Noah's Flood

cih1355 · #1 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 11:14 AM

I have been reading through the book of Genesis and I just read about Noah's Covenant where God said that He would not destroy the earth again with a flood. Just out of curiosity, where do some people get the idea that Noah's Flood was limited to a particular geographical location? A local flood cannot destroy the whole earth.

ericfromcowtown · #2 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 11:24 AM

By some people, are you referring to secular academics? I think that the biblical account is quite clear in that the flood was global in scale.

I have heard secular historians or geologists try to account for the "flood story" by correlating it to geographically wide-spread (but not global) flooding that is said to have occured at the end of the Pleistocene, when dams holding back huge glacial lakes, which were fed by the melting ice sheets, broke. These catastrophic floods, it is claimed, later translated into the flood stories prevalent in various parts of the world.

tdowns007 · #3 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 11:59 AM

Many Christians, believe in a local flood, which took out all human inhabitants, of the Earth, so it does not affect human lineage, etc. Also, why would that negate the promise, the promise obviously was held, in that, another flood didn't take out the "Earth", as they knew it.

The arguments I've heard, is that Earth, is used, to describe their totality at the time, and although, I don't know the scriptures myself, and don't hold to the view, I've heard it said, that there are many scriptures, where the same language, of the Earth being wiped out is used, when in fact, it just meant major destruction of an area, or people?????? I've even hear it compared to, God so Loved the World...in the sense, of defining, Earth, World...not necessarily meaning everything, or total.

At the time, the human inhabitants of the Earth, would of been located, in a vicinity, that could of been covered in water, to the extent, that someone on a boat, could not see land...in a very real way, to Noah, the Earth was covered.

I'm not defending the view, just a quick summary, of what I've read from threads not too long ago. Do a search. I think it was discussed in detail.

I don't find a local flood that wipes out all people but Noah to be theologically problematic...but I'm open to correction.

I used to be totally against it, but, I was assuming, a local flood meant people other than Noah lived elsewhere on the planet and survived, therefore messing with other areas of scripture.

MOSES · #4 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 12:14 PM

Side note:

This is slightly off topic but it is something to think about.

If God promised Noah and his descendants (all mankind) that he would never again destroy the whole earth (by flood), then why do so many Christians not believe this promise and teach that God will destroy the earth, but this time by fire?

That does not sound like much of a promise "I promise not to destroy the earth again, by water (fingers crossed)..but I will destory it by fire"

e.g., I punched my neigbor in the nose because he deserved it...then I promise to never punch him again..(because next time I will hit him with a hammer).
That is not much of a promise.

Personally, I take God's promise as secure, that he will never again destroy the earth...(but when he promised that to Noah, it just so happens to fall within the context of the flood)

reformedman · #5 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 02:03 PM

The flood waters went over quite a number of feet over the highest mountain.

VirginiaHuguenot · #6 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 02:34 PM

Edward Stillingfleet (Origines Sacrae) and Matthew (Synopsis and Annotations at Genesis 7.19) both allow that the deluge need not have been universal over the entire geographic earth, as long as it is reckoned to be universal with respect to covering all areas populated by man and beast.

Synopsis:

Quote:

It is not necessary to conclude that the flood was universal with respect to the entire earth, but only with respect to the human race: Now, it is in no way probable that the entire earth, in the space of the one thousand, six hundred and fifty-six years before the flood, was inhabited by men, since, in a much longer space from the flood, it has not be occupied. If, therefore, we suppose that the animals were increased in the earth in greater numbers and more diffusedly than men (which seems most probable to me, since the production of animals happens by the same method as the production of fish, by the productive or prolific virtue both of the land and of the water granted by God, Genesis 1:20, 21, 24), it can be said that not all living things were blotted out, but those only which were inhabiting the same parts of the earth as men. Objection: But all animals are said to be destroyed. Response: This is certainly true to the extent the flood was spreading itself: However, it was not at all necessary that the destruction of them should extend beyond the boundaries of that part of the earth which men were inhabiting. For, since the occasion of this flood was the sin of men, who were punished in the animals, which were destroyed only for their sakes, it was unnecessary to extend it further. A further question: But to what end was God directing with such great care all of the animals to be introduced into the ark, unless all things would perish in the flood? Response: Let us posit that the flood overtook all Asia, or even the whole world, formerly known and habitable (but not America): could it not be that this was a sufficient reason why the beasts would be preserved in the ark, namely, for the use of the men then living, to whom the animals, scattered at so great a distance and already made savage, would in no way be serviceable (Stillingfleet’s Origines Sacræ 3:4).

