My belief in a local flood

[Gabby]

I think the main issue I'm going to address is "Why didn't God just tell Noah to move to place X while he did away with everyone else?"

Why? Because Noah and the ark is to be seen as a picture of Christ. Salvation was to those who acted on faith and entered into the ark.

On the case of animals though, I'd like to know how the ark would be big enough to hold two of every animal including all the distant ones. (Tazmanian devils and kangaroos and such.)

So are you saying that only a portion of human beings were killed and that there were other survivors besides Noah and his family?

[rogue06]

On the case of animals though, I'd like to know how the ark would be big enough to hold two of every animal including all the distant ones. (Tazmanian devils and kangaroos and such.)

I've always been more curious about how the animals got to their various locations throughut the world after they left the Ark. How did (almost) all the marsupials get to Australia without any placental mammals tagging along? Especially creatures like Koala Bears, which aren't known for being very fast. Or for that matter, the 3-toed sloth which can't even walk but drags itself across the ground. How did it make it to South America without leaving descendants (or the fossil remains of) along the way. How did the Gila Monster make it to the American Southwest and Mexico. I don't imagine it could have crossed the Bering land bridge. Can't fall back to the rapid splitting up of the continents nonsense because this is post-Flood.

As to the problem of them all fitting, this becomes especially vexing if you include all the extinct animals – like dinosaurs. Just how many "kinds" of sauropods are there?

[SlapShot]

The mountains sprang up after the flood.
The ocean floors sank after the flood.
The continents moved apart after the flood.
Three times the water that is on the planet now shot into space.
All the plants and animals were teleported to far away lands.
To make any sence of the noah myth you have to ignore all the sciences.
A tale of a local flood? Maybe. A world flood?

[Vigilante]

That's a mighty big assumption, and you know what they say about assumptions.

What? Life's to short not to make some?

Flood geologists are YEC geologists (an endangered species if ever there was one) who think the geological evidence supports the existence of a global flood. Yes, they're the laughing stocks.

Heliocentrics were the laughing stock at some point too. I consider "laughing stock" no reason for doubt, being that most marvelous discoveries were by such people. But that is neither here nor there, I am more interested in knowing just exactly what the bible means in those passages.

Since we're mentioning possible theories here, wouldn't the one that holds that at the time of the Flood mankind (as in homo sapiens not hominids) was still localized. This would mean that the flood wouldn't have to be global in nature since a local one could wipe out the human race. That is just one possible explanation.

Sure that's possible I suppose.

Apparently you missed my earlier post in which I asked when does all not mean literally all in the Bible, and provided several passages to demonstrate this. Check out Genesis 19:31; 41:57; I Kings 19:11; I Chronicles 14:17; II Chronicles 9:28; 36:23; Luke 2:1; Acts 11:28 for a few examples.

Even without "all", there seems to be general all-inclusive language going on.

IIRC on another thread you insisted that anything not poetic in nature contained in Genesis must be viewed as literal history. Why the change of mind here?
Again a local flood with a small localized human population could be an explanation.

I don't mean to be inconsistent, maybe you misunderstood me? If Genesis is not poetic or myth, they meant it as actual history, same with the flood. However, the flood is even less poetic or symbolic then the garden, leaning it moreso for literal history then symbolism.

While God's word never changes, our understanding and interpretation has gone through profound changes.

Obvious enough. And while our understanding of the universe has illuminated a lot of that change, we have to be careful not to tweak the Word on a selective basis, applying some new exegesis to a singular passage or story needlessly. While we are inconsistent, God is consistent. Whatever method we use to interpret it, aught to be a method that works across the whole thing.



Now then, while it may be true that "all" doesn't always mean worldwide "ALL", there is a problem because now we have to apply arbitrary rules. Such as, so what does all mean? Does all just mean humans? Humans + animals? Humans + animals + plants? What about creatures of the sky and of the sea? What does "destroy the earth" mean if, in fact, 95% of the earth was unaffected in any way?

[rogue06]

What? Life's to short not to make some?

Assumptions are the mother of all screw-ups. But life is short and you got to make some. How come all of yours are that ToE must be false?

Yes, they're the laughing stocks.
Heliocentrics were the laughing stock at some point too. I consider "laughing stock" no reason for doubt, being that most marvelous discoveries were by such people. But that is neither here nor there, I am more interested in knowing just exactly what the bible means in those passages.

Heliocentrics were making new discoveries and adding to scientific knowledge whereas flood "geologists" offer nothing new, they merely defend an out-dated untenetable position based not on science but on religious conviction. Big difference!
Interesting you are so certain of the (only) meaning to verses that support YEC, but see much room for interpretation with the verses that support geocentricism

Sure that's possible I suppose.

