Why Noah's Flood was Local

[truthfinder9]

I often hear skeptics point to the belief in the global flood as a reason to not believe Christianity. I also see "Christian" creationist groups condem other Christians who believe the local flood is the literal interpretation. It's time we start telling "Christian" groups like ICR and AIG to stop turning people away from the Bible and tell them to stop their childish, immature attacks on other Christians (AIG recently refused to be subject to review, now there's the making of a cult!). And it's time for Christians to stop blindly believing everything they are told, just because it comes from other Christians.

Why the Local Flood is the Literal View

[labette]

ping/later

[johna61]

Crazy so called Christian liberal extremists who don't want to believe in the majority view of the worldwide flood are pushing the jihad against Christians as much as their Muslim friends are pushing the war against the west.

[where HE leads me]

That's because if they can successfully get groups of believers to DISbelieve one of the foundational stories in the Bible, they can systematically destroy the rest of the Bible by instilling doubt and unbelief, thereby removing sin from the world, which removes the need for a savior.

[Alex Murphy]

As long as the Flood killed 100% of the land-based population (humans and animals), I don't think it matters if it was local or global.

But size isn't the real issue, isn't it? It's whether there were any survivors besides Noah and his family.

[Alamo-Girl]

You might find this article revealing:

Comets and Disaster in the Bronze Age BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY, December 1997, No 30, pp. 6-7 The Journal of the Council for British Archaeology

At some time around 2300 BC, give or take a century or two, a large number of the major civilisations of the world collapsed, simultaneously it seems. The Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the Early Bronze Age civilisation in Israel, Anatolia and Greece, as well as the Indus Valley civilisation in India, the Hilmand civilisation in Afghanistan and the Hongshan Culture in China - the first urban civilisations in the world - all fell into ruin at more or less the same time. Why?

[Larry Lucido]

I think Brother Cloud survived. What is the elevation of Nepal?

[Matchett-PI]

"That's because if they can successfully get groups of believers to DISbelieve one of the foundational stories in the Bible, they can systematically destroy the rest of the Bible by instilling doubt and unbelief, thereby removing sin from the world, which removes the need for a savior."

In times past, what some thought to be "foundational" biblical truths, turned out to be misinterpretations of the Scriptures.

Don't embarrass yourself.

[PetroniusMaximus]

Making the Bible more tolerable to the whims of the current age never leads to a greater acceptance of the truths of the Bible in that age.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Let the Bible stand as is it - let it be called unscientific, anti-homosexual, antifemanist, unenlightened, etc. and etc. It will remain long after these other philosophies have died. So will the one who stands in it's shadow.



"The grass withers, the flower fades,but the word of our God will stand forever." - Isaiah 40:8

[PetroniusMaximus]

"In times past, what some thought to be "foundational" biblical truths, turned out to be misinterpretations of the Scriptures."

Hard to misinterpret this...

"For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;"

[RobbyS]

Taking the Bible as it is, it IS a story seen from a local point of View. Assuming that Moses is the author, this is the historty of the world as known to him, a descendent of Abraham of Ur.

[Matchett-PI]

"As long as the Flood killed 100% of the land-based population (humans and animals), I don't think it matters if it was local or global."

# 49

[Poser]

I have always assumed that the Bible is stories handed down from generation to generation and translated from language to language. I don't take everything literally.

I don't see how that makes the lessons, morals and customs any less valid or God any less real.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"Taking the Bible as it is, it IS a story seen from a local point of View."
 

It's clearly a global view...

"The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was o­nly evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man o­n the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD."



"Assuming that Moses is the author, this is the historty of the world as known to him"

Based o­n your assumption, how then would the author of the Torah know any details of events before the creation of man (Gen1)?

[RobbyS]

Assuming Moses was the author, and he is the traditionally the author, he was writing from a particular time and place. He would know what God chose to tell him, and he would understand in accordance with his experience.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"He would know what God chose to tell him, and he would understand in accordance with his experience."

Then he is not precluded from writing of a universal flood if God had told him about it.

So what is your basis for the claim that, "taking the Bible as it is, it IS a story seen from a local point of View."

???

[RobbyS]

There is material evidence for a universal flood. In any case, I assume that God spoke to Moses in visions and that Moses understood the past as he understood the future, through a cloud.

[HairOfTheDog]

marking to read later.

