The flood... global or local?

[Jason_in_nc]

Here is a very interesting proposal that the flood was NOT global. It is presented by a preterist. While I am not a preterist, and do not advocate that viewpoint (as it teaches that the kingdom of God is NOW) I do find his suggestion that the flood was a local event to be intriguing.

Discuss!
Noah's Flood: Global or Local?

 

[Saintscruiser]

It's not a matter of what I think....it's a matter of what Scripture says that is important. God said He destroyed the world. That's good enough for me. Jesus said that there will be false teachers at the end of time. I think the entire preterist concept is false because of the way they present Scripture. And, if I think that to be false, why should I even entertain the idea of reading false interpretations. It's either 100% right or 100% wrong. Scripture states that a prophet has to be correct 100% or they are a false prophet. It's like, say, I was interested in witches and just wanted to see for myself what goes on in a coven meeting....just so I can tell others. I don't have to go to a coven gathering to know. God's Word tells me to steer clear of it and I do. Why would I want to look further into global or local when God's Word says He destroyed the world. I take God's word over what someone says. Does that make sense? So my honest opinion is: HOOEY ALERT! I hope I haven't hurt your feelings, as that is FAR from what I'm trying to do.

 

[eHuman]

I believe that what I see in scripture is that it was the whole world.

That being said, some believe that in the future when Jesus destroys the whole earth by fire, that some will miraculously survive to repopulate the earth during the millenium.

I doubt that it is different for one and not the other, (I.E. some survive both or some survive neither but not one without the other), so which is it? For me it is not a stretch at all that in the same way that none survived the flood (except those in Christ - I mean the ark), none outside of Christ will survive the judgement by fire to repopulate the millenium.

But that's just me.

 

[Jason_in_nc]

Saintscruiser,

I don't agree with this guy's entire view of scripture (and made a point to note that there are issues with the preterist viewpoint in my original post) or even his entire views in this article, but it is interesting just the same. I think his viewpoint is just as worthy of investigation as the discussion of 6 literal days or day ages is with regard to creation because the viewpoint that the flood was a localized event is a pretty popular viewpoint (just watch the history channel and you'll find out that a farmer named noah put his family and livestock on a makeshift raft and survived a flash flood....good grief) this is something that believers will encounter and is therefore worth of discussion imo... if anyone wants to discuss it.

The idea proposed in his article actually makes some sense, and he's examining the word erets that is translated into whole world or entire earth. It is used many places in the bible and is usually used to mean a specific inhabited area. There are other places in the Bible when the word "world" is used not to refer to the planet earth, but humanity. His basic point is that it is being used in the same manner in the flood story. God's intent was just to destroy most of humanity, not the actual planet humanity lived on.

But like I said, I don't agree with all of his points. For one, he doesn't believe that all of humanity save for noah and family was destroyed. Well if that was the case, it doesn't even work by HIS own definition. BUT, all of humanity could have been destroyed save for noah and family, WITH a localized flood as humanity probably wasn't spread to the entire earth that early on. Food for thought.

 

[schaedj]

He spends the majority of the first half of the article proving the exact opposite of his point, i.e. that (eret) means local area. I would say the meaning of (eret) is closer to earth in modern english. I can pick up the earth in my backyard or view the earth from space. So, deriving your argument from the fact that a word can have different meanings is fruitless. He then spends the rest of the article quoting a lot of speculative and extra-biblical sources to make his case, which is essentially, "I don't believe that God could have done it this way, therefore there must be a different interpretation." The commentary on Noah's age doesn't seem relevant to the discussion at all, which leaves the Nephilim question. He dismisses at least one common interpretation out of hand (angels don't have sex), and yet that interpretation seems fairly consistent with the rest of the dialog. I don't know if that interpretation is correct, but his proof that it is not is weak, at best. The whole point of the interaction with the nephilim is that it was something the sons of men were not supposed to do. If you read the Genesis 6 passage exactly as written, then there is nothing problematic about the passage in Numbers. It does require, however, a belief that some extra-human creatures were interacting with man during ancient times. Not sure if I go along with that one or not.
He also falls prey to the most obvious of intellectual failings: That people in earlier times were idiots, and couldn't possibly have known what they were talking about.
God made Adam in his own image, perfect, and assigned him the responsibility of "naming" all of the creatures in creation. "naming" in the biblical context, is more than assigning sounds to something, as it is today. It implies an understanding of the nature of the thing being named. Think of the importance of names to God. For God to give him that responsibility meant that he had a great deal of understanding about the world and its creatures, perhaps much greater than we do today. Presuming that he was an unintelligent caveman, as were Noah (who hand-built a supertanker), Moses (author of the most widely read books in the history of man) and the rest of the men of their times is intellectually arrogant and baseless, and yet makes up the majority of his argument.
As with most speculative propositions, it seems to me that he started with a conclusion and then worked his way back to any evidence that might support that conclusion, not the other way around.