Your enthusiasm is darn near contagious

Even without "all", there seems to be general all-inclusive language going on.
I don't mean to be inconsistent, maybe you misunderstood me? If Genesis is not poetic or myth, they meant it as actual history, same with the flood. However, the flood is even less poetic or symbolic then the garden, leaning it moreso for literal history then symbolism.

I don't have any reference materials in front of me (and hose on the web are inadequate), but I was under the impression that there were several poetic verses in the Flood accounts.

Obvious enough. And while our understanding of the universe has illuminated a lot of that change, we have to be careful not to tweak the Word on a selective basis, applying some new exegesis to a singular passage or story needlessly. While we are inconsistent, God is consistent. Whatever method we use to interpret it, aught to be a method that works across the whole thing.

And just as obviously we should be careful not to use a narrow interpretation of various Bible verses to blind us to what is right before us. Romans 1 tells us that God speaks to us both through Scripture and through His creation (nature).

Now then, while it may be true that "all" doesn't always mean worldwide "ALL", there is a problem because now we have to apply arbitrary rules. Such as, so what does all mean? Does all just mean humans? Humans + animals? Humans + animals + plants? What about creatures of the sky and of the sea? What does "destroy the earth" mean if, in fact, 95% of the earth was unaffected in any way?

You raise a valid point. Realizing that all doesn't necessarily mean "all" does raise some thorny questions. Using your humans/animals/plants example... Genesis 3:20 unequivocally states that Eve is the "mother of all living." Does that mean everything living – including animals and plants? Don't be a simpleton. It obviously means that she is the mother of mankind or humanity, even though a narrow over-literal interpretation could cause some to believe otherwise.

[heavykevy]

I think the main issue I'm going to address is "Why didn't God just tell Noah to move to place X while he did away with everyone else?"

Why? Because Noah and the ark is to be seen as a picture of Christ. Salvation was to those who acted on faith and entered into the ark.

On the case of animals though, I'd like to know how the ark would be big enough to hold two of every animal including all the distant ones. (Tazmanian devils and kangaroos and such.)

I read that the Ark (don't remember where since it was a long time ago) was huge and that taking baby animals of all of the large species, and using just a representative of a species was sufficient, for instance not all kinds of dogs were necessary since the genetics to make all breeds could be contained in the pair.

If these are true, the ark could have easily fit all of the animals.

If the flood was only local, then God didn't need to send any animals to the ark, since they could have been sent where the flood wasn't, and Noah would not have needed to build such a large boat, and would have only needed to take 'clean' animals for food provisions.

[rogue06]

I read that the Ark (don't remember where since it was a long time ago) was huge and that taking baby animals of all of the large species, and using just a representative of a species was sufficient, for instance not all kinds of dogs were necessary since the genetics to make all breeds could be contained in the pair.
If these are true, the ark could have easily fit all of the animals.

I find this particular answer rather unscriptural in that in Gen. 7:2 Noah is clearly told to take a "male and his mate" – eggs, or even babies, don't have "mates." Further, Gen. 8:2 says that the animals "went forth by families out of the Ark" when they disembarked. "By families." I don't think eggs or babies can make their own families unless Noah was cloning them. Then there is the issue of weaning and, in some cases, learning specific behaviors from adults.

[Gabby]

I find this particular answer rather unscriptural in that in Gen. 7:2 Noah is clearly told to take a "male and his mate" – eggs, or even babies, don't have "mates." Further, Gen. 8:2 says that the animals "went forth by families out of the Ark" when they disembarked. "By families." I don't think eggs or babies can make their own families unless Noah was cloning them. Then there is the issue of weaning and, in some cases, learning specific behaviors from adults.

The behavoir of animals changed after the flood. Genesis 9:2

[Gabby]

What does God's covenant (Gen 9:11ff) mean if not all of man and all animals were affected by the flood?

[rogue06]

The behavoir of animals changed after the flood. Genesis 9:2

If I read that passage correctly it means that animals will fear man. That is all. Nothing at all is said nor implied about other changes in animal behavior. Many of these creatures would still need to learn how to socialize and hunt (among other things), which has absolutely nothing at all to do with fearing humans. In fact, this new fear of man eliminates the possibility that Noah and his family somehow weaned and trained all these animals.

Another objection to the idea that Noah took baby animals onboard is that in Genesis 6:20 it states that "two of every sort shall come to you." Notice that it didn't say, "two of every sort shall come and give birth and then leave the babies with you."

