Flood - worldwide or local?

[hornetguy]

miracles establish the rule

Please explain what you mean by this... I think I might know what you are trying to say, but can you clarify?

Are you saying that BECAUSE there is a miracle, it shows that there is a rule? Of COURSE there are rules of physics, etc...

If so, then you've proven my point about a miraculous world wide flood. Simply because physics, etc say that it cannot happen, doesn't mean that God did not do it exactly the way He SAID He did....

YOU are trying to limit God to the restrictions of physics, geology, etc....

 

[Magenta]

translate 'land' instead of 'earth' and it changes the meaning considerably.

Why should I do that?

 

[valiant]

Gen 1:[SUP]9 [/SUP]Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. [SUP]10 [/SUP]And God called the dry land Earth, (eres) and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

the only word in those sentences meaning land/earth actually means 'land' . He called the dry bit 'land'(eretz) and the waters He called seas


In your translation the word land is not in the original

 

[trofimus]

Why should I do that?

Because its the use of it in the OT. They did not have the idea of the planet as we do, after the age of enlightenment.

 

[Magenta]

Because its the use of it in the OT. They did not have the idea of the planet as we do, after the age of enlightenment.

I want to know why that person constantly goes off on tangents that have nothing to do with the points I am making. You cannot answer that

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant

translate 'land' instead of 'earth' and it changes the meaning considerably

Why should I do that?

because it literally means inhabitable land

 

[eternally-gratefull]

the only word in those sentences meaning land/earth actually means 'land' . He called the dry bit 'land'(eretz) and the waters He called seas

lol, deperate much?

the water he called sea

All the dry land he called erets.

Yet you want to say in the flood. He did not mean all the dry land (as apposed to the seas)

It does not matter if it is called earth or not.. All I had to prove was that all of the land on the globe was called erets.

Which I did.

Next..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

because it literally means inhabitable land

No, It did not mean that in Gen 1. It just meant dry land.. as apposed to the sea..

Next..

 

[Magenta]

because it literally means inhabitable land

Which has zero to do with what I posted or was responding to.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

And lets go further.. That dry land in Gen 1: 10? God said in 1: 24 that that same dry land would BRING forth life.. meaning ALL land was to be inhabited..

Next.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant

miracles establish the rule

Please explain what you mean by this... I think I might know what you are trying to say, but can you clarify?

Are you saying that BECAUSE there is a miracle, it shows that there is a rule?

If there is no normal standard to go by there is no miracle.

Of COURSE there are rules of physics, etc...

If so, then you've proven my point about a miraculous world wide flood. Simply because physics, etc say that it cannot happen, doesn't mean that God did not do it exactly the way He SAID He did....

You mean the way YOU see it? God said it in such a way that it is open.

I am not arguing about whether God could do it but whether He did. In my view it should be read as a large flood 'worldwide' by Noah's standards but not as worldwide in our present language. Compare Rom 1.8.,

YOU are trying to limit God to the restrictions of physics, geology, etc....

I take Him at His word. I have no need to restrict Him to anything. But His word is paramount.

 

[NayborBear]

Give me scriptural proof that there were other humans on the ark, beside Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives.
The Bible did NOT say "two of every flesh" ... it said either 7 pairs of clean animals, or two of every animal.... NOT every flesh. Bad reading comprehension.

The Bible says 8 people were saved on the ark ... 8 .....which pretty much rules out any other people being on the ark... unless your goal is to re-write scripture, which I believe a lot of people in this thread are trying to do.

Why is it so difficult for you to simply believe what God TOLD us?

PROOF?.....Here's your proof!

If you would simply read the Bible, and cease from taking that which you WANT, to FIT your "SNOWFLAKE BELIEVER'S" narrative, and USE that thing betweenst yer ears, for more then a hat rack, and THINK? You just MIGHT learn something here!

And, the Bible says, in just the previous chapter, Genesis 6:19-21(KJV) This is God telling Naoh: "19 And of every living thing of ALL FLESH, TWO of EVERY SORT (could be "non-adamic", eh?....think) shalt thou bring into the ark, TO KEEP THEM ALIVE with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, TWO of EVERY SORT shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them."

Now, why are you unable to "believe" that which God told Noah?


I tried to interpret to EG in post #46 of this thread, just what and whom Peter was teaching: "One might think Peter was referring to Noah's flood! They would be incorrect! The "tell" on this is "and the earth standing out of water and in the water,"....According to the writers account of Noah's flood, the water was some 24.5 feet ABOVE the highest mountain, right?....If this is true?...There would be NO earth standing out of the water. Right? Apparently, then, Peter wasn't teaching concerning Noah's flood.

What Peter was teaching, or trying to impart, or "feed" the sheep, was " heavens were of old", and, "the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water." Peter is teaching about the previous earth and heaven age! Compare, " But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word," Peter is teaching about this current earth and heaven age. What is even of much more importance, is just who, or, whom Peter was teaching about! One could say, Peter was teaching about ungodly men, but it goes even deeper then this, and the whom Peter was teaching about! Which is "The OVERTRHOW" or, "Katabol"! Those that make men ungodly, and MAKE men "Willfully Forget". God caused Noah's flood, as a REMINDER to those of the overthrow! What's more?...God didn't relent from the flood waters, until, those of the overthrow, sued for a truce, via the dove with an olive branch! Remember? The raven he sent out first, never came back! There's even a demonination that call themselves "Noahhides, er Noahhites" er something like that.

(Jesus' disclaimer) If, perchance, I offended thee by "overloading your donkey", so to speak, with the truth? Then you have my permission to slap me on the face! After which I shall turn my face, so you may slap the other side! THIS, was what Jesus was teaching about in those verses, and NOT being a pacifist!"


(am glad to see ya BuddyT)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

PROOF?.....Here's your proof!

If you would simply read the Bible, and cease from taking that which you WANT, to FIT your "SNOWFLAKE BELIEVER'S" narrative, and USE that thing betweenst yer ears, for more then a hat rack, and THINK? You just MIGHT learn something here!

SMH,, Need I say any more.. This is what these discussion always turn into..

 

[NayborBear]

SMH,, Need I say any more.. This is what these discussion always turn into..

Yes. EG!...Please kill the messenger! Makes disregarding the message easier, don't it?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes. EG!...Please kill the messenger! Makes disregarding the message easier, don't it?

You killed your own message by the way you started your comments, You think anyone is going to give you a second look when you attack them like that?

Good luck, Even if your content was 100 % accurate, and to the point, the message is lost..

 

[NayborBear]

If you had read HG's reply to BuddyT, you would have seen that it wasn't I who started "condescension made"! I was coming in defense, of BuddyT! It is defiantly not "my style", to beg ANYONE to believe what I post. I certainly want them to..But, even more? I want reader's to THINK about biblical interpretations, and not blindly believe/follow, that ANY particular interpretation of scripture, thought of in a particular manner, spoken/taught 3 times, becomes truth!

FWIW, though, The "interpretation" I gave IS 100% correct, logical, and the ONLY 1 THAT MAKES comparative Biblical SENSE!

 

[hornetguy]

PROOF?.....Here's your proof!

If you would simply read the Bible, and cease from taking that which you WANT, to FIT your "SNOWFLAKE BELIEVER'S" narrative, and USE that thing betweenst yer ears, for more then a hat rack, and THINK? You just MIGHT learn something here!

And, the Bible says, in just the previous chapter, Genesis 6:19-21(KJV) This is God telling Naoh: "19 And of every living thing of ALL FLESH, TWO of EVERY SORT (could be "non-adamic", eh?....think) shalt thou bring into the ark, TO KEEP THEM ALIVE with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, TWO of EVERY SORT shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them."

Now, why are you unable to "believe" that which God told Noah?


I tried to interpret to EG in post #46 of this thread, just what and whom Peter was teaching: "One might think Peter was referring to Noah's flood! They would be incorrect! The "tell" on this is "and the earth standing out of water and in the water,"....According to the writers account of Noah's flood, the water was some 24.5 feet ABOVE the highest mountain, right?....If this is true?...There would be NO earth standing out of the water. Right? Apparently, then, Peter wasn't teaching concerning Noah's flood.

What Peter was teaching, or trying to impart, or "feed" the sheep, was " heavens were of old", and, "the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water." Peter is teaching about the previous earth and heaven age! Compare, " But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word," Peter is teaching about this current earth and heaven age. What is even of much more importance, is just who, or, whom Peter was teaching about! One could say, Peter was teaching about ungodly men, but it goes even deeper then this, and the whom Peter was teaching about! Which is "The OVERTRHOW" or, "Katabol"! Those that make men ungodly, and MAKE men "Willfully Forget". God caused Noah's flood, as a REMINDER to those of the overthrow! What's more?...God didn't relent from the flood waters, until, those of the overthrow, sued for a truce, via the dove with an olive branch! Remember? The raven he sent out first, never came back! There's even a demonination that call themselves "Noahhides, er Noahhites" er something like that.

(Jesus' disclaimer) If, perchance, I offended thee by "overloading your donkey", so to speak, with the truth? Then you have my permission to slap me on the face! After which I shall turn my face, so you may slap the other side! THIS, was what Jesus was teaching about in those verses, and NOT being a pacifist!"


(am glad to see ya BuddyT)

I see no need to start name-calling, but you go ahead, if it makes you feel somehow intellectually superior...

Your interpretation of "all flesh" is simply your attempt at fitting it to YOUR belief. Eisegesis....

noun, plural eisegeses

[ahy-si-jee-seez] /ˌaɪ sɪˈdʒi siz/ (Show IPA) 1. an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

Anyone, reading the text of Genesis would understand clearly that God was talking about animals and birds. To try to twist it to mean other human-like species is simply making up something from whole cloth.

The word is very easy to understand, when it is read in context, using proper exegesis.... which you are not doing.

 

[valiant]

lol, deperate much?

the water he called sea

All the dry land he called erets.

Yet you want to say in the flood. He did not mean all the dry land (as apposed to the seas)

It does not matter if it is called earth or not.. All I had to prove was that all of the land on the globe was called erets.

Which I did.

Next..

So you exclude the seas from the earth? Well done.

 

[valiant]

If you had read HG's reply to BuddyT, you would have seen that it wasn't I who started "condescension made"! I was coming in defense, of BuddyT! It is defiantly not "my style", to beg ANYONE to believe what I post. I certainly want them to..But, even more? I want reader's to THINK about biblical interpretations, and not blindly believe/follow, that ANY particular interpretation of scripture, thought of in a particular manner, spoken/taught 3 times, becomes truth!

FWIW, though, The "interpretation" I gave IS 100% correct, logical, and the ONLY 1 THAT MAKES comparative Biblical SENSE!

we will agree to disagree LOL

 

[valiant]

And lets go further.. That dry land in Gen 1: 10? God said in 1: 24 that that same dry land would BRING forth life.. meaning ALL land was to be inhabited..

Next.

dream on !