Peter's description of the flood would fit a local event if the human race was confined to one area, or even if it wiped out the known world. Note that the table of the nations only says Noah's descendants are the nations of the ancient near east, peoples from Libya to Persia. There is no claim that Celts, Xhosa, Maya or Maori are descended from the survivors of the flood. That is if you read the account literally
I wish I could argue your point, but I don't know enough about those people groups to make a claim. It would not be unheard of that the genealogy is not complete, but rather focused--but as you said, you were making a point about taking what is written.
Nonetheless, Genesis teaches all men descended initially through Adam and Eve and then through Noah and the other 7 survivors of the flood. This is evidenced not only by the flood account in general, but also by God's command to the 8 survivors to "be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth" (Gen 9:1).
It would be a strange command if other people groups were still alive at the time, having missed the judgment for their sin.
I also wanted to make one more point: I believe there was only 1 landmass prior to the flood, as suggested by Genesis 1. It would not be a valid claim then to suggest that these people surrounding "modern Israel" did not include "modern America" in their "known world." The world would have been much different. There only would have been a "local" landmass, by your apparent definition, but if it were covered then the whole world would have likewise been covered by water--just as Moses and Peter said.
Gen 6:11 Now the land (erets) was corrupt in God's sight, and the land was filled with violence.
12 And God saw the land, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way over the land.
13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the land is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the land.
God destroyed all flesh, every living creature in that land.
First of all, I point out that just because
erets can mean a "local" area of land, it
can also mean the whole world as I contend. What you need to do is establish why your translation better fits the text.
I contend that all the globe was covered because the flood was a judgment for sin, and all the sin was purged and cleansed. Even the passage above says "all" flesh/people. All of them.
Furthermore, the mountains were covered, as mentioned in Genesis 7:20 and Psalms 104:6. David apparently agreed with the global flood as well:
"He set the earth [erets] on its foundations; it can never be moved. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains." (Psalm 104:5-6).
These are really very silly reasons that AiG come up with. They say why should God do it that way, and the very simple answer is 'why not'. God could do it any way he saw fit. Just because AiG doesn't see his reasons, or don't want to, it doesn't mean God didn't have very good reasons for doing it that way. God doesn't tell us why in most cases, but let's look at some plausible reasons why God might have done it that way.
Well that is definitely your opinion--and one I have a hard time accepting that you actually believe. The arguments presented are very logical, and difficult to get around, which is my guess as to why they are "very silly."
The answer to "why not" is that it does not make sense. If the flood wasn't threat to all animals or all life in all the world, then why did they need to be on a boat? "Why not" just isn't a sufficient answer. Not in this case.
Ever try herding cats? Or how about bringing enough food to feed all the animals in the great migration across the ANE? Then we read that Noah was called to be a preacher of righteousness, not to turn tail and run like Jonah.
First, what is ANE? Second, I would guess that i have not done either of the things above. Third, I don't see how it matters.
God specifically tells Noah "You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them." (Gen 6:21). He had plenty of time to do it.
How would it be "turn tail and run[ning]" if he were fleeing a great flood? There is nothing wrong with avoiding death. But the obvious truth remains that a boat is not needed if Noah could have simply moved. Nonetheless, God has Noah build a HUGE boat, big enough for all the kinds of animals. Such a large vessel would have likely risked running aground in a local flood.
Despite all the logical reasoning we are capable of, there is further evidence--other cultures. There are hundreds of flood accounts similar to Noah's, wherein a world-wide flood destroyed everything but one family, who had built a boat. This fits well with my worldview, wherein all peoples shared a common ancestry and were descended from Adam/Eve and later Noah. It doesn't fit so well with other theories, and is really rather baffling.
Ever see a chicken try to fly, or swim? How would birds fly in a forty day torrential downpour?
Good point. However, usually animals have this innate ability to sense bad weather, and tend to flee in front of it. The birds probably all would have left prior to the downpour.
It is amazing the blasphemies that come out of godfearing sites like AiG. But God is not a liar. There never was a flood like it since. YECs read local flood and think in terms of their local shop (this is a local flood for local people), but the phrase means local as opposed to global. The area covered may have been vast.
Small or slightly larger, its all the same. The theory still doesn't fit the text. It still has grave theological implications.
Except the bible never says the entire globe was flooded, so I don't see why it would make him a liar. All the bible ever mentions is a flood wiping out life in a region and God promising the survivors not to do it to them again.
Cheers.
No, even seemingly by your own admission, "region" is only a
possible translation. And I will concede the point. However, Scripture comments on itself, and you have to reconcile what the whole of it says, not just one passage (as it clear as that passage may be). Just as easily as your "region" theory, the Bible could be saying Global. It just so happens that the WHOLE of Scripture, as well as reason, support a global flood perspective.
God Bless.
are going to come out here though and start talking about how such things would have "boiled the oceans," and there is no evidence for a global flood, and the continents couldn't have moved that quickly, and in general argue many other points. But I no longer wish to debate, and wanted to give you something to think about, in case you hadn't heard it before.
