Beliefs Regarding The Flood

[valiant]

Who's timeline are you going by? Man's, or the Bible's?

The GENUINE Bible timeline. Not the fictitious one invented by Ussher.

Who said they had to survive for a year? They simply had to survive long enough to reach land untouched by the localized flooding.

but it was not localised flooding. it was a flood of gigantic proportions of a kind not known since. why should there have been land close enough to reach? earth convulsions may well not yet have caused islands. You are simply making the assumptions that suit you.

Explorers throughout the ages never had a problem setting out to discover new lands not included in their "sphere". And they weren't as "primitive" as you make them out to be.

I suggest you study genuine archaeology. they were certainly not advanced. do you know what primitive means? lol I don't think many explorers had been setting out in Noah's day lol

And once again you failed to address the issue as to why Noah would bother to take all of those animals (including the enormous amounts of food they required) into the Ark when there would be countless other animals who remained alive outside of the flooded area.

because the devastated area would need repopulating fairly quickly. Noah and his family would need clean animals for sacrifice. If the amounts of food were so enormous they would never have got on the ark lol you are destroying your own case. Be my guest

 

[purgedconscience]

I suggest you do give the examples. And you will have to make them good. you will be attacked on all sides lol

You're not attacking me at all. You're merely attacking the Word of God which I presented and you so poorly refuted. That was, I guess, excuse the pun, a valiant effort. I'll leave it to others to determine which one of us is a poor scholar. For now, just a little music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axJlSIZbaRo

 

[Budman]

The GENUINE Bible timeline. Not the fictitious one invented by Ussher.

You say it was in "prehistoric" times. Okay. What year then, was the Flood?

but it was not localised flooding. it was a flood of gigantic proportions of a kind not known since. why should there have been land close enough to reach? earth convulsions may well not yet have caused islands. You are simply making the assumptions that suit you.

When I say localized, I'm simply referring to a flood that was not worldwide in scope. You presented a boundary - not me. You seem to want to expand the boundary when it suits you. I'm simply suggesting that if the floodwaters ended when they reached a certain land, then that land could be attained.

I suggest you study genuine archaeology. they were certainly not advanced. do you know what primitive means? lol

They were advanced enough to make tools, build cities, and watercraft. They certainly were not primitive brutes.

I don't think many explorers had been setting out in Noah's day lol

Aside from assumption, you know this how?

because the devastated area would need repopulating fairly quickly. Noah and his family would need clean animals for sacrifice. If the amounts of food were so enormous they would never have got on the ark lol you are destroying your own case. Be my guest

That's ridiculous. God could have easily and quickly brought in countless animals from outside the flooded zone.

And if the flood was not worldwide, why did God have Noah build a boat in the first place? Why not simply tell him to move?

After all, he had over 120 years to make such a journey.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

The Great Flood. Do you believe it was:

1. Local

2. Worldwide

3. An Allegorical Story

Simply curious. Nothing more.

It was worldwide. The topography of the mountains, canyons, and rivers of the world are much better explained by a cataclysmic worldwide flood than they are by "billions of years of geological evolution." There's no legitimate doubt of the facts, or that it was about 4,400 years ago.

 

[crossnote]

I'm not sure if the above clinches it, crossnote. The earth was not literally destroyed with water as we are required to read 2 Peter if doing so literalistic ally, and then apparently replaced by another earth (as opposed to "the world that then existed"). Going from the account in Genesis, it was the people and the animals (and also presumably many plants) that were destroyed, not the actual earth (though of course the earth may have moved around some). His reference to the earth is strictly to living things, otherwise it becomes incoherent.

So his comparison, on his own terms, isn't simply 1:1. Analogies should not be made to run on all fours - his point is that the human history itself contains judgement, and is no excuse to scoff. That's the point he makes.

Anyway, I think a lot of it boils down to whether you are a YEC or fit into some other group. I think it would be difficult to be a YEC and not believe in a truly global flood, and it may well be the case that belief in a global flood requires you to then adopt a YEC position.

I tend to hold to a localised position, though I'm by no means dogmatically behind any of the positions. I have trouble reconciling the idea of a simultaneous Earth-wide flood (despite the people, based on what Biblical evidence there is, living mostly in one regional location) with what we otherwise know of the world. I'm not talking complicated theories of evolution, but much more straightforward assessments of the fossil record, etc, that if we were wrong about, we would likely have to conclude either that our ability to think is so compromised that almost everything we know about the world, the Bible, etc is suspect, or that the world is deliberately arranged in such a way as for us to draw false conclusions about it.

2 Peter 3:6-7 (KJV)
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Overflowed...

14.34 κατακλύζω ου̂ m: (includes: κατακλυσμός) a large flood with destructive force (more intense and extensive than πλήμμυρα flood, 14.33) - flood, deluge. κατακλύζω κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετο the world was destroyed by being flooded with water 2PE.3:6. κατακλυσμός κατακλυσμὸν κόσμῳ ἀσεβω̂ν ἐπάξας brought the flood on the world of godless people 2PE.2:5.
In the NT κατακλύζω and κατακλυσμός occur only in 2 Peter and are used exclusively of the catastrophic flood in the time of Noah. Such a flood may be spoken of as a flood that destroys or much water which destroys. (Louw Nida)

 

[crossnote]

2 Peter 3:5, 7 (KJV)

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

It's as if it's saying, the same Word that formed the earth and waters flooded the earth by water...will be the same Word that destroys the heavens and earth by fire.

Both are total, not local. The difference is that the first was restricted to the earth, while the next will include both the earth and heavens.

 

[valiant]

You're not attacking me at all. You're merely attacking the Word of God which I presented and you so poorly refuted. That was, I guess, excuse the pun, a valiant effort. I'll leave it to others to determine which one of us is a poor scholar.

No I am defending the word of God against extremists I am taking it seriously. As you say we will let others judge.

 

[valiant]

You say it was in "prehistoric" times. Okay. What year then, was the Flood?

Possibly around 10000 BC. Certainly prehistoric. Writing was not invented prior to 3500 BC.

When I say localized, I'm simply referring to a flood that was not worldwide in scope. You presented a boundary - not me. You seem to want to expand the boundary when it suits you.

No I merely limit it to how far mankind had spread. Perhaps you can tell me how far that was? I leave it to God to decide the boundary.

I'm simply suggesting that if the floodwaters ended when they reached a certain land, then that land could be attained.

But not if that whole continent surrounded by water was under water.

They were advanced enough to make tools, build cities, and watercraft. They certainly were not primitive brutes.

'Brutes' is your word, not mine. There is no evidence that at that stage they could build cities as we know them. Cain's 'city' would be a tent encampment or a group of caves. Whilst they could no doubt make primitive tools, there is no evidence that they could build seacraft. If it pleases you I will grant a dugout canoe.

Aside from assumption, you know this how?

Because I do not believe that they had the seacraft.

That's ridiculous. God could have easily and quickly brought in countless animals from outside the flooded zone.

Swimming? Or in submarines?

And if the flood was not worldwide, why did God have Noah build a boat in the first place? Why not simply tell him to move?

Firstly because it provided an evangelistic opportunity. Every year that passed was a warning to those around. and meanwhile he was preaching righteousness.

Secondly because he would not think in those terms.

After all, he had over 120 years to make such a journey.

Perhaps God had something to do with it? LOL

 

[valiant]

2 Peter 3:5, 7 (KJV)

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

that is the kosmos, the inhabited earth. that is why it changes from ge = earth, piece of land.

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

It's as if it's saying, the same Word that formed the earth and waters flooded the earth by water...will be the same Word that destroys the heavens and earth by fire.

Well no one doubts that it was by the same LOGOS. Of course He formed the dry land (ge)and water. And flooded the dry land. and will destroy both heaven and earth. No problem.

Both are total,

evidence?

not local. The difference is that the first was restricted to the earth, while the next will include both the earth and heavens.

'the first was restricted to dry land' but not necessarily all dry land. the next will include the universe. there is no direct parallel.

you have to PROVE a case not dogmatically state it

 

[JackH]

It was worldwide. The topography of the mountains, canyons, and rivers of the world are much better explained by a cataclysmic worldwide flood than they are by "billions of years of geological evolution." There's no legitimate doubt of the facts, or that it was about 4,400 years ago.

And your proof of this is where?

The Smithsonian or Carnegie or other reputable museums?

In reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Or only at YEC websites like ICR, AIG, and CMI and Dr. Dino videos?

You said that there is fossil footprint evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans.

Right?

 

[valiant]

It was worldwide. The topography of the mountains, canyons, and rivers of the world are much better explained by a cataclysmic worldwide flood than they are by "billions of years of geological evolution."

well I am not arguing for billions of years of geological evolution, but ANY theory about what a worldwide flood would do is pure speculation. We have nothing on which to base our arguments. If only it was so simple

There's no legitimate doubt of the facts, or that it was about 4,400 years ago.

There are many legitimate doubts about a worldwide flood. And you are saying around 2400 BC? Impossible !!! The flood was ancient history in 2400 BC. we know too much about history going back 1000s of year for that to be true. Are you suggesting that the flood came AFTER the building of the first pyramid in Egypt?

 

[valiant]

I do not interpret scripture. No one has the right to do that. I allow scripture to intrepret its self then I generalize truths which the text presents.

But Scripture doesn't interpret itself. That is a fallacy. The moment we come to Scripture we have to take into account the meaning of words and sentences, the fallibility of language, the problem of understanding their environment and a host of other things. And you have to do it whether you like it or not.

