Was the Flood global?

[bevin]

The description in Gen 6-8 does use phrases like "the end of all flesh has come before me" (Gen 6:13), "and every thing that is in the earth shall die" (Gen 6:17), and "Gen 7:20. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

There is two obvious interpretations of these phrases

(a) they refer to the entire world known to us today

( they refer to the entire world known to the original tellers and hearers of the story

Which interpretation do you lean towards? Do you think it is acceptable for an SDA to lean towards (?

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

2 Peter 3:

4. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7. But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Interesting enough, Peter actually says that when one of the signs of the end is that there will be a group of people that will deny the flood. Peter uses the story of the flood in contrast to the story of hell fire. If the flood was only local, then, according to Peter, hell fire will only be local too.

Beware of SPIN!!! The Bible says what it says. Now one can choose to believe the Bible is wrong but let's not try and SPIN the Holy Word of God.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

HI Bevin, this came to mind.

Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

When Jesus returns it will be as it was when the flood swept them all away. It's clear to me that this was a world wide flood that destroyed all living creatures except for maybe some water creatures unless Noah had an aquarium.

Norman

[Bravus]

It seems pretty clear to me that a literal reading of the text would say the flood covered the whole earth. A less literal reading might look at what 'the world' meant to people who didn't even have a conception of a spherical earth or of the size of the earth. Certainly a huge flood but covering only the then-known world would be simpler to understand from a scientific perspective (in terms of where the water to cover the entire surface of the world deeper than all mountaintops came from and went to).

So, bottom line (oops, I know I say that too much), we're stuck back in the same place as with creationism: between the rock of literal readings of scripture and the hard place of the evidence we see in the world around us.

[David Koot]

Certainly a huge flood but covering only the then-known world would be simpler to understand from a scientific perspective (in terms of where the water to cover the entire surface of the world deeper than all mountaintops came from and went to).

[David Koot]

There is [ sic ]two obvious interpretations of these phrases

Here, you are getting into the realm of exegesis. On what exegetical basis do you say that? How do you know there are two interpretations of these phrases--much less 'obvious' interpretations?

[Dr. Shane]

We also get into the inspiration issue here. Genesis wasn't written by Noah. It was written by Moses. So it is not an eye-witness account of the flood. It is Moses' account of what God showed him. The language Moses used clearly indicates that the flood was world-wide. So if it wasn't, either God misled Moses, Moses misled believers or Moses was extreamely incompentant or neglegant in his writing.

[bevin]

The Book of Genesis that we have today wasn't written by Moses. For a start, Moses didn't speak King James English.

The original accounts in the Book may have started with Moses, but they were passed a long way before being captured into the text's we base today's translations on.

Did God show Moses the whole world? Clearly not, because the single most startling fact to Moses that would have stood out prominently in such a view is that the world is a sphere. But this fact does not appear in the account, and does not appear in records of human thought until many hundreds of years later.

There is an alternative to the possibilities of God misleading Moses or Moses being incompetent - it is the possibility that our literal reading is misleading us.

I believe ancient literature almost always contains simplifications and exagerations. I believe the readers understood this, and we do the literature an injustice by treating these literary devices incorrectly.

/Bevin

[Gerr]

Quote:

There is two obvious interpretations of these phrases

(a) they refer to the entire world known to us today

( they refer to the entire world known to the original tellers and hearers of the story

Which interpretation do you lean towards? Do you think it is acceptable for an SDA to lean towards (?

/Bevin

I chose (a). Gen 8:20 points out that the waters rose 15 cubits above the mountains. I cannot speak for other SDAs.

Marine fossils have been found in mountains where they had no business being there. There are evidences that waters covered the whole North American continent.

Gerry

[David Koot]

The Book of Genesis that we have today wasn't written by Moses.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Bevin,

Quote:

There is an alternative to the possibilities of God misleading Moses or Moses being incompetent - it is the possibility that our literal reading is misleading us.

Which boils down to, "God can't preserve His word" Which would lead to: just do as you please, cause no one know anything about the Bible for sure.

Here are other thoughts that might come out of such thinking, "Jesus didn't really die, neither did He rise from the dead, He's not the Son of God etc." After all, how do we know for sure?

We have to accept God's word or reject it. I choose to accept it not only because of what it says but because His Holy Spirit who inspires these things, testifies to our spirits that it is truth.

Why do so many have different beliefs? It boils down to the same thing. Accepting the plain word of God or choosing to believe what they want. We have the two camps of Cain and Abel, and will till the earth is once again purged, only this time by fire.

Norman

[John317]

The Book of Genesis that we have today wasn't written by Moses. For a start, Moses didn't speak King James English.

The original accounts in the Book may have started with Moses, but they were passed a long way before being captured into the text's we base today's translations on.

It is a mere theory that Moses did not write the books of Moses. Of course Moses did not speak King James English, but that has to do only with the translation and has nothing to do with who wrote the first five books of the Bible. There is no question that the books passed through some editing after Moses originally wrote them about 1400 BC., but there is no reason to accept the theory of the Historical-Critical Method that Moses did not write the books. Pagans in the early Christian period were the first to challange the idea that Moses penned the Pentateuch. Christ, however, taught clearly that Moses was its human author.

