"Local" Biblical flood dismissed

[Assyrian]

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!

Thank you.

However, after God gave His 120 year warning, He then gave Noah a seven day warning.

It doesn't actually say Noah had 120 years warning, it would have taken some time to build the ark though.

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.

Yet the most important time for Noah to preach righteousness and repentance would have been the days just before the flood. Not sure of your seven days either, a mass migration with all those animals would have taken an awfully long time. If you drop the ark and let Noah walk out with the animals, he has to carry enough food for everything. It is not just grain and hay, do you propose the sheep carry sides of mutton to feed the carnivores? Then carrying cages for lions on the back of donkeys is going to be problematic. Foxes and rabbits going in separate cages on the back of sheep is an option, but you are going to start running out of pack sheep. And how do you herd cats, tortoises and spiders? The migration would be a nightmare and take a lot longer than 7 days. The fact is, the easiest form of transport in the ancient world was by boat.

Drop the ark and you also lose the beautiful symbol of redemption and baptism, you lose a beautiful picture of God's care for the natural world and our responsibility to protect it and preserve the species living here from extinction. Not a very popular message in some circles, though.

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.

Not so sure God commanded the animals to come to Noah, though it is a popular concept. What it say is that God commanded Noah to bring the animals, or to take them with him. And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark. Gen 6:19 Take with you seven pairs... Gen 7:2. It does say the animal went to Noah and to the ark, but it doesn't say 'because God brought them', it says 'as God commanded Noah' Gen 7:9 two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah. The animals went with Noah because Noah brought them.

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.

Fifteen cubit waves washing over the highest hills in the region would probably do the job.

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.

You are assuming God brought the animals to Noah miraculously, which as we have seen, isn't what the text says. Noah being responsible for rescuing the animals is much more in line with the creation mandate in Gen 1:28 where God gave the human race dominion over all the the different living creatures. Keeping the animals from extinction was Noah's responsibility.

Whether the flood was global or local, the bible says God wanted to preserve the animals living in that area. There would have been unique species and breed living there, especially breeds of domesticated animals. Even if other species living there were found outside the region too, why shouldn't God want to preserve the animals living in the region so that each species living there still has descendants, a remnant left alive. Remember, God cares for the sparrows, he feed the young ravens and lion cubs who cry to him for food.

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.

I think that the problem with this perticular rabbit hole, is that Creationists take their interpretation of a global flood and all their explanations and understandings of why God saved Noah and the animals, and the reasons they think God did it the way he did in a global flood. Then they insist their explanations and the reasons they thought up for the global flood interpretation have to fit a local flood or the local flood must be wrong. Instead if you want to know if a local flood fits, you need to go back to scripture and see how that fits the text, not just import your explanations of a global flood.

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

There are a few candidates once you drop the animals couldn't just walk out requirement, which as we have seen isn't a requirement of scripture. There is the Black Sea Basin, Glenn Morton goes for a Mediterranean Basin, but that seem too early, a Homo erectus Noah with the carpentry skills to build and Ark seems a bit implausible. Then you have the wide flat plain of Mesopotamia which has suffered some pretty severe floods. Or further out, the Persian Gulf which flooded about 8000 years ago. Then if you look at 120m sea level rise at the end of the ice age they are a wide range of possible candidates, any wide areas on the seafloor to a depth of 120 meters. The sea level rise itself was too gradual, but throw in a glacial dam bursting like you see portrayed in Ice Age 2: The Meltdown (that sort of thing did actually happen, it is how the Scablands in eastern Washington were formed) and you could have a massive flood in area, it could even be an area now below sea level.

 

[Assyrian]

How do you know Peter was not talking about the entire planet?

It could be read that way, though a local flood fits the text better. In 2Peter 3, Peter switches from the word ge or earth describing the creation of the earth, to kosmos for the flood and back to ge again to describe the judgement of the heaven and earth by fire and the new heavens and earth. If Peter had wanted to describe the flood as global he could have continued using the same word he used before and after to describe the whole earth.

But if Peter's description can be interpreted either way, then there is nothing in the text that tells us it actually is a global flood, and if there are two interpretations why pick one which we know from archaeology, geology and even genetics didn't happen?

