World Flood???

[RaymondG]

It is more important to discover why the story of the flood was placed in the bible.....as opposed to whether or not it really happened or if it were local or global. Then, and only then, can we become doers of the word, and not hearers only.

 

[Tree of Life]

it would be very disingenuous to say that when we know the bible could prove regional or global a exegesis of scripture always should be put a foot every verse you can use that can prove world flood can also prove regional interpretation always interpreted differently

Could you please use punctuation when writing? I can't understand your response.

 

[Done222]

The flood covered the “face of the earth”

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Cain had been cast out of the “face of the earth”

Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

Cain did not leave the planet, so “face of the earth”, did not necessarily mean the entire planet.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Could you please use punctuation when writing? I can't understand your response.

it would be very disingenuous to say that, every verse you can use to prove global also can prove regional. We should always exegesis scripture no matter what as we can interpret the scripture in varities of ways.

 

[dóxatotheó]

...Only to people who imagine that the entire planet was flooded to the extent you recounted it for us, using Scripture.

Nothing changes if the deluge covered only the world as it was known to the people involved, so there's no need to "prove" the theory held by the hyper-literalists--no more than there would be a need to "prove" to people at the other end of the argument that the whole Bible is fiction.

interesting

 

[dóxatotheó]

You are already deceived, by your comments you have already made

no im just showing my perspective i just dont see any real defense for your position just ad homs attacks

 

[dóxatotheó]

Science had it origin's from pagan people. And there is nothing in the Bible that lines up with the lies of science.

false almost every single biblical story aligns with science like big bang etc. all aligns with the bible and the origins of science does not defend your premises

 

[Tree of Life]

it would be very disingenuous to say that, every verse you can use to prove global also can prove regional. We should always exegesis scripture no matter what as we can interpret the scripture in varities of ways.

So you are saying that we cannot prove that the Bible certainly teaches a global flood?

 

[dóxatotheó]

So you are saying that we cannot prove that the Bible certainly teaches a global flood?

very much so i can have a rebuttal for every premise for Global flood

 

[dóxatotheó]

The flood covered the “face of the earth”


Cain had been cast out of the “face of the earth”


Cain did not leave the planet, so “face of the earth”, did not necessarily mean the entire planet.

correction the use of face of the earth does not necessarily mean whole planet flood it can be interpreted in a variety of ways

 

[Tree of Life]

very much so i can have a rebuttal for every premise for Global flood

If there is exegetical room for doubt here then I would be comfortable with multiple views.

 

[dóxatotheó]

If there is exegetical room for doubt here then I would be comfortable with multiple views.

we can denote different beliefs of course we are christians we both have different interpretations and beliefs concerning Genesis, we gotta make sure we keep up our arguments with scripture and establish why we hold these grounds i agree with everything u said.

 

[Halbhh]

(Genesis 6–9) describes a worldwide flood (the Noachian Flood) covering even the highest
mountains of the earth and the construction of a huge boat (a rectangular box-like craft) that transported animals, at least two of a kind of all land animals on the earth. Bible says that the rains that created the Noachian Flood lasted for 40 days (Genesis 7:17), that the waters prevailed on the earth for 150 days (Genesis 7:24), and after these 150 days the waters gradually receded from the earth so that by the seventh month and the seventeenth day, Noah’s Ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). A year plus two
months and twenty-seven days later the earth was dry enough so that
Noah,his family,and the load of animals could disembark from the Ark
(Genesis 8:14). Because this flood was intended by God to destroy all flesh on earth
(Genesis 6:13) and because sedimentary rocks on all continents
contain fossils that supposedly represent the “destroyed flesh of all
life,” it might be thought that the Bible story, describing a whole earth flood, was true. However, interlayered with these fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks on all continents are layers of evaporite rock salt (sodium chloride), gypsum
(hydrated calcium sulfate), anhydrite (calcium sulfate), and various
potash and magnesium salts, which are associated with red beds
(shales) containing fossilized mud cracks (Schreiber and others 2007).
Many of these mineral compounds and red beds have combined thicknesses on different continents of more than one kilometer (~3,281 feet) (Collins 2006). The
red beds are red because they contain red hematite (iron oxide) which formed from magnetite grains. Raindrop prints occur in many places around the world which could not have been formed or preserved if the muds (now in
shales) containing these prints were deposited under water
during Noah’s flood. (Senter 2011; Hill et al. 2016) Nests of dinosaur eggs are found in several places around the world, and it is illogical that dinosaurs could have had enough time to create these nests and lay their eggs while they were
fleeing from rising waters to reach higher ground. (Senter
2011; Hill et al. 2016)
a marine sea was once present and to disappear when the sea became
completely dry. Therefore, one could expect these evaporites to
be at the top of the supposed Noachian Flood deposits when the
water supposedly receded and the land dried out, but certainly not in
different levels in between older and younger fossiliferous “Flood
deposits”. We read in the Bible that there is only one time in which the Flood
waters are said to recede and leave the earth dry. That is, no multiple
worldwide climatic conditions are described in which flooding, then
drying to a dry earth, more flooding, more drying to a dry earth, in
repeated cycles that occur over and over again in that Flood year. On
that basis, it is logical that all the kinds of evaporite deposits and red beds in many different levels in the supposed Noachian Flood deposits could form only in local climates with desert drying-conditions and could not possibly have formed all at the same time — a time when flood covered the whole earth for more than one year (Collins 2006). On that basis, the Noachian Flood story cannot describe a whole-earth flood, but it could only represent a
large regional flood.

