The Flood: Historical event or Fable?

[psalms 91]

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??

I replied in error then and apologize for that but how did we go from something spiritual to the physical? If I was going to put it in the physical then I would point out the vastness of the universe and we cant see all of it.

 

[Albion]

I replied in error then and apologize for that

Thank you.

but how did we go from something spiritual to the physical? If I was going to put it in the physical then I would point out the vastness of the universe and we cant see all of it.

It started off being physical. That was the perspective taken by the supporters of the idea that the great flood must have covered the whole of the planet. They base their thinking on wording in the Bible that speaks of the waters covering all the land, etc. But does it mean that literally? If that is the way we must take it, then what about other expressions we find, such as *under heaven.* We would have to believe, in that case, that heaven can be placed geographically. If we are to be consistent with the claim made by those folks about the flood covering every inch of land on the whole of the planet rather than just all the land that the writer knew, that is.

 

[Andrew]

Thank you.



It started off being physical. That was the perspective taken by the supporters of the idea that the great flood must have covered the whole of the planet. They base their thinking on wording in the Bible that speaks of the waters covering all the land, etc. But does it mean that literally? If that is the way we must take it, then what about other expressions we find, such as *under heaven.* We would have to believe, in that case, that heaven can be placed geographically. If we are to be consistent with the claim made by those folks about the flood covering every inch of land on the whole of the planet rather than just all the land that the writer knew, that is.

In the case of Noah's flood God is referring to the first Heaven which is the sky, I am guessing that the waters above and below mingled just as the bible describes and as God had called forth and then called to return after the flood where they are bound never to flood again so greatly that it would destroy "all life", it can have only have been a global catastrophy.

For an example of a local destruction we can read of the judgment of the sodomites.

Albion what does the rainbow signify?
Do you really believe it signifies never to have local floods again? because that can't be true.

In regards to your version of "local", I define it as 'none universal', the flood wasn't scattered, it never mentions a scattered flood.

 

[psalms 91]

Thank you.



It started off being physical. That was the perspective taken by the supporters of the idea that the great flood must have covered the whole of the planet. They base their thinking on wording in the Bible that speaks of the waters covering all the land, etc. But does it mean that literally? If that is the way we must take it, then what about other expressions we find, such as *under heaven.* We would have to believe, in that case, that heaven can be placed geographically. If we are to be consistent with the claim made by those folks about the flood covering every inch of land on the whole of the planet rather than just all the land that the writer knew, that is.

Personally I believe in the literal that all the earth was covered

 

[Andrew]

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

There is a book out that can help you with these issues, "Cold case Christianity" by a fellow named Wallace.
Let's not widen the scope and rather focus only on the story of the flood as recorded in Genesis, please.

It's my understanding that you reject the universal flood because of folks like Bill Nye the kiddy show guy, who claims that there is not enough water to flood the entire globe. Is this somewhat what you believe? Not enough water? I am asking a serious question btw

 

[Albion]

Albion what does the rainbow signify?
Do you really believe it signifies never to have local floods again? because that can't be true.

Oh no. The placing of the rainbow is almost always understood to mean that God will not again use a flood punitively to destroy society.

In regards to your version of "local", I define it as 'none universal', the flood wasn't scattered, it never mentions a scattered flood.

I don't even know what a scattered flood would mean. When I say it was not local, I mean that it was extensive, although not worldwide. The word local means, I believe, something much more limited in scope, which is not what theologians make of the great flood of Noah's time.

 

[Andrew]

Personally I believe in the literal that all the earth was covered

Then you agree with Peter who uses the term "world", and Moses who uses "Earth", yet our non literal colleagues render them as separate in context of the Flood.

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2 Peter 2:5

No souls survived but the 8, the entire world was flooded, Albion and others suggest that the world was not flooded and that others must have survived.

 

[Andrew]

Oh no. The placing of the rainbow is almost always understood to mean that God will not again use a flood punitively to destroy society.


I don't even know what a scattered flood would mean. When I say it was not local, I mean that it was extensive, although not worldwide. The word local means, I believe, something much more limited in scope, which is not what theologians make of the great flood of Noah's time.

Did God not give Noah a heads up? Why didn't God just tell him and his family to move to a certain area like he did with Lot?

Sodom and Gomorrah was a destruction of society.

The rainbow reminds us that never shall a flood destroy mankind, a local flood could not have destroyed the old world as 2nd Peter tells us....

