Revising Matthew and Luke For a Local Flood

[jordanriver]

In Matthew 24 Jesus is quoted as saying:

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,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Jesus should have said, except for the ones that lived outside the flood plain, they didn't need Me.

and the parallel verses in Luke 17
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.

and if some escaped (even though it says all were destroyed) because there is a means of escape in a local flood, then perhaps Jesus is not required to escape the Great White Throne Judgement.

jr

[KBertsche]

In Matthew 24 Jesus is quoted as saying:

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,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Jesus should have said, except for the ones that lived outside the flood plain, they didn't need Me.

and the parallel verses in Luke 17
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.

and if some escaped (even though it says all were destroyed) because there is a means of escape in a local flood, then perhaps Jesus is not required to escape the Great White Throne Judgement.

jr

What makes you think anyone lived outside of the flood plain? What makes you think anyone was able to escape this large local flood? Do you have any solid evidence for this?

I think you are intentionally inventing a straw-man view which is inconsistent with Scripture. Instead, I'd suggest you consider Hugh Ross' view of a local but universal flood.

References:
http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-...flood-part-one
http://www.reasons.org/astronomy/noa...lood-article-1

[jordanriver]

What makes you think anyone lived outside of the flood plain? What makes you think anyone was able to escape this large local flood? Do you have any solid evidence for this?
]

well thats kind of a loaded question since you know I reject the notion of a local flood. So of course I have no evidence of anybody escaping the kind of flood I don't believe in and of course I would not expect anybody to have escaped a global flood that covered the highest mountains.

The point is
There is hope of an alternate salvation if there's some dry land somewhere.
But when the water is 15 cubits above the highest mountains, as Matthew Henry puts it, "but to make sure work, and that none might escape, the tops of the highest mountains were overflowed—fifteen cubits, that is, seven yards and a half; so that in vain was salvation hoped for from hills or mountains; (like) Jeremiah 3:23 "

I think you are intentionally inventing a straw-man view which is inconsistent with Scripture.

Gee that was a little hostile for this forum.
o well, to be fair, FWIW, I also can't shake this nagging suspicion that you have a pro-naturism/Bible-minimalist agenda too.

Instead, I'd suggest you consider Hugh Ross' view of a local but universal flood.

References:
http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-...flood-part-one
[url]http://www.reasons.org/astronomy/noahs-flood/noahs-flood-article-1[/url

whats the difference between Mr Ross and the OECs who already post on Tweb?

but even he concedes God-Direct-Intervention "Even a localized flood of the magnitude demanded by the text and by theological considerations depends on God’s direct action. Atmospheric and geologic processes sufficient to bring about the convergence of vast quantities of water at one place, at one time, defy explanation as “coincidental” random occurrences."


JR

[KBertsche]

well thats kind of a loaded question since you know I reject the notion of a local flood. So of course I have no evidence of anybody escaping the kind of flood I don't believe in and of course I would not expect anybody to have escaped a global flood that covered the highest mountains.

YOU are the one presenting a local flood scenario and claiming problems with it! I am merely asking for support for the assumptions in your scenario.

Perhaps my question was too specific to your scenario. A more generalized question (applicable to either a local or global flood view) is, "What evidence (biblical or extra-biblical) do you have for your assumption that man spread over nearly the entire globe before the flood?" This assumption seems to be implicit in your scenario, but you have presented no evidence for it. The Bible seems to imply that man did not spread very far until languages were confused at Babel, which was after the flood.

The point is
There is hope of an alternate salvation if there's some dry land somewhere.
But when the water is 15 cubits above the highest mountains, as Matthew Henry puts it, "but to make sure work, and that none might escape, the tops of the highest mountains were overflowed—fifteen cubits, that is, seven yards and a half; so that in vain was salvation hoped for from hills or mountains; (like) Jeremiah 3:23 "

There is also "hope of an alternate salvation" if there are floating trees that one can hang onto, or can lash together to make a rudimentary raft. I don't see the problem. As Henry said, these hopes were in vain. As Scripture says, only those in the ark were saved. So long as people were localized and a flood was large enough to kill them all, either a local or global flood would work.

whats the difference between Mr Ross and the OECs who already post on Tweb?

Every person is unique and has somewhat different views. I'm sure no-one on TWeb has identical views to Hugh Ross.

Tbut even he concedes God-Direct-Intervention "Even a localized flood of the magnitude demanded by the text and by theological considerations depends on God’s direct action. Atmospheric and geologic processes sufficient to bring about the convergence of vast quantities of water at one place, at one time, defy explanation as “coincidental” random occurrences."

Yes, but I don't see your point in quoting this. Do you think it somehow argues against a local flood?

[jordanriver]

YOU are the one presenting a local flood scenario and claiming problems with it! I am merely asking for support for the assumptions in your scenario.

Perhaps my question was too specific to your scenario. A more generalized question (applicable to either a local or global flood view) is, "What evidence (biblical or extra-biblical) do you have for your assumption that man spread over nearly the entire globe before the flood?" This assumption seems to be implicit in your scenario, but you have presented no evidence for it.

why did you just do that?




I mentioned "except for the ones that lived outside the flood plain" (in the opening post ) and you just caricatured it, replaced what I said with: "What evidence (biblical or extra-biblical) do you have for your assumption that man spread over nearly the entire globe before the flood?"

Then you say I have no evidence for it (people spreading over the entire globe) which makes it look like an established claim I made.

