Just like in the days of Noah...

[Andrew]

..so also shall the whole world be judged because of it's iniquities

Why do some Christian theologians reject the global deluge in favor of a great..albeit 'local' flood?

Where in scripture does it suggest that the flood of Noah was local and not global (a transformation of the old world to the new world)?

Yes this topic is not a new one but I wanted to start a fresh thread for our new comers (so they don't have to span throughout an old thread)

 

[JRT]

There is plenty of evidence for massive local floods in recent history --- that is, following the end of the last ice age. There is no evidence whatsoever for a far more massive global flood even more recently. If there were such a global flood, it would have wiped out the evidence for the older local floods.. Like quite a few other Bible stories I regard The Flood as a "truth story" rather than a "true story".

 

[Andrew]

There is plenty of evidence for massive local floods in recent history --- that is, following the end of the last ice age. There is no evidence whatsoever for a far more massive global flood even more recently. If there were such a global flood, it would have wiped out the evidence for the older local floods.. Like quite a few other Bible stories I regard The Flood as a "truth story" rather than a "true story".

The Bible says the whole world was transformed by the flood.

 

[Josiah]

..so also shall the whole world be judged because of it's iniquities

Why do some Christian theologians reject the global deluge in favor of a great..albeit 'local' flood?

Where in scripture does it suggest that the flood of Noah was local and not global (a transformation of the old world to the new world)?

Yes this topic is not a new one but I wanted to start a fresh thread for our new comers (so they don't have to span throughout an old thread)

Some thoughts....


1. We live in the age of science, not religion. And thus it is understandable that people want to subject matters of religion to science - either to support the religious view (as if it can't be true if science doesn't affirm it) or to deny it (as if it can't be true if science so indicates) or to modify (as if science will show what religion SHOULD teach). This subjecting all matters of religion to science is one I reject (as one with a doctorate in a science).


2. There ARE problems from a scientific perspective (see #1 above). IF this has happened in the past 200,000 years, then there is zero evidence of a flood that covered the entire planet (including Mount Everest). And there simply is not NEARLY enough water on the planet for that to have happened. Sometimes this is explained by "but nearly all water on the Earth disappeared after the flood" - the problem there is then there would have been all this water BEFORE the Flood too and there has been no mechicanism for such disappearance - at least not in the past 4.5 billion years. Scientifically, it just ain't possible. And IF this literally happened, and very recently, there would be MASSAGE evidence EVERYWHERE - gullies perhaps 50 miles deep, this would mean waves miles and miles high - it would have created MASSAGE damage and undeniable evidence - if enough water fell to rise ocean levels by at least 6 MILES - all in a few DAYS. It would have left incredible, massage, damage. And then there's the ark - made of wood - in ancient times, and how everyone of the millions of species got on and off (virtually no species was or is everywhere). Some Christians argue "God destroyed all evidence but then recorded it in the Bible." If God wanted it KNOWN, why so carefully destroy the evidence? From a science perspectives, a LOT of very big problems. By the way, there IS evidence of massage LOCAL floods - including the Black Sea at the end of the last ice age, but these are not global nor covered everything and impacted only very small percentages of humans. And there is some indication that MOST (by no means all!) of the Earth was covered by ICE 650 million years ago - but that was ICE, not water, and it took MILLIONS of years to happen and MILLIONS more to end (not 40 days), and there were no humans (or animals or boats) 650 million years ago.


3. There are "problems" with everything in the first 11 chapters of Genesis - the "pre-Abraham" stuff, the "pre-history" material. Including (as I understand it) a LOT of Hebrew words that LONG ago lost their meaning (today, we rely on how the LXX translated these things into Greek). ARe we to "take" this in a scientific sense or in a more symbolic, metaphoric sense? The POINT being affirmed, without necessarily indicating that this is modern (post 17th Century) science? Not all Christian agree.



A blessed Easter Season to all...


Josiah




.

 

[Andrew]

Some thoughts....


1. We live in the age of science, not religion. And thus it is understandable that people want to subject matters of religion to science - either to support the religious view (as if it can't be true if science doesn't affirm it) or to deny it (as if it can't be true if science so indicates) or to modify (as if science will show what religion SHOULD teach). This subjecting all matters of religion to science is one I reject (as one with a doctorate in a science).


