"Local" Biblical flood dismissed

good brother · Mar 21, 2012

I have come across an easy rebuttal to those people who want to dismiss the flood of Noah's time as merely being a "local" event.

Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

God gave Noah a one hundred twenty year "eviction" notice. God warned him that He would send a flood upon the earth to rid it of the wickedness of man. Let's take a look at the math behind that simple 120 year warning.

At a brisk pace, the average human walks four miles in one hour.

Obviously, Noah and his family could not travel at that rate if they had all their possessions with them if they chose to leave a local area that was predicted to be flooded 120 years from that time. For the sake of argument, let's say they walked at half that speed, a mere 2 MPH. Certainly one could not walk all day, especially if one was packing all their belongings. So, let's say they walked for only eight hours every day.

Also, we know from back in the the seek of creation, that God rested on the seventh day. God called it the Sabbath day and it was made for a day of rest. In Exodus, we know that God commanded His people to take the Sabbath off every week, but it must have been somewhat of a custom for them to that before the commandment. So, for the sake of argument and rest, let's say that Noah and his family rested every Sabbath.

So, we have Noah and his family travelling at two miles per hour for eight hours every day, and walking those sixteen miles (8 hr x 2 mph = 16 miles per day) for six days every week for 120 years.

16 (miles travelled every day) x six days (one day of rest per week) = 96 (miles covered in one week's time)

96 (miles per week) x 52 (weeks in a year) = 4,992 (miles covered in one year's time)

4,992 (miles per year) x 120 (years of advance notice God gave to Noah) = 599,040 (miles covered in the time span of 120 years)

599,040 (miles in 120 years) / 24,901 (miles around the Earth at it's circumference) = 24.056865 (the number of times Noah and his family would have circumnavigate the Earth in the span of 120 years instead of wasting their time building an ark if it was only a local flood.

By the way, if they walked at only ONE mile per hour for six days a week, they still could have walked around the entire world more than twelve tiems!

If they travelled at only one half mile per hour (THAT'S CREEPING!) for eight hours a day, six days a week for 120 years, they still could have covered 149,759.99 miles in 120 years. In other words, they could have walked around the Earth 6.0142 times!

Even if they travelled at the speed of a sloth, at between .5 and 1 feet per minute (you thought 5. mph was slow?), it would take them 176 hours to go one mile. if they travelled day and night at that speed, they still could have gone around the Earth 1.7589655 times in 120 years.

So, why would God tell Noah to waste his time building a massive ark if Noah and his amily could have escaped much easier even at .5 miles per hour?

We find in other parts of the Bible, that God has no problem sending people to far off locales on foot. Cain travelled on foot into the land of Nod to find a wife. Abraham and Isaac travelled by foot to Mount Moriah for the sacrifice. Lot and his family fled Sodom on foot. The Hebrews travelled by foot for forty years in the desert. Mary, Joseph, and Jesus travelled by foot to Egypt after He was born. Jesus spent His whole ministry travelling by foot.

Obviously, God could have sent Noah and family away on foot at practically a snail's pace if it was only a local flood.

In Christ, GB

(This thread is solely about the rationalization and rebuttal of the theory of a local flood. If you wish to "debunk" the flood narrative completely, start a new thread. This thread is not about the logistics of how many animals had to/could fit on the ark, so if you wish to discuss that, start a new thread. This thread is not the geologic "column", so if you want to talk about that, start a new thread. This thread is dealing ONLY with the rationalization, and rebuttal, of understanding Noah's flood as only a local event.)

Keachian · Mar 21, 2012

The problem of a world-wide flood from the outset is, what exactly did the Ancient Hebrews consider to be the whole world.

Should we just assume that when whole world is mentioned that it fits our 21st century understanding?

Or should we try to figure out what the world is from an Ancient Hebrew worldview?

Assyrian · Mar 21, 2012

good brother said:
I have come across an easy rebuttal to those people who want to dismiss the flood of Noah's time as merely being a "local" event.
Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.

