Local Flood

[RV]

Anyone lean toward this view? If so, why?

[TK]

I do.

I dont think life, particularly human life, had spread too far out of mesopotamia by the time the flood happened.

Hugh Ross talks about this here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... lood.shtml.

there are other articles at his site, too.

of course, if the flood was global i wouldnt be overly surprised; i just tend to think it wasn't.

TK

[steve7150]

Yes i think the flood was regional for several reasons. Actually there isn't much evidence it is a global flood other then the word "erets" here is translated as "earth" instead of "land" although this word is translated as land 1,500 other times in scripture.
The reason for the flood was because the earth/land was filled with violence but most of the earth was uninhabited at this time, why would the whole earth flood when the violence was local.
It rained for 40 days and stopped yet the water level was maintained after this. Streams could maintain it regionally but how would worldwide waters be maintained without rain?
God made a wind to pass over the earth/land and the water level receeded because moisture was carried off , but if worldwide then water would only be shifted from one section to another.
"The waters were dried off the earth/land" Gen 8.13 Water could be dried off the land but oceans existed therefore water could not have been dried up over the earth.
The ark was lifted above the mountains of the earth/land, if it's the mountains of the earth then the ark would be 29,000 feet in the air where the air is exceedingly thin and freezing. How could these animals possibly live through this much less Noah and his family?
It is a physical impossibility for rain to cover the earth at a 5 mile depth in 40 days, it would take several years of continual rain. If you claim God just caused a massive flooding (which scripture does'nt claim) then humans and animals could'nt survive.
There are many other reasons supporting a regional flood but for now i'll rest my case.

[RND]

It is a physical impossibility for rain to cover the earth at a 5 mile depth in 40 days, it would take several years of continual rain.

God made the whole universe from absolutely nothing by simply "speaking it" into existence. I'd imagine making it rain for 40 days seems like a walk in the park.

If you claim God just caused a massive flooding (which scripture does'nt claim) then humans and animals could'nt survive.

Considering that only eight souls were saved in the Ark plus countless animals gathered by Noah I'd say that the point of the flood was satisfied.

There are many other reasons supporting a regional flood but for now i'll rest my case.

Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon Steve? How about Hoover Dam? Back in 1983 Hoover Dam reached it's highest level ever. The water had to be released. From July 24 to September 6, 1983 50,000 cfs (cubit feet per second) was released from Hoover Dam's spillways and the damage was tremendous. Millions of dollars of damage to the dam's spillways as well as down stream. Now imagine a huge amount of water released on a world wide scale and whammo, Grand Canyon!

Interestingly Lake Mead itself contains enough water to submerge the whole state of New York 1 foot! For me anyway imagining the absolute possibility that a monumental flood could cause serious damage to the earth's surface is easy. By the way, God didn't need to flood the earth to a distance of 5 miles. A person can drown in a bathtub! For those that had never seen rain before like the Antediluvians I would imagine it wouldn't have taken much water at al for them to drown.

Grand Canyon

I pasted a Google Maps link that shows what I think is evidence of massive flooding at one time in the Southwest.

[Suzana]

It rained for 40 days and stopped yet the water level was maintained after this. Streams could maintain it regionally but how would worldwide waters be maintained without rain?...

The ark was lifted above the mountains of the earth/land, if it's the mountains of the earth then the ark would be 29,000 feet in the air where the air is exceedingly thin and freezing. How could these animals possibly live through this much less Noah and his family?
It is a physical impossibility for rain to cover the earth at a 5 mile depth in 40 days, it would take several years of continual rain.

But it wasn’t just the 40 days of rain:

Genesis 7:11 (KJV) In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Genesis 8:1-2 (KJV) 1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; 2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

I’m not sure, but I think I remember hearing somewhere that the mountains were not necessarily as high then as they are now. In any case surely God would be perfectly capable of preserving them sovereignly, whatever the state of the atmosphere.

Another point someone brought out somewhere before – if there wasn’t to be a world-wide flood, why the necessity for the ark? God could have just had Noah’s family & the animals relocate elsewhere.

[steve7150]

I’m not sure, but I think I remember hearing somewhere that the mountains were not necessarily as high then as they are now. In any case surely God would be perfectly capable of preserving them sovereignly, whatever the state of the atmosphere.

Another point someone brought out somewhere before – if there wasn’t to be a world-wide flood, why the necessity for the ark? God could have just had Noah’s family & the animals relocate elsewhere.




Hi Suzana, I don't think there is any physical evidence that the height of the mountains were different a few thousand years ago, but there are lot's of crazy speculations. Sure God could preserve them sovreignly at 29,000 feet in the air for 40 days but scripture does'nt hint anything about this incredible miracle if it happened. This supernatural preservation which would be a breathtaking miracle surely would be mentioned by Noah or his family, don't you think?

The second point is good but since God appointed Noah to be a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2.5) the constructing of the ark served as a visual lesson for his message to the people who lived in the area. Also the ark preserved the animals whereas if Noah and family just left the area undoubtedly they could'nt contain and direct all the animals they were responsible for.