[where HE leads me]

I sincerely doubt, in this day and age, that anything is being misinterpreted. And it is for this reason, alone, that there is a need by liberal "Christians" to cast doubt on the interpretations that have been long since proven.

Who needs faith in a Savior when there really is no such thing as sin?

[Matchett-PI]

"It's clearly a global view... 'The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was o­nly evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man o­n the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land...'

Anything I highlighted above stick out atcha?

The Origins Solution by Dick Fischer

Chapter 15

THE FLOOD WATERS ABATE: INTO THE PERSIAN GULF

[huge snip]

Summary

Noah's Flood, recent in occurrence and confined to the Mesopotamian valley and its inhabitants, was retribution for sin, but as Paul states, "Sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Rom. 5:13b). Those civilizations outside the Adamic covenant and outside the immediate area were unaccountable and unaffected by the flood. If we take into consideration the allowable interpretations of "earth" instead of "land," "heaven" rather than "sky," and "mountains" as against "hills," coupled with the Hebrew words "all" and "every" when we would say "much" and "many," plus the Hebrew penchant for perfect or prophetic numbers, we should be able to understand how a Mesopotamian calamity has been misunderstood as a global cataclysm.

The biblical, archaeological, and anthropological evidence corroborates that God spared human populations who were outside the Mesopotamian valley and outside of His covenant. God "winked at" their ignorance (Acts 17:30), but targeted the Adamites in particular, obliterating those who were answerable and willfully disobedient. Evidently the Sumerians were hapless bystanders, many of whom perished, and some may have become proselytes who drowned in the flood.

In Luke, the Pharisees asked Jesus to rebuke His disciples, "And He answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out" (Luke 19:40). The "stones" in the form of inscribed clay tablets are crying out today, confirming God's Word. Are we listening, or are we like the Pharisees?

NOTES [snip]

Anyone interested in reading this whole chapter can let me know and I'll freepmail it to you.

(Also see #12 in this thread)

[PetroniusMaximus]

" Anything I highlighted above stick out atcha?"

Yes, what sticks out at me is someone who is engaged in selective reading.... "And the LORD was sorry that he had made man o­n the earth, and it grieved him to his heart."

Not men in a certain valley or region, but MAN himself. The first universal judgement of water is a prototype of the final universal judgement of fire - or do you not believe in that either?

Again, the floodwater covered the whole earth...

" But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still o­n the face of the whole earth."

and just to prove there were no other survivors...

" These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed."



"Those civilizations outside the Adamic covenant ..."

An who exactly would be outside of the Adamic covenant???



From a previous post...

Making the Bible more tolerable to the whims of the current age never leads to a greater acceptance of the truths of the Bible in that age.

... Let the Bible stand as is it - let it be called unscientific, anti-homosexual, antifemanist, unenlightened, etc. and etc. It will remain long after these other philosophies have died. So will the o­ne who stands in it's shadow.

[Matchett-PI]

"I sincerely doubt, in this day and age, that anything is being misinterpreted. And it is for this reason, alone, that there is a need by liberal "Christians" to cast doubt on the interpretations that have been long since proven."

What a sheltered world you live in.

"...engaging [in] what I will call from here on "trailer park scholarship" .... Who are these people trying to kid? Their scholarship, as a whole, is reckless and pitiable; what they know, they have learned from reading a few popular books with no conception of the broader issues and fields at hand. .. "Why did God make the Bible so hard to understand, then?" It isn't -- none of this keeps a person from grasping the message of the Bible to the extent required to be saved; where the line is to be drawn is upon those who gratuitously assume that such base knowledge allows them to be competent critics [or commentators] of the text, and make that assumption in absolute ignorance of their own lack of knowledge -- what I have elsewhere spoken of in terms of being "Unskilled and Unaware of it: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" ["It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense. .....Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it-be it their own or anyone else's. ...]

If they would at least admit that it might be a possibility that they are incompetent, then it is possible for them to educate themselves so as to be able to recognize incompetence in those they look to as "Bible teachers".

"Who needs faith in a Savior when there really is no such thing as sin?"

That's true, but what does THAT have to do with the subject under discussion? You're attempting to mix apples and oranges.