God gave Noah a one hundred twenty year "eviction" notice. God warned him that He would send a flood upon the earth to rid it of the wickedness of man. Let's take a look at the math behind that simple 120 year warning.

At a brisk pace, the average human walks four miles in one hour.

Obviously, Noah and his family could not travel at that rate if they had all their possessions with them if they chose to leave a local area that was predicted to be flooded 120 years from that time. For the sake of argument, let's say they walked at half that speed, a mere 2 MPH. Certainly one could not walk all day, especially if one was packing all their belongings. So, let's say they walked for only eight hours every day.

Also, we know from back in the the seek of creation, that God rested on the seventh day. God called it the Sabbath day and it was made for a day of rest. In Exodus, we know that God commanded His people to take the Sabbath off every week, but it must have been somewhat of a custom for them to that before the commandment. So, for the sake of argument and rest, let's say that Noah and his family rested every Sabbath.

So, we have Noah and his family travelling at two miles per hour for eight hours every day, and walking those sixteen miles (8 hr x 2 mph = 16 miles per day) for six days every week for 120 years.

16 (miles travelled every day) x six days (one day of rest per week) = 96 (miles covered in one week's time)

96 (miles per week) x 52 (weeks in a year) = 4,992 (miles covered in one year's time)

4,992 (miles per year) x 120 (years of advance notice God gave to Noah) = 599,040 (miles covered in the time span of 120 years)

599,040 (miles in 120 years) / 24,901 (miles around the Earth at it's circumference) = 24.056865 (the number of times Noah and his family would have circumnavigate the Earth in the span of 120 years instead of wasting their time building an ark if it was only a local flood.

By the way, if they walked at only ONE mile per hour for six days a week, they still could have walked around the entire world more than twelve tiems!

If they travelled at only one half mile per hour (THAT'S CREEPING!) for eight hours a day, six days a week for 120 years, they still could have covered 149,759.99 miles in 120 years. In other words, they could have walked around the Earth 6.0142 times!

Even if they travelled at the speed of a sloth, at between .5 and 1 feet per minute (you thought 5. mph was slow?), it would take them 176 hours to go one mile. if they travelled day and night at that speed, they still could have gone around the Earth 1.7589655 times in 120 years.

So, why would God tell Noah to waste his time building a massive ark if Noah and his amily could have escaped much easier even at .5 miles per hour?

We find in other parts of the Bible, that God has no problem sending people to far off locales on foot. Cain travelled on foot into the land of Nod to find a wife. Abraham and Isaac travelled by foot to Mount Moriah for the sacrifice. Lot and his family fled Sodom on foot. The Hebrews travelled by foot for forty years in the desert. Mary, Joseph, and Jesus travelled by foot to Egypt after He was born. Jesus spent His whole ministry travelling by foot.

Obviously, God could have sent Noah and family away on foot at practically a snail's pace if it was only a local flood.

In Christ, GB

(This thread is solely about the rationalization and rebuttal of the theory of a local flood. If you wish to "debunk" the flood narrative completely, start a new thread. This thread is not about the logistics of how many animals had to/could fit on the ark, so if you wish to discuss that, start a new thread. This thread is not the geologic "column", so if you want to talk about that, start a new thread. This thread is dealing ONLY with the rationalization, and rebuttal, of understanding Noah's flood as only a local event.)

Maybe God wanted Noah to stay there as a witness to all the people who were going to drown, calling them to repentance. The bible calls Noah a preacher of righteousness 2Pet 2:5.

good brother · Mar 21, 2012

progmonk said:
The problem of a world-wide flood from the outset is, what exactly did the Ancient Hebrews consider to be the whole world.

Should we just assume that when whole world is mentioned that it fits our 21st century understanding?

Should we just assume it's not?

In Christ, GB

good brother · Mar 21, 2012

Assyrian said:
Maybe God wanted Noah to stay there as a witness to all the people who were going to drown, calling them to repentance. The bible calls Noah a preacher of righteousness 2Pet 2:5.

That same verse tells us the God did not spare the ancient world when he brought a flood upon it.

