Is it wrong for christians to believe there is any truth to a local flood?

[Calminian]

But im not going against something taught in the bible. I sure am going against a specific interpretation though. But just because i disagree with an interpretation that you and others follow, does not mean me and other Christians with a similar view on the flood are going against the bible.

By the way have you looked at any of the 4 sources i presented in this topic?

Have you ever done any research on the side that disagrees that there was a global flood?

The research I'm primarily concerned with is Genesis, in particular the flood account in Genesis. It's very explicit, and I've come to believe the Bible is much more reliable that men's ideas and theories about the past.

Now if you want to believe in a local flood based on science that's your right, but don't use interpretation as an excuse. Anyone can interpret anything any way. In fact, I could just as well interpret your comments above as admitting you're wrong. Do I have the right to interpret your statements that way?

The real question is, what are you basing your interpretation on? Did you start with the text, or with man's interpretation of nature and look for a way to reconcile them?

And just out of curiosity, if it was just a local flood, why spend so much time building the ark and bringing animals to it? Why not just move? Why not just have the animals migrate away? How does the Genesis account of the Flood make any sense if it was just a small local flood?

Also, what's the meaning of the rainbow? Wasn't it a promise not to bring this type of flood back again? But if it was just local, doesn't that mean God has broken His promise countless times since?

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

geocentrism and flat earthism are nowhere to be found in a literal reading of scripture.

Cal, we talked about all that before, remember? I gave a whole bunch of examples showing that both are clear in a literal reading, then you picked out one, in Job, objecting because God responds in a way that suggests part of the statement is wrong, and then I pointed out that God himself confirmed the flatness of the earth by referring to clay stamped under a seal in that same section. (not to mention not sticking the traditional interpretation).

Those verses I gave are:

Flat Earth-
Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear.

Geocentrism-
The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5, Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

​

Our previous discussion is here (http://www.christianforums.com/t7645452-21/), starting at post #204. You are welcome read it over if you want to look over this again.


In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[Scott4Him]

The research I'm primarily concerned with is Genesis, in particular the flood account in Genesis. It's very explicit, and I've come to believe the Bible is much more reliable that men's ideas and theories about the past.

Now if you want to believe in a local flood based on science that's your right, but don't use interpretation as an excuse. Anyone can interpret anything any way. In fact, I could just as well interpret your comments above as admitting you're wrong. Do I have the right to interpret your statements that way?

The real question is, what are you basing your interpretation on? Did you start with the text, or with man's interpretation of nature and look for a way to reconcile them?

And just out of curiosity, if it was just a local flood, why spend so much time building the ark and bringing animals to it? Why not just move? Why not just have the animals migrate away? How does the Genesis account of the Flood make any sense if it was just a small local flood?

Also, what's the meaning of the rainbow? Wasn't it a promise not to bring this type of flood back again? But if it was just local, doesn't that mean God has broken His promise countless times since?

Good post. I was reading this thread hoping somebody had pointed that out.

I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:15 ESV)

If this was a local flood, then the other local floods since then made God into a liar. God is not a liar, so it was global.

 

[Johnnz]

The research I'm primarily concerned with is Genesis, in particular the flood account in Genesis. It's very explicit, and I've come to believe the Bible is much more reliable that men's ideas and theories about the past.

The account is explicit, but in what context? Their personal perceptions and observations, and what they intended the words to mean are also considerations. Since biblical usage of 'the whole world' does not mean every continent and island is some places it is loose exegesis to insist that it must mean that.

Now if you want to believe in a local flood based on science that's your right, but don't use interpretation as an excuse. Anyone can interpret anything any way. In fact, I could just as well interpret your comments above as admitting you're wrong. Do I have the right to interpret your statements that way?

The real question is, what are you basing your interpretation on? Did you start with the text, or with man's interpretation of nature and look for a way to reconcile them?

That is an an unnecessary dichotomy. A large flood can leave its record behind. That information is available. As for any ancient evidence there are many parts of the jigsaw that we don't have yet. Thus, all conclusions must be tentative at this time. It is inconsistent to argue against geological reasons why we can question a universal flood and then cite other evidence that says we can. All we can conclude from the two viewpoints is that we really can't be sure. Christians needed to readjust their thinking about the earth's orbit following Galileo and Copernicus observations. Maybe time will tell which view is correct. But for me it is significant that there is no evidence of a large flood around the area of Jericho when that was relatively close to Noah's ark building in comparison with Africa, Australia and other countries with flood stories.

And just out of curiosity, if it was just a local flood, why spend so much time building the ark and bringing animals to it? Why not just move? Why not just have the animals migrate away? How does the Genesis account of the Flood make any sense if it was just a small local flood?

It need not be a very small localised flood, but neither does it need to be a worldwide one. Or maybe God was making His point very graphically as the One Creator who controlled all of creation.

John
NZ

 

[detention]

Eqyptian diggers have proved that a flood happened.

 

[Johnnz]

Eqyptian diggers have proved that a flood happened.

Many floods happened in ancient times that we have some record of.