Note this:

Towers Online - The News Service of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
April 13, 2006 By Jeff Robinson

Excerpts:

"Trustees at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on April 11 unanimously approved the creation of two new theological study centers­the Center for Theology and the Arts, and the Center for Theology and Law, during the board's annual spring meeting.

Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said the new study centers aim at equipping pastors and church leaders to think biblically about pivotal issues which dominate contemporary culture.

"One of the ways we want to lead Southern Baptists is through helping evangelicals and Southern Baptists in particular to engage some of the most critical issues of our day," Mohler said.-

"This is not a time for Christians to be out-thought by the world, but in general that is what happens. We find the church behind the times in thinking about some of the most crucial issues of our day."

Mohler also announced the appointment of two new faculty members to lead the centers. [snip] ...

...Mohler also named Kurt Wise as the new director for Southern's Center for Theology and Science, and professor of theology and science. Wise currently serves on the faculty of Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn., where he is also director of the Center for Origins Research.

Wise earned both a doctor of philosophy and master of arts in paleontology from Harvard University. He and his wife Marie have two daughters.

Wise replaces William Dembski, who is leaving Southern Seminary to join the faculty at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary so he can be closer to his family.

"With the addition of Kurt Wise, we are recognizing that creation is a ground zero theological crisis point right now in American culture and even in our churches," Moore said. [snip] ..

In other business, trustees: .... Heard a report from President Mohler that Southern's enrollment has topped 4,000 students for the first time in the seminary's history."

*

Here are a couple of interesting items I found on the web regarding Kurt Wise:

[1] 7/3/2003 "Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:

"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable." ~ Kurt Wise

[2] December 19th 2004 Theologyweb.com

Post # 7:

"...there is new breed of YEC out there, of which Kurt Wise is an example, who recognize that there are scientific problems with their Weltanschauung. I knew Kurt was exceptional, but there are more of his stripe. Affectionately, I'd like to refer to them as neo-YECs, as opposed to the Wieland-Ham-Morris-Safarti-Jorge YECs for which I would propose the oxymoronic moniker paleo-YECs."

*

"Conflicts between Science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible." ~ Moses Maimonides

[Matchett-PI]

I asked if anything I highlighted stuck out at you, and you wrote: "Yes, what sticks out at me is someone who is engaged in selective reading.."

I guess you didn't pick up on the fact that I was showing you an example of "selective translating" which were no doubt the result of preconceived notions. In fact, you came right back at me with even MORE examples of it. LOL

Remember an important detail, the Scriptures are only inerrant in the origional autographs. Inerrancy and Human Ignorance

"An who exactly would be outside of the Adamic covenant???"

See here:

The Origins Solution by Dick Fischer

Chapter 14

NOAH AND FAMILY: A VOYAGE TO REMEMBER

[snip]

Summary

Writing in 1683, over 150 years before the Sumerian and Accadian flood stories were unearthed, Matthew Poole had this to say in A Commentary on the Holy Bible: And whereas our modern heathens, that miscall themselves Christians, laugh at the history of this flood upon this and the like occasions, as if it were an idle romance; they may please to note, that their predecessors, the ancient and wiser heathens, have divers of them acknowledged the truth of it, though they also mixed it with their fables, which was neither strange nor unusual for them to do.

Extra-biblical accounts help substantiate the flood as a documented event, an incident of record. The legends of Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, and Ziusudra not only establish the flood, they dictate the location, the extent, and the approximate date.

Adamite populations were the target of the flood. They resided in the heart of Southern Mesopotamia at that time, the focus point of the flood. The scope of the flood was entirely confined to this locale. Most of the world's human populations were unaffected. The time of the flood was around 2900 BC when Ziusudra was king.

If any credible evidence from nature of a world-wide flood catastrophe could be documented, could pass the scrutiny of peer review, and become published in any respected scientific journal, that discoverer would be an instant Noble Prize candidate. What has been offered up as evidence of a global cataclysm has been paltry, dubious, and unconvincing.

It has been pointed out that God's general revelation should match up with His special revelation. There are times when ignoring the clear messages from the Bible has caused some to rely too heavily on naturalistic revelation to the detriment of their conclusions.

Likewise, God's messages from nature must be heeded to restrain us from making preposterous interpretations of Scripture. It serves no useful purpose to declare the Bible inerrant, and then interpret so erroneously that it causes disbelief.

NOTES [snip] If anyone wants to read the whole chapter, let me know and I'll freepmail it to you.