2nd Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

It clearly says He did not spare the ancient world and that He only saved Noah and seven others, how does that verse equate to a local flood?

In Christ, GB

Keachian · Mar 21, 2012

good brother said:
Should we just assume it's not?

In Christ, GB

Well I don't assume, I have clear reasons for why I believe that when the Hebrews said "whole earth" they meant greater mesopotamia/Ancient Near East and this is purely because that's what they viewed the Whole Earth as, after all I'm pretty sure that some of the Persian kings in the Bible are described as kings over the whole earth, do we have any evidence of Persians in the Americas or Australia?

miamited · Mar 21, 2012

hi all,

One posted: Maybe God wanted Noah to stay there as a witness to all the people who were going to drown, calling them to repentance. The bible calls Noah a preacher of righteousness 2Pet 2:5.

Good point, excellent point! However, after God gave His 120 year warning, He then gave Noah a seven day warning. So, Noah could have preached of impending death for 120 years and still have had seven days to walk his family, without any belongings to safety. Since God did cause thousands of creatures to come to Noah, He surely could have caused a couple of donkeys to come to him to carry any of the heavy burden such as tent and clothing and Noah and his family could probably have traveled a few hundred miles in seven days. So, let's consider how big a flood needs to be to cover a few hundred miles all around. After all, if there was a mountain range to cause the flood to be a few hundred miles in only two directions, Noah probably could have left the day before and made it to safety. So, how large an area would this local flood have covered? Discounting the flood in question here, what is the greatest area of any flood that we have historical records for that would have been deep enough to ensure that everyone and every creature within its area would be drowned? So, I'm not really looking for the monsoon records in India where great areas are flooded but only a foot or two or three deep.

Secondly, if the flood is only local, then what is the purpose of all the animals coming to the ark? Wouldn't Noah's burden to build such a great ark have been completely unecessary if God had, rather than cause the animals to go to Noah, just have them go to where God knew it would be safe for them? I mean, let's think this through completely. If the flood were going to cover, say, a hundred square miles, then animals could just as easily have traveled outside of the danger zone as they could have traveled to Noah. That is assuming that Noah didn't live in the middle of the 'Ancient Days Zoo and Wildlife Refuge' and all the animals were within a slingshot of him all the time anyway. And of course, under this scenario not all the animals would have had to come to Noah, only a few who couldn't get away in the local area that only existed in the local area. So, if there were lions outside the local area, then none of the lions in the local area would have needed to come to Noah because their species would have been carried on after the flood by the lions outside the local area as they migrated back in to the local flood area.

I'm just sayin', when we chase these rabbits we have to follow them through their holes and follow all the ideas out to their ultimate ending. For me, I'd really appreciate if just one of the 'local flood' folks would give me some clue as to how large an area might be suitable to meet the requirements of the other Scriptural points regarding the flood. Anyone care to give their opinion how large, say in square miles, a 'local flood' would have to be that every living creature, including man would be wiped out within that area?

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

good brother · Mar 21, 2012

progmonk said:
Well I don't assume, I have clear reasons for why I believe that when the Hebrews said "whole earth" they meant greater mesopotamia/Ancient Near East and this is purely because that's what they viewed the Whole Earth as, after all I'm pretty sure that some of the Persian kings in the Bible are described as kings over the whole earth, do we have any evidence of Persians in the Americas or Australia?

So, can you show me, from Scripture, where the "whole Earth" has to ONLY mean the greater Mesopotamia/ ancient Near East area? Or more commonly referred to as the Fertile Crescent. Or is it like the word "yom" which can have several definitions, just like our word "day" can today?

Another question that arises with your thought that is was only the fertile crescent area that was flooded would be this: The Bible records that every mountain was covered to a depth of at least 15 cubits or 22.5 feet (at an eighteen inch cubit). The mountains that surround your proposed area had to have been underwater. What then happened at the edges of that flood? In other words, if a hill (mountain) is, oh lets say ten feet tall, is under water by 22.5 feet of water then it stands to reason that the other side of that hill must be under the same amount of water as there is 23 feet of water above the hill. Water can't just stop. It seeks to find the lowest area. If the lowest area is under water and the highest area is covered to a depth of 23 feet, where does the water taper off to?