John
NZ

 

[AmericanChristian91]

And just out of curiosity, if it was just a local flood, why spend so much time building the ark and bringing animals to it? Why not just move? Why not just have the animals migrate away? How does the Genesis account of the Flood make any sense if it was just a small local flood?

Also, what's the meaning of the rainbow? Wasn't it a promise not to bring this type of flood back again? But if it was just local, doesn't that mean God has broken His promise countless times since?

You seem to think that if it was a local flood, then it would be small, that doesn't have to be the case.

Anyways your questions about why did God want Noah to build an Ark if it was a local flood are discussed by Christians who believe in a local flood in the 2 sources below.

"Need for an Ark" section on this link,

Noah’s Flood Not World-wide

and

"Why didn't God send Noah on a long trip?" section on this link

The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

And that's a good question, about how could a local flood be true if God promised no more floods.

That question is discussed in the link above, when Rich Deem states,

"
What about the Genesis 9:11 and 9:15. If the flood was local, did God lie, since floods have destroyed local areas since the Genesis flood.

"And I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:11)
and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:15)
​

The first part of the verse is a promise not to exercise universal judgment by means of a flood, "all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood." The flood, although local in extent, was global in judgment, since all humanity lived in the same locale. It wasn't until God confused the languages (Genesis 11) that people began to spread over the earth. So, God promised to never again execute universal judgment of humans by means of a flood. The second part, "never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth" can be explained by other verses found in the Genesis flood account.

Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
​

The passage in this instance refers to the people of the earth, since planet earth itself was not corrupt. Likewise, Genesis 9:11 is referring to the people of the earth rather than the planet itself. Ultimately, even if the flood were global, it did not "destroy the earth," but just the people on the earth. As stated above, "people" is often understood from the Hebrew word erets."

I do think they make some good points.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Flood Legends from ancient cultures all over the world in every continent. They virtually all speak of a global flood and diaspora (the scattering of peoples afterward). From native Hawaiians to the american indians, to native Australians and everywhere else, we have legends that involve a global flood, and a family on a boat.

OK, let's imagine for a minute that there was no flood, and that people gradually migrated out of Africa in groups after first evolving there. Not being stupid, they would choose places to found villages, which would build up to cities. Where would they pick? Well, we need water to drink, clean, and so on, plus transportation on rivers makes riverside locations good for that too. Plus, we need food, which includes fishing in rivers. We also could use a river to take used washwater, and other uses.

So of course most human settlements will be along rivers. Big rivers too, when one remembers the transportation use.

Newsflash: Rivers flood. Over a long period of time, there will be things called "100 year floods" or other very rare, very large floods. Over millenia, there will be some enormous floods, which will end up being legends told to new generations, and over time distorted.

If anyone in a legend is going to survive a flood, what will they use? A car? A plane? Hey, it's water. How about a.......... boat? Duh. Of course they use a boat. Oh, and for millions of years, the unit of society has been the family. So will it be a family on the boat? Duh again.

So, I have to wonder - every time literalists bring it up - why they think that common legends of a giant flood with a family surviving aboard a boat is somehow evidence of a global flood, when those legends are as expected as the fact that we have legends of mighty warriors or powerful kings.

Papias

 

[Scott4Him]

Seems to be a lot of hoops to jump through just to make the Bible not mean what it says.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Here is a question for other people that believe in a local flood.

Were Noah and his family the only survivors of the human race?

Or was he simply the only survivors of his "world" and all the rest of the people of his "world"/land died except him and his family.

I do think having Noah and his family being the only humans left bring up problems of genetic issues with the interbreeding within the family, and also problems with how homosapiens could have grown in large number's since then (present day, 7 billion) if there were not that many survivors of the flood. Also adding up all the natural disasters,wars,diseases, etc, that has happened since the flood, which has killed a lot of people if you add up all those factors and more, makes it hard for me to believe that Noah and his family were the only humans left which eventually led to 7 billion.

So what do guys, think about this? Also how long ago do you think the flood happened?

 

[mark kennedy]

Is it?

Some Christians seem to think that there is scriptural evidence for a local flood happening instead of a global flood.

The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

How should we interpret the Genesis flood account? | BioLogos

and im sure more could be found.

And of course there is large amounts of scientific evidence that goes against the idea of a global flood (though im sure said evidence would not matter for some here)

And even before reading those sources, i have always had doubts about a global flood happening. Because it sure doesn't explain how millions and millions of species, even if there is only 2 of each type, could fit onto the ark, and also how said species could all be fed (what about the meat eaters?). And wouldn't a global flood wipe out much of the resources that animals eat on the planet (so the survivors would sure have a hard time)? Also for the land animals separated by large amounts of water to where the ark is (on a different land mass), how did they get to the ark?

So i am leaning towards the flood being a local flood(s) (maybe several large floods happened throughout the world).

But i want to know, is it wrong, especially as a christian, to believe in this idea?


What are your belief on this matter?

This one is fine, in fact, I would much prefer it. Otherwise you have everything evolving in 4,000 years till today. If you make it local then there are another 2,000 years and the logistical problems disappear. I actually like the local flood and have no problem with a local flood, in fact, it would save me a lot of head trip questions.

