/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>725756

It was local.

>Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

ALL flesh, EVERY thing […] in the EARTH

>>725757

Funny how people only question the meaning of “All the Earth” in this chapter, and nowhere else in the Bible.

>>725765

That isn't true. See the footnote I posted.

>>725767

no one cares what an uninspired commentary says

>>725771

It's not commentary, it's direct Biblical citations where "the whole earth" is used not meaning the entire planet but just local region, and where all mankind is used but not meaning every human in existence but only a regional group. And the book the footnote is from is Heiser's "Unseen Realm", not a Bible commentary.

I see three possibilities:

>Global flood, everybody dies but Noah and family

>Local flood, everybody dies but Noah and family

>Local flood, there are people outside of the region who survive

It seems to me that "all flesh…from under heaven" removes option 3 since you can't leave "under heaven" anywhere on earth

If it's 1 or 2, what difference does it make in any application besides biblical archaeology?

>floodwaters several cubits over the highest peaks

Physically impossible unless it was a global flood.

>>725773

>>725774

The problem with the global flood theory is there was no global flood between 6000 years ago when Adam was created and now.

>>725774

Which peaks? It says of the "mountains" ("har" in Hebrew), but that term is used of hills as well. Mount Tabor, for example, where Christ had his transfiguration, is a lot more like a hill than what most of us would consider a mountain.

>>725773

>from under heaven

That's a good point. Could maybe be that it's poetic language.

>>725776

Adam was created about 7500 years ago I think according to Septuagint chronology.

>>725776

>water magically floated a few feet above the tallest peaks

The global flood is a-priori dismissed by the secular worldview that feeds into the axioms governing modern geological science. Whereas the local flood theory is easily dismantled by observing physics in action when you pour water into a glass to drink.

I bet you think the American media never lies.

>>725776

How do you know? Is your source able to contradict scripture?

>>725777

A prophetic quotation from God in a book of prose should be assumed literal

>>725779

Huh? You're saying a local flood is physically impossible? Wut

>>725778

There wasn't a global flood after that either.

>>725779

Are you going to tell me there were no pre-adamics too despite obvious evidence of their existance?

>>725777

>water magically floats several feet over the top of hills

I still don't think you understand what you're talking about. This is literally not how fluid mechanics work.

>>725781

This is the absolute state of /christian/, the board that denies its own holy book.

>>725783

No, I don't know anything about fluid mechanics. Please explain for the edification of this thread. Why can't water levels ever be sufficiently high to submerge a hill?

>>725784

I don't deny the Holy Book, I believe in inerrancy of scripture, I made this thread to understand which interpretation is correct. I'm very sympathetic to the possibility of a global flood, but I need to see strong arguments in its favor.

>>725785

>pour water in glass

>observe that water seeks its own level

Mind blown.

>pour water on hill

>it runs down the hill

Mind blown.

>build volcano for kid's science class

>"lava" rolls down side of mountain

Mind blown.

Creationists and Biblical literalists are full blown whackos.

>>725780

>how do you know

>my ignorance is enough proof

>>725787

>I need to see strong arguments in its favor.

There aren't any. It's a misunderstanding that became tradition. Science (when not controlled op) exists to polish our understanding of God and science says there was no global flood within 7500 years ago. Therefore it was local to mesopotamia which we DO have scientific evidence for.

>>725789

not an argument

take hermeneutics 101 and come back

>>725790

Then why even build an ark in the first place if you could just walk away from the area? And why have animals on the ark when they could have just divinely been told to walk out of the area? And why is the ark so big if only 2 of each animal kind in the local area needed to be on the ark?

>>725788

Why can't you pour enough water that it would rise over the hill? Are you saying no flood in the history of the world has ever submerged a hill?

>>725793

Ok, that's a really good point.

>>725792

There's no argument because there is literally nothing to argue about.

Archeology cannot prove a worldwide flood ever happening, the Bible was written by man, inspired by God, not dictated by Him.

How dense to you have to be to even consider taking it literally in the modern age? This just outright ignores the higher lesson the story tells us.

>just as there was a flood so God will judge the world again by fire

I'm safe because I live in America and not the Mesopotamian region because the world is clearly just the Mesopotamian region. :^)

It's ok to be American and sin because the judgement won't reach you since you're not part of the whole world :^))))

>>725793

>>725793

>Then why even build an ark in the first place if you could just walk away from the area? And why have animals on the ark when they could have just divinely been told to walk out of the area?

I imagine it would be much easier to herd and keep track of them in a boat than try to chase them around on land.

>And why is the ark so big if only 2 of each animal kind in the local area needed to be on the ark?