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.

If that argument was valid, and you are not just reading Peter's purpose into the text, wouldn't it be enough for the flood to be wider than the cities of the Dead Sea plain? Or how we know when God chained those angels? If it was just before the flood, then Peter's sequence could be chronological. Or maybe it is simply a list of three different examples.

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?

Like I said, what is really interesting here is how Peter didn't use the same word as this global judgment to describe the flood

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?

The word kosmos refers to adorning too, we get the word cosmetics from it, 1 Peter 3:3 Let your beauty be not just the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on fine clothing. Does John 3:16 mean God love makeup? Kosmos has a wide range of meanings from cosmetics to the entire cosmos, we need to see from the the context what meaning is being used. As we have see Peter was talking about the world of the ungodly, the ungodly civilisation Noah lived in, and that he used kosmos instead of the word ge which he did use for the whole earth.

I guess I missed your point then.

In Christ, GB

Your argument was that Noah could have migrated instead of building an ark if it was local flood, whereas God call Noah to be a witness to the people around him, a preacher of righteousness, which he wouldn't be if he walked away.

 

[good brother]

It could be read that way, though a local flood fits the text better. In 2Peter 3, Peter switches from the word ge or earth describing the creation of the earth, to kosmos for the flood and back to ge again to describe the judgement of the heaven and earth by fire and the new heavens and earth. If Peter had wanted to describe the flood as global he could have continued using the same word he used before and after to describe the whole earth.

You mean it could be read that way if one read it as it appears in the text instead of trying to inject man's "wisdom" into the text?

But if Peter's description can be interpreted either way, then there is nothing in the text that tells us it actually is a global flood, and if there are two interpretations why pick one which we know from archaeology, geology and even genetics didn't happen?

Have you ever read the Genesis account? it DEFINITELY speaks of it as global. All beasts, all birds, all people, everything on the Earth.

If that argument was valid, and you are not just reading Peter's purpose into the text, wouldn't it be enough for the flood to be wider than the cities of the Dead Sea plain? Or how we know when God chained those angels? If it was just before the flood, then Peter's sequence could be chronological. Or maybe it is simply a list of three different examples.

How is it you don't want to accept it as it is written?

Like I said, what is really interesting here is how Peter didn't use the same word as this global judgment to describe the flood

My wife is beautiful. My wife is gorgeous. My wife is pretty. My wife is cute. Which is she? All those words convey the same meaning. The words that Peter used can certainly have different meanings, but they can also mean the same exact thing based upon context.

The word kosmos refers to adorning too, we get the word cosmetics from it, 1 Peter 3:3 Let your beauty be not just the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on fine clothing. Does John 3:16 mean God love makeup? Kosmos has a wide range of meanings from cosmetics to the entire cosmos, we need to see from the the context what meaning is being used. As we have see Peter was talking about the world of the ungodly, the ungodly civilisation Noah lived in, and that he used kosmos instead of the word ge which he did use for the whole earth.

So, you are saying that "kosmos" meant "entire world" in John 3:16, but it certainly could not have meant that in 2 Peter because there is a preconcieved notion of what it should mean based upon man's notion?

Your argument was that Noah could have migrated instead of building an ark if it was local flood, whereas God call Noah to be a witness to the people around him, a preacher of righteousness, which he wouldn't be if he walked away.

God shut the door on the ark seven days before He sent the flood. What good would it possibly do to have that boat so close to the people, yet out of reach due to it already being shut? God could have told Noah to leave seven days before a local flood.

In Christ, GB

 

[Assyrian]

You mean it could be read that way if one read it as it appears in the text instead of trying to inject man's "wisdom" into the text?

No just looking at what the text actually says and the different ways to read it.

Have you ever read the Genesis account? it DEFINITELY speaks of it as global. All beasts, all birds, all people, everything on the Earth.

Unfortunately the word translated the Earth can just as easily, in fact more often, refers to a particular land or region. But I though you knew that?

How is it you don't want to accept it as it is written?

What is wrong with me pointing out that your claims about what was written didn't match what was actually written?

