tectonics is characterized by the lack of water. But what would lead it into that situation?)

I do not restrict myself to the timing and duration of CPT. Since I don't really accept the 6000 years time limitation.

 

[Verticordious]

To suggest that the water only had to recede 15 cubits for the mountains to be revealed is flawed.

We could probably assume that all mountains are not the same exact height, so the implied flood level was 15 cubits above the highest mountain, though I do agree that the bible often generalises.

For the highest mountain/s to be revealed to Noah, if the floodwaters receded 15 cubits, he definitely would not be able to see them,
The floodwaters would have to recede significantly more than that. He might be right next to one, but to see others they would have to be a long way away, so even another 15 cubits is a stretch.

Not withstanding that, you are also assuming that the mountains Noah could see were the highest mountains. Noah could only see the mountains he was close too, which may well be nowhere near as high as the highest.

I am not confident you can measure the rate the water receded at all.

I agree that such a suggestion is flawed, I was simply taking on the interpretation of many YECs to show the invalidity of them.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT) translates the verse as "fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains were covered". It is clear that the verse only says that the water covered the "mountains", not by how much. The place that the fifteen cubits is being measure from must be the land at which they were living on. Since the Hebrew word for "mountians" can also mean hills, and that the water only rose ~25 feet as far as the text says, they weren't any mountains, as we think of the, covered.

 

[Verticordious]

All flesh that was on the earth perished but what of the "all flesh" Noah took on the ark with him?

Genesis 6:18-19 But with thee will I establish My covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
​

Genesis 7:15-16 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
​

We have been programmed to see "all flesh" as elephants, giraffes, dogs, cats, lions, tigers, etc walking up the plank to enter the ark two by two. But, is that what is being said?

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 6:12-13 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

​

Here we see "all flesh" as man and then suddenly all flesh becomes animals only when they enter the ark.

Flesh with the breath of life, two by two, male and female...were taken aboard the ark with Noah and kept alive. God didn't destroy all the races He created. And, all races didn't come from Noah.

You're just over-thinking it. The Hebrew word 'earth' refers to the ground, or an area of land like a country, or the people inhabiting that land. It almost never refers to the entire planet, so there's no reason to assume that it must here. The translators simply picked the word earth because it fit their agenda. The word appears ~2,500 times in the OT, and land is the most frequent translation, so you can see their bias coming out in Genesis 6-9.

Also, All doesn't always mean without exception. I love it when YECs quote Matthew 24:37-39:

Matthew 24:37-39 (NASB) [37] For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. [38] "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, [39] and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

They always seem to forget the next two verses, however:

[40] "Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. [41] "Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left.

All the YECs sites I've ever seen, even the "professional" ones, never fail to conveniently leave out verses 40-41. Ironically, in this case, all does mean all. ICR, AIG, GotQuestions.org, CBN, AP, they all do this.

 

[canukian]

subscribe

 

[marktheblake]

I agree that such a suggestion is flawed, I was simply taking on the interpretation of many YECs to show the invalidity of them.

Taking on the plain reading of the text with a flawed suggestion is supposed to show it up as invalid

and that the water only rose ~25 feet as far as the text says, they weren't any mountains, as we think of the, covered.

This is a novel argument, but then why didn't Noah just move.

When a word can have multiple meanings it is the context of surrounding passages which determine the most likely one. It makes no sense to build an ark if the floodwaters only rose 15 cubits from ground level.

You're just over-thinking it. The Hebrew word 'earth' refers to the ground, or an area of land like a country, or the people inhabiting that land. It almost never refers to the entire planet, so there's no reason to assume that it must here.

Yes there is a reason, its called context.

The translators simply picked the word earth because it fit their agenda.

what was their agenda?

The word appears ~2,500 times in the OT, and land is the most frequent translation 6-9.

it doesnt matter how many times it is used, if as word has different contexts it is a fact that it has different contexts. Its not a popularity vote.