[Paidion]

The reason for the flood was because the earth/land was filled with violence but most of the earth was uninhabited at this time, why would the whole earth flood when the violence was local.

How do you know that most of the earth was uninhabited? Some say that the population of the earth was greater than its present population! Some ancient accounts also state that three fourths of the whole earth was dry land. If so, there would have been a lot more habitable arean than presently. It could have sustained a huge population.

It is true that the Hebrew word can mean either "earth" or "land", and it doesn't help to consult the Greek Septuagint, since the Greek word also can mean either "earth" or "land".
To answer your question, suppose the following passage refers to the entire earth:

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5

If this were case, then the reason the whole earth was flooded was to destroy ALL of mankind except the few on the ark.

It rained for 40 days and stopped yet the water level was maintained after this. Streams could maintain it regionally but how would worldwide waters be maintained without rain?
God made a wind to pass over the earth/land and the water level receeded because moisture was carried off , but if worldwide then water would only be shifted from one section to another.

I know we've all been brought up in Sunday School to think of the flood as a nice, gentle flood whose waters gradually rise. But what was the source of all the rain? Let's remember that there were waters above "the expanse" (the atmosphere). The presence of that water kept direct sunlight off the earth, and, according to Genesis, it had never rained prior to the flood, and there had never been a rainbow, until that huge volume of water fell.

And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. Genesis 1:7

Add to that the bursting of " the fountains of the deep", and you have a very violent flood. Great layers of water rushing in various directions, carrying rocks, trees, and other debris, causing the striations in rocks (which evolutionists ascribe to some great ice age). The great upheavel caused mountains to become higher and valleys to become deeper. Where did all that water go? Into the deep valleys to form our present oceans, so that now 70% of the earth's surface is water rather than perhaps only 25% in pre-flood days.

"The waters were dried off the earth/land" Gen 8.13 Water could be dried off the land but oceans existed therefore water could not have been dried up over the earth.
The ark was lifted above the mountains of the earth/land, if it's the mountains of the earth then the ark would be 29,000 feet in the air where the air is exceedingly thin and freezing. How could these animals possibly live through this much less Noah and his family?

Not if the "mountains" were much lower ---- what we would call "hills" today.

It is a physical impossibility for rain to cover the earth at a 5 mile depth in 40 days, it would take several years of continual rain. If you claim God just caused a massive flooding (which scripture does'nt claim) then humans and animals could'nt survive.

There are two factors here. How high were the "mountains"? 2000 feet at most? Secondly, this was not normal "rain". It may have been an almost solid body of water falling "from above the expanse".

[steve7150]

There are two factors here. How high were the "mountains"? 2000 feet at most? Secondly, this was not normal "rain". It may have been an almost solid body of water falling "from above the expanse".



If it were a solid body of water how would man and animals live through this? Yes God can do anything but nothing at all is hinted in scripture about this amazing miracle. And there is no evidence mountains were 2,000 ft , no biblical evidence and no physical evidence.
But Paidion i have a different question for you. If the flood reduced the entire world population down to 8 people so that every person descended from Noah's 3 sons how do you explain large population centers within 3 generations?
Noah's son Ham begat Cush who begat Nimrod who then had a kingdom of Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh in the land of Shinar , that is the great city Gen 10.8-12 (probably Nineveh). In Gen 10.13-15 we see numerous tribes mentioned for three generations from 3 sons of Noah.

[mikew]

We could try some logic here.

If the earth had plants all over, then there must have been animals all over the planet in order to keep those plants thriving.

If there were animals all over the world, then these animals would all have to be destroyed since it seems that everything was being started over again.

So the flood would have to cover the whole globe's land mass -- otherwise the animals could have roamed from the distant areas back to the area of this hypothetical local flood.

Now in general I have assumed that mankind was pretty well spread out and that the flood would have to be global. Then the flood of all the world was reflective of the idea that all men had sinned, and this was matched by global salvation through Jesus. It always seemed that if there was a local flood, the implication was that only few people needed to be saved.

I have felt like those documentaries that said it was a local flood were then making a theological commentary that only a limited group of people had sinned.

[steve7150]

Now in general I have assumed that mankind was pretty well spread out and that the flood would have to be global. Then the flood of all the world was reflective of the idea that all men had sinned, and this was matched by global salvation through Jesus. It always seemed that if there was a local flood, the implication was that only few people needed to be saved.

I have felt like those documentaries that said it was a local flood were then making a theological commentary that only a limited group of people had sinned.






If the flood was reflective that all men had sinned then what did it accomplish? Men sinned before the flood and men sinned right after the flood, correct? One of Noah's sons was Ham who was not a good guy and soon through his line came Nimrod and the tower of Babel, so nothing changed.
On the other hand if the flood had the purpose of destroying the garden of Eden area it accomplished it's purpose since the spot where the four rivers intersected in the Genesis account can now be seen from Satelites in space under the northern Persian Gulf. A lot of the global flood theory is assuming "erets" means earth and then filling in the gaps with assumptions.