The Flood

[Mallon]

Amen. Anyone who denies the world-wide flood as found in Genesis is denying God's Word.

"And the water prevailed exceedingly upon the earth: and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven, were covered....and all flesh died that moved upon the earth...All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle and creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth." Genesis 7:18-23

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." II Peter 3: 6

The scriptures clearly teach it. The evidence for its occurrence is obvious and professing Christians who don't believe it even after being corrected repeatedly will perish. The reason for this is because they doubt God's Word.

Out of curiosity, when Luke 2:1 says that Caesar taxed the whole world, so you believe that encompasses the entire planet, too?

 

[Rex Lex]

Out of curiosity, when Luke 2:1 says that Caesar taxed the whole world, so you believe that encompasses the entire planet, too?

I will not answer someone who acts like a moderator and gives out empty warnings.

If another asks the same question I will be glad to answer.

 

[Mallon]

I will not answer someone who acts like a moderator and gives out empty warnings.

If another asks the same question I will be glad to answer.

Not sure what you mean, here. I didn't report you, if that's what you mean. If you did receive a warning from the mods, it's probably because you said that, unless one believes the Flood was a worldwide event, they will suffer eternal damnation, which is an anti-Christian teaching.

I look forward to your reply.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Out of curiosity, when Luke 2:1 says that Caesar taxed the whole world, so you believe that encompasses the entire planet, too?

He did not tax every one on "the dry", did he?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7531332-22/#post56760682
And context- context- context, please.

 

[Rex Lex]

He did not tax every one on "the dry", did he?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7531332-22/#post56760682
And context- context- context, please.

That's quite correct., Thank you.

But it is quite dishonest for our opponents to make a comparison between something geo-physical and something that is geo-political. That which is considered universal as it relates to the physical earth is not always the same as that which is considered universal as it relates to population. It is commonly written that "Rome ruled the world" but we know that that does not include India or China. But Moses language about the destruction of the earth (the whole geo-physical world being involved) is matched by Jesus words as to His second coming (the whole geo-physical world being involved).

"As it was in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be" Matthew 24:37.

All of mankind on earth were destroyed by the flood except Noah and his family; in like manner, all of mankind on earth at the 2nd coming will be destroyed except those that are saved. Nothing could be clearer.

What Genesis 7 reveals in this matter is exceedingly clear and any position less than one that assents to a world-wide destruction is utterly dishonest.

 

[Mallon]

That's quite correct., Thank you.

But it is quite dishonest for our opponents to make a comparison between something geo-physical and something that is geo-political. That which is considered universal as it relates to the physical earth is not always the same as that which is considered universal as it relates to population. It is commonly written that "Rome ruled the world" but we know that that does not include India or China. But Moses language about the destruction of the earth (the whole geo-physical world being involved) is matched by Jesus words as to His second coming (the whole geo-physical world being involved).

"As it was in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be" Matthew 24:37.

All of mankind on earth were destroyed by the flood except Noah and his family; in like manner, all of mankind on earth at the 2nd coming will be destroyed except those that are saved. Nothing could be clearer.

What Genesis 7 reveals in this matter is exceedingly clear and any position less than one that assents to a world-wide destruction is utterly dishonest.

I think the point needs to be made, though, that the reason why people once said Rome ruled the entire world was because that's quite literally what they believed -- the world known to them comprised only that land ruled by Rome. The New World was certainly not known to them. Therefore, they were using phenomenal language. I don't think it is out of line to apply the same reasoning to the Hebrews' understanding about the extent of Noah's flood, particularly in light of the fact that the geological record records no such global flood as having ever occurred.

 

[lucaspa]

You are not God. Your word has no weight.

I wasn't using my word. This is what I wrote: "God has already given His word on it. "

See that? God has given His word. In His Creation. Unless you wish to deny that God created?

 

[lucaspa]

Amen. Anyone who denies the world-wide flood as found in Genesis is denying God's Word.

Not really, since in scripture the Word is Jesus, not scripture.

Also, when the jailor asked Paul what he needed to do for salvation, Paul said nothing about scripture. Paul's reply was " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," Acts 16:31.

The evidence for its occurrence is obvious and professing Christians who don't believe it even after being corrected repeatedly will perish. The reason for this is because they doubt God's Word.

So no, doubting "God's Word" does not cause us to perish. Even Jesus doubted God's words in the Garden of Gethsemane.

You are promoting false doctrine that is denied by scripture.

Now, are they referring to the "whole world" or the "whole world" that they knew? As in a local flood covering "their" world?