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2 Peter 2:5

 

[Andrew]

I found this yesterday and used a few lines to better explain my position, these were lines I had already agreed with but this guy words it better than I.
Haven't even gotten through the whole list but this brings up a list of good points.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_667.cfm

It's a cfm, which may mean mobile not sure

 

[Josiah]

Then you agree with Peter who uses the term "world", and Moses who uses "Earth", yet our non literal colleagues render them as separate in context of the Flood.

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2 Peter 2:5

No souls survived but the 8, the entire world was flooded, Albion and others suggest that the world was not flooded and that others must have survived.

I'm not sure the word "world" appears in Genesis 6-9. I know the word "Earth" doesn't because as I understand it, the ancient Hebrews had no name for our planet. The word "earth" (note how no translation capitolizes it to a proper noun!) means dirt.

Now, you may INTERPRET this to mean the entire plant Earth was immersed under water - and you may have a good basis there, but I'm not sure the text actually states that. Your reference to the Second Peter passage also is strong, but that wasn't my point.

And I was responding to the point that because Jesus in John 3:16 uses the GREEK word "world" in the NT, that suggests that the HEBREW word "dirt" in Genesis must have an identical meaning. I simply disagreed.



To be more clear, I don't deny the traditional "take" on the flood. I AM stunned that there is no evidence for such but hey. I ONLY said I can't see why it makes any theological difference whether this is a geological statement or a theological statement in Genesis. Would Jesus not be our Savior if not all of Mount Everest was not under water? Would the Law be invalid, the Gospel errant? WHAT are we to "take" from this? That there's a BUNCH of H20 we can't account for.... or something about sin and redemption? They of course need not be mutually exclusive (at all!) but nor does one wholly depend on the other. I'd make much the same point for Job. Is the lesson of Job invalid and wrong if Job actually is just a literary character (some think the whole book is a PLAY)? Is the lesson of the Good Samaritian invalid and wrong if such a man never existed and the whole story is not historical? MUST a certain actual historical person by the name of _____ actually been attacked on the road from Jerico for the Law/Gospel of the Good Samaritan to be true? I just recall that the Bible STATES why it was written: "These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and that by believing, you may have life in His name." Even the Law serves that purpose. It's not a weather book or an astrophysics book or even a biology book. It seems to me, it's possible to read much INTO the texts. BUT AGAIN, I'm not - NOT - disagreeing with the traditional "take" on all this.


And to add... I'm motivated in part because I've witnessed FAR too many Christians (usually of a certain theology bent) go ON and ON and ON and ON about 6 24-hour creation or that people really can live in the belly of a whale for days, etc,., etc., etc. and seem ENTIRELY unconcerned, disinterested or even unaware of what the POINT is in what the Bible is teaching. And (worse) suggest that if donkeys don't talk, then Jesus could not have been raised from the dead and God cannot exist. We live in a milieu supersaturated with a materialistic/scientific view... and we tend to give such WAY too much importance and impose it everywhere. It can actually detract from the purpose of the Bible, render Law and Gospel irrelevant.

Mount Ararat

We have NO CLUE as to whether the mountain WE NOW call by this moniker IS the mountain that the Genesis account means (if it does).... The text doesn't give us GPS coordinances and we now can pinpoint that and note, "Since 1210 AD, this mountain has been called "Ararat". If the text IS referring to a literal mountain, it may not even exist anymore... and may not have existed when Genesis was first penned. Sometimes, people assume things. I live in California. The name comes from a Spanish novel about a land of great beauty and wealth. Can we thus prove that the state I live in IS that land of great beauty and wealth that the book speaks about? Of course not. How can we even know if the particular Mt. Ararat was not named for the one in the account and not the other way around? We can't. Again, I think TOO much is said... and then TOO much importance given to that. While the real point is forgotten or lost.


'nough said, lol.




.

 

[Andrew]

I'm not sure the word "world" appears in Genesis 6-9. I know the word "Earth" doesn't because as I understand it, the ancient Hebrews had no name for our planet. The word "earth" (note how no translation capitolizes it to a proper noun!) means dirt.

Now, you may INTERPRET this to mean the entire plant Earth was immersed under water - and you may have a good basis there, but I'm not sure the text actually states that. Your reference to the Second Peter passage also is strong, but that wasn't my point.

And I was responding to the point that because Jesus in John 3:16 uses the GREEK word "world" in the NT, that suggests that the HEBREW word "dirt" in Genesis must have an identical meaning. I simply disagreed.