(The Historical-Critical Method does not accept the full inspiration of the Bible and teaches that the entire Bible is not to be trusted and that not everything in the Bible harmonizes. It sets human judgment and reason above the authority of scripture and allows for picking and choosing what one accepts as inspired from God.)

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "There is two obvious interpretations of these phrases

(a) they refer to the entire world known to us today

( they refer to the entire world known to the original tellers and hearers of the story"

Yes, that is a crucial issue. And, SDAs fit into both camps.

I see people on both sides of this issue defending their theory.

I will suggst that the crucial issue is not which theory is correct. Rather the crucial issue is which is taught by the Bible. NOTE: We are talking about the Bible.

Once one has settled on that, then one will probably ask which is supported by science, or to put it another way, what does science say on this issue.

Does science support either theory?

I personally like what Dr. Elane Kennedy says on that. She tells us that science neither proves nor rulls our a global flood.

I am doubtful of any person who says differently.

[John317]

Which interpretation do you lean towards? Do you think it is acceptable for an SDA to lean towards (?

I favor giving SDAs as much freedom of thought as possible. While I definitely lean towards choice (a), I certainly would not deny you membership in the SDA church because you lead twards (. However, I would like to sit down with you and point out certain clear teachings of the Bible. It seems to me that what is most important here is dialogue and education and not making people feel unwelcome or unloved because of their beliefs. For instance, how would you explain the significance of the following verse and commentary:

Matthew 24: 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 Noah entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

When Jesus returns it will be as it was when the flood swept them all away. It's clear to me that this was a world wide flood that destroyed all living, land creatures. The flood's sweeing away all the wicked is compared to the second coming of Jesus, which will also destroy everyone who is not prepared. The thought is, then, that if the Flood at the time of Noah did not take away all the wicked, neither will the the second coming of Jesus.

[Neil D]

The description in Gen 6-8 does use phrases like "the end of all flesh has come before me" (Gen 6:13), "and every thing that is in the earth shall die" (Gen 6:17), and "Gen 7:20. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

There is two obvious interpretations of these phrases

(a) they refer to the entire world known to us today

( they refer to the entire world known to the original tellers and hearers of the story

Which interpretation do you lean towards? Do you think it is acceptable for an SDA to lean towards (?

/Bevin

There is another facet to this connumdrum...Water....

In what form did the water cover the earth? Was it solid, [ie as in ice or snow] or liquid?

as for geological evidence that there were shells and the like in mountains locations...that is easily explained...Those animals died at a lower elevation and the flood cause geological plates to shift causing the mountains to rise...

And I am sure that expliantion B can also be used in our explaintion of the flood as well...

[phkrause]

I was watching 3abn the other day, with Lyle Albrecht, "Revelation Insights". His topic was "Evolution or Creation". He mentioned that all cultures throughout history all have a Flood that they mention in there history. I thought that was very interesting. I think on another thread that sammy was mentioning something to that effect in China.

pkrause

[bevin]

Almost every culture has experienced floods

Most cultures have been evangelized - some thousands of years ago

There is strong evidence that people were living in some areas around the Black Sea when it rose rapidly and expanded to a much larger area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

So such anthropological evidence does not provide strong evidence of a global flood

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Almost every culture has experienced floods

.....So such anthropological evidence does not provide strong evidence of a global flood

/Bevin

Interesting...The gilgameh epic shows a flood where survivors were only 8 people...China has picture words with 8 people in a boat [sammy, correct me if this is wrong. I don't remember the word either], Greek culture shows that 2 only people survived a flood by climbing Mt Olympus, there are indian and polynesian cultures that show some form of flood that they were favored by thier gods...and many of those showed that God was displeased with them....

This re-occuring theme occurs in nearly every culture...why?

It is obvious that this has occured and it has made an impression upon our early cultures...and that, at least today, we discount it's importance.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane and Neil agree. :bighug:

[David Koot]

at least today, we discount it's importance.

Well, Bevin does. He has his own version of science.

[olger]

Hi guys. I found seashells embedded in the rock at 14,000' on Mount PILATUS in Switzerland. I took a picture of them.

this is olger signing off.

[bevin]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

/Bevin

[David Koot]

If anything, this compendium of flood stories appears to corroborate the understanding that there was a global flood.

[bevin]

Quote:

This re-occuring theme occurs in nearly every culture...why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration

The older the dates, the more uncertainty there is, and some of the work on matrilinear mitocondrial stuff has got open questions against it, but it is clear that there was a lot of movement of people, and later long-distance trade and evangelism.

So we have (a) local floods (think Bangladesh, not your local creek), ( the Black Sea and similar events, © migration/trade/evangelism

These mechanisms are sufficient to spread flood legends a long way.

Flip side, there is a LOT of archaeology and science that dates things involving many people to dates far earlier than 2000BC.

One should not cherry-pick the evidence to fit the desired outcome, one should choose the outcome based on all the evidence.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

One should not cherry-pick the evidence to fit the desired outcome, one should choose the outcome based on all the evidence.

/Bevin

That is a good things for everyone to remember, including yourself.