Flood - worldwide or local?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A

abcdef

Senior Member
#221
Mar 30, 2016
2,809
111
63
#221
Magenta said:
Everything with the breath of life means just that.

Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. (Gen 7:22, NIV)

All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. (Gen 7:21-23, NASB)
Click to expand...

On the earth of Noah's world, the earth of Noah, not the whole planet.

Just as Israel is the whole earth in the NT., not the whole planet earth.
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#222
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#222
Originally Posted by Magenta
Everything with the breath of life means just that.
Click to expand...

Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. (Gen 7:22, NIV)

All flesh that moved on the land perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the land, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the land.


Only those on the land where Noah was died.
 
Last edited:
Magenta

Magenta

Senior Member
#223
Jul 3, 2015
57,103
26,812
113
#223
abcdef said:
On the earth of Noah's world, the earth of Noah, not the whole planet.

Just as Israel is the whole earth in the NT., not the whole planet earth.
Click to expand...
You were saying it only applied to "ensouled" human life. It was
all life that breathed, not just what you might call ensouled humans.
 
Magenta

Magenta

Senior Member
#224
Jul 3, 2015
57,103
26,812
113
#224
valiant said:
Only those on the land where Noah was died.
Click to expand...
That was not the point. Whatever the scope, all flesh
with the breath of life died except those on the ark.
 
Locutus

Locutus

Senior Member
#225
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
#225
Dino246 said:
Locutus, that is one of the videos I referenced. If it has been debunked, could you please provide information supporting that? No point in continuing to mention it if it has truly been debunked. :)

That said, the internet is full of claims that various theories have been debunked, when in fact they haven't. I'd need to see something pretty substantial.
Click to expand...
Here are some links Dino:

Hydroplate theory - creation.com

Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water

Hydroplate Theory review by David Plaisted - Creation Science Hall of FameCreation Science Hall of Fame
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#226
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,396
113
#226
Utah said:
I don't flat out deny it; I just can't grasp it. The scope is completely beyond my mental capacity and that's why I lean regional. But I appreciate everyone's views.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with everything that Old Hermit posts, but he made an excellent point one time and it rings true.....the very nature of water and how it seeks it's own level proves the flood could not have been local, but rather global.....the water could not have covered the highest peaks by 15 cubit (22.5 feet) if it had been regional....It would have continually ran off the other side of the mountain and would have had to fill the entire earth before it could have prevailed 15 cubits above the highest mountain top........
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#228
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#228
dcontroversal said:
I don't agree with everything that Old Hermit posts, but he made an excellent point one time and it rings true.....the very nature of water and how it seeks it's own level proves the flood could not have been local, but rather global.....the water could not have covered the highest peaks by 15 cubit (22.5 feet) if it had been regional....It would have continually ran off the other side of the mountain and would have had to fill the entire earth before it could have prevailed 15 cubits above the highest mountain top........
Click to expand...
But the account only assumes local mountains known to Noah which were mere hills compared with the Himalayas..
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#229
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#229
Magenta said:
That was not the point. Whatever the scope, all flesh
with the breath of life died except those on the ark.
Click to expand...
but on 'the land' known to Noah. The flood killed off mankind. But it did not reach for example Australia.
 
Last edited:
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#230
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,396
113
#230
valiant said:
But the account only assumes local mountains known to Noah which were mere hills compared with the Himalayas..
Click to expand...

Where did the ark come to rest.....on top of what Mountain? --->Ararat 16,854′ <---It had to be ABOVE this height to come to rest on the top of it (based upon the current height) and over the last xxxx thousand years it obviously has lost height due to erosion.......math speaks!
 
W

wsblind

Guest
#231
#231
dcontroversal said:
120 years HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
Click to expand...
What do you think DC? Maybe I missed something.

I believe the whole concept of the Ark and building of the Ark took 120 years. It was the "cross" on display or the "serpent on the staff" on display for anyone who looked and believed. It was 120 years of Gods Grace on display for anyone who looked and believed.......but nobody did.
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#232
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,396
113
#232
wsblind said:
What do you think DC? Maybe I missed something.

I believe the whole concept of the Ark and building of the Ark took 120 years. It was the "cross" on display or the "serpent on the staff" on display for anyone who looked and believed. It was 120 years of Gods Grace on display for anyone who looked and believed.......but nobody did.
Click to expand...
I believe a 120 years based upon the verbiage bro....
 
W

wsblind

Guest
#233
#233
dcontroversal said:
I believe a 120 years based upon the verbiage bro....
Click to expand...
Your great DC. You have a great way of just getting back to the straight and simple of things. I too often go into the "speculation" aspect of the "why" of what the word accurately and straightforward says.
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#234
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#234
dcontroversal said:
Where did the ark come to rest.....on top of what Mountain? --->Ararat 16,854′ <---It had to be ABOVE this height to come to rest on the top of it (based upon the current height) and over the last xxxx thousand years it obviously has lost height due to erosion.......math speaks!
Click to expand...
who claims that the mountains of Urartu included Mount Ararat? or how high Mount Ararat was at the time of the flood? It is pure speculation,
 
Magenta

Magenta

Senior Member
#235
Jul 3, 2015
57,103
26,812
113
#235
Mount Everest is higher than it used to be, growing at a rate of four millimeters per year.

The fastest growing mountain on Earth is Nanga Parbat in the
western Himalayas. Its height is increasing at a rate of 7 mm/yr.
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#236
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,396
113
#236
valiant said:
who claims that the mountains of Urartu included Mount Ararat? or how high Mount Ararat was at the time of the flood? It is pure speculation,
Click to expand...
No more than assuming the flood did not reach Stralia mate......
 
Magenta

Magenta

Senior Member
#238
Jul 3, 2015
57,103
26,812
113
#238
valiant said:
but on 'the land' known to Noah. The flood killed off mankind. But it did not reach for example Australia.
Click to expand...
That was not the point. The other person had said only ensouled humans died. The point is that all flesh with the breath of life died in the flooded area. I don't care if you wanna say that includes Uranus.
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#239
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#239
Magenta said:
That was not the point. The other person had said only ensouled humans died. The point is that all flesh with the breath of life died in the flooded area. I don't care if you wanna say that includes Uranus.
Click to expand...
I have no quarrel with that :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.