The Bible seems to imply that man did not spread very far until languages were confused at Babel, which was after the flood.

Perhaps to you.
The Bible doesn't seem (TO ME) to imply anything about population locations during the 'Antediluvian' period. ...just that wickedness was ubiquitous.

AFAIK maybe nobody lived outside the "the fertile crescent" area (if thats what it was before the Noachian Flood).

The point is, what was to stop them from journeying outside the area and flee from the rains. There would have been somewhere to flee to if the flood was local.

There is also "hope of an alternate salvation" if there are floating trees that one can hang onto, or can lash together to make a rudimentary raft. I don't see the problem. As Henry said, these hopes were in vain. As Scripture says, only those in the ark were saved. So long as people were localized and a flood was large enough to kill them all, either a local or global flood would work.

IMHO, I see no comparison between available dry land and hanging on to floating trees/rudimentary rafts.
IMHO thats a hopeless situation.
IMHO, dry land = hope of alternate salvation.

Yes, but I don't see your point in quoting this. Do you think it somehow argues against a local flood

I quoted from your citation Hugh Ross conceding a God-Direct-Intervention (what i call a supernatural miracle) : ""Even a localized flood of the magnitude demanded by the text and by theological considerations depends on God’s direct action. Atmospheric and geologic processes sufficient to bring about the convergence of vast quantities of water at one place, at one time, defy explanation as “coincidental” random occurrences." ...because just a few weks ago (3) you demonstrated your resistance to suggestion of the 'supernatural activity' in post 3 of the 'A Little Bit of Supernatural, A Little Bit of Natural' thread.


jr

[KBertsche]

why did you just do that?


I mentioned "except for the ones that lived outside the flood plain" (in the opening post ) and you just caricatured it, replaced what I said with: "What evidence (biblical or extra-biblical) do you have for your assumption that man spread over nearly the entire globe before the flood?"

Then you say I have no evidence for it (people spreading over the entire globe) which makes it look like an established claim I made.

Are we having trouble communicating?

Yes, you made the above claim. In it you assume that man had spread "outside the flood plain." If man had not spread out and the waters had risen fast enough, a local flood would do the trick. Your argument against a local flood rests on the assumption that man had spread out significantly, an assumption for which you have provided no support. I am asking you to support this assumption, for without it your argument falls apart.

Perhaps to you.
The Bible doesn't seem (TO ME) to imply anything about population locations during the 'Antediluvian' period. ...just that wickedness was ubiquitous.

AFAIK maybe nobody lived outside the "the fertile crescent" area (if thats what it was before the Noachian Flood).

One result of Babel was that the languages were confused and people scattered. The implication is that they were un-scattered before. But perhaps this is an honest disagreement between us regarding the implications of the text.

The point is, what was to stop them from journeying outside the area and flee from the rains. There would have been somewhere to flee to if the flood was local.

No, this is not the same as your first point (people living outside of the flood plain). This is a second, different point, relating to migration. Here you make an implicit assumption about the rate of water rise. Your contention relies on the assumption that the water rose slowly enough for people to escape by migration. Again, please provide some sort of support for this assumption.

IMHO, I see no comparison between available dry land and hanging on to floating trees/rudimentary rafts.
IMHO thats a hopeless situation.
IMHO, dry land = hope of alternate salvation.

First, why is lashing logs together to make a raft "hopeless?"
Second, why is dry land more hopeful, especially if the water rises quickly? Your above statements have no support. Please support them.
Third, what does "hope" or "no hope" have to do with the text? The text simply says that all outside the ark died. It says nothing of "hope" or lack thereof. This word seems to come from Matthew Henry, not from the Scriptures. Those who died may or may not have had any false "hopes;" we are not told in Scripture.

I quoted from your citation Hugh Ross conceding a God-Direct-Intervention (what i call a supernatural miracle) : ""Even a localized flood of the magnitude demanded by the text and by theological considerations depends on God’s direct action. Atmospheric and geologic processes sufficient to bring about the convergence of vast quantities of water at one place, at one time, defy explanation as “coincidental” random occurrences." ...because just a few weks ago (3) you demonstrated your resistance to suggestion of the 'supernatural activity' in post 3 of the 'A Little Bit of Supernatural, A Little Bit of Natural' thread.


jr

More assumptions on your part. I have absolutely no "resistance" to supernatural activity. I am fully convinced of the existence of miracles, especially the Resurrection. (And, BTW, I had absolutely no idea as to what your response in post 5 was trying to indicate, so I ignored it as noise. I suspect it rests on even more assumptions which I cannot even guess.)

My point in the above-referenced post was not anti-supernatural, it was pro-Providence. Please re-read it. Scripture indicates that God is in control of the "natural" every bit as much as the "supernatural." Scripture uses language of divine causation for "natural" phenomenon just as it does for "supernatural." Ergo, when Scripture says that God caused something, this does not necessarily imply that it was a supernatural event. It could just as well have been a natural event under God's Providence (as all natural events are).

[greentwiga]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: T-Shirt Ninja

TE's aren't allowed to post in this area.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[jordanriver]

Of course, if you leave out part of scripture, it is easy to make your point. In Luke 17, Jesus continues. :28-29 in the days of Lot, ... fire and sulfur ... destroyed them all. By your definition, everyone in the world was destroyed but lot and his two daughters, therefore we are all descended from Lot. All refers to all in the region.

I don't think there is anybody who doesn't know that is two different contexts.

jr

[greentwiga]

• Edited by a Moderator •