Posted on 05/29/2006 6:28:25 AM PDT by 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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The liberal "Christians" I know are willing to support the local flood interpretation because of the "proof". There is ample evidence of a local flood, so it is nothing that needs faith. I have never seen a conservative believer defend a local flood. Could you point me in the right direction?
Thanks.
Au contraire. What defies common sense is the notion that a skinny little river, jumped in, around, and through the Canyon to reveal the layers. One would be better off saying that ancient Indians got their shovels and started digging...
Except for the fact that the Tower of Babel occurred after the flood, scattering people and languages. The "legends" could have been from the same flood story filtered through cultural differences across the centuries.
~Could~, but I guess I was assuming these flood legends from other parts of the world included local references.
How about this: Over thousands of years, the river dug a trench that eventually became a mile deep. How does that defy logic or common sense?
For example:
"Christians who actually believe that God made the heavens and the earth and all that in them is in 6 days."
The "6 day" "young-earth" interpretation is NOT literal and NOT accepted by the majority of the denominations and many of the most respected defenders of the Bible. It's a theory that is based on myths, misconceptions, contrasdictions, personal crusades, poor science, superfical biblical readings, etc.
Young-earthism is NOT Biblical
"Who's attacking other Christians right now?"
You are. How exactly is pointing out the obvious backwardness of AIG attacking Christians? Their bizarre behavior is a documented fact.
"What those you attack believe is the Bible."
No, they believe in a watered-down Bible, misconstrued and force-fitted onto personal beliefs that have no basis in reality. When people like them destory the credibility of the Bible by their misbelief, they need corrected.
So keep on blindly following the anti-Christian rhetoric of hillbilly scholars like Ken Ham. Go ahead and keep on turning people away from the Bible.
Or maybe try studying the Bible on your own instead of having other people do it for you.
But that's what I meant by filtered thru cultural differences. Over the years the stories all relate to what is familiar.
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
Walter Kaiser, one of conservative evangelical Christainity's most respected OT scholars, apologists like Norm Geisler and J.P. Moreland, etc. The "global flood" is a beleif of "pop-Christianity" not scholarly Christianity.
God never asked anyone to believe the flood on faith. It is presented as a historical event. Historical events, by defintion, have evidence. If you want to believe something on faith, read Gilgamesh.
If you want to say that river encompassed the entire world, and eventually whittled itself down to what it is today, then I'm fine with that. I'm sure you've heard the story of Noah's Ark, it tells all about the whole thing and its in Genesis...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.