[HairOfTheDog]

The story of the flood, like the creation story itself, makes sense only as a fable or legend, not as scientific history. I know many who believe these stories literally happened won't be convinced otherwise by me, but even if we ignore the impossibility of a sudden earthwide flood, the sheer logistics involved in collecting and keeping all the the animals on earth alive is beyond anyone. Who went down and collected the koala bears? What did they feed the lions? Were there polar bears? Grizzlies?

It isn't just young earth versus old earth, it's small-world versus big world. The fable works on a small earth... not a big one.

[teee33]

You said "You are barking up the wrong tree. Let the Bible stand as is it - let it be called unscientific, anti-homosexual, antifemanist, unenlightened, etc. and etc. It will remain long after these other philosophies have died. So will the one who stands in it's shadow."

From the Apostle Paul 50AD-170AD to,
Irenaeus 170AD-320AD to,
Martin 312AD-606AD to,
Columba of the Dark Ages 606AD-1520AD to, Luther "justification by faith not works" 1520AD-1750AD to,
Westley of the Methodist movement or sanctification (clean up your life after justification)1750AD-1906AD to, Marion Branham of the Pentecostal movement or Holy Ghost Born Again Christians.

Lets see, the bible has been set afire and new movements have had landslide effects 7 times since Christ died, and it will never stop moving forward because more and more is revealed to us, it is called Revelation, "upon this rock I will build my church" the rock of revelation. God hasn't died - He is very much alive and thriving and so it stands to reason that there will always be more revealed and more church movements.

For instance, a current event;
while they were "eating, drinking and marrying" (heterosexuals) in Noahs day (Book of Genesis), God flooded and drowned the entire human race – except Noah and his - because of their abominations. I'd say heterosexuals arouse Gods anger in "special" ways. Anger toward a specific culture is not justification for discrimination, inciting hatred and not especially sanctioning such via Gods Word. Sodom and Gomorrah was about pride, fulness of bread, abundance of idleness [prosperous ease], the lack of strengthening the hand of the poor and needy, haughtiness Ezekial 16:49 & 50. Many of the people in sodom and gomorrah were heterosexuals not homosexuals and yet the church has persecuted them forever and are still persecuting them Luke 17:26-30 They did eat, they drank, they married wives ((obviously heterosexuals), they were given in marriage, until they were destroyed. Mathew 24:37-42 they were eating, drinking and marrying when the floods came and killed them all. Isaiah 1:7-31 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah 17) Learn to do well; seek personal judgement, relieve the oppressed, plead for the widow. 19) If ye be "WILLING" (not forced) and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land 21) How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of ill judgement (judgement of others), (self) righteousness lodged in it. Murderers, rebellion, thieves, everyone loves gifts (bribes), and follows after rewards (rather than seeking God). All the people in Sodom were inhospitable and wanted to rape the 2 angels when Mathew 10:14&15 says to treat inhospitality by leaving that house and shaking the dust off your feet if they won't listen.

Mathew 7:1-5 Judge not that ye be not judged. 2) For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brothers eye, but considerest notthe beam that is in thine own eye? 4) Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull the mote out of your eyes; and behold, a beam is in your own eye.

1 Corinthians 2:2 the Apostle Paul speaks of his ultimate wisdom (after killing people who did not subscribe to the Pharisee religious doctrines) and his conclusion to his ministry is 2) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
I think we can safely assume that Paul made a lot of ill judgements of other people and their sins and he realized how wrong he was, he arrived at the understanding that his salvation depended upon faith and not the persecution of people he disagreed with. Phillipians 2:12 Wherefore my beloved, not as in my presence only (he knows what you've never shared with anyone), but now much more in my absence, work out "your own" salvation in fear and trembling.
I think it is understandable that we can never know who or why people are the way they are, so, we best heed Mathew 22:36-40 36) Master [Teacher] what is the greatest commandment of all? 37) JESUS said love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38) This is the first and greatest commandment. 39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
That is a pretty strong message, Love God and your neighbor as thyself. He didn't say oppress and persecute homosexuals and treat them with less respect than yourself. Nope, didn't say that at all.

Blessed are the flexible for they shall not be bent out of shape!

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

Well, whatever...The flood was world wide. The Bible tells us, and one can always go sneek a peek at Grand Canyon and other huge canyons in other states. Those who choose not to believe it, too bad for them...