2. There ARE problems from a scientific perspective (see #1 above). IF this has happened in the past 200,000 years, then there is zero evidence of a flood that covered the entire planet (including Mount Everest). And there simply is not NEARLY enough water on the planet for that to have happened. Sometimes this is explained by "but nearly all water on the Earth disappeared after the flood" - the problem there is then there would have been all this water BEFORE the Flood too and there has been no mechicanism for such disappearance - at least not in the past 4.5 billion years. Scientifically, it just ain't possible. And IF this literally happened, and very recently, there would be MASSAGE evidence EVERYWHERE - gullies perhaps 50 miles deep, this would mean waves miles and miles high - it would have created MASSAGE damage and undeniable evidence - if enough water fell to rise ocean levels by at least 6 MILES - all in a few DAYS. It would have left incredible, massage, damage. And then there's the ark - made of wood - in ancient times, and how everyone of the millions of species got on and off (virtually no species was or is everywhere). Some Christians argue "God destroyed all evidence but then recorded it in the Bible." If God wanted it KNOWN, why so carefully destroy the evidence? From a science perspectives, a LOT of very big problems. By the way, there IS evidence of massage LOCAL floods - including the Black Sea at the end of the last ice age, but these are not global nor covered everything and impacted only very small percentages of humans. And there is some indication that MOST (by no means all!) of the Earth was covered by ICE 650 million years ago - but that was ICE, not water, and it took MILLIONS of years to happen and MILLIONS more to end (not 40 days), and there were no humans (or animals or boats) 650 million years ago.


3. There are "problems" with everything in the first 11 chapters of Genesis - the "pre-Abraham" stuff, the "pre-history" material. Including (as I understand it) a LOT of Hebrew words that LONG ago lost their meaning (today, we rely on how the LXX translated these things into Greek). ARe we to "take" this in a scientific sense or in a more symbolic, metaphoric sense? The POINT being affirmed, without necessarily indicating that this is modern (post 17th Century) science? Not all Christian agree.



A blessed Easter Season to all...


Josiah




.

Psalms suggest that the water returned back to whence it came, so I suggest the waters above the firmament are returned, what do you make out of 'waters above and below the firmament'?
No one alive today was there to witness what happened regardless of what evidence we have it really doesn't prove for certain where the water came and went to.. God could make a donkey talk, manifest as a burning bush, split the sea, hold the sun in place, create plant life without sunlight, create plant life without rain fall...
but I guess since science says the world is billions of years old and that apes turned into people we should ignore this Adam fellow and all of his descendants down to Jesus.

 

[NewCreation435]

Psalms suggest that the water returned back to whence it came, so I suggest the waters above the firmament are returned, what do you make out of 'waters above and below the firmament'?
No one alive today was there to witness what happened regardless of what evidence we have it really doesn't prove for certain where the water came and went to.. God could make a donkey talk, manifest as a burning bush, split the sea, hold the sun in place, create plant life without sunlight, create plant life without rain fall...
but I guess since science says the world is billions of years old and that apes turned into people we should ignore this Adam fellow and all of his descendants down to Jesus.

We know that there are sea shells and evidence that even high mountains were under water at some point, so it doesn't seem like a stretch to me to suggest that the whole world was flooded. Yet, sadly some seem to want to read Genesis as nothing more that folklore and miss the whole point which is that God as the author of humanity had the right to judge the world and will one day judge it again, but not with water next time

 

[Andrew]

We know that there are sea shells and evidence that even high mountains were under water at some point, so it doesn't seem like a stretch to me to suggest that the whole world was flooded. Yet, sadly some seem to want to read Genesis as nothing more that folklore and miss the whole point which is that God as the author of humanity had the right to judge the world and will one day judge it again, but not with water next time

Exactly!
There is nothing in Genesis that even slightly suggest that the flood was local.
ALL flesh had been corrupted, the old world was destroyed by the flood save 8 people and the animals on board

 

[hobie]

Psalms suggest that the water returned back to whence it came, so I suggest the waters above the firmament are returned, what do you make out of 'waters above and below the firmament'?
No one alive today was there to witness what happened regardless of what evidence we have it really doesn't prove for certain where the water came and went to.. God could make a donkey talk, manifest as a burning bush, split the sea, hold the sun in place, create plant life without sunlight, create plant life without rain fall...
but I guess since science says the world is billions of years old and that apes turned into people we should ignore this Adam fellow and all of his descendants down to Jesus.

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

But the words of Christ should be enough...
Matthew 24:37-38 King James Version (KJV)
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Luke 17:26-28 King James Version (KJV)
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

 

[Andrew]

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

But the words of Christ should be enough...
Matthew 24:37-38 King James Version (KJV)
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Luke 17:26-28 King James Version (KJV)
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

Thank you that's the verse!
"The waters stood above the mountains" should also be considered..

Also the flooding of the black sea in no way resembles the world changing flood of Noah.. If this was in fact the case then why didn't God just tell Noah and his family to leave by foot? They would have had plenty of time to flee before this mass "local" flooding.

Perhaps the black sea was flooded on a grand scale... so what?