Annotations:

Quote:

Gen 7:19. Profane wits pretend this to be impossible, because of the vast height of divers mountains. But, 1. This cannot be thought impossible by any man that believeth a God; to whom it was as easy to bring forth a sufficiency of water, for this end, as to speak a word. And if we acknowledge a miracle of the Divine power and providence here, it is no more than even heathens have confessed in other cases. 2. Peradventure this flood might not be simply universal over the whole earth, but only over all the habitable world, where either men or beasts lived; which was as much as either the meritorious cause of the flood, men's sins, or the end of it, the destruction of all men and beasts, required. And the or that whole heaven may be understood of that which was over all the habitable parts of it. And whereas our modern heathens, that miscall themselves Christians, laugh at the history of this flood upon this and the like occasions, as if it were an idle romance; they may please to note, that their predecessors, the ancient and wiser heathens, have divers of them acknowledged the truth of it, though they also mixed it with their fables, which was neither strange nor unusual for them to do. Lactantius appeals to the heathens of his age concerning it. Nay, there is not only mention of the flood in general, but also of the dove sent out of the ark, in Plutarch, and Berosus, and Abydenus. And the memory of this general flood is preserved to this day among the poor ignorant Indians, who asked the Christians who invaded their land, whether they ever heard of such a thing, and whether another flood was to be expected? And the Chinese writers relate, that but one person, whom they call Puoncuus, with his family, were saved in the flood, and all the rest perished.

tdowns007 · #7 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 02:43 PM

I'm not defending this site, or info....but interesting....I'm still reading and learning myself....

But on local flood....

The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

Archlute · #8 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 02:59 PM

It is not in the text, and the Christians who promote it are being influenced by academic pressures. I didn't find it convincing when argued by an OT faculty member at WSC, either.

The biggest problem which must be overcome by anybody with an orthodox view of Scripture's inspiration is what to do with 2 Peter 3:5-7. You cannot convincingly reconcile a local flood with Peter's comparison between the worldwide destruction through water then, and the worldwide destruction through fire in the future. FWIW, the OT prof had no answer for that passage when it was brought up.

greenbaggins · #9 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

Side note:

This is slightly off topic but it is something to think about.

If God promised Noah and his descendants (all mankind) that he would never again destroy the whole earth (by flood), then why do so many Christians not believe this promise and teach that God will destroy the earth, but this time by fire?

That does not sound like much of a promise "I promise not to destroy the earth again, by water (fingers crossed)..but I will destory it by fire"

e.g., I punched my neigbor in the nose because he deserved it...then I promise to never punch him again..(because next time I will hit him with a hammer).
That is not much of a promise.

Personally, I take God's promise as secure, that he will never again destroy the earth...(but when he promised that to Noah, it just so happens to fall within the context of the flood)

The reason many Christians believe this is 2 Peter 3:5-7

"For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."

A couple of points here: notice the close parallelism between the two worlds. One destroyed through water, the other through fire (although, from other passages, we learn that it is a purifying fire. Much will be destroyed, and much will be purified. I advocate a position of both continuity and discontinuity between the present world and the purified world). Note also the phrase "for fire." This does indicate a fiery judgment, and the inhabitants are clearly not the only recipients of the judgment, since verse 7 clearly says "the now-existing heavens and earth," a phrase that indicates the entirety of the world.

Hippo · #10 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 03:18 PM

The book

Amazon.com: A Biblical Case for an Old Earth: David Snoke: Books
Amazon (Thumbnails)

contains a good biblical defence for a local flood scenario.

We are so used to translations that we do sometimes take it for granted that the context of the words used in translations can only allow for a single meaning.

What is certain is that all mankind (with the obvious exceptions) perished in the flood, the actual physical extent of the flood is perhaps not as far beyond questions as some would believe.