Source: Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Young Earth Creationism | National Center for Science Education
Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon: What Does the Evidence Really Say? - Articles
https://www.letu.edu/academics/arts-and-sciences/files/plate-tectonics.pdf
Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr38Reasons.pdf

Putting one's faith in some physical ways of understanding the Flood would not be a version (or related to) the basis for faith that Jesus said is the (only!) one that works(!) -- Matthew 7:24-27 (And therefore, it's actually of no crucial importance, the mere physical side of it!)

About the Flood, some of the most key parts are before, in verses 5 through 11 of chapter 6. Words that many people might prefer not to really consider, because they are uncomfortable possibly. They describe a situation/condition we'd like to think isn't possible, is why they are not well known I think.

Could it be that people could descend into a condition where there is no love or kindness at all, not even occasionally? Could people become so evil that they are only evil all of the time? We are challenged by this text at some point in life, if we read it. I think people might read this section, and then later the mind doesn't want to remember the words!

 

[dóxatotheó]

Putting one's faith in some physical ways of understanding the Flood would not be a version (or related to) the basis for faith that Jesus said is the (only!) one that works(!) -- Matthew 7:24-27 (And therefore, it's actually of no crucial importance, the mere physical side of it!)

About the Flood, some of the most key parts are before, in verses 5 through 11 of chapter 6. Words that many people might prefer not to really consider, because they are uncomfortable possibly. They describe a situation/condition we'd like to think isn't possible, is why they are not well known I think.

Could it be that people could descend into a condition where there is no love or kindness at all, not even occasionally? Could people become so evil that they are only evil all of the time? We are challenged by this text at some point in life, if we read it. I think people might read this section, and then later the mind doesn't want to remember the words!

this thread is directed to hyper-literalism of course i know what the flood is about this thread is not directed for that aspect im on the creationalism forum

 

[d taylor]

all life started in the middle east right it can literally mean all flesh in regards to the flesh that was alive which was all in the middle east which we understood with pangea so a regional flood could still kill all flesh

Hogwash, try reading your Bible.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

 

[renniks]

the thing i am advocating for is regional flood which can be accepted biblically and scientifically with pangea and what God first put life upon

Only it's says the world. You are just trying to make it fit current theories. You are looking at it backward.

 

[renniks]

this thread is directed to hyper-literalism of course i know what the flood is about this thread is not directed for that aspect im on the creationalism forum

Hyper- literalism? Lol, because we believe it means what it says?

 

[dóxatotheó]

Hogwash, try reading your Bible.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

ad hom nice
and what does those two verses prove please tell me and i agree with this verse i just dont see what revelance these verses have to my post i yet got a good refutation from my original post

 

[dóxatotheó]

Hyper- literalism? Lol, because we believe it means what it says?

hyper-literalism are people who interpret everything literally and denoting any other factors for revelancy

 

[dóxatotheó]

Only it's says the world. You are just trying to make it fit current theories. You are looking at it backward.

i dont see how that refutes me