My wife is beautiful. My wife is gorgeous. My wife is pretty. My wife is cute. Which is she? All those words convey the same meaning. The words that Peter used can certainly have different meanings, but they can also mean the same exact thing based upon context.

Then again Peter didn't use a long list of different words describing the earth, he use one word which he repeated four different times in the chapter describing the earth, it is only with the flood picked a different word. Like I said you can interpret it as a world wide flood, but a local flood is a better fit to the text.

So, you are saying that "kosmos" meant "entire world" in John 3:16, but it certainly could not have meant that in 2 Peter because there is a preconcieved notion of what it should mean based upon man's notion?

I doubt John 3:16 is referring to the planet. I discuss the meaning of the text and you seem to hide behind an ad homs argument to motive the only reason to think the flood isn't global is 'man's wisdom' or man's notion'.

You haven't answered my question

if there are two interpretations why pick one which we know from archaeology, geology and even genetics didn't happen?
​

You just seem to dismiss any other reading of the text as 'man's wisdom'
Unfortunately the alternative to man wisdom doesn't default to the wisdom of God, there is a whole world of human stupidity out there too. Throughout history people who rejected science as the wisdom of man, flat earthers like Cosmas Indicopleustes and Lactantius or the geocentrists who put Galileo on trial, end up having stood for human foolishness, not the wisdom of God. Worse still, doing it in the name of their interpretation of the bible, they have brought scripture and Christianity into disrepute, and their actions are still used against the gospel.

God shut the door on the ark seven days before He sent the flood. What good would it possibly do to have that boat so close to the people, yet out of reach due to it already being shut? God could have told Noah to leave seven days before a local flood.

In Christ, GB

Gen 7:10 And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark.

 

[good brother]

Unfortunately the word translated the Earth can just as easily, in fact more often, refers to a particular land or region. But I thought you knew that?

I do know that can refer to a particular land or region, but I also know it can mean the whole world.

Then again Peter didn't use a long list of different words describing the earth, he use one word which he repeated four different times in the chapter describing the earth, it is only with the flood picked a different word.

No, he used two different words to describe the same thought. If you or I did used the same exact word in every sentence in a paragraph we were writing, we would be labeled as dolts who don't own thesauruses. However, if anyone in the Bible doesn't use the same word every single time, then it's supposed that it must not be the same thing. Ironic. Or I could say "strange", but I wouldn't want you to think I meant anything other than ironic.

Like I said you can interpret it as a world wide flood, but a local flood is a better fit to the text.

It doesn't fit the text better, it fits man's notion that a global flood never happened because the Earth is much older than what the Bible reports and the stories in the Bible must be taken as either alegorical or very localized.

I doubt John 3:16 is referring to the planet.

But then I didn't say planet, I said entire world, as in the entire world of sinners who were in need of a Savior.

I discuss the meaning of the text and you seem to hide behind an ad homs argument to motive the only reason to think the flood isn't global is 'man's wisdom' or man's notion'.

You and I both know that a plain reading of the text of the flood narrative would lead the reader to understand it was literal and global. However, due to today's scientific thought, the reader must reinterpret the text to make it "local" if it happened at all. It's not that the text doesn't say it, it's that mankind doesn't want to believe that.

You haven't answered my question

if there are two interpretations why pick one which we know from archaeology, geology and even genetics didn't happen?
​

Because the Bible says it happened.

You just seem to dismiss any other reading of the text as 'man's wisdom'

When any other reading dismisses what the Bible plainly states, then yes, I will dismiss man's wisdom.

Gen 7:10 And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark.

I will give you that one as it seems I misspoke. It happens. This is the second time in three decades.

In Christ, GB

 

[Keachian]

When any other reading dismisses what the Bible plainly states, then yes, I will dismiss man's wisdom.

That's not what he said, he said you dismiss anything other than your literalism as mans wisdom

 

[good brother]

That's not what he said, he said you dismiss anything other than your literalism as mans wisdom

Yes, I take the Bible LITERALLY at it's word when it speaks of matters of history. To inject literal history with a dilusion of allegory and minimalism (minimalism in this case would be like saying "Oh, the flood happened, but not on the scale it is reported as happening. It only flooded a small tract of land. Yadda yadda yadda..."), that is not what the Bible plainly states. That would be "man's wisdom", and NOT what the Bible PLAINLY states.

