After the great flood

Ok, so let's do it. I challenge everyone to be respectful in their disagreement without an implication that one or the other is ignorant, unsaved, doesn't believe the bible, has wrong theology, is a liberal, etc. I'd be surprised if that happenned, frankly.

 

In one sentence you ask for respectful discussion, but in the next two sentences you show disrespect by slamming Baptists?

 

Come now, it was lighthearted jest. I'm Baptist. I'm admittedly as guilty of not always being respectful as the next.

 

[quot

Both in the Old and New Testament such phrases are used to describe the known world, not the entire globe. Obviously you disagree.

A lot of probablys in that statement. I am required to stick to the text so I'll ask the same of you.

The reference was to Paul's statement in Colossians. He stated every creature under the heavens had been preached to. Wasn't speaking of China today, but I think you knew that.

What do you base your belief that mankind had spread throughout the entire globe by the days of Noah?

Because one has to understand how the words and phrases are used throughout scripture.

Read their works. There are plenty out there.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

http://www.reasons.org/about-us/faq

 

No I don't disagree. No one that I know of does. But isn't it clear that such phrases are also used to describe the entire globe and used to describe less than the known world. You arbitrarily picked a meaning without interacting with the text I quoted, a text which is substantially disimilar from the text you appealed to for support.

In other words, to make it more simple: I asked about the meaning of a phrase in a particular verse, and you appealed to an entirely different phrase in an entirely different context. Furthermore, the phrase you appealed to which has a variety meanings, including the one I am arguing for.

Yes, there are because there is not enough textual data to comment on the state of the terra firma prior to the flood. I try not to be dogmatic on things that the Bible is not clear on. I have a lot of latitude for these areas.

But you didn't stick to the text. In fact, you ignored the text.

No, you asked a question that I answered. As for in Paul's day, probably not, but to my knowledge, no one denies that the phrase "whole world" can be used in a variety of ways including entire globe (physical creation), entire globe of people, part of the entire globe, part of the people, etc. In other words, to state it again, your citation of Paul doesn't prove what the verse I cited means.

My belief isn't that mankind had spread throughout the entire world. I don't know where you got that from.

So you mock me because one has to understand how the words and phrases are used throughout Scripture? I am not sure I understand how that follows. Assuming that I don't understand, mocking me is probably not going to help that. And it certainly won't help most to read your positions with openness.

Furthermore, I asked about a particular phrase used in a particular verse, but you didn't talk about that phrase in that verse, nor about that particular phrase as it is used elsewhere in the Bible. You instead picked another phrase and didn't even really talk about that.

I think that's problemmatic, argumentatively.

I am familiar with their works. The question was two-fold. First, it was exegetical: why would one do it. I have read the reasons, and find the exegesis extremely lacking. I think it is fair to say that their exegesis is driven by concerns outside the text, not inside. I don't think anyone, simply on the basis of the Genesis text, would arrive at a local flood. Second, the question was rhetorical: designed to get people to actually think about the issue rather than merely accept what someone says.

However, the links you cite are filled with mistakes and errors of obvious nature. The first one has a rather silly reading of Psalm 104 that doesn't support his view at all. He also makes a rather misleading argument about the phrase "all the earth." He says it "nearly always" refers to local geography. He's right. But "nearly always" isn't "always." There are clear exceptions to when it refers to more than local geography. But he leans too heavily on this. The rest of his exegetical arguments are similarly weak. In other words, it reads like he started with a conclusion and set out to prove it without regard for a careful reading of the text.

The second, from Ross's group ... Well, suffice it to say that Ross has been fairly thoroughly exposed for more than a decade, both scientifically and exegetically, as well as theologically. There are a number of problems with his approach. So it is hard to take those as serious contributions to the discussion.

Exegetically speaking, there is no textual reason why one would see a local flood. There is no theological reason why one would see a local flood. Biblically speaking, it makes no sense. Furthermore 2 Peter 3 depends on the world-wide nature of the flood to make an argument for the world-wide nature of the end-time destruction. These are fairly serious matters, though probably not gospel related. But they certainly affect a lot of doctrinal issues.

