The Flood: Historical event or Fable?

[Andrew]

The story says that but you want to treat the story as if it were true for the whole planet.

Obviously it was true for everything under Heaven

 

[MoreCoffee]

Obviously it was true for everything under Heaven

What is not obvious is what "everything under heaven" means. You appear to take it as meaning everything under all the sky of the whole planet. In effect every living and breathing thing on the planet except those on the ark died. Why is that the way you read it? Is it because for you "all the earth" and the other phrases just naturally mean everything that you know exists on the planet? Could it also be true that for whoever wrote the story in Genesis that it meant everything that he knew existed died - remembering that he did not know that the Australia exists, the Americas exist, China, Mongolia, the distant islands of the Pacific and so forth - and that hence he was not writing about places he did not know existed?

 

[Andrew]

What is not obvious is what "everything under heaven" means. You appear to take it as meaning everything under all the sky of the whole planet. In effect every living and breathing thing on the planet except those on the ark died. Why is that the way you read it? Is it because for you "all the earth" and the other phrases just naturally mean everything that you know exists on the planet? Could it also be true that for whoever wrote the story in Genesis that it meant everything that he knew existed died - remembering that he did not know that the Australia exists, the Americas exist, China, Mongolia, the distant islands of the Pacific and so forth - and that hence he was not writing about places he did not know existed?

Noah, his family, and the animals were in the ark for more than a year. Why stay in the ark that long for only a local Flood?

also Peter describes it as a "world" flood
"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"
2 Peter 3:6

Also the vantage point is not of Noah, it's of God

 

[atpollard]

Just out of curiosity, where do you draw the line in deciding what in the story of Noah and the flood is true and what is not?

What about it never raining before the Flood ... the mist watering the ground. True for the world, or just local?

What about the rainbow appearing as a promise from God. True for the world, or just local?

Did everyone live hundreds of years, or was that just a local thing?
Or did Moses just make that age part up?

It becomes a slippery slope that ends in ‘liberal theology’ where all the stories of Jesus are just allegories to teach us how to live ... come on, everyone knows that dead people don’t come back to life; that’s as crazy as a flood covering the whole world!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Noah, his family, and the animals were in the ark for more than a year. Why stay in the ark that long for only a local Flood?

also Peter describes it as a "world" flood
"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"
2 Peter 3:6

Also the vantage point is not of Noah, it's of God

It is possible that Noah was just no good at navigation and that his boat was useless as a seagoing navigable vessel. It was, after all, described as a big box.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Just out of curiosity, where do you draw the line in deciding what in the story of Noah and the flood is true and what is not?

What about it never raining before the Flood ... the mist watering the ground. True for the world, or just local?

What about the rainbow appearing as a promise from God. True for the world, or just local?

Did everyone live hundreds of years, or was that just a local thing?
Or did Moses just make that age part up?

It becomes a slippery slope that ends in ‘liberal theology’ where all the stories of Jesus are just allegories to teach us how to live ... come on, everyone knows that dead people don’t come back to life; that’s as crazy as a flood covering the whole world!

It is a "slippery slope towards treating the story as mythic" I agree. The story is not credible when read as water world Earth. It just is not credible when read that way. So you make your choices; believe the story in an incredible reading or believe it is a story that does not speak about the whole planet.

 

[Andrew]

It is a "slippery slope towards treating the story as mythic" I agree. The story is not credible when read as water world Earth. It just is not credible when read that way. So you make your choices; believe the story in an incredible reading or believe it is a story that does not speak about the whole planet.

If you can't believe God called the waters and called them back to where they were founded than that's your personal problem, this was a global deluge as the Bible describes in great detail, it was NEVER described as LOCAL

"Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth"
Psalm 104:5-9

 

[Andrew]

The phrase, all life, has universal implications. If the Flood were only local, then God's promise of never sending a destructive Flood seems to have been broken. There have been other serious Floods in the world's history that have killed thousands of people. This includes the area of Mesopotamia. The rainbow, that God placed as a promise of no similar Flood, would be a meaningless promise.

"And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."
Genesis 9:15

 

[Andrew]

It is possible that Noah was just no good at navigation and that his boat was useless as a seagoing navigable vessel. It was, after all, described as a big box.

Like I said, if the flood was local, then Gods promise is null and void since there have been local floods throughout history that have killed thousands at a time, so a promise that such a flood would never occur again makes God a LIAR!
The flood was a 'non local' undoing of Gods creation (universal).
Thus the flood was universal.
Admit it and accept Gods promise to Noah.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Like I said, if the flood was local, then Gods promise is null and void since there have been local floods throughout history that have killed thousands at a time, so a promise that such a flood would never occur again makes God a LIAR!
The flood was a 'non local' undoing of Gods creation (universal).
Thus the flood was universal.
Admit it and accept Gods promise to Noah.

