youngh earth local flood

[myways]

yes that or somthing similar is the idea. But to be consistant with the biblical account the flood must be sufficient to kill all of mankind. The explaination for this is that the spread of people from the garden was at the time pretty limited geographically and so it needed only to be of a depth to cover the land area wher humans had settled at that time. whether the flood was a global event or just a localized catastrophy is open to speculation.

 

[Van]

So Noah's flood might not have wiped out all the animals because too many animals exist to be taken care of in the Ark, but all humans were wiped out. If that is the theory, what is wrong with it? Does not Genesis 7 say "every beast" and "all the livestock" and does this not refer to all the wild and domesticated land animals? And if this only refers to all the animals within the local flood area, would not the same argument be used to say it refers only to the humans in the local flood area? For example see Genesis 7:21. In for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[myways]

I don't think so. What I'm saying is that the phrase "the face of the whole earth" reffers to a place which is defined by the collective perspective of humanity. When you look at things said by God in the Bible, to most fully understand what He means you have to consider the qualification of who He is speaking to. If God were to use that language with you or I about a future flood, then He would have to mean a global flood because that is what the phrase "the face of the whole earth" means to us. But there is a big difference between what the same phrase means to us and what it means to a man like Noah. When God says somthing literal to someone He has to mean the same thing as what the person He is talking to thinks He is saying. So the question remains, how did Noah define the phrase "whole earth?" And the answer can't be the same thing that we concieve of as the whole earth today. It's likely that he had never even seen a map with more than one ocean on it, if even he ever saw a map at all. Therefore, the word whole earth had to equate to whole place in his mind. And this included all the animals that lived there.

--dave

 

[Van]

Your response may have said something that went by me. But as I understand your response, you justified that "the face of the whole earth" might only refer to land thought to exist in the mind of Noah. Fine. But that does not seem to address that if land existed outside of Noah's knowledge, with animals not included, then why would the same argument not work for humans in those "unknown to Noah" lands as well? In for a penny, in for a pound.

Note I am not offering an alternate view, I am just trying to understand your view.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

I dont go with a local flood, partly because the remains of the ark is sitting on a hill at 600 meters in Armenia. Also I've read the books on the Black Sea theory, and that dosn't impress, although it's a good read. Another theory is that there was a land bridge between Spain and Morocco, which held back the sea, and then flooded. There is more evidence, from the records of kings in europe, that trace ancestry back to the patriarchs, similar but different from the records in the Bible. Also in prophesy, the various countries that exist now are identified by the peoples that decended from the sons of Noah.. the europeans being decended from Japheth.. and so on. If it's not true.. the biblical account of the flood, then the prophesy is invalidated as well.. how can Cush, Put, Togarmah etc. mean anything, if those people did not walk from the landing place of the ark, to settle in those countries.. perhaps there were places in the world where there were no people, the purpose of the flood was to kill all people and nephilim hybrids, so as not to contaminate the human genetic.
It's a bit strange how some people can go a bit mad.. i was listening to this video tonight by this man with all this academic background, who was saying that 60 pc of humanity is now 'star-child' hybrid with aliens.. the radio interviewer, you could tell by his voice was thinking.. 'oh no.. we'v picked up a fruit bar here, we'll have to humour him'..
But seriously have a look at this..

two translations of the same text..

Amplified.. Daniel 2 43And as you saw the iron mixed with miry and earthen clay, so they shall mingle themselves in the seed of men [in marriage bonds]; but they will not hold together [for two such elements or ideologies can never harmonize], even as iron does not mingle itself with clay.

King James... 43And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

What do you make of that? notice it says 'they'.. the King James dosn't have someones opinion on what it means added to it.. it's said to be the most accurate translation, the New King James they say has been adulterated.

 

[myways]

Van,
Well, yeah that's it. I believe that the creation of man was different than God's creation of the animals and the other elements of the creation week. The Bible sprecifically shows that Adam and Eve were the only two humans created at the begining. I think that the animals were made in full populations all around the earth. The same with trees and plants. In this way the animal and vegtable kingdoms, or the ecosystems of the world were mostly in place at the end of the creation week. I think that by the time of the flood, however, the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve had only spread so far from the original Eden site. Although I believe that the flood was a global event, I think that total flooding only occured in the lowest elevations of the earth, like mesopotamia.

cosgold:
I don't see how those things contradict a local flood. Did you catch earlier in this thread where I said that even thoughthe flood was geographically local it still killed every person apart from noah and his family? You bring up alot of points that I believe in too.

I might not totally see what you're getting at with the daniel passage. Doesen't that referr to the roman empire? But you are right about the King James, as good as it is--and I do think its a really great translation--you just can't deny that it has shortcomings owed to the fact that it is based on a smaller sample of original manuscripts that were translated in the context of lacking 400 years of theological progress.

--dave

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

cosgold:
I don't see how those things contradict a local flood. Did you catch earlier in this thread where I said that even thoughthe flood was geographically local it still killed every person apart from noah and his family? You bring up alot of points that I believe in too.

I see a local flood as being in the mesopotamia area, the flood plain, that dosn't explain how the elevation of the land could have risen by 600m, unless it's another sort of local flood. There is a passage in Genesis, which says that the pigeon came back with a twig in its beak.. so land must have been somewhere else with living plants on.. So there was land at a higher elevation when the ark was still in deep water.. the plants could have re-seeded somewhere. But how long would it take for a twig to grow? Probably some years? So if the whole region.. (speculating) was changed in elevation, sunk, and water came in... but hang on.. what about south america.. and india.. there appears to have been pre-flood civilisations there as well. So where did the twig come from.. must have been local.
The Daniel passage is about the end of days, the iron refers to Rome, but the specific passage says 'they'.. what i think it is saying, is there will be a condition in these coming days, when 'they' will be mixing with the seed of men. I read that the King James got the source material from a more reliable source than the others. The New King James is said to be violated, and it even has an occult symbol on the front of some copies. I dont like the amplified, as in the quote I gave, they have given additional notes, which are their opinion, and in my opinion they are wrong.

 

[myways]

I think that the twig that the dove brought back was from the local flood area because Noah took it as evidence that the waters were receeding.

Who is "they" in the daniel passage?

 

[Van]

Hi Myways, good point about the full populations of plants and animals, I had not appreciated that point before.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

I think that the twig that the dove brought back was from the local flood area because Noah took it as evidence that the waters were receeding.

Who is "they" in the daniel passage?

The disembodied spirits of the original Nephilim and Nephilim. (just a theory)
I re-read that passage about the olive branch.. it says 'new olive branch'.. meaning new growth.. i have read that being under water for a long time would kill everything, inc. plant life.. but it does say in the text that the water will kill 'all with breath in it' which means .. not plants, insects, worms, fish, etc.. somehow all that survived anyway.. but how.. dont know.. I was also reading again the text where it says that they came east to Sumer.. which means they had been west of Sumer.. which is.. Syria and Turkey. The ark came to rest on the borders of Armenia, Turkey and Iran. They must have walked first south, into Syria, then headed east. The text is fairly explicit.. all animals and humans that have the breath of life in them were to be killed. Spiders dont have the breath of life in them, they get air from tubes.

 

[RobertByers]

It is impossible for to read the genesis account as anything else but a global flood.
To raise the water level, to kill all life on the dry land, and to destroy the world. Only global.
The evidence of geology, biogeograghy, biology, is that the whole globe was wiped out by a great flood including moved continents.
The bible could not of put it in plainer language for intelligent truth seeking folks.

 

[myways]

Well the flood event was surely global but the flooding was clearly not that of the entire planet. The Bible even says so:

Psalm 104
1 Praise the Lord, O my soul.

O Lord my God, you are very great;
you are clothed with splendor and majesty.
2 He wraps himself in light as with a garment;
he stretches out the heavens like a tent
3 and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.
He makes the clouds his chariot
and rides on the wings of the wind.
4 He makes winds his messengers, [fn1]
flames of fire his servants.

5He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved.
6You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
7But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
8they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.
9You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.

10 He makes springs pour water into the ravines;
it flows between the mountains.
11 They give water to all the beasts of the field;
the wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 The birds of the air nest by the waters;
they sing among the branches.
13 He waters the mountains from his upper chambers;
the earth is satisfied by the fruit of his work.
14 He makes grass grow for the cattle,
and plants for man to cultivate—
bringing forth food from the earth:
15 wine that gladdens the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine,
and bread that sustains his heart.
16 The trees of the Lord are well watered,
the cedars of Lebanon that he planted.
17 There the birds make their nests;
the stork has its home in the pine trees.
18 The high mountains belong to the wild goats;
the crags are a refuge for the coneys. [fn2]

19 The moon marks off the seasons,
and the sun knows when to go down.
20 You bring darkness, it becomes night,
and all the beasts of the forest prowl.
21 The lions roar for their prey
and seek their food from God.
22 The sun rises, and they steal away;
they return and lie down in their dens.
23 Then man goes out to his work,
to his labor until evening.

24 How many are your works, O Lord!
In wisdom you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25 There is the sea, vast and spacious,
teeming with creatures beyond number—
living things both large and small.
26 There the ships go to and fro,
and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

27 These all look to you
to give them their food at the proper time.
28 When you give it to them,
they gather it up;
when you open your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.
29 When you hide your face,
they are terrified;
when you take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.
30 When you send your Spirit,
they are created,
and you renew the face of the earth.

31 May the glory of the Lord endure forever;
may the Lord rejoice in his works—
32 he who looks at the earth, and it trembles,
who touches the mountains, and they smoke.

33 I will sing to the Lord all my life;
I will sing praise to my God as long as I live.
34 May my meditation be pleasing to him,
as I rejoice in the Lord.
35 But may sinners vanish from the earth
and the wicked be no more.

Praise the Lord, O my soul.

Praise the Lord. [fn3]

My question is: What is the bold text a story of?
Hint: context is king

--dave

 

[vossler]

It is impossible for to read the genesis account as anything else but a global flood.
To raise the water level, to kill all life on the dry land, and to destroy the world. Only global.
The evidence of geology, biogeograghy, biology, is that the whole globe was wiped out by a great flood including moved continents.
The bible could not of put it in plainer language for intelligent truth seeking folks.

Robert,

I don't know how long you've been around here but welcome! From what I can see you're approach to the Word of God is that it is true and meant for His children to be easy to understand. Of course that still means we need to study and press in to know all the jewels and nuggets within it.

One thing I'm certainly convinced of is that 'scientific' findings based on conjecture and speculation have no role whatsoever in interpreting anything Scripture has to tell us.

It's encouraging to see a brother who respects and reveres God's Word and doesn't attempt to make it say what he'd like it to. I enjoyed the entire post, but I especially liked the bolded part.

 

[juvenissun]

One thing I'm certainly convinced of is that 'scientific' findings based on conjecture and speculation have no role whatsoever in interpreting anything Scripture has to tell us.

I don't know about you, but this does not apply to me.

We know that we could "learn" from the nature, which is part of God's creation. So, the more we understand the nature, which is the science, it is then possible that the more we could understand God's creation, and in turn, the more we could learn from God's word.

Personally, the Bible becomes much more revealing after I realized the scientific part of it.

 

[myways]

Psalm 104:9 shows that the waters never covered the Earth again after the creation week.

--dave

 

[vossler]

We know that we could "learn" from the nature, which is part of God's creation. So, the more we understand the nature, which is the science, it is then possible that the more we could understand God's creation, and in turn, the more we could learn from God's word.

Personally, the Bible becomes much more revealing after I realized the scientific part of it.

I have no problem with this, as a matter of fact I fully agree.

Of course the more we understand our natural world and its complexity the more magnificent God's creation becomes. What you may have missed in my assessment is 'science' based upon conjecture and speculation having an influence on how I read God's Word. There is no place for that. Conjecture and speculation allows man to manipulate God's Word to say whatever it is he'd like it to say. This approach is hardly scriptural and far too man reliant.

 

[juvenissun]

I have no problem with this, as a matter of fact I fully agree.

Of course the more we understand our natural world and its complexity the more magnificent God's creation becomes. What you may have missed in my assessment is 'science' based upon conjecture and speculation having an influence on how I read God's Word. There is no place for that. Conjecture and speculation allows man to manipulate God's Word to say whatever it is he'd like it to say. This approach is hardly scriptural and far too man reliant.

I agree. That is what evolutionist usually do.

The problem is: How could we have a self awareness when we are making such a mistake? Particularly, when we have data and logic as backups to the speculation?

For example, we never see a global flood. And a global flood on today's earth seems to be impossible. So we say that there was no global flood. This conjecture is made from actual data and logic. How could we know such a conjecture is wrong?

 

[vossler]

The problem is: How could we have a self awareness when we are making such a mistake? Particularly, when we have data and logic as backups to the speculation?

For example, we never see a global flood. And a global flood on today's earth seems to be impossible. So we say that there was no global flood. This conjecture is made from actual data and logic. How could we know such a conjecture is wrong?

It all depends upon what our foundation is built on. We all have preconceived notions which are built around a worldview. If that worldview states that our understanding of scientific knowledge is the foundation to all knowledge then the notion of a global flood is ridiculous. However, if our worldview is based upon the Word of God being absolute truth and that all scientific findings must adhere and align to what it says, well then we can easily say scientifically we don't understand how a global flood could have taken place but we believe it did because God told us so.

Ultimately it all comes back to "did God actually say?"

 

[myways]

Yes indeed, what did God actually say? Science belongs to God too it is not in opposition to the Bible. We need to use both to better understand each not just make it a one way thing. We can now use our knowledge of the natural world (science) to better translate the Flood account. It clearly says that the flood was local. See Psalm 104

--dave

 

[juvenissun]

I agree on this: What we know from science should not be used to against God's word.

But, what about this: I want to use the science we know today to echo what God says? If you agree on this one, then you approve that scientific knowledge and God's word are NOT mutually exclusive.

If so, why couldn't someone also use science to disagree with what God says?

Of course, the above is only a logic argument (they are not all true ). In term of faith, we recognize that God's word can only be correct regardless what the logic said.

------

Well, I am not arguing. I am simply elaborating.