Take off all your preconcieved notions and strip away all your opinions, and just read the text. Read it. Don't try to inject what you think you know into the text, just read it. What does it say? You will find that it most certainly and definitely states that the flood was a global, all consuming event and every land animal, man, woman, and child that was not in the ark perished. Of course you don't believe that, why not? Because you have taken what man has said ("Evolution is correct, the Bible is not, and there never was a global flood") and now you must try to make sense out of a book you WANT to cling to, but CANNOT cling to it because it says things DIFFERENTLY than what MAN says. THEREFORE, YOU must inject different meaning into the text than the meaning that is plainly gotten from reading it, to get it to fit with your assumption that what man has said was right and what God has said was wrong. That's mans wisdom, and that's a dangerous path.



In Christ, GB

 

[Keachian]

Even by "just reading" the text you are placing your own prejudices and suchforth on the text. In this case you're placing your 21st century ideas and all that comes from a postmodern philosophy into the text.

I don't try to inject my worldview on the text and I get out that by and large that the text is talking about a domed disc in its cosmology, and so I read the text through this lens. From there I know that when it talks about a "global" flood it's analogous to the fertile crescent region as we see it today. And that's just reading it so that erets means all earth.

 

[good brother]

Okay, sure.

 

[dollarsbill]

Local Flood? No way.

Genesis 7:17-23 (NASB)
17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. 18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

 

[miamited]

hi assyrian,

You replied: Yet the most important time for Noah to preach righteousness and repentance would have been the days just before the flood. Not sure of your seven days either, a mass migration with all those animals would have taken an awfully long time. If you drop the ark and let Noah walk out with the animals, he has to carry enough food for everything. It is not just grain and hay, do you propose the sheep carry sides of mutton to feed the carnivores? Then carrying cages for lions on the back of donkeys is going to be problematic. Foxes and rabbits going in separate cages on the back of sheep is an option, but you are going to start running out of pack sheep. And how do you herd cats, tortoises and spiders? The migration would be a nightmare and take a lot longer than 7 days. The fact is, the easiest form of transport in the ancient world was by boat.

I'm afraid you may have missed the point. If it was just a local flood, say 100 sq miles or 200 sq miles, Noah didn't have to take any animals. What ever animals died in the local flood would have been repopulated through the animals left outside that local area. Oh, sure, if God wanted every single species saved God might have had to cause a couple of dozen area specific creatures to travel to safety and He wouldn't have needed Noah and the ark to do that. He would have, just as he did somehow cause the pairs to seek out and find Noah, just caused them to seek out and find the area that wasn't going to be flooded.

Unfortunately, if you take out the idea of a global flood, as God seems to have made clear in the Scriptures, then the whole idea of the ark then becomes unnecessary and itself problematic. How is that it floats around for months and Noah never sees any land if 100 miles 200 miles or 300 miles away there was perfectly ordinary dry land? How is that the bird he sends out to find dry land can't, if it is in fact out there? Are we really to believe that for all this time that Noah and his family and the animals were on the ark they just sat somehow anchored to some spot reasonably in the middle of the locally flooded area? Because they remained anchored in this center spot, Noah couldn't ever see dry land or the bird couldn't find any? That, quite honestly, seems more problematic than God's account, to me.

If it was all the earth, as the Scriptures declare, then yes, Noah would have gone months without seeing any land and the bird would not have found land until the waters had begun to recede. Simple and in line with what God has caused to be written. Of course, the very first mistake that I find in so many of these posts of the local flooding camp, is that under further investigation, it would seem that their 'understanding' of who wrote the Scriptures is quite different from mine.

There seems to be, among them, this pervasive idea that so many of the accounts of the Scriptures were how men understood God and the things they wrote were of their own thoughts and imaginations of how men understood a god in those days. I reject that theory of the Scriptures and instead follow Paul's instruction. All Scripture is God-breathed. None of it came by the thoughts or imaginings of men, but by the leading and prompting of God's Holy Spirit to cause them to write the things of which they wrote.