 

[chimney55]

Well, I did read it. It begins with his idiotic lesson in linguistics regarding the Hebrew word "erets" which can mean "land", "country", or "earth". He says that if it's translated the "whole earth" in one place, that it should be translated that way throughout scriptures. However, it's not even that way in English, why should it be translated the same way? In English, we speak of "fertile earth" but we know that the entire planet is not fertile. It has to be read in context. The same can be said for the words, "land" and "country". (ex. After coming here from a foreign land, he set about making a living off of the land in America. In his country, he lived in a city, but decided here that he wanted to live in the country.

His "points" to ponder" are absurd! Just a few of them.

We read also that "the water increased and bare up the ark, and it was lifting up ABOVE THE EARTH" (Gen. 7:17). Do you think that's possible the ark was lifted into the space and orbited above the earth?!?

We've already seen that even English uses the word "earth" to mean to different things. It has to be read in context.

Another fact is, if there were ALL animals and species in the world went into the ark, some of them do not live a year! Like for example, some insects like bee, male ants, fly, etc. Remember that all of these creatures who were in the ark did not reproduction (sic) UNTIL after they came out the ark

It wasn't Noah's job to keep them alive. It was God's.

Another problem arises, God told Noah to bring the creatures into the ark and sort the male and female creatures. If there were every creature in the world, this would require more knowledge than distinguishing between a bull and a cow. What about snakes, ants, termites, snails, etc?


Scripture says to "take" the animals on the ark with him and his family. It does not say that Noah has to go out and "fetch" them. Again, it was not Noah's job to discover the gender of the animals. God brought the animals in proper numbers and genders to Noah and he took them on the ark with him.

He continues with the impossibility of getting huge animals on board the ark, some of which would not fit through the door. No where in scripture does it say that the animals that Noah took on the ark with him had to be adults. His arguments just get more ridiculous from there.

As SC said, what we need to know is what scripture says, but to make things a little clearer, I'm including this list from answersingenesis.org :



If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.


If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.


If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.


If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.


If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn’t rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.


If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin. If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of ‘all’ men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah’s day means a partial judgment to come.


If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.


Whoever put up the website was obviously not a "rocket scientist" (or even a scholar)!
Noah’s Flood covered the whole earth

 

[Jason_in_nc]

Now THAT's a DISCUSSION!

 

[lmrasch]

In Oregon where I live we had a mountain by our house out in the country, there were seashells scattered throughout it...I'd sure like to know how they got there if not by flood. If this man's theory is correct then I was living in the area of Eden and didn't even know it, lol!

Further reading taken from just a quick google: Scientific evidence of a worldwide flood - by Stan Derekson - Helium

*We find fossils the whole world over buried in sedimentary rock that
was laid down by water.

*Layers of strata, which the floodwater would have laid down.

*Mixed-up and missing strata.

*Twisted and folded strata ~ this would imply the layers were soft when
they twisted or folded, for hard layers would crack and split.

*Vertical tree trunks (polystrate fossils) cutting through supposed
"ages" (millions of evolutionary years) of strata.

