The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Noah's Local Flood?

I had the same reaction as Ruth, but I decided to look and see how this author actually intends to support his claim.<br><br>I see major flaws in his reasoning. First of all, that IS the problem...He is going by mere reason and applying his own logic to the Scriptures, instead of the other way around.<br><br>1. The author writes, "The verse that eliminates a global flood follows: 'You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.' (Psalms 104:9) Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local."<br><br>The text says God will NEVER AGAIN cover the earth. To me, this supports a global flood.<br><br>2. He uses "whole earth" as if it is the same as "whole world." Pilgrim or someone more knowledgeable than I, is there a difference in the language between "whole earth" and "whole world?"<br><br>3. He writes, "If one were to interpret these verses from a global perspective, one would have to conclude that the entire earth became a desert after the flood. Obviously this interpretation is false, so the translations must be bad. In these verses, the dryness of the earth is obviously referring to the local land area and not the entire planet earth."<br><br>WHY? "Completely dry" does not have to mean desert. And what's this about believing all translations are bad?<br><br>4. He writes, "Some animals are indigenous only to that area. More importantly, it would have taken hundreds of years longer to replace the fauna if everything had been wiped out and had to migrate back in. In addition, Noah would have had a huge problem replacing his herds."<br><br>God created creation in 6 days, didn't he...[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>5. He says, "Certainly archaeopteryx was not a strong flyer."<br><br>Hey, isn't that the bird the evolutionists are touting?