Local vs Global Flood

[selfinflikted]

I have asked this question in other threads, but was never really supplied with a good answer from Christians. If you are in the camp that believes Noah's flood was a local flood, will you please explain to me the point of the flood? As I understand it, the only way the story makes sense is if the flood was indeed global, because the point was to destroy all life except for those people and animals on the ark.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

A common apologetic claim that could be made is that since the world was relatively new at this point that humanity had not spread across the globe yet so the Semitic territory we have of now was considered "the world".

As for the reason, Yahweh is a very insecure deity who makes constant blunders.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have asked this question in other threads, but was never really supplied with a good answer from Christians. If you are in the camp that believes Noah's flood was a local flood, will you please explain to me the point of the flood? As I understand it, the only way the story makes sense is if the flood was indeed global, because the point was to destroy all life except for those people and animals on the ark.

Excellent question!

Let's see if you get a satisfactory answer, eh?

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, I was certainly hoping you'd chime in here, AV.

(ETA: Even though I know you're a "global flooder," I thought you might offer some theories on this)

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I was certainly hoping you'd chime in here, AV.

(ETA: Even though I know you're a "global flooder," I thought you might offer some theories on this)

Well, I don't want to hijack your thread, but I'll do what I can.

 

[AV1611VET]

We're going on two hours, guys.

Surely, if your church teaches the Flood was local, you can tell us why, eh?

If this was done on the local population as a demonstration of God's power, then let me know, will ya?

I'm dying to know what the basic doctrine is on this!

 

[JWGU]

If you happen to believe in an omniscient, but not omnipotent, God, and suppose that He was more interested in collecting believers than the absolute truth, He could simply have taken credit for a local flood He knew was going to happen anyway. Noah (and the writers of the bible) would never have known the difference. This would also explain how they fit all those animals into the ark--they didn't, but it wouldn't matter so long as they thought they were fitting all those animals into the ark. In fact, other than the actual timespans involved (ages of the participants and duration of the rainfall, both of which I would probably characterize as details subject to exaggeration and similar to the hypothesized error of mistaking a local flood for a global one), is there any aspect of the Flood story that requires anything more divine than the ability to predict the weather?

 

[Theodor1]

I have asked this question in other threads, but was never really supplied with a good answer from Christians. If you are in the camp that believes Noah's flood was a local flood, will you please explain to me the point of the flood? As I understand it, the only way the story makes sense is if the flood was indeed global, because the point was to destroy all life except for those people and animals on the ark.

The local flood was a viewpoint put forth by Whoolley back in something like 1932. This was based on the archeology work that he did at Ur. He found a flood layer that was about 8 feet thick. He found that the flood covered an area in the Tigris Euphrates lower valley of about 400 miles by 100 miles. Now to answer your question. The evidence shows that the people living in Mesopotamia at this time did perish. In fact the land was largely uninhabited for almost 1,000 years after this flood. The people that founded the land 1,000 years later were a different people. For example the new people had a spinning wheel that they made clay pots on and they had metal. So did the whole world perish? No, that is not what the evidence shows. What the evidence points to is that the people living in the lower Euphrates river valley did perish, just as the Bible says they did. The reason or point of the flood was because as the Bible says: "Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:1

 

[Strathos]

That particular part of the world was considered the entire world to the people living there at the time. The people living there were the corrupt ones who were punished.

 

[selfinflikted]

If you happen to believe in an omniscient, but not omnipotent, God, and suppose that He was more interested in collecting believers than the absolute truth, He could simply have taken credit for a local flood He knew was going to happen anyway. Noah (and the writers of the bible) would never have known the difference. This would also explain how they fit all those animals into the ark--they didn't, but it wouldn't matter so long as they thought they were fitting all those animals into the ark. In fact, other than the actual timespans involved (ages of the participants and duration of the rainfall, both of which I would probably characterize as details subject to exaggeration and similar to the hypothesized error of mistaking a local flood for a global one), is there any aspect of the Flood story that requires anything more divine than the ability to predict the weather?

Indeed. All good points, but this argument's caveat is that god isn't omnipotent. And I've never heard any Christians make this claim.

 

[selfinflikted]

That particular part of the world was considered the entire world to the people living there at the time. The people living there were the corrupt ones who were punished.