How do you handle Luke 2:1? Do you think that the entire world was enrolled in Caesar's census? Zulus, Inuits, Maoris? If you doubt, aren't you also going against the "clear teaching" of scripture?

How about these verses that clearly say that the earth does not move?
ob 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5. Does the earth not move as it rotates about its axis and orbits the sun? if you think the earth moves, aren't you doubting scripture? Hoist on your own petard.

The scriptures clearly teach it.

But God's other book clearly teaches there was no world-wide flood. So now you are pitting God vs God. Do you think that is a good idea? Should you really be denying God in His Creation?

If you want to see how Christians handled the dilemma, see the first quote in my signature.

 

[lucaspa]

He did not tax every one on "the dry", did he?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7531332-22/#post56760682
And context- context- context, please.

Different languages. The NT is in Greek and so doesn't use the term "the dry". The Greek in Luke 2:1 is unambiguous; it means the entire world. What's more, Luke 2:1 doesn't say anything about actually taxing. Only that the entire world was enrolled. KJV got the translation wrong there.
RSV has it better: "In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled."

 

[Assyrian]

"You" existed as a seed in the loins of one of Noah's sons, having been created and named in the Book of Life and bodily designed there, to come forth into your being in your appointed season, from the loins of the fathers who came before you, all the way back to Adam.

Just as surely as Levi came forth from Abraham's loins [Hebrews 7:9 ], so you were seed, named already, in the loins of one of Noah's sons, and so "you" came out of the ark, and to "you" were the commands and promises made, when Noah, as the firstborn of earth and the high king and high priest of it [who stood before the LORD to intercede on behalf of every one on earth at that time and for all who would come forth from their loins] received the promises and commands.
Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I [am] God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
Gen 46:26 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls [were] threescore and six;

1Ki 8:19 Nevertheless thou shalt not build the house; but thy son that shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house unto my name.

Hbr 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
Hbr 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

You are assuming I am a descendant of Noah. That only applies if the flood was global and wiped out the entire human race apart from the people on the ark. If that were the case, then yes the Noahic covenant would apply to the entire human race too. However if the flood was local the covenant only applies to the descendants of Noah, not the rest of the human race. You see you cannot assume the flood was global to argue against a local flood interpretation.

If you look at the table of the nations in Genesis 10, the descendant of Noah only spread out to form the nations of the Middle East. There is no suggestion Koreans, Maori or Incas are descended from Noah too.



which the bible doesn't actually say.

 

[Rex Lex]

Not really, since in scripture the Word is Jesus, not scripture.

Also, when the jailor asked Paul what he needed to do for salvation, Paul said nothing about scripture. Paul's reply was " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," Acts 16:31.



So no, doubting "God's Word" does not cause us to perish. Even Jesus doubted God's words in the Garden of Gethsemane.

You are promoting false doctrine that is denied by scripture.

Now, are they referring to the "whole world" or the "whole world" that they knew? As in a local flood covering "their" world?

How do you handle Luke 2:1? Do you think that the entire world was enrolled in Caesar's census? Zulus, Inuits, Maoris? If you doubt, aren't you also going against the "clear teaching" of scripture?

How about these verses that clearly say that the earth does not move?
ob 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5. Does the earth not move as it rotates about its axis and orbits the sun? if you think the earth moves, aren't you doubting scripture? Hoist on your own petard.



But God's other book clearly teaches there was no world-wide flood. So now you are pitting God vs God. Do you think that is a good idea? Should you really be denying God in His Creation?

If you want to see how Christians handled the dilemma, see the first quote in my signature.

You don't know what you're talking about. What I said and what Yeshuasavedme said was bottom line as far as this subject is concerned.

"But God's OTHER book says..."

No it doesn't.

The evidence of the world-wide flood was clearly stated in no uncertain terms by Moses and Jesus confirmed it.

Not only so but Mt. Ararat where the ark finally landed, is about 17,000 ft high. That means that, according to the Genesis account which says that all the mountians were covered, the flood could not have been local.

The language is clear and unambiguous. It was a flood that covered the whole earth. Those who say otherwise are denying the Word of the Lord and are deliberately twisting things to suit their unbiblical ideology.

I answered your silly question about Caesar's tax of the world above. Take the time to read my post above. I reject your arguments as any godly Christian who loves the Lord and rightly divides the Word will.

 

[Assyrian]

The Hebrew word translated "land" that was covered with the waters of the flood was the word "dry", firstly.

The "dry" was commanded to appear when the waters were commanded to be gathered together in one place.

יַבָּשָׁה1) dry land, dry ground Gen 1:9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

The word for dry land here yabbâśâh does not appear in the flood account.

Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.

land is added by the translators. The word is "חָרָבָה-dry"

Yet 'dry land' is a better translation of chârâbâh than 'dry', desert would do too. However this word only occurs once in the flood account, if you want to understand the context of the flood and of chârâbâh you would be better of looking at how the main word for the land God flooded is used.

Psa 33:8 Let all the earth/eretz fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world/tebel stand in awe of him.
2Pe 3:6
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Thats the one in Psalm 33, not tebel which does not occur in the flood account, but erets which is used about 44 time in the account, and means as glaudys said:

No, not really. The Hebrew term translated "earth" can also mean "land" "territory". So a significant regional flood would be consistent with the text.

That is, if one assumes there was a historical flood at the basis of the story in the first place.

 

[Rex Lex]

You are assuming I am a descendant of Noah. That only applies if the flood was global and wiped out the entire human race apart from the people on the ark. If that were the case, then yes the Noahic covenant would apply to the entire human race too. However if the flood was local the covenant only applies to the descendants of Noah, not the rest of the human race. You see you cannot assume the flood was global to argue against a local flood interpretation.

If you look at the table of the nations in Genesis 10, the descendant of Noah only spread out to form the nations of the Middle East. There is no suggestion Koreans, Maori or Incas are descended from Noah too.

which the bible doesn't actually say.

Then you need to read this:



Cooper did the rare thing of visiting the libraries of many nations, especially Europe and got first hand evidence of the family lineages of the nobles, kings, and queens, some of whose family trees can be traced clear back to the time of Noah...

There is clear-cut evidence of the Noahic deluge from the archeology of China.

<<Staff Edit>>

 

[Papias]

Assyrian wrote:

You are assuming I am a descendant of Noah. That only applies if the flood was global and wiped out the entire human race apart from the people on the ark. .......

If Noah was a historical person 4,300 years ago, then it is inevitable that nearly everyone of Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, and European descent is descended from Noah, simply due to interbreeding (do the math yourself). This includes nearly everyone in both North and South America.

To see how this works, read post #9, here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7515625/

If you look at the table of the nations in Genesis 10, the descendant of Noah only spread out to form the nations of the Middle East. There is no suggestion Koreans, Maori or Incas are descended from Noah too.

As above, due to interbreeding, all Koreans could likely all count Noah as an ancestor, if Noah was an historical person. Most of today's Incas are descendants of Noah, through their contact with spaniards, though a small number might still be exaclty 100% inca (not 99.999999%, which would have Noah as an ancestor), since the inca have been there for 10,000 years (that by itself of course eliminates the idea of a global flood).

Assyrian, I generally support what you are saying, but wanted to point out this minor point of fact. With that, I'll also point out that yesh's "loins" argument doesn't work literally, because we males make new sperm every day. Thus, he is making a figurative argument, and if one is going to do that, it makes a lot more sense to make the flood symbolic or local.


Papias

 

[lucaspa]

There is clear-cut evidence of the Noahic deluge from the archeology of China.

China has 2 rivers that frequently flood. So archeological evidence of floods is not going to the the Noachic Deluge.

Richard Andre did a comprehensive collection of myths about the floods. It was Die Flutsagen: Ehnthographisch Btrachtet, 1891. Andre had nearly 90 deluge traditions. Of these, 26 arose from the Babylonian story and 43 were independent. He noted a lack of deluge traditions in Arabia, Japan, northern and central Asia, Africa, and much of Europe. He concluded that not everyone had descended from survivors of a single deluge, otherwise the traditions would all have been much more identical and there would be deluge traditions in every society instead of a minority.

 

[Rex Lex]

I just found this evidence of written and/or oral traditions of the flood from multiple cultures from around the world. WHY do Christians believe the evolutionists over those who were direct descendents of Noah's family? This is especially bad for them when one considers that much of the flood tradition of ancient cultures agree so much with the details of Genesis.

Notice carefully that the green blocks (similarities in the accounts) are much more solid in those locations that were close to Mt. Ararat then the others. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

One can find more information at: Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life

I don't believe a word the T.E.'s say against the 6 day creation nor the world-wide flood as it is revealed in scripture. I believe the Bible and the evidence that clearly substantiates it.

 

[Rex Lex]

China has 2 rivers that frequently flood. So archeological evidence of floods is not going to the the Noachic Deluge.

Richard Andre did a comprehensive collection of myths about the floods. It was Die Flutsagen: Ehnthographisch Btrachtet, 1891. Andre had nearly 90 deluge traditions. Of these, 26 arose from the Babylonian story and 43 were independent. He noted a lack of deluge traditions in Arabia, Japan, northern and central Asia, Africa, and much of Europe. He concluded that not everyone had descended from survivors of a single deluge, otherwise the traditions would all have been much more identical and there would be deluge traditions in every society instead of a minority.