To be more clear, I don't deny the traditional "take" on the flood. I AM stunned that there is no evidence for such but hey. I ONLY said I can't see why it makes any theological difference whether this is a geological statement or a theological statement in Genesis. Would Jesus not be our Savior if not all of Mount Everest was not under water? Would the Law be invalid, the Gospel errant? WHAT are we to "take" from this? That there's a BUNCH of H20 we can't account for.... or something about sin and redemption? They of course need not be mutually exclusive (at all!) but nor does one wholly depend on the other. I'd make much the same point for Job. Is the lesson of Job invalid and wrong if Job actually is just a literary character (some think the whole book is a PLAY)? Is the lesson of the Good Samaritian invalid and wrong if such a man never existed and the whole story is not historical? MUST a certain actual historical person by the name of _____ actually been attacked on the road from Jerico for the Law/Gospel of the Good Samaritan to be true? I just recall that the Bible STATES why it was written: "These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and that by believing, you may have life in His name." Even the Law serves that purpose. It's not a weather book or an astrophysics book or even a biology book. It seems to me, it's possible to read much INTO the texts. BUT AGAIN, I'm not - NOT - disagreeing with the traditional "take" on all this.

We are not arguing over the authority of scripture, it does not effect our salvation but it is important that we not rip apart miracle stories because they do not fit the scientific narrative, science doesn't believe people from 2000 years ago were resurrected, so catering to atheist and science is something we should opt out of and accept a miracle for what it's worth.
The local flood concept is a fairly new concept, and it's understood why, Christians have been cornered by scientist, mostly atheist who are sick of miracle stories and have a prejudice against Bible believers, they are compelled to have us surrender because once they do we can dismiss any and all miracles of the bible even the resurrection.
The Bible clearly says that the old world was flooded, not just a part, but that all life had died save those in the ark, which rested on a MOUNTAIN for crying out loud.
Who can separate waters and call forth animals and call forth the waters and then call them back and bind them to their places? Science cannot, God can, physics can not, God can, but here we are in the new century arguing over something that no Christians have ever had a problem with.. WHY NOW? Did we receive a pointless revelation recently?
Miracles were abundant in the OT for a specific purpose, I can't answer what that purpose was but I do know that the Jews sought after signs, this however did not keep them from complaining on their journey. Now all we have is the gospel and our faith and each other united in Christ, we don't see these mega science shattering miracles like the Jews witnessed in the OT, let us not join sides with the enemy and begin discrediting miraculous events, the bible says that every mountain was completely submerged, this was not a local flood, this was a universal and catastrophic event that God made happen due to his grief over all of his creation.

 

[NathanH83]

Air a rat.

 

[Andrew]

Air a rat.

Sadly this is what we have to endure before we can move on to more important questions. I feel like I am in the twilight zone, since when did the universal flood turn into a local flood? So perplexed, your next video should have a "Twilight Zone" theme

 

[NathanH83]

Sadly this is what we have to endure before we can move on to more important questions. I feel like I am in the twilight zone, since when did the universal flood turn into a local flood? So perplexed, your next video should have a "Twilight Zone" theme

“Na na na na
Na na na na”
-Twilight Zone theme

 

[atpollard]

Just spitballing a completely wild hypothesis for no purpose other than to challenge the “given assumption” that the world has always been pretty much like it is now.

What if most of the current ocean water was contained within pockets in the earth’s crust. We know that there is already another ocean locked in a pocket deep within the crust, so it is not an impossibility. Furthermore, computer modeling has shown that the movement of tectonic plates does not have to always be a slow process taking millions of years. A model of a meteor impact in the ocean that exposed the ocean to the mantle resulted in a rapid upwelling of magma that quickly spread the continents at speeds of up to Mach 1. In addition, the ocean water was flash boiled and superheated steam and water droplets were flung into the upper atmosphere creating a rain cloud that completely encircled the earth. The result of the model was a rapid version of exactly what we see with the spreading and subduction of plates found in the center of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Based on this modeling of a hypothetical meteor strike, I simply wonder if the continents might have been connected far more recently that current plate tectonic theories estimate and that Genesis describes an earth with less height and depth. The collapse of an underground ocean into the hot mantle could initiate an explosion that flings vast quantities of water into the air and changes the earth’s climate cycle from one of a ground watering mist, to the modern evaporation and rain cycle. Vast quantities of water introduced to the surface through rain and tidal waves could submerge an land where the highest mountain might be only a thousand feet tall. Then the rapid movement of the continental plates caused the folding and lifting and sinking that raised the mountains higher and created deep holes for the water to flow into.