Then there is the second camp, that while they believe the Scriptures came from God, fall upon the, "Well, we just can't know what God meant...". I believe that it is God's inmost desire that we know and understand what He has caused to be written to us. That we understand how it is that the blood of someone who is innocent might cleanse us of our sin might be trying, but the rest of it, no, God wants us to understand and to believe Him. And even with the issue of Jesus' blood cleansing us of our sin, while we may not understand the actual working out of how that is done, God wants us to believe that Jesus' blood will, in fact, do just what God has said it will do.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Keachian]

Noah didn't have to take any animals.

Noah was told to take animals, to say that he didn't have to take any animals is like saying that we as Christians don't have to follow God's commands. It's completely ridiculous, you're also putting forward what-ifs, we're told what happened, not what could have happened, or what didn't happen.

 

[Assyrian]

I do know that can refer to a particular land or region, but I also know it can mean the whole world.

So there is nothing in the text that actually specifies it was a global flood.

No, he used two different words to describe the same thought. If you or I did used the same exact word in every sentence in a paragraph we were writing, we would be labeled as dolts who don't own thesauruses. However, if anyone in the Bible doesn't use the same word every single time, then it's supposed that it must not be the same thing. Ironic. Or I could say "strange", but I wouldn't want you to think I meant anything other than ironic.

So just coincidence that the one time Peter uses a different word is to describe the flood. Of course it could be choosing a synonym, though the fact he reverts back to 'earth' immediately after suggests it was a deliberate choice not to use earth to describe the flood. Like I said the text fits a local flood better, that Peter specifically chose the word kosmos in a different sense to the meaning of earth in the rest of the chapter.

It doesn't fit the text better, it fits man's notion that a global flood never happened because the Earth is much older than what the Bible reports and the stories in the Bible must be taken as either alegorical or very localized.

That's the problem there, you can't see far enough past your own interpretation, to look at what the text says, see if there are other way to understand it and compare the different possible interpretations. All you can do is name calling. Of course if you are not able to examine the different interpretations with any objectivity, how can you say your interpretation fits the text better?

But then I didn't say planet, I said entire world, as in the entire world of sinners who were in need of a Savior.

So John 3:16 doesn't use kosmos the way you are trying to interpret it in 2Peter 3?

You and I both know that a plain reading of the text of the flood narrative would lead the reader to understand it was literal and global. However, due to today's scientific thought, the reader must reinterpret the text to make it "local" if it happened at all. It's not that the text doesn't say it, it's that mankind doesn't want to believe that.

Didn't I point out to you that the world translate 'earth' much more often means a specific land? Certainly your literal reading of the English translation 'the earth' suggests it is a global flood, but that isn't a plain reading of the original text.

A question you need to ask yourself is what the text would have meant to a bronze age Israelite without your modern concept of the shape of earth. It isn't that the ancient Israelites were ignorant and we know better now, but that meaning of the language they spoke is what the words meant to them. In other words, if you want to understand the plain meaning of the text is, you need to try to put yourself in the sandals of the bronze age herdsmen these stories come from and and try to understand what the plain meaning was for them. It doesn't matter that these stories were inspired by God who knew the shape of the planet he created, he was speaking through bronze age herdsmen, in their bronze age language and concept the language communicated, and was communicating to bronze age herdsmen. It is what they would have understood by the language that is the plain meaning.

The alternative is to say that God knew the shape of the earth and he was communicating to people who would only understand the true meaning thousands of years later after the, umm wisdom of men, discovered the true extent and shape of the earth. But then your interpretation is no longer the plain meaning of the text, what the rabbis called peshat but another form of interpretation, the rabbis called sod, searching for the hidden meanings that the writer himself would not have understood.

Because the Bible says it happened.

So there are two interpretations but you chose your interpretation because you assume your interpretation is right. That's handy.