Archlute · #11 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 03:21 PM

1. The author does not adequately deal with the full passage in 2 Peter, leaving out a key discussion of v.7 and the fact that Peter ties the "whole world" not merely to men, but to the entire planet (and here the heavens also!).

2. He may be ignorant of the fact (if not intentionally deceptive) that good exegetical conclusions are not made by word count. If "kol-erets" shows up some 40 times by his count meaning "all the earth", and another 200 some times meaning "all the people" (and I have no idea of the accuracy of even this piece of his work), that does not therefore mean that the flood narrative is assuredly weighted toward the latter. In fact, it means nothing other than that sometimes the word is used with one meaning, and sometimes another. It is an argument meant to persuade those who do not know any better.

3. Josephus, Rabbinical musings, or Greek mythology are not considered weighty point-provers in evangelical Protestant exegetical method.

Archlute · #12 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 03:21 PM

Thanks Lane, you got there before me.

blhowes · #13 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 03:24 PM

Some young-earth scientists use Noah's flood to explain the fossil record found in the various earth's layers. If Noah's flood were just a local flood in the area where Noah and the rest of the inhabitants lived, is there a good explanation for how fossils ended up in the lower layers - and still be in the 10,000 or so year time frame - particularly in regions on the other side of the world from where the flood occurred?

JDWiseman · #14 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 04:49 PM

I just have a few minutes, so this won't be very fleshed out. Some thoughts:

1) If Noah's flood was "local", and God promised never to do it again, then there might be some head-scratching going on when we think about Katrina, or the last colossal Asian Tsunami that happened a couple years ago.

2) To me, there's plenty of scientific evidence that the flood was global; it's just never put together into a Biblical worldview by secular scientists, and all of the evidence is broken up into pretty significant "local floods" throughout the world. That is, once you have a Biblical worldview, you read the news differently, and start noticing that most of the American midwest was once under water, that a colossal flood is thought to have carved the English Channel, that the Black Sea was once the site of a colossal flood, that marine fossils and what not are found on the tops of mountain ranges, and on and on.

One would almost think that all the world was once under water.

It's just that their worldview gives them fafillions and zazillions of years to work with, so maybe this whole part of the world was sunk 400,000 years ago, and this other part was deluged 2,000,000 years ago, etc. It's the time-scale that we would most disagree with, not necessarily the evidence, at least in my view.

3) If I'm not mistaken, didn't a Christian first mention plate techtonics? Either way, I would agree with the prevailing scientific worldview that the continents were once all together in one mass, and I think that the Bible actually hints at that when it talks about the waters being gathered together into one place. Why the colossal mountain ranges couldn't have been formed when this massive body broke up and the pieces were slamming into one another and ripped apart is beyond me. If so, then the water wouldn't have had to be high enough to cover Mount Everest as we now know it.

4) I think that the parallel between this and 2 Peter is poignant, as others have pointed out, and a local flood doesn't quite do it justice.

5) I think it is indicative that many people (I'm assuming, probably can't say for sure) who hold to an "old earth" also hold to a "local flood". Maybe that's a bit harsh, but some of you probably get my drift.

a mere housewife · #15 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 05:45 PM

Just a note that the flood in Greek mythology is definitely understood as universal rather than local -- as here, in Ovid where the earth is destroyed for its wickedness -- specifically violence, and Jove plans 'a breed of men of heaven's make... better than the first':

Then Jove raised thunderbolt against the earth --
And checked the blow. Would heaven break in fire,
And flames pour over earth from pole to pole?
He then remembered that the Fates had scored
A certain distant hour when sea and land,
Earth and the vault of heaven would be consumed
In universal fire. He put aside
The lightning spear Cyclopean hands
Made as his weapon to assert his will:
Another doom for man came to his mind,
A death that stormed beneath the waves, and fell
From air; and then dark rain began to fall.

It ends with all the earth covered by a 'stilled ocean and on a mountain shalf One man, one woman.'

I think this interesting and an additional argument for universalism as of course the story of the flood would have been handed down from generation to generation and truth mixed with their theological error. It seems that those closer to it understood it as a universal event.