'erets

1) land, earth
a) earth
1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
3) earth (inhabitants)
b) land
1) country, territory
2) district, region
3) tribal territory
4) piece of ground
5) land of Canaan, Israel
6) inhabitants of land
7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
8) city (-state)
c) ground, surface of the earth
1) ground
2) soil
d) (in phrases)
1) people of the land
2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
3) level or plain country
4) land of the living
5) end(s) of the earth
e) (almost wholly late in usage)
1) lands, countries
a) often in contrast to Canaan

 

[Verticordious]

Taking on the plain reading of the text with a flawed suggestion is supposed to show it up as invalid

As I said, I agree it was a flawed interpretation, but that's how a very large number of YECs interpret that verse, and it is those people who that response would be relevant to.

This is a novel argument, but then why didn't Noah just move.

The most obvious reason is that could not serve as an example to the people living there if he just got up and left. Noah is described as a preacher of righteousness, in 2nd Peter 2, which obviously wouldn't be possible for him to do if he had left. Also, floods can also cover a very large area, 100,000s of square miles. Traveling thousands of miles can hardly be considered an easy solution, as you seem to be suggesting it is.

When a word can have multiple meanings it is the context of surrounding passages which determine the most likely one. It makes no sense to build an ark if the floodwaters only rose 15 cubits from ground level.

Well, again, part of the purpose of the ark is to serve as a witness to the others around Noah that God is preparing to send judgment upon them. If you think it was a bad idea, that's your opinion.

Yes there is a reason, its called context.

it doesnt matter how many times it is used, if as word has different contexts it is a fact that it has different contexts. Its not a popularity vote.

Why is it then that you take my statement out of context? Clearly my intent was to share with 1whirlwind that she need not automatically assume that all flesh referred to all flesh on the planet, but that it could also be referring to all flesh in a limited area of land, since that is another meaning of the word. That is why I said "there's no reason to assume that it must here" rather than saying "therefore it could not here". I am well aware that the meaning of language is determined by context. My assertion was simply that the translators were well aware of the meanings of the word, and that it was not some isolated occurrence that was perhaps overlooked, but rather it was deliberate.

 

[bdfoster]

Of course, the sluggish lithosphere/asthenosphere interaction is what the "current" situation is. But, we are talking about an ONE TIME process, not a constant process. So, we have to figure out a set of unique conditions of the earth that only happened ONCE and will not happen again.

No, you do! I'm not constrained by pre-conceptions as to the floods extent.
Why do you think the current situation didn't prevail in the past? The only reason I can think of is that you need different conditions in the past to support a global flood. The only thing to support the assertion is the assertion itself.

I always try to make a possible linkage between the Global Flood model with the formation of kimberlitic magma. Do you see the similarity between the two?

Not really. Is it the high proportion of disolved volatiles?

Also, if we open our eyes wider, the possible tectonic history of Venus would provide another critical clue to the construction of the Flood model. (We know the Venus tectonics is characterized by the lack of water. But what would lead it into that situation?)

I've always thought that global flood supporters should point out the geology of Mars as an example of a planet that appears to have experienced massive flooding but now has no liquid water.

I do not restrict myself to the timing and duration of CPT. Since I don't really accept the 6000 years time limitation.

If CPT didn't occur in the flood year or shortly thereafter, you are back the problem of coming up with enough water to flood a planet with mountains and ocean basins.

 

[bdfoster]

A mountain is high, if it wasn't it is not a mountain. I did mean to say something like that the mountains were not as high as they are now. Sorry about that. But you did get the gist of that in regard to the oceans so not sure why you are making a thing of it.



You made the assertion that pre-flood oceans were deep.
I made no assertion, I made it clear that I was only proposing a possibility, you couldn't have missed that.



See you did not miss that.

The Genesis account does not explain everything, there is no reason why one cannot consider possibilities how things might have happened.

We seem to be tit-for-tatting over something that's pretty trivial. I'll stop it if you will.

 

[1whirlwind]

You're just over-thinking it. The Hebrew word 'earth' refers to the ground, or an area of land like a country, or the people inhabiting that land. It almost never refers to the entire planet, so there's no reason to assume that it must here. The translators simply picked the word earth because it fit their agenda. The word appears ~2,500 times in the OT, and land is the most frequent translation, so you can see their bias coming out in Genesis 6-9.