*Giant boulders found within strata.

*The presence of coal and oil throughout the world.

*The vast ocean ~ still covering some 70% of this our "watery planet".

*Deep canyons throughout the world ~ these could have formed rapidly
while the layers of strata were still partially soft.

*Vast dried-up lakebeds.

*Sea shells on top of mountains.

*Clams are found deep down in the Cambrian; they are found upon Mt.
tops as well. They are found shut implying rapid death and burial ~ for
when a clam dies under normal conditions it opens.

*Fossils found out of place ~ according to the evolutionary scheme.

*Fossils of creatures that were obviously buried quickly. The whole
process of fossilization requires rapid death and rapid burial of water
born sediment.

*Massive fossil graveyards found throughout the world.

*Land creatures found fossilized together with marine creatures.

*95% of the fossil record is made up of shallow marine organisms.

*Complex life forms are found in abundance within the Cambrian; with
next to nothing beneath it. This is known as the "Cambrian explosion".
There exists in Cambrian strata more phyla than exists today! What
is found there in the lowest levels is exactly what would be expected if
a worldwide flood really did happen ~ and flies in the face of the
evolutionary scenario.

*Hundreds of flood legends of cultures from around the world.


In 2nd Peter chapter three, Peter says that, "scoffers shall come in the last days. For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water" ~2Peter.3:3-6.

For more in depth explanation, see: Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

 

[Jason_in_nc]

Has there EVER been a good explanation for the vertical trees? I've looked and have yet to find anything that really makes sense (except for the flood that is).

 

[chimney55]

Has there EVER been a good explanation for the vertical trees? I've looked and have yet to find anything that really makes sense (except for the flood that is).

There are a lot of "nonsense" explanations for it, but nothing that stands up to the evidence that it was a flood.

 

[Saintscruiser]

Saintscruiser,

I don't agree with this guy's entire view of scripture (and made a point to note that there are issues with the preterist viewpoint in my original post) or even his entire views in this article, but it is interesting just the same. I think his viewpoint is just as worthy of investigation as the discussion of 6 literal days or day ages is with regard to creation because the viewpoint that the flood was a localized event is a pretty popular viewpoint (just watch the history channel and you'll find out that a farmer named noah put his family and livestock on a makeshift raft and survived a flash flood....good grief) this is something that believers will encounter and is therefore worth of discussion imo... if anyone wants to discuss it.

The idea proposed in his article actually makes some sense, and he's examining the word erets that is translated into whole world or entire earth. It is used many places in the bible and is usually used to mean a specific inhabited area. There are other places in the Bible when the word "world" is used not to refer to the planet earth, but humanity. His basic point is that it is being used in the same manner in the flood story. God's intent was just to destroy most of humanity, not the actual planet humanity lived on.

But like I said, I don't agree with all of his points. For one, he doesn't believe that all of humanity save for noah and family was destroyed. Well if that was the case, it doesn't even work by HIS own definition. BUT, all of humanity could have been destroyed save for noah and family, WITH a localized flood as humanity probably wasn't spread to the entire earth that early on. Food for thought.

Jason, I have some unconventional ways of expressing myself...pretty much to the point. To me, when I found out what a preterist was, I knew immediately it wouldn't stand up against Scripture. I cut to the chase without discussing, because to me, there wasn't anything to discuss. I apologize for the way I presented my answer, if it offended you, but not for the substance. My bells and whistles were going off so I didn't investigate it further. Maybe I should have, but my thing is I didn't want to open myself up to entertain anything that is not God's Word. I'm quirky like that. I'm glad that others were able to discuss it with you on a honest level, and sorry I disappointed.

 

[Jason_in_nc]

Well saintcruiser, I should have been more forthcoming in my reasons for starting the thread, certainly in my response to you. So let me do that now. If I came off as irritated in the slightest, then I failed in the projected attitude of my post... so I apologize if I came off as irritated or anything close to it.