Perfectly reasonable, I suppose, if not reading the Bible literally.

 

[JWGU]

Indeed. All good points, but this argument's caveat is that god isn't omnipotent. And I've never heard any Christians make this claim.

It is a real shame that Christianity requires a benevolent God, or a truthful God--as I have noted several times in the past, removing these arbitrary constraints opens up a lot of excellent opportunities for consistency (not to mention more interesting stories).

 

[AV1611VET]

It is a real shame that Christianity requires a benevolent God, or a truthful God--as I have noted several times in the past, removing these arbitrary constraints opens up a lot of excellent opportunities for consistency (not to mention more interesting stories).

Doesn't Judaism require a God of mercy?

 

[selfinflikted]

It is a real shame that Christianity requires a benevolent God, or a truthful God--as I have noted several times in the past, removing these arbitrary constraints opens up a lot of excellent opportunities for consistency (not to mention more interesting stories).

Perhaps. But there are times in the Bible that I wouldn't necessarily call god benevolent. That dude can do some pretty nasty stuff, if you get on his bad side

 

[JWGU]

Doesn't Judaism require a God of mercy?

Not my interpretation of Judaism, no. The God of the Old Testament frequently fails to demonstrate mercy.

 

[Split Rock]

The local flood was a viewpoint put forth by Whoolley back in something like 1932. This was based on the archeology work that he did at Ur. He found a flood layer that was about 8 feet thick. He found that the flood covered an area in the Tigris Euphrates lower valley of about 400 miles by 100 miles. Now to answer your question. The evidence shows that the people living in Mesopotamia at this time did perish. In fact the land was largely uninhabited for almost 1,000 years after this flood. The people that founded the land 1,000 years later were a different people. For example the new people had a spinning wheel that they made clay pots on and they had metal. So did the whole world perish? No, that is not what the evidence shows. What the evidence points to is that the people living in the lower Euphrates river valley did perish, just as the Bible says they did. The reason or point of the flood was because as the Bible says: "Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:1

You know that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers flooded a lot during this time period... right? Where is the evidence that the Fertile Cresent was uninhabited for 1,000 years?

 

[SkyWriting]

Not my interpretation of Judaism, no. The God of the Old Testament frequently fails to demonstrate mercy.

Not if you believe it.

According to what is written, the god of this earth is the devil.
What would God consider to be in your best interest?
Staying on this earth, or not staying here?

 

[juvenissun]

I have asked this question in other threads, but was never really supplied with a good answer from Christians. If you are in the camp that believes Noah's flood was a local flood, will you please explain to me the point of the flood? As I understand it, the only way the story makes sense is if the flood was indeed global, because the point was to destroy all life except for those people and animals on the ark.

Also, a more convincing argument (99.99% scientific):

Any local flood will happen again and again. But the Global Flood can only happened ONCE.

 

[JWGU]

Not if you believe it.

According to what is written, the god of this earth is the devil.
What would God consider to be in your best interest?
Staying on this earth, or not staying here?

I don't know why you mean by this. Judaism does not have anything to say about the devil. One is never mentioned. Are you perhaps mistaking Judaism for some other religion?

 

[Theodor1]

You know that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers flooded a lot during this time period... right? Where is the evidence that the Fertile Cresent was uninhabited for 1,000 years?

Your not listening. We are looking at the archeology work that Whoolley did at the city of Ur. I assume you read the censored version of the book and not the origional: "Ur of the Chaldees". In his day this was all very popular front page headline stuff. Now Whoolley is almost forgotten and largely ignored. People talk about his "Local Flood" theory all the time. They do not study up to see the evidence that Whoolley has for this theory. Also very little additional archeology work has been done on this flood layer. You can not miss it though, because the layer is 8 feet thick. The artifacts they find before and after the flood are different.

Actually I only read the first chapter of the book. I plan to skip over ch 2 about the graves of the kings of ur. I want to read ch 3 that talks about "UBAID and the Earliest Written History". I would think that the earliest written history would be of interest to Science. I wonder why there are scoffers that show little respect for this subject. I believe this is a reflection of the poor level of understanding people gain in the American public school system. When I was in High School all of this was covered very extensively. Now it seems like they are to busy to promote their liberal agenda in the school system to take and of this serious.