[aimhigh]

..the sheer logistics involved in collecting and keeping all the the animals on earth alive is beyond anyone.

You liberals have no faith. The power of God is never considered, and is always discounted. Read the scripture - only two of each kind was brought (by God) to the boat.

[HairOfTheDog]

You name callers make no sense. Liberal? You've got no grounds to call me that.

Read the scripture - only two of each kind was brought (by God) to the boat.

And you think that makes it doable? Did they just walk on in a cute little parade like the cartoons we've seen?

[P-Marlowe]

I also see "Christian" creationist groups condem other Christians who believe the local flood is the literal interpretation.

While I'm not going to "condemn" anybody, I don't think the language in Genesis would allow for anything other than a global flood.

Perhaps you should add a few words to the Hebrew. Words like destroy all flesh "nearby". Or cover all the mountains "within walking distance". You know, just a few little changes here and there and your theory would make perfect sense.

As it stands right now, the Book of Genesis clearly speaks of a global flood affecting all the earth. Sorry.

[John Locke]

A point to ponder. If there was a global flood, then one would expect flood legends to be worldwide, not so?

And this is what we find:

Now there may be other explanations for the above, but I suggest the burden is on the skeptic to provide one.

[P-Marlowe]

I often hear skeptics point to the belief in the global flood as a reason to not believe Christianity.

The reason that people don't want to believe in Christianity is because they are sinners and they like being sinners. The miracle of the flood is just another excuse.

I also see "Christian" creationist groups condem other Christians who believe the local flood is the literal interpretation.

More often than not I see evolutionist "Christians" condemning those who are fundamentalist in their beliefs; Christians who actually believe that God made the heavens and the earth and all that in them is in 6 days. The condemnation comes in the form of ridicule from those who refuse to believe what the bible clearly teaches.

It's time we start telling "Christian" groups like ICR and AIG to stop turning people away from the Bible...

It is the doubters who turn people away from the bible. It is the doubters who deny the truth of the bible and insist that the stories in the Bible are merely allegories or myths handed down from other pagan societies.

and tell them to stop their childish, immature attacks on other Christians (AIG recently refused to be subject to review, now there's the making of a cult!).

That is laughable. Who's attacking other Christians right now? Seems to me that this thread is an attack on "other christians", namely bible believing Christians. Making of a Cult? AIG is not even a church! Maybe you should stop your immature attacks on other christians before you demand the same from everyone else.

And it's time for Christians to stop blindly believing everything they are told, just because it comes from other Christians.

What those you attack believe is the Bible. You are the one who is blindly denying the truth of the bible and blindly following what others have told you. If, by "others", you mean Moses and Jesus, then yes, I am more than happy to blindly follow what they said. It will all be explained later. In the meantime I am required to believe no one but God.

Anything else?

[ScubieNuc]

There are places that offer suggestions how that could have been a world wide flood. ( Here and Here are a couple of examples.)

I find it ironic that Christians who believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was sacrificed on a cross until dead, was dead for three days, became alive again, and then floated up to heaven....don't believe that God could "literally" flood the whole world.!?

Sincerely

[where HE leads me]

That's the rub. I don't think that those who believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was sacrificed on a cross until dead, was dead for three days and became alive again and went to live with His Father in heaven do disbelieve in a global flood. It's the ones that don't believe all that other stuff that disbelieve that God could literally flood the whole world.

IMO.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"And this is what we find:"


Fantastic chart. Where did you find it?

[where HE leads me]

And you, Matchett-PI, have you recognized that you are just as incompetent as those you are pointing your fingers at?

I hate to break it to you, but I am not sheltered. And I do realize that I am not a Bible scholar, though I have surrounded myself with several who have studied it. I also have walked the road of liberal Christianity, and recognize that it is neither liberal nor Christianity.

My remark about not needing a Savior if there is no sin is directed towards the point that it is liberal "Christians" who raise all these issues. Instead of finding faith-promoting topics, all they are concerned with is faith-destructive issues. Articles like the one in the OP are just another attempt to nail the top on the coffin of Christianity.

So, all your points have evaporated in the dust. Have anything else to share?

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want but do NOT make it personal!

[ScubieNuc]

I can see where some "young" Christians may be trying to equate the "proof" of science to the Bible. I, at one time, believed that God used Evolution to create the world. But the more you study the Bible and study the origins ideas of evolutionists, you have to make a choice. The two are not compatable.

What helped clear it up for me was the science definition of what a fact is. It is defined as something observable or repeatable in experiments. (That's not a word for word definition, but it's the gist.)

You can observe a fossil. Science has yet observed or repeated in an experiment a lizard turning into a bird, or non-living chemicals turning into life, etc. So when scientists say that "mountains of evidence" proves that so-and-so became such-and-such, it's not a fact.

What they really should say is that our interpretation of the evidence leads us to believe that the most likely natural cause of this is.... That's because science can't measure the supernatural, so it can neither confirm it or deny it.

Sincerely

[where HE leads me]

Yes, ma'am/sir.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"He didn't say oppress and persecute homosexuals and treat them with less respect than yourself."



I'm not sure that I'm getting the meaning of your post. What exactly was your point?

[PetroniusMaximus]

"An who exactly would be outside of the Adamic covenant???"

Please, if you don't mind, a succinct answer... who exactly would be outside of the Adamic covenant? Do you postulate the existence of humans on the earth who didn't descend from Adam?


"If any credible evidence from nature of a world-wide flood catastrophe could be documented, could pass the scrutiny of peer review, and become published in any respected scientific journal, that discoverer would be an instant Noble Prize candidate. What has been offered up as evidence of a global cataclysm has been paltry, dubious, and unconvincing."

Would you hold the Resurrection of Christ to the same standard of evidence? Do you consider the evidence for the resurrection, "paltry, dubious, and unconvincing"?

[CT-Freeper]

Also, are you sure that only two of each kind were brought onto the ark? My reading says different:

GEN 7:1 - Then the LORD said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.
2: Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate;
3: and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth.
4: For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground."
5: And Noah did all that the LORD had commanded him.

That's from the Revised Standard Version, if you need a reference.

I do not see a conflict with my faith in believing that the flood story may have been based only on a local flood. All that the people of the time knew and understood was the small area of land which they inhabited.

[HairOfTheDog]

But a flood of anything less than global would not have required an ark, or the collection of all the species... So I don't see the point of an ark unless it was global, and I don't see a global flood or the idea of an ark really all that doable as ~a task~. So there it is... Probably a legend. I'm not so arrogant as to say I know for sure... I just think the logistical issues involved are HUGE.

The idea of local flooding is indeed possible, as flooding of some magnitude or another has happened in most places. I think it might have inspired stories and legends of an ark...The kinds of stories invoking the wrath of God that help keep people in line.

[aimhigh]

You deny the power of God to bring the animals. You also ignore the verses where God states "the end of ALL flesh" is at hand. You also ignore the verses stating the mountains were covered (Gen 7:20).

A local flood wouldn't require the saving of any animals. Since they would migrate in from non-flooded areas. The story makes absolutely no sense if it's just a local flood. Given the many years it took to build the ark, Noal would have just moved to another area if it were just a local flood.

You ignore too many verses. Why, to be accepted by non-believers?

[CT-Freeper]

Honestly, I think HairOfTheDog is probably correct - the story of the flood is most likely a legend used to describe the Wrath of God, and what happens when people turn their backs on Him.

Concerning why so many different ancient cultures have flood stories, well that's easy: floods happen! Every region certainly has a "Great Flood" once every few centuries or so.

[truthfinder9]

When properly translated from the Hebrew, "earth" here refers to a region, not the entire world. Problem is that today most people have a superficial undestanding of biblical languages. But as the article I linked to explains, there are a lot of other obvious indicators to a local flood. Why The Literal View Requires a Local Flood

[truthfinder9]

Actually it's not "liberal" Christians who support the local flood interpretation, but some of the most respected conservative defenders of the Bible. Liberal Christians believe the flood is just a myth.

[truthfinder9]

I've seen the Grand Canyon. To think a meandering canyon and its neat geologic layers were created by a massive global flood is absurd and defies common sense.

[HairOfTheDog]

Furthermore, if other worldwide flood stories were indeed related to ~the~ flood, there'd be no legend from those regions at all... there would have been no survivors to tell the tale.

[truthfinder9]

Actually, according to the Hebrew it has to be a local flood. You're obviously one of those people the article talks about: Believing what you've been told for years and probably never really studied the subject.

For example:

1. Genesis 7:11-12 and Genesis 8 clearly state where the floodwaters came from (earthly sources including the atmosphere) and where they returned (into Earth). The water content on Earth today, even considering water vapor loss to space since the flood, is no where near the amount needed for a global flood.

2. In Genesis 7:19-20 we see that all “the high mountains...were covered.” The Hebrew for “high mountains” can be literally translated as hills or hill country. The words for “covered” can be translated as “falling upon,” “running over” or “residing upon.” Another possibility considers Noah’s perspective. Floating along on this massive flood, his line of sight would only be a few miles out. To him, everything could have seemed covered as was written. We should also make a note here about ancient Hebrew. Its vocabulary was much smaller than modern Hebrew or English. Many words had multiple meanings whereas we might have a separate word for each meaning. This is why context is often so important.

3. The flood account refers to “the earth” which may seem like it is referring to the entire planet. There is another usage in which “earth” or “world” can be literally translated to refer to a particular region. Ancient humanity was believed to be limited to Mesopotamia (we are going way back here), so a local flood would still be “universal” as far as the people alive at that time were concerned. Ancient mankind was not aware of the existence of most of the world, so what was known was considered the entire Earth. If we were to translate “earth” as being the entire planet, then perhaps Genesis 8:14 would indicate that the planet had become a desert when it states “…the earth was completely dry.” Peter clarifies this by writing in 2 Peter 3:5-6 that the flood effected the “…world at that time… [my emphasis]” There are numerous other examples of similar usage where “world” refers to humanity, not the globe, including Genesis 41:56-57, 1 Kings 10:24 and John 7:7, 12:19, 12:47, 14:31, 15:18, 17:21. Also consider that the Hebrew word that always refers to the entire world is not used in the flood account. Only words that can refer to particular regions or peoples are used.

4. The ark did not land on Mt. Ararat as many think. Genesis 8:4 states it landed in the mountains of Ararat. Therefore the ark could have landed anywhere in this region, including the foothills or bases of the larger mountains. Also consider this: Is it not odd that in a global flood that the ark landed only a few miles from where it started? And where did the dove find the olive branch? The dove could only fly so far and olive trees do not grow in high elevations. If the flood was a massive, globally destructive event, how were plants growing already?

5. A comparison of the pre-flood Genesis chapters to the post-flood chapters do not show the massive geological changes that a global flood would have caused. For example, the landscape has not changed at all. Noah did not seem lost. Rivers mentioned before the flood remained unchanged which would be kind of odd in a global flood that supposedly created geologic layers in only forty days.
of those materials even if there was a global flood.

6. All the species in the world could not have come from those on the ark without invoking rapid, macroevolution (defined in the next chapter). In fact, the only way young-earth creationists can account for all species being on the ark is by directly or implicitly requiring such a rapid evolution of animals that even naturalists do not subscribe to such a process. The fact is that the Hebrew is particular in the limited types of animals that were brought on the ark. This avoids the need to fit all of the animals of the world onto the ark. Also consider that the precedent set in the Bible concerning punishment always limits it to the intended people and their immediate surroundings. Thus a local flood would only require the destruction of animals closely related to man, i.e. the ones in the area where mankind lived.

7. In many ways, Psalm 104 parallels the creation account in Genesis 1 including how in early Earth’s history the entire globe was covered by water before the continents emerged. Verse 6 reveals this fact centuries before scientists had any knowledge of it. In verse 9 the statement is made that “never again will they [the waters] cover the earth.” From the context of the Psalm it would be hard to claim this verse is referring to Noah’s flood. Hence, verse 9 seems to be directly contrary to a global flood hypothesis.

[truthfinder9]

You're right, CT:

All the species in the world could not have come from those on the ark without invoking rapid, macroevolution. In fact, the only way young-earth creationists can account for all species being on the ark is by directly or implicitly requiring such a rapid evolution of animals that even naturalists do not subscribe to such a process.

The fact is that the Hebrew is particular in the limited types of animals that were brought on the ark. This avoids the need to fit all of the animals of the world onto the ark. Also consider that the precedent set in the Bible concerning punishment always limits it to the intended people and their immediate surroundings. Thus a local flood would only require the destruction of animals closely related to man, i.e. the ones in the area where mankind lived.