Davidius · #16 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Just a note that the flood in Greek mythology is definitely understood as universal rather than local -- as here, in Ovid where the earth is destroyed for its wickedness -- specifically violence, and Jove plans 'a breed of men of heaven's make... better than the first':

Then Jove raised thunderbolt against the earth --
And checked the blow. Would heaven break in fire,
And flames pour over earth from pole to pole?
He then remembered that the Fates had scored
A certain distant hour when sea and land,
Earth and the vault of heaven would be consumed
In universal fire. He put aside
The lightning spear Cyclopean hands
Made as his weapon to assert his will:
Another doom for man came to his mind,
A death that stormed beneath the waves, and fell
From air; and then dark rain began to fall.

It ends with all the earth covered by a 'stilled ocean and on a mountain shalf One man, one woman.'

I think this interesting and an additional argument for universalism as of course the story of the flood would have been handed down from generation to generation and truth mixed with their theological error. It seems that those closer to it understood it as a universal event.

This does not necessarily prove the point. Universal language is used in the biblical text ("destroy the earth"). The detractors' argument is not that the language isn't there, but that it meant something different to the people who wrote it. The literal meaning is superficial. They're saying that the catastrophe was so great in the eyes of the people of the Near East that they used this kind of language to describe it. Thus citing other examples from antiquity which use universal language does not directly answer their charge.

a mere housewife · #17 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 05:55 PM

I'm not so sure they used their 'literal' symbols so divorced from their literality -- 'earth from pole to pole' etc. I'm not saying Ovid believed what he was writing (I don't know what he believed) but he does seem to represent the story as universal -- not to understand at least the translation that way seems to play games with the symbols used that makes nonsense of language?

Davidius · #18 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

I'm not so sure they used their 'literal' symbols so divorced from their literality -- 'earth from pole to pole' etc. I'm not saying Ovid believed what he was writing (I don't know what he believed) but he does seem to represent the story as universal -- not to understand at least the translation that way seems to play games with the symbols used that makes nonsense of language?

I'm sure the detractors would say the same thing about "the earth." Moses could have easily said "there was water as far as Noah could see," right?

But since the Ancients had never been to the North and South Poles, I would be interested to see what Ovid actually wrote. I would guess it's language similar to what we see in the scriptural account (something about "the earth" or "the whole earth"). Do you know from where exactly that quote is taken?

a mere housewife · #19 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 06:18 PM

I would be glad actually if you could find out what the original has in place of 'poles' as well as I was wondering about that -- It's from book one of the Metamorphoses. My edition is translated by Horace Gregory.

I guess my question to the detractors would be when universal language is used and we take it to really mean 'locally', how we are to approach reading books -- what special insight we have independently of our own bias/times to look back at other times and be able to know that people mean something other than what they say? How do I (or someone reading this a hundred years from now) know that in this conversation the detractors don't actually mean that the flood is universal and the - undetractors are arguing, with universal symbols, for a local flood?

Davidius · #20 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

I would be glad actually if you could find out what the original has in place of 'poles' as well as I was wondering about that -- It's from book one of the Metamorphoses. My edition is translated by Horace Gregory.

I guess my question to the detractors would be when universal language is used and we take it to really mean 'locally', how we are to approach reading books -- what special insight we have independently of our own bias/times to look back at other times and be able to know that people mean something other than what they say? How do I (or someone reading this a hundred years from now) know that in this conversation the detractors don't actually mean that the flood is universal and the - undetractors are arguing, with universal symbols, for a local flood?

That's the question! Whenever we depart from the most natural meaning of the words, we need to provide a good reason for doing so. My guess is that those who interpret these passages as hyperbole are doing so because of "scientific evidence."

Vonnie Dee · #21 (**permalink**) 05-17-2008, 12:35 AM

I've been thinking about this myself lately. I must admit that I have not done any research into the matter. However silly it may sound, the thing that got me thinking about it is "kangaroos". I was wondering if it was a "known world" flood because I wonder if Noah had kangaroos on the ark. What about koala bears that only eat eucalyptus? If God "guided" the koala bears to Noah, did He miraculously spring up and sustain the food they would need to survive? Did he make them able to live on what ever vegetation was growing locally until after the flood? After it was over, did they migrate back to the Australia part of the Earth? These things make me go

. I know that God can and does do what He wills. I just wonder about the real life logistics of some events in the Bible. I don't doubt if they happened, I just wonder what it "looked like" in real life.