 

[Gottservant]

the flood was global

men died

family survived

you will find every time you doubt it, you feel sick and have to change your mind, I do.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

the flood was global

men died

family survived

you will find every time you doubt it, you feel sick and have to change your mind, I do.

No i don't feel sick about not believing in a global flood.

 

[Calminian]

This one is fine, in fact, I would much prefer it. Otherwise you have everything evolving in 4,000 years till today. If you make it local then there are another 2,000 years and the logistical problems disappear. I actually like the local flood and have no problem with a local flood, in fact, it would save me a lot of head trip questions.

You're going to give ups scripture for an extra 2000 years of evolution? Hopefully I'm missing some context.

What about all the things a global flood does explain like legends of a flood and diaspora all over the world in virtually every ancient culture? What about clear passages in scripture?

Gen. 7:17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.​

From the article Noah’s Flood covered the whole earth:

If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.

If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.

If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn’t rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2

If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of ‘all’ men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah’s day means a partial judgment to come.

If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.​

 

[AmericanChristian91]

You're going to give ups scripture for an extra 2000 years of evolution?

What about all the things a global flood does explain like legends of a flood and diaspora all over the world in virtually every ancient culture? What about clear passages in scripture?

Gen. 7:17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.​

You know the word "earth" does not have to refer to the entire world, and also it could be argued that multiple flood stories is not evidence for a global flood.

I think some interesting points are made in the section titled, "other flood stories" on that link below.

How should we interpret the Genesis flood account? | BioLogos

 

[Calminian]

You know the word "earth" does not have to refer to the entire world, ....

Oh, I'll even take it a step further. Erets never means globe in the Bible. It is the hebrew term for land, and that's the only meaning it ever has. "And God called the dry land, earth."

Heaven, earth and sea are always distinct components of the the world, and these are the terms used to describe the world in its entirety.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them​

But that understanding actually supports the concept of a global flood more so. For in the flood, the waters of the sea (yam) are said to have prevailed above the land (erets) under the entire heavens. For globe is already mostly covered by the sea. What scripture is describing is covering of the entire land by the sea everywhere under the sky. That's about as explicit as the author could have been. It's just up to us now to believe it. What do you gain from doubting the text?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Is it?

Some Christians seem to think that there is scriptural evidence for a local flood happening instead of a global flood.

The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

How should we interpret the Genesis flood account? | BioLogos

and im sure more could be found.

And of course there is large amounts of scientific evidence that goes against the idea of a global flood (though im sure said evidence would not matter for some here)

And even before reading those sources, i have always had doubts about a global flood happening. Because it sure doesn't explain how millions and millions of species, even if there is only 2 of each type, could fit onto the ark, and also how said species could all be fed (what about the meat eaters?). And wouldn't a global flood wipe out much of the resources that animals eat on the planet (so the survivors would sure have a hard time)? Also for the land animals separated by large amounts of water to where the ark is (on a different land mass), how did they get to the ark?

So i am leaning towards the flood being a local flood(s) (maybe several large floods happened throughout the world).

If interested,

There was actually another excellent thread made on the issue not too long ago - as seen in the thread entitled Global vs Local Flood: Perhaps there is a way to have Unison Between the Two

 

[Gottservant]

No i don't feel sick about not believing in a global flood.

I think you will find that just contradicting someone is an invalid argument, intellectually.

 

[Aman777]

For in the flood, the waters of the sea (yam) are said to have prevailed above the land (erets) under the entire heavens. For globe is already mostly covered by the sea. What scripture is describing is covering of the entire land by the sea everywhere under the sky. That's about as explicit as the author could have been. It's just up to us now to believe it. What do you gain from doubting the text?

Dear Readers, The world of Adam was totally destroyed in the Flood. The first world was completely different from the present world. The actions of the descendants of Noah point this out. They attempted to build a tower to escape the boundary of our world and enter God's Heaven. Gen 11:4 This is because the first world was surrounded by a Firmament which kept the water, which surrounded the first world, from destroying it. Gen. 1:6-8 What the descendants of Noah were doing was attempting to escape the boundary of our world in the SAME way Noah escaped the firmament of the first world.

Genesis 7 tells us the Ark was 15 cubits above the highest hills on the 150th day AFTER the flood began. Gen. 7:20-24 Genesis 8 tells us the Ark was resting upon the mountains of Ararat on the SAME 150th day AFTER the Flood began. Genesis 8:4

Picture the firmament as a giant Globe or solid boundary into which God placed water and then land. Gen. 1:9 If that sounds like a Flat Earth, so be it. When the rains came and the water filled the firmament, the Ark floated to the top of the Firmament, and on the 150th Day after the rains came, the Ark floated out of windows in the top of the firmament (Isaiah 24:18) into the water of a huge Lake in the mountains of Ararat, EXACTLY as God tells us it did.

This explains the reason Noah's descendants tried to escape to Heaven in a similar way Noah escaped from the first world which was totally destroyed in the Flood. It also explains the mystery of what happened to the Raven which did NOT return to the Ark, since it simply flew to the shore of the Lake.

Comments?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I actually like the local flood and have no problem with a local flood, in fact, it would save me a lot of head trip questions.

I agree...