Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Noah's Flood was Local

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


TOPICS: Apologetics; Religion & Science; Skeptics/Seekers; Theology
KEYWORDS: aliaksu; ark; blacksea; blackseaflood; bobballard; catastrophism; creation; danuberiver; design; flood; genesis; godsgravesglyphs; grandcanyon; greatflood; liviugiosan; noah; noahsark; noahsflood; petkodimitrov; richardhiscott; robertballard; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-259 next last
To: P-Marlowe
"You want to deny what the Lord himself wrote? And you claim that I am the one who does not believe the bible? That is what the Bible says. Simply put, do you believe it? If not then who is the bible believer and who is the bible denier?"

Well said. Growing up, I was told a time was coming when people would not believe the Bible, but believe things that made them feel better. That time is here. These verses are confirmed in this thread...

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

And...

Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Jhn 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Moses write Exodus which you posted? These people who wish to cling to a worldly acceptable flood view have itchy ears and don't believe Moses's writings. So as Jesus himself said, how can they believe Jesus' words?

The Bible (from Genesis to Revelation) is the record of God. If we don't believe God's record, we are calling Him a liar.

1Jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him (God) a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

I find it amazing that those who cling to the Bible are actually hated openly, now. Liberal Christians who want to meld Evolutionary origins to the Bible and "conservatives" who want Christian views out of "their" party are two of the most common I have been reading of, as late, here on FR. This is reflected in these verses...

Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.

Jhn 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Sincerely
81 posted on 05/30/2006 2:26:49 PM PDT by ScubieNuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus; truthfinder9
But one only need look at the fruit of the Biblical Modernists and other similar movements to see that this methodology leads, slowly and inexorably to unbelief, apostasy and moral darkness.

But those of us who accept the miracles of the creation and the flood are the ones who, according to the poster of this thread, are "turning people away from the Bible".

If someone doesn't want to believe the Bible, they don't need those of us who take the words of the Bible seriously to scare them away. They will use any excuse they can find.

82 posted on 05/30/2006 2:36:36 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

Hey - if it feels better for you to put people who ask questions in some kind of box with a label on it, fine. I am not the biblical scholar many here are. I barely understand most of your posts on the subject. I am not some member of some organized movement to discredit the claims of the bible. I 'll never study it with more interest than a spectator watching the discovery channel, but I still find some of the questions are perplexing ones, and the discussion interesting.


83 posted on 05/30/2006 2:45:24 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

Yep. Those who choose not to believe are, the proverbial frog slowly boiling in water...


84 posted on 05/30/2006 2:56:59 PM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
"Hey - if it feels better for you to put people who ask questions in some kind of box with a label on it, fine."


I am not referring to people who ask questions - asking questions is fine - ask all the questions you want. Your questions are most welcome. (I pinged you because you were active in this discussion.)

What I am referring to is a subset of Christian's who promote a specific methodology of Biblical interpretation - one that I find to be severely deficient.



"I 'll never study it with more interest than a spectator watching the discovery channel, but I still find some of the questions are perplexing ones, and the discussion interesting."

In all humility, may I impress upon you that is not a spectator sport. The message of the Bible and it's historical veracity is a matter of life and death - to you and to me personally.

God, in the person of Jesus Christ, has extended to you the offer of full forgiveness for your sins and the promise of a restored relationship with Him which will last forever.

Jesus was physically and spiritually tortured beyond human comprehension to be able to freely offer this to you. To remain a "neutral observer" is an implicit rejection of His offer.
85 posted on 05/30/2006 2:59:36 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
In all humility, may I impress upon you that is not a spectator sport.

By "it" I merely meant these questions of the historical proofs for the flood, but I get your point.

86 posted on 05/30/2006 3:23:50 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
Apparently the creation week is used as a pattern of “one out of seven” in both cases, not a real-time reference.

The genesis account, not only refers to days, it refers to "evening and morning" in describing each day. All subsequent passages referring to creation speak of days, not periods or ages. The concept of ages occurs in scripture, and would have been used if it applied. Creation is used as the foundation for other patterns. To reverse that order is nothing short of twisting scriptures.

87 posted on 05/30/2006 4:38:53 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: SnarlinCubBear

ping


88 posted on 05/30/2006 8:15:56 PM PDT by SnarlinCubBear (I snarl, therefore I am)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
I'm so glad you enjoyed the article! I was amused by all the contortions to avoid a "flood" as the calamity which destroyed all centers of civilization around the world simultaneously. The dating is correct for Noah, btw.

And thank you for the insight on the wall at Jericho! That is a classic case-in-point.

89 posted on 05/30/2006 9:43:42 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; P-Marlowe; truthfinder9
Thank you all for the pings!

If one is seeking to reconcile God’s revelation in Scripture to God’s revelation in nature vis-à-vis Creation week, he would be well advised to remember relativity and inflationary theory.

Time is relative. It is geometry.

For instance, while a week may pass in the vicinity of a black hole, 40 years may simultaneously elapse on earth. And if an object were to move at the constant acceleration of one earth’s gravity, while 25.3 years elapsed for the object, 5x1010 years would elapse on earth.

What this means with regard to Creation week is this: 7 equivalent earth days at the inception (or beginning) space/time coordinates of this universe (the big bang) is equal to roughly 15 billion years at our space/time coordinates on earth.

After all, God is the author of Scripture and He was the observer of “in the beginning”. I therefore assert He was using the term "day" relative to the "beginning" in Genesis 1.

I would also assert that man's calendar does not begin until Adam is banished to mortality in Genesis 4. For those following the 7,000 year theology (with the last 1,000 years being Christ's reign on earth) - we are more or less at year number 5766 according to the Jewish calendar.

The following link contains more information on the time issue and also this tidbit:

Age of the Universe

Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" - "boker" - is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.


90 posted on 05/30/2006 10:11:36 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

I love you man!!!! (or woman)


91 posted on 05/30/2006 11:43:35 PM PDT by uptoolate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

Thank You, and have a nice 'yom'. (and I mean only a literal 24)


92 posted on 05/30/2006 11:47:07 PM PDT by uptoolate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Zionist Conspirator; All
I would also assert that man's calendar does not begin until Adam is banished to mortality in Genesis 4. For those following the 7,000 year theology (with the last 1,000 years being Christ's reign on earth) - we are more or less at year number 5766 according to the Jewish calendar.

Did you see Zionist Conspirator's thread on this very subject last week? Worth reading IMO.

93 posted on 05/31/2006 6:43:41 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Colossians 4:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Bump for later


94 posted on 05/31/2006 7:02:44 AM PDT by opus86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Thank you so much for the link! It is indeed a very interesting subject.


95 posted on 05/31/2006 8:20:07 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: uptoolate

Thanks Brother. I love you too (with the love of Christ, of course)!

BTW, I'm a man. (No offense taken.)

Sincerely


96 posted on 05/31/2006 8:53:02 AM PDT by ScubieNuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; Zionist Conspirator
Thank you for the fascinating linked article, Zionist Conspirator! I’ll make my notes here because the subject straddles both threads.

The theology of a 7,000 year limit of Adamic man on earth (with the last 1,000 years being Christ’s reign on earth) is based on the seven days of Creation in Genesis as applied to these verses and Revelation 20:

For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night. – Psalms 90:4

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. – 2 Peter 3:8

IOW, the theology takes the long view of this creation, this heaven and earth – beginning to end, the new heaven and earth.

The 7000 limit for Adamic man is also a traditional understanding of time in Orthodox Judaism. I have not yet read San Hedrin 97b, but I understand it contains a reference to that very point.

Pseudepigraphral manuscripts explicitly make the connection, most notably Enoch 2 and the epistle of Barnabas 15:1-5.

Moreover concerning the Sabbath likewise it is written in the Ten Words, in which He spake to Moses face to face on Mount Sinai; And ye shall hallow the Sabbath of the Lord with pure hands and with a pure heart. And in another place He saith; If my sons observe the Sabbath then I will bestow My mercy upon them.

Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.

Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years; and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.

And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Son shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day. – Barnabas 15:1-5

I said to him: Earth you are, and into the earth whence I took you you shalt go, and I will not ruin you, but send you whence I took you. Then I can again receive you at My second presence.

And I blessed all my creatures visible and invisible. And Adam was five and half hours in paradise. And I blessed the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, on which he rested from all his works.

And I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should be the first-created after my work, and that the first seven revolve in the form of the seventh thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of not-counting, endless, with neither years nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours.

And now, Enoch, all that I have told you, all that you have understood, all that you have seen of heavenly things, all that you have seen on earth, and all that I have written in books by my great wisdom, all these things I have devised and created from the uppermost foundation to the lower and to the end, and there is no counsellor nor inheritor to my creations.

I am self-eternal, not made with hands, and without change - Enoch 2 32 and 33:1-3

And as Zionist Conspirator notes on the linked thread, there are some difficulties in accounting for the calendar of Adamic man. The biggest difference appears to be several centuries concerning the captivity of Jews in Babylon. Thus we cannot know the date and time as Christ has said:

But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. – Mark 13:32


97 posted on 05/31/2006 9:26:57 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Alex Murphy; truthfinder9
I'm not sure why you pinged me to this thread. I've not posted on it and haven't linked anything on it.

My understanding of the traditional Jewish understanding is that the Flood was universal (except for 'Eretz Yisra'el, which was exempt so the bodies of the dead there could be buried appropriately and not defile the land) and consisted of hot, boiling water (those in Israel were killed by the heat). All the mountains were covered and the laws of nature were suspended for the year that the waters were on the earth.

I am not an expert here. A traditional Orthodox rabbi should be consulted.

98 posted on 05/31/2006 1:36:38 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Barukh Kevod HaShem mimMeqomo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
You don't know anything about Biblical literary styles or Hebrew writing do you? The Hebrew word for days in Genesis doesn't explicitly say 24 hr days, in fact context dictates otherwise. That means the days in Exodus 20:8-11 aren't 24hr days either.

Young-Earthism is NOT Biblical

99 posted on 05/31/2006 3:56:19 PM PDT by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that:

The Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refer to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day.

The attaching of an ordinal (such as “first”) or other appendage (such as “long”) to day does not always indicate a 24-hour day. See Zechariah 14:7, which uses “one day” or “a day” depending on the translation and Hosea 6:2. Scholars have long interpreted the use of day in these prophetic verses as meaning years or longer periods. There is no good reason to dismiss these examples simply because they are considered prophecy. In 1 Samuel 7:2, the word for day is translated as “long time” or “the time was long” and refers to twenty years. In Deuteronomy 10:10, day is translated as “the first time” and refers to forty days. In 1 Chronicles 29:27 the word for day is translated as “the time” and refers to forty years (some translations leave it out since the context makes it repetitive).

And most importantly:

Genesis 1 does not refer to the “days” as 24-hour days. The text only reads as day, so you have to look at the context. The New International Version (NIV) and some other translations set the days off differently, and more accurate to the Hebrew, than do other translations. The King James Version (KJV), or ones that over-simplify such as The Living Bible (TLB), are not as accurate to the Hebrew and make it sound as if these were 24-hour days. Compare and you will see the difference. KJV: “And the evening and morning were the first day.” NIV: “And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day.” The Hebrew matches the latter translation more precisely, which shows that a 24-hour day is not as obvious as some claim. If it were a 24-hour day, one would expect it to obviously say so. The text, however, seems to be indicating something else.

100 posted on 05/31/2006 4:04:04 PM PDT by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-259 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson