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

This site puts forth the proposition that Noah's flood was local rather than global: The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local. What do you think? A plausible explanation? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/ponder.gif" alt="ponder" title="ponder[/img]

CovenantInBlood,<br><br> I don't mean to be harsh but the Bible says "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.", so I wouldn't even waste my time reading the "new" theories! When they are so obviously against the Word, they are wrong.<br><br>In His Hands,<br><br>Ruth

I might add, that the reason why God brought the flood, so says the Scriptures:<blockquote>Genesis 6:5-7 (ASV) "And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great <span style="background-color:yellow;">in the earth</span>, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Jehovah that he had made man <span style="background-color:yellow;">on the earth</span>, and it grieved him at his heart. And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created <span style="background-color:yellow;">from the face of the ground</span>; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them."</blockquote>It is crystal clear that it was man, not the men who lived in the vicinity where Noah lived. It was all the beasts, creeping things and birds on the earth (all inclusive)who were to be destroyed as well because of the wicked of man (all inclusive).<br><br>The lengths that unbelief will go to circumvent the perspicuous Word of God. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]<br><br>Addendum: I went back and read that article and agree with Hannahsmom; "it is bunk". The author needs to take a class in Hermeneutics 101. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

I just read it, and it appears to be, for lack of a better word..BUNK!<br><br>Hannahsmom

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?

http://www.the-highway.com/creation_Gentry.html<br><br>http://www.the-highway.com/flood_Wilson.html

Kyle,<br><br>A universal worldwide, globe-covering Flood is clearly taught by the Bible. The only reasons for thinking the Flood was otherwise come from outside the Bible. When we use the framework provided by the Bible we find that the physical evidence from the rocks and fossils beautifully fits what the Bible says.<br><br>Furthermore, the realization of the reality of God’s judgment by the Flood in the past should warn us of the reality of the judgment to come—judgment by fire—and stimulate us to be ready for that judgment (2 Peter 3:3–13). Those who are not ‘in Christ’ will suffer the wrath of God (John 3:36).<br><br>If you want to read a study of the arguments and how the Bible's refutes them you may want to read this link.<br><br>Was the Flood global?<br><br><br>Wes<br>

.....the Bible teaches a complete earthly flood. One question he does not answer: If it was ONLY a local flood then why are there rainbows ALL OVER the world. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]<br><br>It would help also if he read 2 Peter 2.

Did you read the article on predestination and free-will on the website. Did the conclusions come from left field or what?

Joe,<br><br>Great point about the rainbows! A related question: Even if it rains at night, does there have to be a rainbow?<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I don't mean to be harsh but the Bible says "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.", so I wouldn't even waste my time reading the "new" theories! When they are so obviously against the Word, they are wrong.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I wonder about that, myself. One can only reinterpret kol erets so far. And it seems to me that centuries of biblical scholarship that has interpreted it as "the whole earth" can't be overturned so easily.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]It is crystal clear that it was man, not the men who lived in the vicinity where Noah lived. It was all the beasts, creeping things and birds on the earth (all inclusive)who were to be destroyed as well because of the wicked of man (all inclusive).</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>The bone tossed in response to that objection is that all men at the time lived in the vicinity of Noah. But then why not be consistent and say that all animals did, also? Because not all animals did, nor all men.

What you are describing is a called lunar rainbow. Rainbows are caused by suspended water droplets refracting light. The light source is typically the sun, but the moon will suffice. Remember that the rainbow is not ONLY for us to see, but more importantly God! He said He, will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth" (Gen 9:16, yes, God is all knowing and He all-knowingly knows our sin and the justice it deserves.......) right after God's word speaks about that local flood having "every living creature of all flesh" in one locality (Gen 9:15). [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>On that point, he said it is referring to the waters that covered the whole earth during creation before land appeared. However, it doesn't look to me like Ps. 104 is referring back to Gen.---it seems very much to be speaking of the flood.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yes, that was an odd point with no textual support.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]God created creation in 6 days, didn't he... [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Haha, not according to this guy, I guess!<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]5. He says, "Certainly archaeopteryx was not a strong flyer."<br><br>Hey, isn't that the bird the evolutionists are touting?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yeah, supposedly it's transitional between dinosaurs and birds, or some such.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]A universal worldwide, globe-covering Flood is clearly taught by the Bible. The only reasons for thinking the Flood was otherwise come from outside the Bible. When we use the framework provided by the Bible we find that the physical evidence from the rocks and fossils beautifully fits what the Bible says.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I believe so, too. I just wanted to see what anyone else thought of the argument presented. It's interesting, but, like a number of arguments similar to it, I think it compromises Scriptural truth for imperfect scientific observation.