Regional Flood, or Global? Let's look at the Scripture

Egyptians came in after the flood, not before.
Sodom and Gemorrah were two cities only, not the whole region. If the flood was local shouldn't there be considerable amounts of water covering that area.

That is what the disagreement occurs, I beleive the Egyptians came after the flood. Pyramids also are a common building structure shared between many ancient cultures (Egyptians/Chinese/Latin American etc). About Sodom and Gemorrah you misunderstood my point, I was saying what you just said, that God's judgement fell on them.

Kind of strange that this region alone requires God to judge it severly, and the rest of the world no. Also if the flood was regional, there would be differences in the population and civilization and technology of this region and the rest of the world.

It would be a great factor if only one region was affected by a local flood. Which is what the disagreement is about as I believe the flood was global. It would be quite evident and noticeable if the flood was not global on the civilizations etc. To me to deny a global flood is to deny many things that seem to support it.

I would not know exactly when the flood occurred, but I believe the flood took place after creation by about 1600 years. But I am quite confident that all these major civilizations came into place after the flood, they have many similarities, backgrounds about a disasterous global flood that took place and so on.

Alessandro said:

The flood was global. Why would Gods Word say the flood was global unless it actually WAS GLOBAL. Make sense.

Why would Noah need to build an ark to eascape a local flood, he could have just took his family and travelled to a diffrerent region. Why did he need to take animals with him on the ark if it was only a local flood, as there would be animals in a different region if it was a local flood. Why did he have to take birds on the ark if was a local flood, birds could have flew to a different region to avoid this local flood. And so on.

All this does not make sense if you are referring to a local flood. The flood was global, if the flood was local the entire region should be under considerably more water than its surroundings. And so on.

Click to expand...

You make some excellent points I never considered on useing here. How long did it take for Noah to build the ark? How long did God give him? I would think that the length of time it took to build a ship that monsterous at that time would've taken quite a long time. Noah could have gone to the safe region by this time built his house and been settled in the land way before it took him to finish building the ark!

That is why we disagree, I believe the earth is between 6000 and 10000 years old. It does not go against having a flood about 2400 years before Jesus faces no major problems regarding the rise of these civilizations, I believe the Egyptians were said to be dated at about 3000 years ago.

The condition of the earth is quite different than it was pre flood, you simply have much more water than what may have been before. Water covers about 70% of this planet. Common ancestrial histories, stories about their past point to a global deluge.

Vance said:

First, what is it about the context which would lead you to believe in a global rather than a regional condemnation.

Click to expand...

Not so fast Vance. I asked you to tell me why you and I must use the meaning of "kol erets" the way you say it should mean. Trust me, I do have my reasons why I say the context is most important here and I will get to that in time but I want to be very clear on why you believe what you believe. I'm not trying to be sly or anything but I need to know.

We have seen that when God says "kol erets", he sometimes is referring to the whole Earth, but actually is more often referring to something more limited.

Click to expand...

This maybe true but your totally missing what I'm saying. In order to know what God is referring to you must read it in the context of what he is saying. You don't go about finding out what God is saying by finding how many more times he meant this over that if there is more than one way to see the meaning of a particular word. In other words just because the word "kol erets" most often means a region doesn't mean we pick that as being the true meaning of the passage that we are questioning just because it's the most often used meaning.
Use CONTEXT, What is the story about!

What about the context of needing to punish makes it more likely that God is punishing ALL of mankind rather than a group? Nothing in the text itself requires it since every reference can be read either way.

Click to expand...

Oh to the contrary, It can't be read either way. You know, you mentioned the church haveing a preconcieved idea of this, I'm starting to think the same about you. Open your mind and read the text starting with the first verse of chapter 6 onward past chapter 8. You don't see anything in there that may point to God sending total judgment upon the earth?

To my mind, there is not one reason to think that the context is more supportive of a global punishment than a regional punishment of a specific people.

Click to expand...

You are missing it. I ask that you drop all your preconcieved ideas and hear me out. You've heard and read what others have to say, I ask that you hear me.

I will show you why I believe what I believe and in fact I will do so the same way you are trying to show me how you believe and why. I use the same logic in interpreting the Hebrew you use. Please be patient. I will get to it.

Second, if God had actually wanted to refer to a global flood without confusion, there is a specific word He could have used: tebel. This word *always* refers to the whole earth, or the whole inhabited earth. And, God did use it 37 times in the Old Testament. And while it used very often to refer to God's creation and the judgment of the peoples of the earth, it is NEVER used in connection with the flood account.