The highest mountain in Syria (Assyria) is over 9,000 ft above sea level.

The highest point in Iraq? over 10,000 feet.

The highest point in Iran? over 18,000 feet.

If the Bible records water being over the tallest mountain, where does that leave the "localness" of the flood? Mount Whitney in California is the highest point in the lower 48 states of the USA, and it is only 14, 495 feet. That's 3,000 feet less than the tallest point in Iran. That would mean that all of the USA would be under water to an absolute minimum depth of 3,000 feet. How does that equate to being a local flood?

Just curious.

In Christ, GB

Keachian · Mar 21, 2012

good brother said:
So, can you show me, from Scripture, where the "whole Earth" has to ONLY mean the greater Mesopotamia/ ancient Near East area? Or more commonly referred to as the Fertile Crescent. Or is it like the word "yom" which can have several definitions, just like our word "day" can today?

I'd argue that current usage of day came from yom having several definitions, but that's beside the point.

Well all the flat earth passages come to mind in regards to your question. But you don't want to hear about that because the Bible is inerrant on everything so it doesn't talk about a flat earth.

Another question that arises with your thought that is was only the fertile crescent area that was flooded would be this: The Bible records that every mountain was covered to a depth of at least 15 cubits or 22.5 feet (at an eighteen inch cubit). The mountains that surround your proposed area had to have been underwater. What then happened at the edges of that flood? In other words, if a hill (mountain) is, oh lets say ten feet tall, is under water by 22.5 feet of water then it stands to reason that the other side of that hill must be under the same amount of water as there is 23 feet of water above the hill. Water can't just stop. It seeks to find the lowest area. If the lowest area is under water and the highest area is covered to a depth of 23 feet, where does the water taper off to?

Well first of all the text describes the flood as a Miracle, but second of all the text is more about the rebirth of the world after the destruction of it than it is about yea high, yea wide and stuff and we do see that the New Testament writers used it as such, so tell me again why we're pulling the details apart on something that really doesn't need to be considered factually true? At least by the NT writers.

miamited · Mar 21, 2012

Hi prog,

That's really your best answer to questions of fact. I'm here because I want to hear the answer also. It was what my post was leading up to.

Let's go with it was a local flood. Let's just stop right now and say to you, "You're right it was a local flood!" Ok, how big do you believe that it was? 20 square miles? 40? 100? Yes, I'm asking you to really put your thinking cap on and think this through. You merely evaded the entire line of questioning in your response above. Kind of like you claim of the young earther's, "Well, I believe it was a local flood, but I'm not interested in finding out where that understanding ultimately ends." I'm asking you to do that. When you say local flood, how large an area are you considering it to be. Say, a flood of 50 feet on the wadi's of India? Which means what? An area of a few square miles before that 50 feet of water would begin to ascend to higher ground above the level of the water. 50 feet deep along the bed of the Tigris or Euphrates river. Seems like you could practically throw a rock to higher ground than that and be able to walk out of the flood as the rains came. After all, it took 40-24 hour days for all of this water to accumulate so surely if we're in the Tigris river valley and a really, really steady rain comes up and things begin floating around our feet, maybe not everyone will make it out, but a lot of people will.

So, seriously, and I hope that you will not respond right away but sit and ponder and consider all the ramifications and ultimate ends that would be the result of a 'local' flood and how it would clearly make God's word, rather than a tool by which we might glean some greater truth, merely a mean's by which we could all say, "Well, no, God's word has a lot of untruths and mistakes in it." Perhaps that's what you believe. Is it?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

good brother · Mar 21, 2012

progmonk said:
Well first of all the text describes the flood as a Miracle

So God could miraculously flood part of the Earth to a depth of over 18,000 feet, but He most certainly could not have flooded the whole Earth miraculously?

but second of all the text is more about the rebirth of the world after the destruction of it than it is about yea high, yea wide and stuff and we do see that the New Testament writers used it as such, sotell me again why we're pulling the details apart on something that really doesn't need to be considered factually true? At least by the NT writers.

So, a post ago it was factually local, and now it doesn't have to be factually true at all?

And Jesus thought it was a factual event.

In Christ, GB

Keachian · Mar 21, 2012

good brother said:
So God could miraculously flood part of the Earth to a depth of over 18,000 feet, but He most certainly could not have flooded the whole Earth miraculously?

Did I say that? The problem is that even if we go yep global flood, miraculous, the idea that there wouldn't be any evidence left pointing to that is in my opinion, silly.

So, a post ago it was factually local, and now it doesn't have to be factually true at all?

Well yeah, I gave you factually local because I though eh what's the harm, but then you're all like blah blah I'm focusing on the stuff that is irrelevant to the story. So no, you can't have nice things.

And Jesus thought it was a factual event.

He uses it in the same way he uses parables though...

Keachian · Mar 21, 2012

miamited said:
Let's go with it was a local flood. Let's just stop right now and say to you, "You're right it was a local flood!" Ok, how big do you believe that it was? 20 square miles? 40? 100? Yes, I'm asking you to really put your thinking cap on and think this through. You merely evaded the entire line of questioning in your response above. Kind of like you claim of the young earther's, "Well, I believe it was a local flood, but I'm not interested in finding out where that understanding ultimately ends." I'm asking you to do that. When you say local flood, how large an area are you considering it to be. Say, a flood of 50 feet on the wadi's of India? Which means what? An area of a few square miles before that 50 feet of water would begin to ascend to higher ground above the level of the water. 50 feet deep along the bed of the Tigris or Euphrates river. Seems like you could practically throw a rock to higher ground than that and be able to walk out of the flood as the rains came. After all, it took 40-24 hour days for all of this water to accumulate so surely if we're in the Tigris river valley and a really, really steady rain comes up and things begin floating around our feet, maybe not everyone will make it out, but a lot of people will.

You're missing the point of the story, you're too focused on how much mint you should tithe that you're missing out on the love of God.

So, seriously, and I hope that you will not respond right away but sit and ponder and consider all the ramifications and ultimate ends that would be the result of a 'local' flood and how it would clearly make God's word, rather than a tool by which we might glean some greater truth, merely a mean's by which we could all say, "Well, no, God's word has a lot of untruths and mistakes in it." Perhaps that's what you believe. Is it?

I didn't say that, the jumping around of "ramifications of a local flood" is akin to "how many angels on a pin head" and just because I find something parabolic in relation to how you understand it doesn't mean that I hold that God's word has untruths and mistakes on the matters that matter.

Assyrian · Mar 21, 2012

good brother said:
That same verse tells us the God did not spare the ancient world when he brought a flood upon it.

2nd Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

It clearly says He did not spare the ancient world and that He only saved Noah and seven others, how does that verse equate to a local flood?

In Christ, GB

A problem with the NIV there is you miss out on the second use of the word world or kosmos. 2Pet 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly. It isn't talking about the planet but the ungodly civilisation Noah lived in. You didn't actually address my point gb.

good brother · Mar 21, 2012

progmonk said:
Did I say that? The problem is that even if we go yep global flood, miraculous, the idea that there wouldn't be any evidence left pointing to that is in my opinion, silly.

The point of this thread is to address how the Bible worded it. Is it told in such a way as for the reader to understand it was a global event? Yes. Everything about the narrative leads us to understand it was global. From the amount of time Noah had as warning, to the depth of the flood waters, to the duration of the deluge, to the promise and covenant afterwards, everything in the story points to an understanding of it's globality.

Well yeah, I gave you factually local because I though eh what's the harm, but then you're all like blah blah I'm focusing on the stuff that is irrelevant to the story.

What was the "irrelevant" issues I was focused on? Or are you saying you were stuck on the irrelevant parts?

So no, you can't have nice things

I have very nice things, thank you very much.