The problem is, my question was what you do if there are two interpretations? If there are two interpretations then you don't actually know which one the bible is saying.

why pick one which we know from archaeology, geology and even genetics didn't happen?
​

[/QUOTE]

You just seem to dismiss any other reading of the text as 'man's wisdom'
Unfortunately the alternative to man wisdom doesn't default to the wisdom of God, there is a whole world of human stupidity out there too. Throughout history people who rejected science as the wisdom of man, flat earthers like Cosmas Indicopleustes and Lactantius or the geocentrists who put Galileo on trial, end up having stood for human foolishness, not the wisdom of God. Worse still, doing it in the name of their interpretation of the bible, they have brought scripture and Christianity into disrepute, and their actions are still used against the gospel.

When any other reading dismisses what the Bible plainly states, then yes, I will dismiss man's wisdom.[/QUOTE]
You missed the second part of of what I said. Your approach to scripture, and science - the dismissal of scientific discoveries, the assumption your interpretation of scripture could not possible be wrong - has failed disastrously in the past. Should the church have stuck with your approach when Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton showed the earth went round the sun? Should we have kept on dismissing the science as the wisdom of
man because our traditional geocentric interpretation of the passage was what we thought the Bible plainly said?

I will give you that one as it seems I misspoke. It happens. This is the second time in three decades.

In Christ, GB

 

[Assyrian]

Local Flood? No way.

Genesis 7:17-23 (NASB)
17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. 18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

You need to take a closer look at the language being used. The word translated earth here, erets, is more commonly translated land. If you look at how the NASB translates the word in the rest of the OT

[FONT=&quot]http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/0776.html[/FONT]
NASB - common(1), countries(15), countries and their lands(1), country(44), countryside(1), distance*(3), dust(1), earth(655), earth the ground(1), earth's(1), fail*(1), floor(1), ground(119), land(1581), lands(57), lands have their land(2), open(1), other*(2), piece(1), plateau*(1), region(1), territories(1), wild(1), world(3).
​

It is translated land, lands, region, country, countries, countryside 1704 times, and earth or world 660 times[FONT=&quot][/FONT]. The much more common meaning is a land or region.

Under the heavens doesn't mean the whole planet either, but under the sky above their heads, from horizon to horizon. Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the peoples everywhere under the heavens, who, when they hear the report of you, will tremble and be in anguish because of you. This isn't saying the Incas and Inuits were going to tremble in dread, it was talking about peoples in the region, the Edomites, Moabites and Canaanites.

 

[Greg1234]

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.

hm sure u wanna go down that road?

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

So you would compare the fire from a meteor strike to a local California conflagration?

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.

So lets say I'm just walking around (minding my own business), just enjoying the breeze, and suddenly I wanted to find the ungodly. Which country should I attend?

 

[Assyrian]

hi assyrian,

I'm afraid you may have missed the point. If it was just a local flood, say 100 sq miles or 200 sq miles, Noah didn't have to take any animals. What ever animals died in the local flood would have been repopulated through the animals left outside that local area. Oh, sure, if God wanted every single species saved God might have had to cause a couple of dozen area specific creatures to travel to safety and He wouldn't have needed Noah and the ark to do that. He would have, just as he did somehow cause the pairs to seek out and find Noah, just caused them to seek out and find the area that wasn't going to be flooded.

I addressed that in my post. All it means is you don't understand why God would save the animals in the region if it was a regional flood. Could be you just don't understand God, and that he cares for these animals more that you realise, or that he cares about our responsibility towards the animals.

Unfortunately, if you take out the idea of a global flood, as God seems to have made clear in the Scriptures, then the whole idea of the ark then becomes unnecessary and itself problematic. How is that it floats around for months and Noah never sees any land if 100 miles 200 miles or 300 miles away there was perfectly ordinary dry land? How is that the bird he sends out to find dry land can't, if it is in fact out there? Are we really to believe that for all this time that Noah and his family and the animals were on the ark they just sat somehow anchored to some spot reasonably in the middle of the locally flooded area? Because they remained anchored in this center spot, Noah couldn't ever see dry land or the bird couldn't find any? That, quite honestly, seems more problematic than God's account, to me.

Personally I suspect the figures in the flood account were symbolic, but lets take the literally for the sake of discussion, if the ark wasn't anchored in one spot as you say, then they couldn't have been washed out to sea could they?