This is just stupid. There were a lot of animals and they would need to keep supplies and food too.

>>725793

How fast you can walk across let say North America front to back with an escort of your local ecosystem following you?

Can a horse survive in a desert?

You can ask these questions until the doves come home, bu they're all meaningless.

>>725796

>it's the current year!

Just don't insert yourself in a hermeneutic discussion if you don't even subscribe to the first facts

There's no reason to believe in the Gospel of Jesus in your view since the New Testament is equally prone to error

>>725802

OP here. I intended a primarily hermeneutic discussion, but I don't have an issue with scientific evidence being presented as well. But yeah, the main point is to determine what does scripture say.

>>725794

CAN YOU EVEN READ?! THE TALLEST MOUNTAINS!

HOW can water possibly submerge the TALLEST MOUNTAINS (or hills)?

Let's think about this one inductively. If the flood only covered an area equivalent to a single hill, the water would run off the hill, right?

Now, expand the area of the flood to include a ring of hills/mountains completely surrounding the single hill in the previous step. The water rises above these hills/mountains, which implies runoffs into the surrounding area. Now, add another ring…

>>725806

Tallest regional mountains

>>725802

>here's no reason to believe in the Gospel of Jesus in your view since the New Testament is equally prone to error

Are you serious?

How basic buttbackwards can you get?

>>725803

As fast as God can tell them to.

>>725806

If it applies to a particular region than mountains on the "outer ring" would not need to be submerged

>>725807

You're retarded. Fück this board, I'm done here, you should have been banned for being such a fücking retard that's actually disputing basic fücking 'physics. And there are fägs here that actually agree with you.

Christianity is on the decline in the West because of retards like you.

>>725810

I'm not disputing physics. I just don't see how your explanation makes sense

>>725808

yes I'm serious, enlighten me Mr. Modernism

Why should I believe Jesus raised from the dead if human scribes can't be trusted in their writing, he did so to fulfill ancient prophecy of erroneous writers, all collected in the same error pocked book?

Why do you think Jesus existed?

>>725808

So there was no point to the boat? They coulda speed walked away from the regional flood.

>>725812

I don't think that poster is arguing against Biblical inerrancy, he's just offering a different interpretation of the verses and bolstering his argument with scientific evidence

>>725812

>the same error pocked book

>my interpretation is wrong therefore the Bible is wrong

>>725814

his argument is predicated on a dismissal of inerrancy, see >>725796

>>725816

I agree, read the whole discussion

>>725812

I guess it depends on how idiotically you interpret your prophecy.

>>725813

And the fellowishp cpuld have taken the eagle to Mordor.

It's not the literary point that's important.

>>725818

you mean faithfully?

The NT writers form our basis for interpreting the OT, and they treat the events as history not poetry

>>725817

>inerrancy

It's not predicated on anything.

What I'm trying to say it that literalists like you miss the point, then make up your own fake bull and push it as a weightless argument.

>>725821

What is my argument, and whats the alternative?

For anyone interested in a naturalistic explanation of the flood of Genesis under the assumption that it means what it says, here you go:

https://creation.com/flood-geology-schism

>>725819

That's because they had no scientific method of looking at scripture.

Jews did the same half-assed literalist approach before Christ and look at how surprised they were when he came as he did, unlike their imagined way. And you know why the NT writers suceed with the same flawed view? Because they looked at deeper reason and the methaphysical aspect and purpose of scripture. Something on a deeper level that isn't arguable.

>>725823

Your crap argument is your own lack of faith.

OP here. Since we've already opened up the scientific floodgates (pun intended of course), and scientifc evidence has been presented against a global flood, can anyone provide scientific evidence to the contrary? I find it interesting that many peoples from all over the world also preserve flood myths and many of those myths describe a global flood. That isn't geological evidence but I think it should factor in. I know some have tried to use geology to justify a global flood but I'm not familir with the literature. Can anyone provide an overview?

>>725828

I'm far from an expert on this but I remember hearing that massive boneyards of fossils in places all over the world are explained by huge numbers of animals running away from the floodwaters.

>>725894

Found the video

>>725810

Got to agree with you man. People not wanting to defend the coherent account within the scriptures is laughable. And is only fit, to make more people into apostates. Vid related. Where guy Jay dyer, and Tommy actually have an interesting discussion on the creation mysteries. And the flood does get brought up. And the end up concluding. If you take the scriptures not to be just some allegory, but for real and what's it's stating that happened. Then this a global flood. Not some isolated incident. We would basically as the Host Jay dyer makes the great point. We'd be basically back at the Greek myths, Taking place in some far off Golden age. That have no real connection to our place in history/Reality.