He uses it in the same way he uses parables though...

can you point out, from Scriptures, that Jesus used it (the flood narrative) "the same way He used parables"?

Thank you.

In Christ, GB

good brother · Mar 21, 2012

Assyrian said:
A problem with the NIV there is you miss out on the second use of the word world or kosmos. 2Pet 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly. It isn't talking about the planet but the ungodly civilisation Noah lived in.

How do you know Peter was not talking about the entire planet? Peter first talks about the many angels that are being held for the day of judgement. There are probably far more angels being held for the day of judgement than there are people on the Earth now or ever have been, remember that a third of them fell from grace. Then he narrows down his speech some more to the total and global flood event, then he narrows it down even more to talk about Sodom and Gommorah. Then he narrows it down even more to make it personal with each person he was addressing. I really don't see how you get that he wasn't talking about the whole Earth when he mentioned the flood.

In the next chapter he talks about how the heavens and Earth are now reserved for the fire judgement after the flood judgement, do you suppose that the fire judgement is a local event too?

And another thing, when John uses the word "kosmos" in John 3:16, do you understand it as being a local region too, or is that a global term?

You didn't actually address my point gb.

I guess I missed your point then.

In Christ, GB

Keachian · Mar 21, 2012

good brother said:
The point of this thread is to address how the Bible worded it. Is it told in such a way as for the reader to understand it was a global event? Yes. Everything about the narrative leads us to understand it was global.

That's a misleading idea though. The text says that it was global I agree with you there, but what does global mean, to an ancient Israelite the world was a flat disc with a dome, so to then apply our 1st century idea that the earth is round and is quite a lot larger is foolish.

From the amount of time Noah had as warning

God gave Noah the time to build the ark that's it, you're moving parts of chapter 6 around all over the place.

The Structure is as follows

Wickedness of Man
- 120 year "curse"
- Nephilim
- Time to restart
Noah
- Noah and his family
- God reiterating his plan to Noah
- Build an Ark!
- Put Animals on the Ark

to the depth of the flood waters, to the duration of the deluge, to the promise and covenant afterwards, everything in the story points to an understanding of it's globality.

Again, your idea of that is vastly different to that of an ancient Israelite

What was the "irrelevant" issues I was focused on? Or are you saying you were stuck on the irrelevant parts?

How high did the water go? How does this work from my frame of reference, rather than that of the original audience? Foolish questions

can you point out, from Scriptures, that Jesus used it (the flood narrative) "the same way He used parables"?

Ok so the relevant passage is Matt 24:32-51, all of them are parables about the coming of the new age, except that of the flood story, it seems odd that it is sandwiched in there among what is all parable, this is what I mean by him using it in the same way that he used parables, namely as a teaching device.

good brother · Mar 21, 2012

progmonk said:
That's a misleading idea though. The text says that it was global I agree with you there, but what does global mean, to an ancient Israelite the world was a flat disc with a dome, so to then apply our 1st century idea that the earth is round and is quite a lot larger is foolish.

And I am sure you can back up that statement with proof that all ancient Israelites thought that? Because you wouldn't say something you could not back up with proof, right?

God gave Noah the time to build the ark that's it, you're moving parts of chapter 6 around all over the place.

Please, let me know where I moved stuff from and to. Thank you.

120 year "curse"

It wasn't a curse, it was a window of opportunity for the world to repent and join Noah on the ark.

Nephilim

They were part of the cause of God's wrath.

Time to restart

The time to restart did not start until after the flood.

Noah

Noah and his family

God reiterating his plan to Noah

Build an Ark!

Put Animals on the Ark

That part is correct, with the exception that God brought the animals to Noah, Noah did not have to go get them.

Again, your idea of that is vastly different to that of an ancient Israelite

Again, you can back that statement up with proof?