If that's how you feel then you best stick with waterworld Earth for about a year in Noah's day.

I do not feel that way so I believe in God and in the Lord Jesus Christ despite thinking that Noah's story may be rather mythic by modern fact stating historical standards.

 

[Andrew]

If that's how you feel then you best stick with waterworld Earth for about a year in Noah's day.

I do not feel that way so I believe in God and in the Lord Jesus Christ despite thinking that Noah's story may be rather mythic by modern fact stating historical standards.

If Noahs story is mythic then so is he and his lineage and so is Jesus.

"These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread"
Genesis 9:19

Does this really mean that by Noahs sons the world was repopulated? How does a local flood destroy all of mankind to the point where it needs to be completely repopulated?

If it were only a small Flood that was going to destroy a localized area, then Noah and his family could have simply moved to some dry area. Why take the time and trouble to build an ark and round up all the animals? Why couldn't the animals be moved? Why couldn't the birds simply have flown away? Building such a huge ship when God gave them advanced warning of judgment does not make sense.

The universality of flood accounts does show that many cultures retained the story of a giant flood that destroyed the entire earth. All these stories cannot be attributed to Christian missionaries. The universality of flood stories seems to require a universal Flood.

 

[NathanH83]

"They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet."
-Genesis 7:19-20

Do local floods cover the highest mountains under the entire heavens?

 

[atpollard]

"They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet."
-Genesis 7:19-20

Do local floods cover the highest mountains under the entire heavens?

Since the parting of the Red Sea, anything is possible.

 

[Albion]

If you can't believe God called the waters and called them back to where they were founded than that's your personal problem, this was a global deluge as the Bible describes in great detail, it was NEVER described as LOCAL

Nor, for what its worth, did I describe the flood as "local." That seems to me to be a word that gets used (by people who believe that the entire planet was covered by this flood) in order to minimize the point made by the rest of us. Its sort of like calling the bread used in communion "wafers"...or the application of water used in baptism by the word "sprinkled," even though the Christians who are being satirized there never use them.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If Noahs story is mythic then so is he and his lineage and so is Jesus.

The approach taken in your post is that if one word or even one jot or tittle of the scriptures is a mistake or in any kind of error then the whole of holy scripture is impugned and all is thereby made unsafe and unreliable. But do you really think that is the truth? How do you account for the inconsistencies in the holy scriptures where, for example, one gospel tells of a gardener being the only person the women encountered and that gardener was in fact Jesus while others say there were two (and one) angel that the women encountered as well as the Lord Jesus (or without mentioning Jesus meeting them)? I know that apologists have explanations for these things and for why the circumference of the "molten sea" is said to be 3 times its diameter when we know that if it were circular it would be 3.1415926... times the diameter. I have read the attempts to explain away many other inconsistencies such as one that I raised before "no man as seen God at any time" and "Moses and the 70 elders of Israel and Aaron saw God on the mountain [Mount Sinai]". There's always a way to wrest the scriptures from the normal natural meaning to preserve a predetermined doctrinal "truth" but those ways and means of making scripture conform to doctrine are not convincing. But if you want to think that everything in the bible becomes unreliable if Noah's ark was not floating 25" higher than mount Everest that is okay with me. I will not take that path with you but you are welcome to take it if you want to.

I do not intend to promote these alleged inconsistencies but here below I will list some and you are free to check them and make what you like of them.

• Women’s Reactions to the Empty Tomb
  The gospels agree that the empty tomb was found by women (though not which women), but what did the women do?
  Mark 16:8 - The women were amazed and afraid, so they kept quiet
  Matthew 28:6-8 - The women ran away “with great joy.”
  Luke 24:9-12 - The women left the tomb and told the disciples
  John 20:1-2 - Mary told the disciples that the body had been stolen
• Jesus’ Behaviour After His Resurrection
  If someone rises from the dead, his actions should be significant, but the gospels don’t agree on how Jesus first behaved
  Mark 16:14-15 - Jesus commissions “the eleven” to preach the gospel
  Matthew 28:9 - Jesus lets Mary Magdalene and another Mary hold his feet
  John 20:17 - Jesus forbids Mary to touch him because he hasn’t ascended to heaven yet, but a week later he lets Thomas touch him anyway
• Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection
  If Jesus rose from the dead, how did his disciples take the news?
  Mark 16:11, Luke 24:11 - Everyone doubts and is scared or both at first, but eventually they go along with it
  Matthew 28:16 - Some doubt, but most believe
  John 20:24-28 - Everyone believes but Thomas, whose doubts are eliminated when he gets physical proof
• Jesus Ascends to Heaven
  It wasn’t enough that Jesus rises from the dead; he also had to ascend to heaven. But where, when, and how did this happen?
  Mark 16:14-19 - Jesus ascends while he and his disciples are seated at a table in or near Jerusalem
  Matthew 28:16-20 - Jesus’ ascension isn’t mentioned at all, but Matthew ends at a mountain in Galilee
  Luke 24:50-51 - Jesus ascends outside, after dinner, and at Bethany and on the same day as the resurrection
  John - Nothing about Jesus’ ascension is mentioned
  Acts 1:9-12 - Jesus ascends at least 40 days after his resurrection, at Mt. Olivet