So if you are interested in taking a stab at the passage I actually cited, and showing how that can be consistent with a local flood, I would be interested in reading it.

 

Where did you get this from? I don't recall (and don't see) anything I said that indicates this at all.

 

I think the water was a little higher than 30 feet or so. Dr. Bob's explanation fits the best.

 

:thumbsup:
Dead on Doc. I unequivocally agree. Any technology developed up and until that period would have utterly been destroyed by water and moving earth.
Remember that after two generations of Cain's line, cities were built and iron was fashioned.

 

So why doesn't scripture say so? Instead it seems to go out of the way to say it was 15 cubits. Dr. Bob's explanation may suit you but it is not derived from scripture.

 

I think scripture is pretty specific about this (the world wide flood) especially from the NT.

If the above is true then what are we to then say about those who deny such, as scripture stated they would eventually come?

 

Where is similar language used? What are you comparing it to?

I would say unlikely. I think the mountains and deeps seas were the result of the flood.

It seems to pretty clear that the waters were 15 cubits above the mountains. That is why the “mountains were covered.”You are the one saying that the mountains were not covered by 15 cubits.


You respond to Webdog, "Instead it seems to go out of the way to say it was 15 cubits." That's exactly my point. It seems to go out of the way that say it was 15 cubits above the mountains.


Have you thought of the difficulty of having a local flood that tops the mountains by almost fifty feet for 150 days? That doesn’t work, it doesn’t seem.

So you think mankind was localized? How do you know the flood wasn’t universal?

2 Peter 3 seems pretty clear, and John Owen (for all his obtuseness … I like John Owen, but he is hard to read) doesn’t seem to contradict that. 2 Peter 3 is about the end-time destruction, and it uses the flood as a reminder of that.

But what similar phrase? So far, you haven’t actually given any similar phrases have you?

Well, the global flood seems clear enough from Scripture. Give me a biblical reason to believe something else?

Isn’t that a question for you? Why is this verse needed for a local flood? It seems to me that the only reason to say that “The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered” (Gen 7:19) is to show precisely that it wasn’t local … All the mountain everywhere under the heavens were covered.

I still don’t know exactly what you do with that verse, except to bail out on it. You haven’t given us any comparative passages that use similar language. The only attempts you made use language that can mean exactly what I am saying it means.

So I don’t think you have made any case at all here.

 

I guess you're calling those who question a global flood "last days scoffers"? Besides, according to scripture the last days were occuring at the writing of the NT.

 

Really? You showed language that spoke of "all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered"? I missed that post. All I recall is you citing Luk 2 and Col 1, neither of which speak anything about all the high mountains under heavens.

Would you mind pointing out to me again where you showed similar language to what I quoted?

It does, though. It says, "The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered."

I don't know how you can say that that doesn't say that the mountains were covered.

No, I think you need to go back and think about that some more. If you can't read the Hebrew, compare the translations.

Why not? What are your qualifications to say that? What is the evidence you put forth in support? Already, we know of places where the earth's crust is supporting more than 35,000 feet of water, so 15 cubits above Mt. Everest is current more than 5,000 feet less than that. Furthermore, the assertion that it covered Everest by 15 cubits is one I don't know of any one knowledgeable that makes. Everest probably would not have existed at its current height prior to the flood.

I think the textual evidence is insurmountable.

I see. Yes, he was clearly wrong about that, as we can all tell.

That wasn't the language I appealed to, however. Furthermore, all of those phrases can be used just as I am suggesting, though they are also used other ways. In other words, all you have done is show possibilities of usage; you haven't made an argument for a usage.

I am not sure what you are talking about here. I don't find that problem at all with dispensationalists.

On what basis do you assert that there were penguins in Antarctica? Given the constant climate and the single land mass, there probably was no Antarctica. And furthermore, why would God destroy any animals for what man did in the Mediterranean (assuming that even existed as it currently does)? Your argument is proven wrong on its face, since the destruction of animals anywhere would seem to violate your presupposition here.

 

Grasshopper, Larry's gotchya by the you-know-whats*. You need to admit defeat and bow to your more-than-worthy adversary. Shouldn't've brought a knife to a gunfight.

*wings