the destruction by fire is global because man is now global whereas the judgement by water only covered the region that man occupied. The judgement only covers the region that man occupies.
Was "Noah's Flood" global or local?
- Thread starter jacob_g
- Start date
-
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.
the destruction by fire is global because man is now global whereas the judgement by water only covered the region that man occupied. The judgement only covers the region that man occupies.
the flood came on so quickly that it would have disrupted the eco system because of the destruction of the animals. So the local animals were saved as well as animals for eating and survival.
And remember that Lots daughters thought the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was the end of mankind. They probably thought they could save humanity if they got pregnant and their father was the last man on earth.
With each man living nearly 900 years and the continents perhaps not yet divided, there is no biblical proof that the human population was limited to a certain region rather than spread to all of the earth.
Nor are these...
Gen 7:18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. (ESV Strong's)
I have to add: Genesis 10,25, in the days of Peleg was the earth divided.
There is no other event before ore after which mentioned that the Kontinent where Split in parts, as we have today.
So it is understandable that the flood was global and covered all earth and not only a part.
.
problem; whereas today with our current knowledge of continental drift,
volcanism, and plate tectonics, it's no longer an issue.
In our time, a sixth grade kid with access to YouTube can become
practically an overnight expert in Earth's geological processes.
_
There was a time in the past when that would've been a knotty theological
problem; whereas today with our current knowledge of continental drift,
volcanism, and plate tectonics, it's no longer an issue.
In our time, a sixth grade kid with access to YouTube can become
practically an overnight expert in Earth's geological processes.
_
The sea level was lower during the post-Flood ice age.
.
ages when birds and animals die off rather than proliferate.
_
True enough, sea levels decline during an ice age; however it's during those
ages when birds and animals die off rather than proliferate.
_
Researchers at one of the Creation ministries (I don't recall which) make a good case for there having been only one ice age.
.
● Gen 8:3b-4 . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters diminished, so that
in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the
mountains of Ararat.
The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'Ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears three more
times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38, and one at Jer 51:27.
Ararat in the Bible always refers to a political area-- a country --never a specific
geological feature by the same name.
The Hebrew word for "mountains" in Gen 8:4 is haareey which is the plural of har (har).
It doesn't always mean a prominent land mass like Kilimanjaro; especially when it's
plural. Har can also mean a range of hills or highlands; like the region of Israel where
Miriam's cousin Elizabeth lived.
"At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where
she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth." (Luke 1:39-40)
In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San Diego, in
the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There were plenty of
meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was very good ranchland and
quite a few people in that area raised horses and cows. We ourselves kept about five
hundred chickens, and a few goats and calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego;
but we didn't live up on top of one of its peaks like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.
It makes better sense to beach the ark on the soil of one of Armenia's elevated plains
rather than up on one of its ancient volcanoes seeing as how Noah took up agriculture
after the Flood. Plus, had he been forced to abandoned the ark atop a mountain, Noah
would've lost ready access to an abundant supply of hewn wood that he could
appropriate for other purposes. Noah's sons reproduced so we can be fairly certain that
Noah's posterity-- which eventually numbered quite a few people --would want lumber
from the ark for their needs too.
_
● Gen 8:3b-4 . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters diminished, so that
in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the
mountains of Ararat.
The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'Ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears three more
times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38, and one at Jer 51:27.
Ararat in the Bible always refers to a political area-- a country --never a specific
geological feature by the same name.
The Hebrew word for "mountains" in Gen 8:4 is haareey which is the plural of har (har).
It doesn't always mean a prominent land mass like Kilimanjaro; especially when it's
plural. Har can also mean a range of hills or highlands; like the region of Israel where
Miriam's cousin Elizabeth lived.
"At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where
she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth." (Luke 1:39-40)
In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San Diego, in
the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There were plenty of
meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was very good ranchland and
quite a few people in that area raised horses and cows. We ourselves kept about five
hundred chickens, and a few goats and calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego;
but we didn't live up on top of one of its peaks like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.
It makes better sense to beach the ark on the soil of one of Armenia's elevated plains
rather than up on one of its ancient volcanoes seeing as how Noah took up agriculture
after the Flood. Plus, had he been forced to abandoned the ark atop a mountain, Noah
would've lost ready access to an abundant supply of hewn wood that he could
appropriate for other purposes. Noah's sons reproduced so we can be fairly certain that
Noah's posterity-- which eventually numbered quite a few people --would want lumber
from the ark for their needs too.
_
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
I guess “under the whole heaven” is only regulated To part of the earth And not the whole earth
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Because even after split there were land bridges as the earth settled into its modern day levels also we have erosion and raising and lowering of the ocean level. All animal kinds were in the ark if the flood was only local
1 god could have brought animals back into the flooded land after floods resided
2 Noah and his family could make the trip to the area where there was no flood. In a years time would have been more than long enough for them to travel. And easier than building an ark