I realise that you approach Scripture as though it was written in America in the 21st century. But it was not. It was written in fallible languages by people whose viewpoint was totally different from our own and who used idioms that we often misinterpret. My view is that that is one of your problems. I won't harp on that. But the idea that you take Scripture 'literally' is a joke. For taking it literally would mean taking its meaning on the basis of the viewpoints of the writers. And you seem to make no attempt to do that. Fortunately God wrote it in such a way that its message can get over even when we are 'interpreting it' wrongly. That is why Europeans, Africans, Asians and even Americans can gain spiritual truth from it while differing widely in interpretation. . American methods are NOT the be all and end all of Scripture interpretation.

 

[oldhermit]

But Scripture doesn't interpret itself. That is a fallacy. The moment we come to Scripture we have to take into account the meaning of words and sentences, the fallibility of language, the problem of understanding their environment and a host of other things. And you have to do it whether you like it or not.

I realise that you approach Scripture as though it was written in America in the 21st century. But it was not. It was written in fallible languages by people whose viewpoint was totally different from our own and who used idioms that we often misinterpret. My view is that that is one of your problems. I won't harp on that. But the idea that you take Scripture 'literally' is a joke. For taking it literally would mean taking its meaning on the basis of the viewpoints of the writers. And you seem to make no attempt to do that. Fortunately God wrote it in such a way that its message can get over even when we are 'interpreting it' wrongly. That is why Europeans, Africans, Asians and even Americans can gain spiritual truth from it while differing widely in interpretation. . American methods are NOT the be all and end all of Scripture interpretation.

That certainly explains a great deal about you.

 

[flob]

Does anyone see a possibility of TWO worldwide floods in the scriptures?

Of course.
Jehovah who created the heavens---He is the God who formed the earth and made it; He established it; He did not create it waste, but He formed it to be inhabited, Isa 45:18.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters...And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters. And God made the expanse and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse, and it was so...And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas; and God saw that it was good,
Gen 1:1-10.
When the unclean spirit goes out from the man, it roams through waterless places, seeking rest, and does not find it,
Mt 12:43.
And I saw a great white throne...And I saw the dead...And the sea gave up the dead which were in it,
Rv 20:11-13.

No. No. No. Genesis 1 doesn't allow for a worldwide flood.
There was no Luciferian Flood or anything in Genesis 1.
Please let's stick to reading the Bible in a historical-grammatical manner.

Lol.......how not?
(Yes let's read the Bible grammatically and historically.)

The GENUINE Bible timeline. Not the fictitious one invented by Ussher.

Ussher added Bible genealogy numbers, etc, to count 4,000 years from Adam to Christ.
How is that 'fictitious'? Ussher deliberately wrote fiction..........or made mistakes?
Is it 'fictitious' because many nonchristians don't believe it?
But most of all, then, what Is the genuine Bible timeline?
It would be a big help to post it.

There are many legitimate doubts about a worldwide flood. And you are saying around 2400 BC? Impossible !!! The flood was ancient history in 2400 BC. we know too much about history going back 1000s of year for that to be true. Are you suggesting that the flood came AFTER the building of the first pyramid in Egypt?

Please feel welcome to elaborate the timeline of Egypt, and its sources

 

[Elizabeth619]

I really can't under why there is so much confusion about this. Other ths some of you just love to argue.

 

[oldhermit]

I really can't under why there is so much confusion about this. Other ths some of you just love to argue.

Hey, come and join us on the Speak Your Mind thread. We have a lot of fun over there. It is just a place to hang out and get to know one another.

 

[Elizabeth619]

Hey, come and join us on the Speak Your Mind thread. We have a lot of fun over there. It is just a place to hang out and get to know one another.

Will later. In a meeting lol. Id rather be on here

 

[oldhermit]

Will later. In a meeting lol. Id rather be on here

Start out be reading the first few pages and this will give you a pretty good idea what the thread is all about.

 

[JackH]

Ussher added Bible genealogy numbers, etc, to count 4,000 years from Adam to Christ.
How is that 'fictitious'? Ussher deliberately wrote fiction..........or made mistakes?
Is it 'fictitious' because many nonchristians don't believe it?

Many Christians don't believe it either.

Ushher's dates were in the King James Bible for a couple hundred years, as in 4004 BC was printed next to the verses in Genesis 1, and so on.

Why were those dates taken out of the KJV?

 

[flob]

Every KJV? I thought something called the Scofield reference Bible might still have them. I'll have to look at my KJVs to see which do. The Scofield itself was edited in several ways. Maybe it's because of fear (or respect) of the world? Because of caution not to use something so exact as a dated timeline in such a lengthy, mysterious, book? I really shouldn't guess for the publishers