If it was all the earth, as the Scriptures declare,

You keep making this assumption

then yes, Noah would have gone months without seeing any land and the bird would not have found land until the waters had begun to recede. Simple and in line with what God has caused to be written. Of course, the very first mistake that I find in so many of these posts of the local flooding camp, is that under further investigation, it would seem that their 'understanding' of who wrote the Scriptures is quite different from mine.

It was. The question is what they meant when they said what they said and wrote the original text.

There seems to be, among them, this pervasive idea that so many of the accounts of the Scriptures were how men understood God and the things they wrote were of their own thoughts and imaginations of how men understood a god in those days. I reject that theory of the Scriptures and instead follow Paul's instruction. All Scripture is God-breathed. None of it came by the thoughts or imaginings of men, but by the leading and prompting of God's Holy Spirit to cause them to write the things of which they wrote.

Yet the fullest revelation of who God is came through his son Jesus, which means that even though the OT writing are inspired and we see the Israelites being taught by God, it is not the full understanding we only get in Christ. But this is a different issue. It is not the writers being ignorant of the size and shape of the earth, but them writing about a local flood in the sort of language they would use to describe a local flood, and it being misunderstood by people millennia later with different concepts and understandings. You may have a better understanding of the size and shape of the world, you just don't understand what they were saying.

Then there is the second camp, that while they believe the Scriptures came from God, fall upon the, "Well, we just can't know what God meant...". I believe that it is God's inmost desire that we know and understand what He has caused to be written to us. That we understand how it is that the blood of someone who is innocent might cleanse us of our sin might be trying, but the rest of it, no, God wants us to understand and to believe Him. And even with the issue of Jesus' blood cleansing us of our sin, while we may not understand the actual working out of how that is done, God wants us to believe that Jesus' blood will, in fact, do just what God has said it will do.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Yes we are certainly on safer ground with the core of salvation, understanding that Jesus died for us on the cross and what it means in our lives, even if the how is wrapped in blazing mystery. Even Paul realised his understanding was only partial For we know in part 1Cor 13:9. And God tells us his thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways not our ways Isaiah 55:8.

But your argument here is based on an even harder aspect of God to understand. It is one thing to see what God did, and try to understand the reasons he gave for doing it. But your argument about a local flood is based on what you think God didn't do and the reasons you think he wouldn't have done it. Kind of leaves you on you own to figure out God's thoughts and ways for that.

 

[Assyrian]

So lets say I'm just walking around (minding my own business), just enjoying the breeze, and suddenly I wanted to find the ungodly. Which country should I attend?

Probably the one whose ungodliness the Holy Spirit has just burdened your heart with. Of course if it was just you thinking to yourself how terribly ungodly people are, then you should probably stay at home.

 

[Keachian]

hm sure u wanna go down that road?

Sure why not?

So you would compare the fire from a meteor strike to a local California conflagration?

You're confusing/confused I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Yet the most important time for Noah to preach righteousness and repentance would have been the days just before the flood. Not sure of your seven days either, a mass migration with all those animals would have taken an awfully long time. If you drop the ark and let Noah walk out with the animals, he has to carry enough food for everything. It is not just grain and hay, do you propose the sheep carry sides of mutton to feed the carnivores? Then carrying cages for lions on the back of donkeys is going to be problematic. Foxes and rabbits going in separate cages on the back of sheep is an option, but you are going to start running out of pack sheep. And how do you herd cats, tortoises and spiders? The migration would be a nightmare and take a lot longer than 7 days. The fact is, the easiest form of transport in the ancient world was by boat.

Sorry but you cant have it both ways. You said it was local, that means there were only a few of each animals that were native to a small area.
So it would not be that big a deal.
Now you want to make it sound like Noah is taking all the animals of the world.?????

Any place you want to use the whole earth and make it mean region it has to be supported by the text.
In this case we know it is global because God is exterminating man, not Mesopotamians.
Every where else He calls the peoples by thier name.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The fact is, the easiest form of transport in the ancient world was by boat.

All the earth was one lump standing in the water and out of the water.
The only thing they needed a boat for, was to navigate rivers.