Also, All doesn't always mean without exception. I love it when YECs quote Matthew 24:37-39:
They always seem to forget the next two verses, however:
All the YECs sites I've ever seen, even the "professional" ones, never fail to conveniently leave out verses 40-41. Ironically, in this case, all does mean all. ICR, AIG, GotQuestions.org, CBN, AP, they all do this.

King James


Matthew 24:36-42 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.


The passage is about the time of the end...the day and hour that only our Lord knows.

Who is the "all" being mentioned? It is the "they" that "were eating and drinking." The flood shall take ALL of them away. In Noah's time they were swept away in the flood of water. In our time they shall be swept away (taken) in the flood of deception.

The "field" is the world. Some will stand with Christ while others will be "taken" with Satan's deception.


.

 

[Verticordious]

King James


Matthew 24:36-42 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.


The passage is about the time of the end...the day and hour that only our Lord knows.

Who is the "all" being mentioned? It is the "they" that "were eating and drinking." The flood shall take ALL of them away. In Noah's time they were swept away in the flood of water. In our time they shall be swept away (taken) in the flood of deception.

The "field" is the world. Some will stand with Christ while others will be "taken" with Satan's deception.

No, it is not referring to the end of time. It is simply referring to God exercising judgement upon people. Such examples would be the flood, Sodom and Gahmorra, the Canaanites, the various exiles of Israel and Judah, etc. When a nation becomes evil, God destroys it. In this particular case, Jesus is referring the the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Jesus was warning them because it was coming, and it would happen in their generation (Matthew 24:34). Time is still going on, so he was obviously not referring to the end of time. Just like not all people were killed in the flood, not all Israelites were killed during the destruction of their nation.

 

[1whirlwind]

No, it is not referring to the end of time. It is simply referring to God exercising judgement upon people. Such examples would be the flood, Sodom and Gahmorra, the Canaanites, the various exiles of Israel and Judah, etc. When a nation becomes evil, God destroys it. In this particular case, Jesus is referring the the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Jesus was warning them because it was coming, and it would happen in their generation (Matthew 24:34). Time is still going on, so he was obviously not referring to the end of time. Just like not all people were killed in the flood, not all Israelites were killed during the destruction of their nation.

All people, except those on the ark...perished.

Genesis 7:21-23 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
​

I'm not certain which destruction you are speaking of but if it was the Babylonian conquest....the Israelites were to go into captivity, not be slaughtered.

Jeremiah 52:28-29 This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive: in the seventh year three thousand Jews and three and twenty: In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty and two persons:

​

The destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD doesn't qualify as the end of the world. And the generation of whom He was speaking were not those standing before Him:

Matthew 24:3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?

His reply included....
​

24:29-31 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

"This generation" is the final generation, the generation in which "all these things be fulfilled." The generation of the great tribulation...the generation living at "the end of the world," the end of this world age.


.
​

 

[Verticordious]

All people, except those on the ark...perished.

Genesis 7:21-23 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.​

Yes, all flesh on the earth, Hebrew S#0127, a synonym for ground. Everyone that was on the ground died, which would not include those who fled into the mountains. As I previously mentioned, even Jewish historical records mention people fleeing the flood, and also people coming down to meet Noah and his sons after the flood. The text does not say the flood covered the entire planet.

I'm not certain which destruction you are speaking of but if it was the Babylonian conquest....the Israelites were to go into captivity, not be slaughtered.

Jeremiah 52:28-29 This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive: in the seventh year three thousand Jews and three and twenty: In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty and two persons:​

The destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD doesn't qualify as the end of the world. And the generation of whom He was speaking were not those standing before Him:

Matthew 24:3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?

His reply included....
​

24:29-31 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

"This generation" is the final generation, the generation in which "all these things be fulfilled." The generation of the great tribulation...the generation living at "the end of the world," the end of this world age.​

That Greek word does not mean world, it means age. The disciples were simply asking about the destruction of the second temple that Jesus just mentioned in the previous verse, which would be the end of that age of Israel, as they no doubt knew their history of the destruction of the first temple. Zep 1 and Jer 4 use the same kinds of prophetic language to describe the destruction of the first temple as Matthew 24 does the second temple. Jesus says that people should flee when the time comes, and some of the people alive then would see this all come to pass. Clearly Matthew 24 has nothing to do with the end of the world.