>>725756

Meteor hits the ice cap during the last ice age and melts/vaporizes shit tons of water instantly. Causes rain for weeks. Massive floods. Entire civilizations wiped out over night. That's basically the theory I've been liking for a while now.

My priest told me it is a local flood, and "the world" meant "the known world" for the author, meaning the Levant.

My catechism says that while history does not show a global flood, that so many cultures have a similar flood story means -something- must've happened.

As such, I think that historically it was a local flood, but the historical event was adapted to a mythological scale to tell us about God wishing the world to be pure of sin, being dissatisfied with humanity's sinfulness, but also loving humanity deeply and promising never to do such a thing again, prefiguring the waters of baptism and also becoming applicable to every culture with a flood myth. I think that the story being more poetic than historical is shown by how God is said to have regretted making humanity, and then to have repented of destroying humanity, as if God were anthropomorphic.

>>725913

Isn't that Hancock's theory?

>>725828

If there was a global flood, and only Noah and his family survived, how did the other cultures in different areas write about a flood?

>>725927

Because they were descendants of Noah and retained a memory of the event which they passed down. I mean that's what I expect proponents of a global flood would say, I'm undecided, personally.

>>725928

I would consider this, but Native Americans are at least 23,000 years old and Adam is apparently 7,500 by bible chronology

>>725927

because all of Noah's descendants moved to other parts of the world, and they remembered the story obviously.

Also the flood had to be worldwide. This implies that there were other righteous people in the world apart from Noah. Also science is pretty cucked, don't believe most of it. If it contradicts with sacred scripture, go with sacred scripture.

If it was a regional flood it would be totally stupid. Noah could have moved away like was said, the whole story is overdramatic and stupid. I mean God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, he could have destroyed a few other regions that way. The whole rainbow is soo melodramatic and stupid if it was just some local flood.

Show me archaeological evidence of what local flood was there that was sooo necessary to save two of each animal.

Also, God's covenant after the flood makes no sense if it's a local flood.

God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

So when God is saying he will destroy every creature, he just means locally, so the covenant is also just with the local creatures and not others? Haha like what…

>>725929

even if you aren't a YEC, it's a lot easier to believe that ages are not literal in the bible or they skipped generations than saying the whole flood account was local or an allegory.

>>725920

>"the world" meant "the known world" for the author

IIRC, the Greek word used in the Septuagint means "the civilized world."

>>725932

Is there any substantial argument for the whole skipping generations argument? The problem seems to be that the ages at which such and such a person begat such and such are given (e.g. Bob was 130 years old when he begat Steven and he lived 500 years after that). How do you maintain skipped generations in the face of that? The genealogies seem pretty straightforward.

>>725935

at least one argument is that for the genealogy of Christ they skip generations which were already mentioned in the OT, and the NT authors had to be familiar with

>>725929

>Believing secular anthropology

>>725776

The problem with determining isotopes with dating is it operates under the assumption that energy interacting the molecules are content, rather than sporadic like a sudden global flood.

Also I would favor the tectonic plates is in favor of Noah's Flood, than the idea is against it.

Are there any good YEC speakers/lecturers/debaters that people can recommend? Would especially like to see a good debate

>>725793

Not 2 of each animal. 7 pair of each animal. So 14 of each.

>>728423

Dr. Jason Lisle

>>725776

6000 is a dubious date to begin with. It's based off of the errors in the Masoretic. That 6000 number didn't even get used in all of Christian history until the 1700s (they once calculated via the Septuagint, which was a couple of thousand years longer, if taken literally).

>>730678

thanks just found a debate with Hugh Ross, gonna watch it. Can't stand that Hugh Ross guy tho, saw a video of him recently where he literally claimed that the division of peoples at Babel in the Bible actually referred to the division of the Beiring Strait by water lmao, seems like a total fraud.

>>730689

it was an inspired translation and was cites by the apostles and early church fathers. the masoretic is a very late text.

>>730689

What do fedoras have to do with this? Learn how to meme. Fedoras are for edgy atheists.

I didn't say the Old Testament was written in Greek. I'm talking about underlying Hebrew, which the DSS, LXX, Samaritan, and even Josephus (a Jew familiar with 1st century Hebrew scriptures) attest to.

The Bible gave you it's own guidance on deduction: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

You Protestants need to get off of your Jew worship and valuing ONLY that one witness, and we'll all be better off for it.

>>725756

Most likely global at the end of the last ice age. I don't know if the entire surface of the Earth went underwater but at least all coastal areas of the world were affected