[Philosophickle]

Why were all the "high mountains on the entire earth covered"?

[Vigilante]

Assumptions are the mother of all screw-ups. But life is short and you got to make some. How come all of yours are that ToE must be false?

It's been said that ToE is the biggest lie satan has ever conjured. It undermines dang near everything, has no evidence, is not observable or repeatable, does not follow from common sense, reason or logic, stands in opposition to the 2nd LOT, as well as law of entropy, and by its very nature seems to be something that is used to destroy God, not show his glory. It turns life into a meaningless series of random chance consequences, tells us that humans are not special in any way, we have about as much rights as a weed, since we came about the same way.
I could go on and on. Ya, I pretty much hate ToE.
I think mankind embraced it like candy because they FINALLY found a way to get rid of God and say they are intelligent in doing so. Then sadly even the Christians embraced it like it was a new miracle, and then found ways to cram it into the Bible where it didn't belong.
I talked to a paramedic yesterday, who was utterly dumbfounded at the awesome redundancy of the human body, systems of checks and balances, backup systems, bypass mechanisms, self-repair technology, etc.... He said he doesn't understand why anybody going into the biology field could possible say there is no God, or at least a designer behind the design. He said, to say all this is random mistakes is about the dumbest thing you can do.
When you start looking at the world, at life, at humans, at the cosmos; they are all meant to show God's handiwork. Not to show how it all came about by dumb random chance. "Dumb random chance" is a word created to replace the name of God. Instead of "God", now we say "chance". Instead of God, we say "time". Instead of God, we same "random". We've turned God's magnificent creation into a so-so jumble of randomly placed protoplasm. Ho hum. As if "time", "chance", and "random", had any explanatory power whatsoever in comparison to "goddidit".

Heliocentrics were making new discoveries and adding to scientific knowledge whereas flood "geologists" offer nothing new, they merely defend an out-dated untenetable position based not on science but on religious conviction. Big difference!
Interesting you are so certain of the (only) meaning to verses that support YEC, but see much room for interpretation with the verses that support geocentricism

That's only because I haven't seen any versus in support of geo, I think 90% of them are lame at best.

And just as obviously we should be careful not to use a narrow interpretation of various Bible verses to blind us to what is right before us. Romans 1 tells us that God speaks to us both through Scripture and through His creation (nature).

God can't speak through creation if creation had nothing to do with God.

You raise a valid point. Realizing that all doesn't necessarily mean "all" does raise some thorny questions. Using your humans/animals/plants example... Genesis 3:20 unequivocally states that Eve is the "mother of all living." Does that mean everything living – including animals and plants? Don't be a simpleton. It obviously means that she is the mother of mankind or humanity, even though a narrow over-literal interpretation could cause some to believe otherwise.

One could argue that humans, endowed with an everlasting spirit, ARE the "all living".
That doesn't convince me. Each verse/story needs to be dealt with in context. The context of the flood is that the earth was corrupt and evil and everything needed to be wiped out. The context of Eve the mother seems absurdly obvious that it is mother of all living humans.
It grieved God that he had made all this, when it had become so corrupt from sin. A local flood is like saying, perhaps, you have an artists who draws this big picture, hates it, so he grabs a black marker and scribbles on the bottom left corner and says, "there, I have destroyed my creation!"



So anyway, let's just say I don't have a firm position. Let's just say, nothing makes sense yet outside a global flood, or a real GardenOE. I don't think word games are going to solve the issue, but it needs much more study.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

What does God's covenant (Gen 9:11ff) mean if not all of man and all animals were affected by the flood?

Gonna do multiple answers here at once.

First off Gab, only Noah and his family survived. Life was contained in the area of the flood at the time. It was a big flood, but still only local

Secondly, Rogue has already answered well on the animals and their mates.

Thirdly though to this Gab, to say that something like animals became carnivorous after the flood requires a strong belief in a sort of evolution for YEC. The teeth of a herbivore and a carnivore are quite different as would be their digestive tracts and such. Any evidence that such a huge change took place in now carnivorous animals?

[themuzicman]

God's purpose in flooding was to eliminate all human life and start over with Noah.

And that happened, local or global.

[Gabby]

Thirdly though to this Gab, to say that something like animals became carnivorous after the flood requires a strong belief in a sort of evolution for YEC. The teeth of a herbivore and a carnivore are quite different as would be their digestive tracts and such. Any evidence that such a huge change took place in now carnivorous animals?

hmm I don't believe that the animals became carniverous after the flood.