Flood - worldwide or local?

[trofimus]

Where does Moses say he wrote part of Genesis from other recorded history? Where are you getting this stuff?

It's ok to be wrong. We ALL have been.

Its quite easy to see different styles in Genesis.

It's ok to be wrong. We ALL have been.

 

[J7]

The earth was one land unit prior to the flood, with no mountains either. (Pangea)

The flood set in motion the breaking up of the earth's plates.

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

It was in Peleg's generation, about 4 generations after the flood, that the earth broke up, and at the same time mountain ranges were formed.

 

[Locutus]

The earth was one land unit prior to the flood, with no mountains either. (Pangea)

The flood set in motion the breaking up of the earth's plates..

No evidence for that, we can see tectonic shift happening today and its not due to water.

 

[J7]

Maybe not cause and effect then. But the rest remains true.

Just seems too much of a coincidence that the greatest eco catastrophe by some margin was soon followed by the break up of the land mass.

Pangea is now quite widely accepted scientifically btw.

 

[Locutus]

Pangea is now quite widely accepted scientifically btw.

True, but not with any biblical flood references.

 

[dcontroversal]

Maybe not cause and effect then. But the rest remains true.

Just seems too much of a coincidence that the greatest eco catastrophe by some margin was soon followed by the break up of the land mass.

Pangea is now quite widely accepted scientifically btw.

Your quote was good......regardless of those who reject it....look up his name in Hebrew....and it amazes me how a simple verse can just be denied and swept under the rug when it explains clearly what happened at that time!

 

[popeye]

Then there is absolutely no reason for the ark..

Noahs perception of land would be like mine. If God told me today he was going to wipe all flesh off the land, and he was going to flood the earth to do it. So make an ark.

I would know by physics and science, If God is going to produce a flood that will kill all life on land.

1. It would have t be a very fast flood. So man could not outrun it (a slow moving flood may kill some people in the immediate vicinity, But the people on higher ground will have time to run to even high ground in order to survice)

2. In order to make sure all flesh , It would have to reach THE HIGHEST MOUNTAIN TOPS

3. In order to do this (again, using science) it would have to be a global event.

So thanks, But no thanks..

God did not read their science books.

He made his own book

 

[valiant]

Keep flappin.....even STRONG's states the order of things

kosmos: order, the world​

Original Word: κόσμος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: kosmos
Phonetic Spelling: (kos'-mos)
Short Definition: the world, universe
Definition: the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment

Well kosmos NEVER means the universe in Scripture for such a concept was unknown. The same is true about 'the world' as we know it. Thus you are left with 'worldly affairs' and 'the inhabitants of the world'. Enough said.

 

[popeye]

It is humorous that the flood,in the atheists mind,can cover the highest mountains,and yet be a local event.

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer,but we have a lot of folks stumbling over a no brainer

 

[popeye]

Well kosmos NEVER means the universe in Scripture for such a concept was unknown. The same is true about 'the world' as we know it. Thus you are left with 'worldly affairs' and 'the inhabitants of the world'. Enough said.

Mountains were more than submerged.

That is a huge problem.

 

[Locutus]

This is the Strong's definition:


Strongs

G2889 kosmos kos'-mos

probably from the base of G2865;

orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or
narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally))

KJV - adorning, world.

 

[valiant]

Where does Moses say he wrote part of Genesis from other recorded history? Where are you getting this stuff?

It's ok to be wrong. We ALL have been.

it is quite obvious that Genesis was written by different hands due to style and content, to say nothing of the covenants around which it was written. For example chapter 14 is totally different from the rest of Genesis, and calls Abram 'the Hebrew', suggesting it was compiled by a foreigner ('the Hebrew' was a foreigners way of seeing the people of God). It dates itself by foreign rulers.

We have to ask, 'why was Genesis written around covenants'? And the answer is because they were the main reason for very early writings. Why was Isaac written about so little? Because he had few covenants.

Furthermore the phrase 'these are the family histories of --' were typical of a colophon added to a tablet to show what it was about or who wrote it.

In those days the fact that Moses took earlier tablets and incorporated them into his text would have been quite normal.

 

[Locutus]

Hard to tell since Nebuchadnezzar and the Leopard (Alexander the Great) were said to have conquered all the Earth. And Paul in Colossians 1:6 is said to have carried the Gospel to all the earth.

Good points..

Also Romans:

(Rom 10:18 KJV) But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

 

[valiant]

Mountains were more than submerged.

That is a huge problem.

But it would only have been the mountains within Noah's cognisance and we do not know how high they were.

 

[valiant]

It is humorous that the flood,in the atheists mind,can cover the highest mountains,and yet be a local event.

the highest mountain known to Noah. The flood was vast (where mankind had reached) but not necessarily worldwide as we know it today.

We can stand in many places and see no mountains at all.

 

[Locutus]

Question:

Why would God have Noah spend 120 years building a huge boat when, in a year, he and his family could simply have hiked out of the region with some supplies and camped out until the flood was over? This view makes nonsense of the story.
​

Answer:

Rather than presenting a problem for a local flood view, this question exposes how young-earth creationism’s plain literal priority in reading the account entirely misses the biblical emphasis of the account. God planned the events to picture judgment and salvation. There is a spiritual dimension to the story, because the ark is a picture of Christ. What young-earth creationists often miss in their zeal to defend a plain-literal reading of the story of Noah’s ark is that it is not about the geological history of planet Earth. It is about the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is made plain by how Peter uses the flood event in 1 Peter 3:21-22.

In God’s plan it was important that Noah enter the ark as an “incarnation” of the gospel; Noah rested in Jesus Christ for salvation. Noah was figuratively “in Christ” while he was “in the ark.” God has a plan whenever he gives his servant a mission, whether it is Noah, Abraham, Ezekiel, or Hosea. Any speculation that wanders from the redemptive purposes of God has lost touch with the biblical emphasis. Once we understand the redemptive purpose God has revealed, the answer to this question is clear. To tell Noah to hike over there where he would be safe from God’s judgment is to teach that man must get up and save himself by his own two feet. Christians should focus on the example of faithful obedience Noah sets rather than speculate on how God would have acted if the flood had been a localized event.

Full text:

Beyond Creation Science Flood Questions 1

 

[NayborBear]

Question:

Why would God have Noah spend 120 years building a huge boat when, in a year, he and his family could simply have hiked out of the region with some supplies and camped out until the flood was over? This view makes nonsense of the story.
​

Answer:

Rather than presenting a problem for a local flood view, this question exposes how young-earth creationism’s plain literal priority in reading the account entirely misses the biblical emphasis of the account. God planned the events to picture judgment and salvation. There is a spiritual dimension to the story, because the ark is a picture of Christ. What young-earth creationists often miss in their zeal to defend a plain-literal reading of the story of Noah’s ark is that it is not about the geological history of planet Earth. It is about the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is made plain by how Peter uses the flood event in 1 Peter 3:21-22.

In God’s plan it was important that Noah enter the ark as an “incarnation” of the gospel; Noah rested in Jesus Christ for salvation. Noah was figuratively “in Christ” while he was “in the ark.” God has a plan whenever he gives his servant a mission, whether it is Noah, Abraham, Ezekiel, or Hosea. Any speculation that wanders from the redemptive purposes of God has lost touch with the biblical emphasis. Once we understand the redemptive purpose God has revealed, the answer to this question is clear. To tell Noah to hike over there where he would be safe from God’s judgment is to teach that man must get up and save himself by his own two feet. Christians should focus on the example of faithful obedience Noah sets rather than speculate on how God would have acted if the flood had been a localized event.

Full text:

Beyond Creation Science Flood Questions 1

Could also "liken" the ark as faith that floats above the "flood of lies"!

 

[J7]

It is plain that all mankind, on all the earth, was destroyed.

Gen 7:4

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

 

[dcontroversal]

Well kosmos NEVER means the universe in Scripture for such a concept was unknown. The same is true about 'the world' as we know it. Thus you are left with 'worldly affairs' and 'the inhabitants of the world'. Enough said.

You do understand the whole order of things right and Peter's version of the world that was PERISHED and the world that NOW IS.....

your right bro...enough said...no sense in me arguing with a fence post

 

[dcontroversal]

It is plain that all mankind, on all the earth, was destroyed.

Gen 7:4

AMEN...and throw in Peter's analogy and it is as plain as the sky is blue on a sunny cloudless day.....the argument that it was local makes me think of the words of Jesus.....the swallow camels and strain on a gnat!