Moses was more than clear enough about the world wide nature of the Noahic deluge and you are without excuse.

"'and all the high hills"

"the mountains were covered"

"And all flesh died..."

""of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth"

"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life...all that was in the dry land died"

"every living substance was destroyed, both man. cattle...they were destroyed from the earth".

Like I said, you are without excuse. Quit running from the truth. ALL of the wicked in the whole earth were destroyed just as ALL of the wicked at the 2nd coming will be destroyed. It involved the entire earth just as Jesus 2nd coming will involve the entire earth.

 

[lucaspa]

You don't know what you're talking about. What I said and what Yeshuasavedme said was bottom line as far as this subject is concerned.

LOL! Ah the ad hominem. You need better than that and assertions without evidence

"But God's OTHER book says..."

No it doesn't.

The evidence of the world-wide flood was clearly stated in no uncertain terms by Moses and Jesus confirmed it.

Do you know what God's other book is? The reasons scientists (who were all Christian and many of whom were ministers) rejected a world-wide flood in the early 1800s was because of the evidence. The geology of Siccar Point, for instance, can't be from a flood. Neither can the volcanic cones in Auvergne, France. Rev. William Buckland, head of Geology at Oxford, wrote a book in the 1820s where he said the superficial gravels and morraines were due to a world-wide flood. But Rev. Buckland admitted in 1830 that these were not due to a flood after all.

Genesis 6-8 does not state "evidence of the world-wide flood". It's two narratives about a flood.

Not only so but Mt. Ararat where the ark finally landed, is about 17,000 ft high. That means that, according to the Genesis account which says that all the mountians were covered, the flood could not have been local.

This is circular logic. You are assuming what you need to prove: there was an ark and a world-wide flood. There is no ark on Mt. Ararat. What's more, it's not clear that the mount referred to in Genesis 8 is the same one in Turkey. That name dates to long after Genesis 6-8 was written.

The language is clear and unambiguous. It was a flood that covered the whole earth. Those who say otherwise are denying the Word of the Lord and are deliberately twisting things to suit their unbiblical ideology.

Again, you are defending the Bible, not God. Your concern is about the Bible, not God. The language is not that clear. It could easily have been a flood of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. But it doesn't matter what the language says: God's Creation tells us there was no world-wide flood.

I am not concerned with denying "the Word of the Lord". Or rather, I am not concerned with denying your interpretation of Genesis 6-8. I am concerned with denying God. And that is what you want me to do. Sorry, I won't betray God for your worship of the Bible.

I answered your silly question about Caesar's tax of the world above.

Not really. You equivocated about geopolitical divides. But Luke 2:1 isn't talking politics. It says, in plain Greek, the whole world: the geographical world.

I reject your arguments as any godly Christian who loves the Lord and rightly divides the Word will.

Again I ask you: what does scripture say "the Word" is? You love your interpretation of the Bible. I wish you loved God half as much.

 

[lucaspa]

Moses was more than clear enough about the world wide nature of the Noahic deluge and you are without excuse.

That doesn't answer what I wrote. You attempted to go outside the Bible for "proof" of Noah's Flood. You weren't content with Genesis 6-8 but invoked archeology.

What I did was show that your "proof" not only wasn't proof, but that, if we really look at flood traditions from around the world, the flood is falsified.

Now you run back to "Moses" and abandon your argument because you know it has been shown to be wrong.

ALL of the wicked in the whole earth were destroyed just as ALL of the wicked at the 2nd coming will be destroyed. It involved the entire earth just as Jesus 2nd coming will involve the entire earth.

Non sequitors. You are trying to tie the 2nd coming to the flood. The 2 aren't connected. What's more, the 2nd coming hasn't even happened yet. So you are trying to use something that hasn't happened yet to say that something that didn't happen in the past really did. Do you see how silly that is?

You know what is really sad? In your blindness to have a world-wide flood, you aren't listening the the theological messages Genesis 6-8 is trying to convey. You have closed your ears not only to God in His Creation, but also to God in scripture.

 

[theFijian]

Your position is error, not Yeshuasavedme. You are not standing on what was clearly revealed by Moses in Genesis 7. God's words there are plain enough to any honest person. You just don't believe them.

My position? I don't believe I have even stated my position, how then can you know what it is? Unless you happen to be placing yourself on a par with God. Perhaps as I've already suggested you should try being a little bit more humble and at least ask for someone's opinion before telling them they are in error