"These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread"
Genesis 9:19

Does this really mean that by Noahs sons the world was repopulated? How does a local flood destroy all of mankind to the point where it needs to be completely repopulated?

If it were only a small Flood that was going to destroy a localized area, then Noah and his family could have simply moved to some dry area. Why take the time and trouble to build an ark and round up all the animals? Why couldn't the animals be moved? Why couldn't the birds simply have flown away? Building such a huge ship when God gave them advanced warning of judgment does not make sense.

The universality of flood accounts does show that many cultures retained the story of a giant flood that destroyed the entire earth. All these stories cannot be attributed to Christian missionaries. The universality of flood stories seems to require a universal Flood.

 

[Albion]

What is not obvious is what "everything under heaven" means.

Yes. I've been trying to get into the thinking of our super-literal colleagues, and I agree that they must think that heaven is on the Moon or else in the stratosphere or some other literal location in the physical universe. What else could "everything under heaven" mean to them? I am familiar, by the way, with some Baptists who do believe exactly that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes. I've been trying to get into the thinking of our super-literal colleagues, and I agree that they must think that heaven is on the Moon or else in the stratosphere or some other literal location in the physical universe. What else could "everything under heaven" mean to them?

It is a mystery - both what the heavens really are and what our interlocutors really think heavens means. But such is the world of Christian discussion forums. Almost no one is willing to give way and very few attempt to see things from the other's perspective. I understand why Andrew is saying what he says. I know what is it to be in a community and faith tradition that approaches holy scripture that way and how one feels when one believes that way. I will not press him to change but I will not follow him even if I am denounced as a heretic, atheist, or evil liberal because I do not. Mind you, I do not mind too much being denounced. It's happened in CH many times but mostly with people who were self-evidently a little bit on the fringe - do you remember the fellow who said he was a prophet and denounced me and all the rest of us too (eventually) for not believing his message? Anyway, many people feel very strongly the pull to take the bible as Andrew appears to take it.

You may not be interested in this and I mention it only because it may be helpful for some others and perhaps you will like it too; when I was a Presbyterian Ken Ham (then still resident in Queensland Australia) came to preach in the church that I attended, my specific congregation of the denomination (The denomination was called Westminster Presbyterian Church) and he denounced any "christian" who did not accept a 6,000 year old Earth and a literal Global flood and the fundamental untruth of biological evolution, he was especially scathing about old earth creationists and especially theistic evolution. One of the temporary pastors (he was temporary because he was from the USA and was assigned to our denomination for 5 years or so as a missions outreach to help build the denomination) was an old Earth creationist with a favourable view of theistic evolution and he spoke to me and several others immediately after the service in the foyer of the church building about how dangerous he thought Kan Ham's position was because it implied that he and any other Christian who did not agree with Young Earth creationism was not a Christian. What I took away from the incident is that there's a lot of variety in Christian beliefs when the details are examined and that being too strictly adherent to one doctrinal position will soon make virtually the whole of the christian world into heretics.

 

[Albion]

Well, I think that the people who are uptight about such matters as the scope of the deluge or the literal six-days of Creation are most afraid, if they admit that such passages are not to be taken in a strictly literal way, that the invitation is then given for people to second-guess everything else that is in Scripture, including the belief that the Bible is divinely inspired.

 

[psalms 91]

Yes. I've been trying to get into the thinking of our super-literal colleagues, and I agree that they must think that heaven is on the Moon or else in the stratosphere or some other literal location in the physical universe. What else could "everything under heaven" mean to them? I am familiar, by the way, with some Baptists who do believe exactly that.

Guess you dont know about the third heaven or the spiritual realm as opposed to the physical

 

[Albion]

Guess you dont know about the third heaven or the spiritual realm as opposed to the physical

Hmmm. I wrote critically about thinking of heaven as being located in some physical place...and your snarky reply is that I must not know that heaven is a spiritual rather than physical entity.

How'd you get so confused by a pretty straightforward issue, I am wondering??