Click to expand...

Excellent point. I can't argue what you say here. I use the same logic to prove my belief in the gap theory so I do know what your talking about. In fact you sound just like me. However you must hear me out first. And if you would, please post a few of those scriptures where this word "tebel" is used? I do believe in what you say here but I just want to read a few of the passages myself.

Third, if we came to the conclusion that there were two competing interpretations and they were equally supported within the text itself and by reference to context (which I think is at least the case), then we should look to the physical evidence of God's Creation. The evidence here is overwhelming in a wide variety of areas. But that is another thread entirely. Suffice it to say that if the flood occured when it is SAID to have occured, it could not have been global. Check out the "Egyptian Dynasties" thread here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t52191

Click to expand...

I do not come to that conclusion though. As I've said you can only come to that conclusion if the two interpretations follow along with the context of the story and I believe your interpretation doesn't therefore I reject your interpretation.

True the story of creation would be another thread. Plus you did see my posts to Lucuspa haven't you? I believe in the gap theory so I still see the evidence of an old earth as you do but I still am allowed to reject your interpretations in Genesis 6-8. Besides I do believe that as creationism shouldn't use the bible to prove scientificly the works of creation I also don't believe you should use science to prove your belief on what the Hebrew conveys in scripture. I'm surprised you actually agree with this!

I will put together a post, it will be long, to show you why I believe the context is important and how this context shows why I believe what I believe. Be patient, it may take a while. I haven't indulged myself in this topic for a while.

Besides it's so blessed hot in my house right now I may go take a dunk!

Ahhhh, I'm scraping the long post and going with a very short version.

In the first 4 verses of Genesis 6 the story starts out with "the sons of God" takeing wives of the "daughters of men". I believe the correct meaning of "sons of God" are that of fallen angles. After this they have offspring that are called the nephilim. This is a grave sin in the sight of God.

From Genesis 6:5 to 7 we read that God sees that men have become wicked in the earth and their thoughts are evil continually. Putting aside all preconcieved ideas what the meaning of "kol erets" means I can do this until Genesis 6:9. In Gen. 6:8 It says, But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
Ok so this is saying Noah was good and God favoured him but the author of Genesis then says this in verse 9, These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and PERFECT in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
Now why do you suppose the author points out that Noah was perfect in his generations? Not even in Matthew does it discribe Jesus's generations as being perfect! In all the bible whenever you read a list of generations this title is never given it except for Noah. The reason is because at the time Noah and his family were the only humans left on earth without the tainted evil nephilim seed.

What I'm saying is that at that time if Noah wasn't saved from this, Noahs family would be tainted also. That means no Jesus Christ, no salvation, no redemption for a fallen world. Why because the Christ had to be spotless, without wrinkle or blemish. Satan and his army of angles planned this to be a wipeout blow in the war against God.

How does this apply to the topic we're in now? How does this point to the correct interpretation of Genesis 6-8? How does this show what the true meaning of "kol erets" is? The Nephilim were throughtout the whole world at this time. In order for God to destory this Nephilim race he had to send a world wide flood and not just a regional flood to destory them.

So that you don't misunderstand me, I believe angles mated with human women. Their offspring, the Nephilim, corrupted mankind as well as their fallen angle fathers who taught men a perverted truth of Gods laws of nature, they taught men on how to worship them as Gods and taught how there was no such thing as one supreme God.

With the intermarriage of these beings with humans they corrupted all their ways. At the time when God commanded Noah to build the ark Noah and his family were the only family left unscathed by these beings, they were perfect in their generations. God sent judgment on them in the form of a flood. As Lot was saved from the judgment of fire upon the cities of the plain so to was Noah saved from the judgment of water upon the whole earth.

If you argue that your interpretation can still hold true even after believeing what I said by you possibly saying that the Nephilim were confined to a certain part of the earth, you would be wrong. The Nephilim of the pre-flood era did move about the whole earth. There has been evidence of this, evidence found even in the Americas.

Incidently, Nephilim is the Hebrew word that has been translated as "gegenes" in the Greek, this is the same word used in Greek mythology for the Titans, creatures created through the interbreeding of Greek gods and human beings. The English words "genes" and "genetics" are built around the same root word as gegenes, that is genea meaning breed or kind. This suggests or hints at the genetic origin of these beings.

When the KJV translators translated this word they had this information with them but they translated it true to the Hebrew texts that they were working off of. In Hebrew the word Nephiyl means a "feller" which is an old English word that connotes a bully or tyrant but also a large being or person. The translators therefore chose "giant" to convey the thought. Giant being singular and giants being pural with Nephiyl being singular and Nephilim being pural.

I odviously need to prove more of what I say through the scriptures however I will wait for your response.

Vance said:

And really, a global flood makes no sense at all when you look at the evidence of God's Creation. The physical evidence of this earth is that no global flood occured. One example alone would be the complete continuity of the societies which were already in existence at the time the flood took place (based on the dating by AIG itself). Please check out the Egyptian dynasties thread on this point.

Click to expand...

Vance,

Remember when we learned about Noah and the Ark as children? Remember how your teacher told you that Noah was persecuted for what he believed? But that God saw that Noah was righeous...


~malaka~

Vance said:

OK, if you believe that it took place about 1600 years after the creation, and you believe that this was before the rise of these civilizations, then there would not be dramatic differences in population and technology in any case. If within a year, the area (wherever it was) could begin to be repopulated, it would have little or no noticeable impact when viewed historically.

Click to expand...

Vance,


Egyptian Dynasty I dates back to 3100 BCE. Pre-dynasty is dated at 3300 BCE.


With compressed geneologies, I believe that would date before the global flood of Genesis

~malaka~

Vance said:

I am not sure what you mean by compressed genealogies, but I would very much like to hear it. While it still would not solve the problem that there is no credible physical evidence of a world-wide flood (and major evidence that there was NOT such a flood), it would be interesting to see what these genealogies are all about.

But it seems that you would be choosing a particular interpretation of those genealogy scriptures solely based on the fact that it corresponds with something else you believe to be true. I have no problem with that at all, but some might.

Click to expand...

There are several cases of compressed geneologies in the Bible. One such case is when Abram's birth was recorded,

"and Terah lived seventy years and begat, Abram, Nahor, and Haran"

Well, there is no indication that they were triple births, so it becomes obvious that there must be a time compression there with the question of, "okay, if Terah was 70 when she had her first child, who was her first child, and when did she have her other childen? 10 years, 12?


Another form of compressed geneologies is when "begat" is interpret to be "in the line" or "to have a descendent", but not necessarily father-to-son. There are generational skips recorded in the Bible where the grandson is identified as the son taking the meaning of begot to be "in the line of" and not a literal child of.

And, there are cases where up to six generations are omitted in geneologies. That is an extreme case of compressed geneologies.

~malaka~

Vance said:

Ah, yes, I thought you were somehow arguing that the genealogies would be compressed "tighter" than they are presented. I have heard very often that they could be expanded from the literal reading as you describe. But doesn't the Genesis genealogy actually state how long each person lived before they "begat" the next in line? This would mean a plain-reading would require us to *not* interpret them as expanded beyond the father-son relationship.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm following you correctly here. The listed Genealogies in Genesis 4 and 5 are like this: Genesis 4 discribes Cain's genealogy by listing it as person to person or rather father to son like this, and Irad begat Mehujael: and he begat Methusael:. Here the genealogy never gives ages. The genealogy of Noah given in Genesis 10 is given in like manner without giving ages. The genealogy of Jesus Christ is given in the same manner also in Matthew 1st chapter.

Now in Genesis 5 we see the author giving the genealogy of Adam but he not only gives the age of the men when they fathered their first son but he gives the ages of the men to show how long they lived on the earth. This is done I do believe to show when this flood occured. I'm not a mathematician so you can do the math, LOL...

Here's my point with Genesis 6:9, These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

See now why would the author start a genealogy of Noah before his story is told and then not even give a genealogy but just say that Noah was just and his generations were perfect and that he walked with God? The author is directly referring to the genealogy already given in chapter 5 starting with Adam. This passage is unique and special simply just by the way it is written.

Can you conclude that the reference of Noah's generation being perfect points to the sons of Cain being a line of sin? No you can't because in effect what you'd have to conclude is that Adam as well as the sons of Adam were without sin and both you and I know this to be not true. For all men sin so the reference to Noah haveing a perfect generation doesn't point to meaning anything about sin, right? I contend that it has to do with God's newest creature, man himself. See if Satan and his angels can destroy the human race by tampering with it genetically there will be no redeemer.