As the ocean bottoms settles, the water flowed into them. As the mountains rose, dry land appeared.

Is it possible that Genesis describes a literal event and science has not yet discovered all of the pieces needed to understand the puzzle?

 

[Andrew]

“Na na na na
Na na na na”
-Twilight Zone theme

"What you are about to witness may disturb you, you are entering into... the twilight zone"

 

[Andrew]

Just spitballing a completely wild hypothesis for no purpose other than to challenge the “given assumption” that the world has always been pretty much like it is now.

What if most of the current ocean water was contained within pockets in the earth’s crust. We know that there is already another ocean locked in a pocket deep within the crust, so it is not an impossibility. Furthermore, computer modeling has shown that the movement of tectonic plates does not have to always be a slow process taking millions of years. A model of a meteor impact in the ocean that exposed the ocean to the mantle resulted in a rapid upwelling of magma that quickly spread the continents at speeds of up to Mach 1. In addition, the ocean water was flash boiled and superheated steam and water droplets were flung into the upper atmosphere creating a rain cloud that completely encircled the earth. The result of the model was a rapid version of exactly what we see with the spreading and subduction of plates found in the center of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Based on this modeling of a hypothetical meteor strike, I simply wonder if the continents might have been connected far more recently that current plate tectonic theories estimate and that Genesis describes an earth with less height and depth. The collapse of an underground ocean into the hot mantle could initiate an explosion that flings vast quantities of water into the air and changes the earth’s climate cycle from one of a ground watering mist, to the modern evaporation and rain cycle. Vast quantities of water introduced to the surface through rain and tidal waves could submerge an land where the highest mountain might be only a thousand feet tall. Then the rapid movement of the continental plates caused the folding and lifting and sinking that raised the mountains higher and created deep holes for the water to flow into.

As the ocean bottoms settles, the water flowed into them. As the mountains rose, dry land appeared.

Is it possible that Genesis describes a literal event and science has not yet discovered all of the pieces needed to understand the puzzle?

Science always seems to discredit itself and move on to create more "modern" science which will most likely discredit itself over and over again and again... as which seems to be the pattern.
The Word of God however never changes.

For what we know God might have stuck that extra water into his boot

 

[Andrew]

https://youtu.be/47vDpY3eMXg

 

[Albion]

Did God not give Noah a heads up? Why didn't God just tell him and his family to move to a certain area like he did with Lot?

That is all speculation, but I can think of possibilities--he had to build the ark and get the animals, so that kept him from pulling up stakes, for instance.

Sodom and Gomorrah was a destruction of society.

It wasn't destroyed by a flood, though.

The rainbow reminds us that never shall a flood destroy mankind, a local flood could not have destroyed the old world as 2nd Peter tells us....

If the promise--and therefore the rainbow--reminds us that God will never destroy the world with a flood, then there will never be another one of the size of the one Noah experienced.

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2 Peter 2:5

did you not wonder why it says "the old** world?" According to what you have been saying, it should say "the world" or "the whole world." Notice also that "world" is used in another figurative sense at the end of that verse.

**translated as the ancient world or the former world in other Bible versions.

 

[Andrew]

That is all speculation, but I can think of possibilities--he had to build the ark and get the animals, so that kept him from pulling up stakes, for instance.


It wasn't destroyed by a flood, though.


If the promise--and therefore the rainbow--reminds us that God will never destroy the world with a flood, then there will never be another one of the size of the one Noah experienced.


did you not wonder why it says "the old** world?" According to what you have been saying, it should say "the world" or "the whole world." Notice also that "world" is used in another figurative sense at the end of that verse.

**translated as the ancient world or the former world in other Bible versions.

So when Revelation says "I saw a new Heaven and new Earth" it is talking about only a part of the world?
I use the word "world" because Jesus spoke of 'this world' and the 'next world', Peter says the 'old world', they are speaking of ages yes? I guess Noah was in his own 'age' separate from the rest of the world.
Also the world will be destroyed by fire, the world was destroyed by water... Will only a part of the world be destroyed by fire because only a part was destroyed by water?
If a mountain is swallowed by a flood it would make sense that every mountain that size would be submerged and not just half of the planet, especially if the flood lasted as long as the bible claims.