How high did the water go? How does this work from my frame of reference, rather than that of the original audience? Foolish questions

It's not foolish at all. If it is a local flood, then how local was it and if the text is correct that the tallest mounatin was covered to a depth of 23 feet, then how does that make it local? The entirety of the lower 48 states of the USA would be underwater by default, not to mention most of Europe by that same line of thought and every single island including every bit of Australia. How does that equate to a local flood? They aren't foolish questions, just impossible ones to those who say it was local.

Ok so the relevant passage is Matt 24:32-51, all of them are parables about the coming of the new age, except that of the flood story, it seems odd that it is sandwiched in there among what is all parable, this is what I mean by him using it in the same way that he used parables, namely as a teaching device.

Here is the passage:

32 Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
The Day and Hour Unknown

36 But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42 Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. 45 Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, My master is staying away a long time, 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Perhaps you can point out to me all the parables in there.

Thanks.

In Christ, GB

Keachian · Mar 21, 2012

good brother said:
And I am sure you can back up that statement with proof that all ancient Israelites thought that? Because you wouldn't say something you could not back up with proof, right?

Let's go with day 2 of the creation story

Please, let me know where I moved stuff from and to. Thank you.

You said that God was talking to Noah, when the text shows that he was having an inner dialogue as he does a bit in Genesis.

It wasn't a curse, it was a window of opportunity for the world to repent and join Noah on the ark.

no God was shortening the lifespan of humans

The time to restart did not start until after the flood.

But he had already set out his plan
"So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”"

It's not foolish at all. If it is a local flood, then how local was it and if the text is correct that the tallest mounatin was covered to a depth of 23 feet, then how does that make it local? The entirety of the lower 48 states of the USA would be underwater by default, not to mention most of Europe by that same line of thought and every single island including every bit of Australia. How does that equate to a local flood? They aren't foolish questions, just impossible ones to those who say it was local.

But if we're talking about a bubble being filled with water rather than the earth being covered in water from a cultural contextual reading of the verse, somethings amiss here, the two can't really be mapped one to the other.

Here is the passage:

32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

^Parable

The Day and Hour Unknown

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

^ The Flood being likened to the coming of the son of man

40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42 Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.

^ Parable

43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

^ Parable

45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

^ Parable

good brother · Mar 21, 2012

progmonk said:
Let's go with day 2 of the creation story

How is that a response? Could you post it and explain how you came to that conclusion?

You said that God was talking to Noah, when the text shows that he was having an inner dialogue as he does a bit in Genesis.

Well, who could have recorded that unless it was told to somebody? Did God leave His tape recorder out again?

no God was shortening the lifespan of humans

No, God doesnt shorten the lifespan of humans until after the flood. You can find that in the Psalms:

10 Our days may come to seventy years,
or eighty, if our strength endures;

Not only that, but one can find that MANY Bible characters lived long past 120 years for a long time after the flood. Terah was older than 120, Sarah was too. Noah was older. Shem was 500. Shelah was 403. Arphaxad was 403. Eber was 430. Peleg lived 209 years. Reu lived 203. Serug lived 200. All these were AFTER the flood, so your theory about God shortening the lifespans doesn't work.

But if we're talking about a bubble being filled with water rather than the earth being covered in water from a cultural contextual reading of the verse, somethings amiss here, the two can't really be mapped one to the other.

You need to show me where it is a bubble according to Scripture.

32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

^Parable

Not parable, a prediction. "Even so, when you see all these things..." You and I cannot see parables, we can see predictions.

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

^ The Flood being likened to the coming of the son of man

Not a parable, but listed as a historical event and likened to a future historical event.

40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42 Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.

^ Parable

Not a parable, a prediction.

43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

^ Parable

Not a parable, a prediction.

45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

^ Parable

Not a parable, a prediction.

How are any of those parables? How are they not specific predictions?

In Christ, GB

"Local" Biblical flood dismissed

good brother

Guest

On Sabbatical

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

good brother

Guest

good brother

Guest

On Sabbatical

Ted

good brother

Guest

On Sabbatical

Ted

good brother

Guest

On Sabbatical

On Sabbatical

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

good brother

Guest

good brother

Guest

On Sabbatical

good brother

Guest

On Sabbatical

good brother

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency