The Flood in Noah's day

[Bowman]

This is, I assert, why you believe in a localized flood... because you're trying to make the flood narrative consistent with geology. But before we had the geological evidence, do you honestly believe that people thought that this passage referred to a localized flood?

A local flood satisfies all the requirements.

 

[WeStand]

It was Regional for a number of reasons. 1: Jerusalem had the unclean birth in the land of Praise/Judah

2: Jerusalem; the BullsEye of The Whole Bible.

3: This IS loooong before the Covenant made In Love by Our Father through the families of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that didn't go anywhere geographically speaking until the time of Joshua; which is loooooong after the Covenant that began with Abraham and Sarah in the beginning of the 120 flesh year generations.

4: This is a cleansing of Jerusalem of Giants/Geber/Nephilium; the product of beings of flesh, that resulted from flesh humans mixing with fallen angels.

5: There were still Giants/Geber/Nephilium left alive in ALL the neighbouring areas of Judeah, as it is not until after the flood that Israel goes forth to subdue these great walled and evil cities, that they were instructed to destroy EVERY man, woman and CHILD! (would be pretty hard to understand, IF! one has not heard The Father's Word.) as these were the FIRST land blessings that were acquired by Israel; and when studied, known to be for the tribes of Judah and Benjiman.

The other 10 tribes taking The Word geographically from there with Joshua, facing the same issue; dealing with lands infected by Giants/Geber/Nephilium and ignorant of GOD'S Word. This goes on until David eventually. finally cleanses Jerusalem again when he becomes king of both Judah and Israel; BUT! theres still the land blessings of Mannasah and Ephriam, Jacobs/Israel's grandchildren to consider, that have not yet come to pass.

6: There are the land blessings of Essau, Lot and Ishmeal to consider, that have no records in their History that suggests that they went through such an ordeal.

7: A living Dove brought a live Olive Branch to Noah suggesting that there is still life besides whats on the ark.

That's a few reasons anyways.

 

[oldhermit]

In the text leading up to the flood...

Do you actually think that the locations mentioned in the text leading up to the flood represent all of the populated areas of the earth. If so, what evidence can you provide that will support this contention? Even if the human population were limited to a particular region, this still does not explain the destruction of all animal life globally.

No where does scripture ever inform the reader that the genealogies should be summed. Especially when there are provable gaps in them....come on....

Show me where you think the genealogical gaps occur.

If the flood had been global, then global place-names would have been mentioned.

By what rule of exegesis do you determine this?

Scripture speaks for itself.

Indeed it does and you are not saying what the text says.

You seem to not like what it says..

You are the one trying to manipulate the grammar to make it say something else.

The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's # H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's # H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or"ground." Here are some examples of the Hebrew words kol erets:

That is true.

The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)

Here, the designation of whole is well divined by the text as being limited to the area of Havilah. Thus, it means exactly what it says - the whole land of Havilah.

And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)
Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area, instead of our entire planet.

Yes, and the designation of whole is well divined by the text as being limited to the area of Cush.

Here are some more examples of where kol erets refers to a local area:

"Is not the whole [kol] land [erets] before you? Please separate from me: if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left." (Genesis 13:9)

And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth. (Genesis 41:57)

Then God said, "Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all [kol]the earth [erets], nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you. (Exodus 34:10)

'You shall then sound a ram's hornabroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets]. (Leviticus 25:9)

'Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption ofthe land. (Leviticus 25:24)

behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dryon all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken." (Judges 6:37, also 6:39-40)

And Jonathan smote the garrison ofthe Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, "Let the Hebrews hear." (1 Samuel 13:3)

For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured. (2Samuel 18:8)

So when they had gone about through the whole [kol] land [erets], they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. (2 Samuel 24:8)

And all [kol] the earth [erets]was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. (1 Kings 10:24)

Then the fame of David went outinto all [kol] the lands [erets]; and the LORD brought the fear of him on all the nations. (1 Chronicles 14:17)

And David said, "My sonSolomon is young and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for the LORD shall be exceedingly magnificent, famous and glorious throughout all [kol] lands [erets]. (1 Chronicles 22:5)

And they were bringing horses for Solomon from Egypt and from all [kol] countries [erets]. (2 Chronicles 9:28)
As can be seen above, in the majority of instances kol erets does not refer to the entire planet earth. In fact, of the 205 instance of kol erets in the Old Testament, it might refer to the entire planet just 40 times, and even some of those are questionable.
About half of those instances occur in the book of Psalms and Isaiah.

In every one of these examples the words kol erets is well defined by the text. In the case of the flood the words kol erets are also here will defined by the text. Notice how the text defines the use of kol erets.

The whole is defined as that in which all flesh resides. ALL life does not just mean jus human life. As defined by the test it is says ALL LIFE ON THE EARTH. This is not possible in a regional or localized flood.

It is defines as everything that from under heaven.

Its scope is defined as covering all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens. Not just the mountains but all the mountains. Not just all the mountains but, all the high mountains. Not just all the high mountains but, all the high mountains under the heavens. This is simply impossible is a regional flood. This can only occur in a global flood. Not even the laws of physics will allow this to occur in a localized global flood. So, either the scripture is wrong or your regional flood theory is wrong.
Just as in all the examples you provided, kol erets is defined by its immediate context. You can see that in all the passages you listed, why can you not see it here???

Please, read this text again and see how GOD defines the extent of kol erets.

6:13 “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth (NOT THE REGION) is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth." NOT THE REGION... 17“Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
7:4 “For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made. The target of destruction is not just man. It is EVERY LIVING THING."
19 "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21 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."

You must be confusing me with another...

Yes, I think you are right. But, you cannot bring your own ideas into the text and then try to reconstruct the grammar in such a way that you feel will create a synthesis between your theories and the plain language of the text. The text means exactly what it says and renders its own definition of the 'whole earth'.

 

[Bowman]

Do you actually think that the locations mentioned in the text leading up to the flood represent all of the populated areas of the earth. If so, what evidence can you provide that will support this contention?

Biblical clues to the geographical limits on human habitation can be found in the place-names Genesis mentions or does not mention.

In Genesis 1-9 the text mentions place-names only in the environs of Mesopotamia.

From Genesis 10 onward, we encounter references (by name or direction) to places beyond Mesopotamia, in fact, to places covering much of the Eastern hemisphere.

This sudden shift from narrow to wider geographical range after Genesis 10 strongly suggests that until the time of the Flood, human beings and their animals remained in and around Mesopotamia. Therefore, to fulfill His purpose in sending the deluge, God would need to flood only the Mesopotamian plain and perhaps some adjacent territories.

Even if the human population were limited to a particular region, this still does not explain the destruction of all animal life globally.

What makes you think that penguins were exterminated?

 

[Bowman]

Show me where you think the genealogical gaps occur.

No summation of genealogies is declared anywhere in scripture either from the creation, or from the Flood, as there is from the descent into Egypt to the Exodus (Ex 12.40)....or even from the Exodus to the building of the temple (1 Kings 6.1).

Further, genealogies are frequently abbreviated. This is apparent even in Mat 1 with regard to Jesus. In verse 8, three names are omitted between Joram Ozias, etc, etc. All well documented.

By what rule of exegesis do you determine this?

A simple reading of the text is all that is required....even in English is sufficient.

 

[Bowman]

In every one of these examples the words kol erets is well defined by the text. In the case of the flood the words kol erets are also here will defined by the text. Notice how the text defines the use of kol erets.

The whole is defined as that in which all flesh resides. ALL life does not just mean jus human life. As defined by the test it is says ALL LIFE ON THE EARTH. This is not possible in a regional or localized flood.

It is defines as everything that from under heaven.

Its scope is defined as covering all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens. Not just the mountains but all the mountains. Not just all the mountains but, all the high mountains. Not just all the high mountains but, all the high mountains under the heavens. This is simply impossible is a regional flood. This can only occur in a global flood. Not even the laws of physics will allow this to occur in a localized global flood. So, either the scripture is wrong or your regional flood theory is wrong.

Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis,brother.

Psalm 104 directly eliminates any possibility of a global flood.

Psalm 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with added detail).

The verse that eliminates a global flood follows:

He founded the earth on its foundations; it shall not be shaken forever and ever.
You have covered the deep as with a robe; the waters stood above the mountains.
From Your rebuke, they flee; from the sound of Your thunder, they hurry away.
They go up the mountains; they go down the valleys to the place which You
founded for them. You have set a boundary that they may
not pass over; they shall not return to cover the
earth. (Psalm 104.5-9)


Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local.

 

[Bowman]

Please, read this text again and see how GOD defines the extent of kol erets.

6:13 “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth (NOT THE REGION) is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth." NOT THE REGION... 17“Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
7:4 “For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made. The target of destruction is not just man. It is EVERY LIVING THING."
19 "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21 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."

There is an interesting passage from 2 Peter that gives some insight into the nature of the flood:

For this is hidden from them by their willing it so, that heavens were of old, and earth by water, and through water, having subsisted by the Word of God, through which the world which then was, being flooded by water, perished. (2Peter 3:5-6)


Peter, instead of just telling us that the entire planet was flooded, qualifies the verse by telling us that the "world which then was" was flooded with water.

What was different about the world "at that time"compared to the world of today?

At the time of the flood, all humans were in the same geographic location (the people of the world were not scattered over the earth until Genesis 11).

Therefore, the "world which then was" was confined to the Mesopotamian plain. There would be no reason to qualify the verse if the flood were global in extent.

 

[Radius]

the flood was global...unless you subscribe to this scenario...

View attachment 56641

lol I always get a chuckle from this pic.

 

[oldhermit]

Biblical clues to the geographical limits on human habitation can be found in the place-names Genesis mentions or does not mention.

In Genesis 1-9 the text mentions place-names only in the environs of Mesopotamia.

From Genesis 10 onward, we encounter references (by name or direction) to places beyond Mesopotamia, in fact, to places covering much of the Eastern hemisphere.

This sudden shift from narrow to wider geographical range after Genesis 10 strongly suggests that until the time of the Flood, human beings and their animals remained in and around Mesopotamia. Therefore, to fulfill His purpose in sending the deluge, God would need to flood only the Mesopotamian plain and perhaps some adjacent territories.

All of this is a completely pointless argument.

The highest mountain peak in the Mesopotamian region is 8,000 feet in elevation. In a limited regional flood, there is no way that even this mountain peak could be covered completely with water. The laws of physics demands that water must seek its own level. Since this region is bordered by the Mediterranean Sea to the west, the Red sea the south west, the Persian Gulf to the south east and the Caspian sea to the east, the region would never be able to retain enough water to allow a flood to rise to a sufficient level to cover an 8,000' peak. Not even the law of physics will support the regional flood theory.

What makes you think that penguins were exterminated?

Penguins were not exterminated. This was the point of the ark. Since the penguin is an unclean bird, there were two pair of penguins of however many varies existed at that time aboard the ark to preserve the species. All the others were destroyed.

 

[oldhermit]

No summation of genealogies is declared anywhere in scripture either from the creation, or from the Flood, as there is from the descent into Egypt to the Exodus (Ex 12.40)....or even from the Exodus to the building of the temple (1 Kings 6.1).

The information is there. All you have to do is dig it out of the text. I know because I spent the time to do it.

Further, genealogies are frequently abbreviated. This is apparent even in Mat 1 with regard to Jesus. In verse 8, three names are omitted between Joram Ozias, etc, etc. All well documented.

That is true but, not is the genealogical records of Genesis. If you think it is, I would challenge you to set forth the evidence that supports this.

A simple reading of the text is all that is required....even in English is sufficient.

Apparently not. You do not seem to understand it.

 

[Bowman]

All of this is a completely pointless argument.

The highest mountain peak in the Mesopotamian region is 8,000 feet in elevation. In a limited regional flood, there is no way that even this mountain peak could be covered completely with water. The laws of physics demands that water must seek its own level. Since this region is bordered by the Mediterranean Sea to the west, the Red sea the south west, the Persian Gulf to the south east and the Caspian sea to the east, the region would never be able to retain enough water to allow a flood to rise to a sufficient level to cover an 8,000' peak. Not even the law of physics will support the regional flood theory.

Genesis 7 does not claim that water stood above the highest mountains; rather, it says that an enormous deluge fell upon or ran over or covered the highest hills visible to Noah.

Penguins were not exterminated. This was the point of the ark. Since the penguin is an unclean bird, there were two pair of penguins of however many varies existed at that time aboard the ark to preserve the species. All the others were destroyed.

The creatures earmarked for rescue included only Noah, Noah's family, and birds and mammals that had significant contact with humanity.

 

[Bowman]

The information is there. All you have to do is dig it out of the text. I know because I spent the time to do it.

No.

You have not.

That is true but, not is the genealogical records of Genesis. If you think it is, I would challenge you to set forth the evidence that supports this.

It was YOUR assertion that they could be summed....thus, the onus is on you...

 

[oldhermit]

Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis, brother.

Yes, that is true. But, the biblical account is the only account that is provided by God himself. This is HIS record of the event.

Psalm 104 directly eliminates any possibility of a global flood
Psalm 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with added detail).
The verse that eliminates a global flood follows:
He founded the earth on its foundations; it shall not be shaken forever and ever.
You have covered the deep as with a robe; the waters stood above the mountains.
From Your rebuke, they flee; from the sound of Your thunder, they hurry away.
They go up the mountains; they go down the valleys to the place which You
founded for them. You have set a boundary that they may
not pass over; they shall not return to cover the
earth. (Psalm 104.5-9)

Psalms 104 is an excellent description of the flood that confirms that waters covered the mountains.
You have set a boundary that they may not pass over; they shall not return to cover the earth. (Psalm 104.5-

Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local

.

This is what God declared when he said he would never again destroy the earth by flood. If this is strictly a regional flood then God's promise makes absolutely no sense because there have been many floods over the centuries that have destroyed regions. Did God lie????

 

[oldhermit]

There is an interesting passage from 2 Peter that gives some insight into the nature of the flood:

For this is hidden from them by their willing it so, that heavens were of old, and earth by water, and through water, having subsisted by the Word of God, through which the world which then was, being flooded by water, perished. (2Peter 3:5-6)


Peter, instead of just telling us that the entire planet was flooded, qualifies the verse by telling us that the "world which then was" was flooded with water.

What was different about the world "at that time"compared to the world of today?

At the time of the flood, all humans were in the same geographic location (the people of the world were not scattered over the earth until Genesis 11).

Therefore, the "world which then was" was confined to the Mesopotamian plain. There would be no reason to qualify the verse if the flood were global in extent.

You know good and well this is not what Peter is implying when he made this observation. You are trying to limit Peter's application of the flood with absolutely not grounds of support. There is nothing in the language that even suggests that the flood was geographically limited.

 

[oldhermit]

Genesis 7 does not claim that water stood above the highest mountains; rather, it says that an enormous deluge fell upon or ran over or covered the highest hills visible to Noah.

Gen. 7:20 - "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered."

The creatures earmarked for rescue included only Noah, Noah's family, and birds and mammals that had significant contact with humanity.

I think you know better than this. Your are reaching for an argument that cannot be made. 7:2-3 "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."

 

[oldhermit]

No.

You have not.

It was YOUR assertion that they could be summed....thus, the onus is on you...

Would you like me to provide you with a limited excerpt of my research on this or do you have you mind made up on the matter?

 

[iamsoandso]

i seem to have two minds it seems,at times i review my old post and notice a thing i once knew so well i begin to recite,yet in the midst my fingers obey mine brain,but my brain does not obey mine spirit. on a good day,when i do not over exert myself and a sufficient amount of oxygen is present i am still iamsoandso,but tomorrow or the next it may be better if i no more preach for fear of more damage than good.

from the first page of the post,,,Pangaea (above sea level is arbitrary),in the day of the flood the elevation of the highest point was one elevation in aspect to the land mass together. yet again in motion the continents dividing both in expanse and elevation,Atlantis(so they say),and the south pole(that is they say after core drilling reveals a tropical zone during Pangaea),,in motion,separating it's self from Pangaea then fell below sea level increasing the volume of water in the earth by the total volume of land mass applied to the Americas and the south pole,raising the sea level by the sum of such applied. lest maybe others,Australia,New Zealand ect. also apply.

at some point some scripture should apply so i offer gen. 6;17,flood,,,,gen. 7;4,rain,,,and genesis 7;11-12,,,,,"were broken up",,,,that is this flood both came from (beneath and above) and as the scripture say's from beneath,,,,"great deep broken up",,,causing a cataclysmic amount of magma to be ejected and then swallowed up in the water rushing in to fill the void,then producing steam and then an amount of rain amounting to the flood of the deluge. and then the same glacieal motion presenting the continents we find today in motion up,and the sea level decreasing in reaction to the mass of such standing above the waters bringing the ark to rest at Ararat. ,,,,well,well ok i got that off my chest,,,,,,

 

[Bowman]

Yes, that is true. But, the biblical account is the only account that is provided by God himself. This is HIS record of the event.

The Psalms ARE Biblical and inspired.

Psalms 104 is an excellent description of the flood that confirms that waters covered the mountains.
You have set a boundary that they may not pass over; they shall not return to cover the earth. (Psalm 104.5-


This is what God declared when he said he would never again destroy the earth by flood. If this is strictly a regional flood then God's promise makes absolutely no sense because there have been many floods over the centuries that have destroyed regions. Did God lie????

You missed it, on purpose.

Psalm 104 describes the development of the earth in the same fashion as that of Gen 1....with a completely water covered surface of the early earth before the mountains formed.

The water mentioned in Gen 1 and in Psalm 104 does not refer to flood waters, brother.

It does confirm that after the mountains were formed that water was to NEVER cover them again....thus destroying your global flood world-view...
Come on...

 

[Bowman]

You know good and well this is not what Peter is implying when he made this observation. You are trying to limit Peter's application of the flood with absolutely not grounds of support. There is nothing in the language that even suggests that the flood was geographically limited.

Peter would not have qualified his statement unless the world at that time was local.

Study up...

 

[Bowman]

I think you know better than this. Your are reaching for an argument that cannot be made. 7:2-3 "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."

How did the penguins make it down from the arctic, brother?