1) I am genuinely interested in these other possible explanations that may or may not be out of line with scripture. For instance, if the flood had been localized but to the point that it destroyed all of humanity save for noah and family, then it would still have been accurate but not as we have traditionally understood it. So that is why I even entertain the idea. Kinda like the discussions we've had about end times. There are several popular views (though not equally popular) and nobody is 100% sure which is correct, there may be bits and pieces in each view that are correct. So for me, it's about making sure that other options are examined that might be true, but not outside of what the Bible actually says. I don't think the guy who wrote that article has it right, but something there is pulling at me and got me to thinking. I thought it would be interesting to see what others thought. Some of what was said I already knew, but some things that you all posted I had not seen or thought of myself. So it was at least worthwhile to me, and gave me more to think about.

2) I also threw it up because it is something that has been, and is currently being, brought up all the time. However, the discussion or proposition is usually made and discussed by people who do NOT believe the bible. So I thought it might be good to discuss it among Christians. For our benefit, and the benefit of anyone who might not be participating. I've been thinking about starting other threads with common "issues" so we could hammer them out. Like common "contradictions" that are brought up, or misinformation about history like Nicea and so on.

I'm sure that each of us, in our encounters with various issues, have found information that we use to respond, but there's a chance that not all of us have the same information. So it might be good to share how we respond to certain common topics so that we are all better armed.

 

[Saintscruiser]

Actually, Jason, that's a good idea. I think that since I was really getting sick last night, I wasn't at my best. I'll forewarn everyone from now on when I'm feeling yucky. I do that with my husband so he won't accidentally walk into a hornet's nest and look at me like If we could somehow say something like 'could we discuss this view in order to be armed when it's brought up to us by a non-Christian,' that would be easier for me to get into. As it was, it sounded like you were really entertaining the validity of this stance. I didn't know it's a popular question these days. Yeah, I know I'm a black and white person which is really good, but maybe can come across as a 'hell fire damnation' type of person, which does have it's place at times. Anyway, sorry if I offended you in anyway. It was't intended to do so, but to re-iterate my stance, it is hooey.

 

[Jason_in_nc]

I wish you'd stop tip-toeing around and just tell me what you really think.

 

[Saintscruiser]

I wish you'd stop tip-toeing around and just tell me what you really think.

 

[eHuman]

Has there EVER been a good explanation for the vertical trees? I've looked and have yet to find anything that really makes sense (except for the flood that is).

I remember reading a few years back of a phenomena that happened as a result of the Mt St Hellens eruption that shocked scientists.

The pyroplast wave coming down the mountain stripped the hillside bare and deposited thousands of whole trees in the lake. they floated for a time and aided by the ash and becoming waterlogged, the most dense tree species sunk root side down and "settled" into an underwater "Forrest". some sediment settling covers it up and then the next densest species followed in suit.

The end effect was that they witnessed produced in 3 months (complete one species forests found buried under another forests), a phenomenon that science assumed took thousands of years to accomplish.

But, global flooding and sediment causes a similar effect, but you will likely see a multi species forest in that case.

I personally believe that the flood was the cause for the extinction of the dino's, and the various strata levels that fossils are found. Can you imagine the sheer volume of silt swirling around in sections of the flooded earth and settling on the bottom in massive layers?

 

[Saintscruiser]

Ok.....I'm really out of my element. What's the deal with vertical trees. Haven't they always been vertical? Up and down and not side to side? I can honestly say, that for the past 200 years since I've been living, they've been up and down!

 

[eHuman]

It refers to finding whole forrests buried "in place", the tops of the trees far underground. Standing vertical rather than the knocked over trees that you might find buried laying horizontally.

 

[LisaLisa]

It refers to finding whole forrests buried "in place", the tops of the trees far underground. Standing vertical rather than the knocked over trees that you might find buried laying horizontally.

Oh wow, really? I never heard of that before. That's awesome!

 

[Saintscruiser]

Well raise my rent! How deep were they buried? You'd think that the lava from Mt. St. Helens would have burned the trees. Quite interesting.