Genesis 3:15, And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel

See I believe that perhaps Satan thinks if he destroys the womans seed altogether God can't or won't therefore punish him. There will be no one to bruise his head sort of speak. What I believe what is being told in Gen 6 is that Satan was so successful with this evil plan that only Noah and his family were left unscathed or in other words "perfect in his generations".

Now the Nephilim were not human, they were only half human but also half Angelic being. This does not make the Nephilim apart of the human race. There has been genetic tampering done with this race of men to make them none human. Not only was their height and strength unusual but they had 6 fingers on each hand and 6 toes on each foot as well as double rows of teeth. And most of all the were as evil as evil can be.

In Gen. 6:8 it says, But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. After reading the first 4 verses in Gen 6, 6:8 suggests to me that Noah and his family were the only ones on earth who God found to deserve his grace.

Lets look at 2 Peter 2:4-5, For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (5) And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
Peter here combines the sins of angels with the flood story. Here Peter is referring to the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4.
Now read verse 5 here useing your interpretation of "kol erets". Does it fit? does it makes sense to assume the word world meaning something other than the whole earth? Would it make sense to say it like this...And spared not the old region but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the region of the ungodly? I know that last one sounds to silly but does the first one fit?

Lets look at the Epistle of Jude, Jude 6-7, And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

This is a direct reference to the "sons of God" in Gen. 6:1-4 as well. Notice Jude says these angels didn't stay in their first estate but left their own habitation. This is saying these angels left the place God ordained them to live and or rule. This in and of itself was a sin, to leave without the permission of God. What was their first estate? heaven? Since they left this place where did they go?
In verse 7 Jude refers to the sin of these fallen angels as that of being of fornication, the same kind of fornication that the people of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha commited! Going after strange flesh. This strange flesh being that of humans. Where did they go? They came down to earth to marry the daughters of men!

Again, I am not opposed at all to a non-literal reading, so I am not opposed to the concept of using an alternate interpretation of these genealogies (even if it is the less "plain" one) if the result makes more sense. I know some have a problem with this, and insist on the plainest reading in every case. Not me, and I am very glad you seem to agree with me on this.

Click to expand...

The only problem I have with this is how you find what interpretation makes more sense to you. Remember what I said about useing science to prove what the original Hebrew says? Otherwise the basic logic that you use is the same as mine, this is true.

By the way, I'm not done yet, just wanted to answer this post... :

And thanks so much for following with me on this because I honestly believe this has everything to do with the flood story. I know both you and I believe in an old earth and that we reject the YEC belief. I think this makes it alot easier for you and I to get along so well on this topic of whether it's a regional flood or global. I do believe you did post this thread to show further proof of an old earth and at least your learning that there are people who do believe in a global flood in Genesis 6-8 and yet don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth but in fact is much older.
hehehe, we gappers aim to please!

Vance said:

Here is a quick quote from one bible dictionary. It is not conclusive, of course, but you see which definition for "generations" they adopt, which corresponds with all the translations I have read other than the KJV.

Smith's Bible Dictionary

Generation. [E] [J]

In the long-lived patriarchal age a generation seems to have been computed at 100 years, (Genesis 15:16) comp. Genesis15:13 and Eccl 12:40 but subsequently the reckoning was the same which has been adopted by modern civilized nations, viz. from thirty to forty years (Job 42:16) (Generation is also used to signify the men of an age or time, as contemporaries, (Genesis 6:9; Isaiah 53:8) posterity , especially in legal formulae, (Leviticus 3:17) etc.; fathers, or ancestors. (Psalms 49:19) [E] indicates this entry was also found in Easton's Bible Dictionary
[J] indicates this entry was also found in Jack Van Impe's Prophecy Dictionary

Click to expand...

I don't understand what your hang up is with the word generations But here's the page where the word is listed with the Strong's concordance. The strongs number is 8435. It's the same strongs number for the other genealogies in Genesis.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08435&version=kjv

The Hebrew word for "perfect" is tamiym, meaning perfect, full, and without blemish. In Jewish law this same term is applied to animals that were to be sacrificed to God. These animals had to be perfect and without blemish. Not by whether the animal sinned but by whether the animal had any imperfect genetic impurities.

Here's the Strongs page for tamiym.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08549&version=kjv

The srongs number for tamiym is 8549. Look it up on how it's used, such as in Exodus 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats
The strongs number for blemish in this passage is also 8549.

I see this passage as being what God did with Noah. God took Noah out from the Nephilim, not for Noah to be a sacrifice but for one who was of the seed of Noah, Jesus Christ.