question about Genesis 7:20

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: question about Genesis 7:20

Post by TK » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:17 pm

Darin-

when you say you don't think God acted supernaturally in causing the flood- I am not sure exactly what you mean. For example, rainstorms today generally dont last 40 days. it may rain every day for 40 days, but not a constant rain. I think God could have caused it to rain supernaturally for 40 days, but I think he used rain clouds. Maybe He was just supernaturally filling them up.

It may be a matter of semantics- like when it says the fountains of the deep burst open, I think God caused that, which would seem to be a supernatural event.

Maybe when you say supernatural, you mean something along the lines of God causing water to fall out of a clear blue sky, or something that wouldnt have an alternative natural explanation.

I'm with you on the local flood hypothesis, partially because of the water volume problem you mentioned. However, I suppose God would not necessarily be limited by a water volume problem, if he supernaturally created extra water.

TK

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: question about Genesis 7:20

Post by darinhouston » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:31 pm

TK wrote:Darin-

when you say you don't think God acted supernaturally in causing the flood- I am not sure exactly what you mean. For example, rainstorms today generally dont last 40 days. it may rain every day for 40 days, but not a constant rain. I think God could have caused it to rain supernaturally for 40 days, but I think he used rain clouds. Maybe He was just supernaturally filling them up.

It may be a matter of semantics- like when it says the fountains of the deep burst open, I think God caused that, which would seem to be a supernatural event.

Maybe when you say supernatural, you mean something along the lines of God causing water to fall out of a clear blue sky, or something that wouldnt have an alternative natural explanation.

I'm with you on the local flood hypothesis, partially because of the water volume problem you mentioned. However, I suppose God would not necessarily be limited by a water volume problem, if he supernaturally created extra water.

TK
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not a naturalist. I believe water into wine and loaves and fishes and walking on water and the like are clear indications of supernatural alterations with (what we know of) the laws of our physical universe. However, I see no reason to require such things in the flood. Global fluctuations in waters could account for amount of rainfall (in addition to aquifers and the sort letting go of their water through natural geysers and the sort -- though on a global flood scale, this would cause all kinds of problems from the generated steam), and God-directed gravity and humidity and winds and the like could be used to drive that moisture to support a 40 day rain. That doesn't mean he created new matter just for the event and destroyed it after (violating laws of physics vs. simply directing them).

User avatar
Candlepower
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:26 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: question about Genesis 7:20

Post by Candlepower » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:32 am

Jeff, Darin, and TK,

There are a number of internet sites that deal with the Biblical view of The Flood. As you know, there is also a lot of literature available for reading. In an effort to become a little more informed, I have done some surfing and reading. I emphasize, little.

The Flood is not a subject near the top of my theological interests, presently, so I don't intend to study it much in order to become an expert. I'm hoping to gain just enough knowledge to make me dangerous. You are all probably more knowledgeable (and dangerous) than I am. ;)

Basically, I understand the whole Flood scenario as a time when God intervened to accomplish a complex and rapid reorganization of, among other things, the earth's shape, environment, and population. I think the whole thing involved God rearranging nature, supernaturally. I see any Divine intervention as miraculous, because man can't do it, and nature can't do it by itself. I don't understand exactly what happened or how it happened. There is a lot of speculation among Bible believers. But, like you, I believe it did happen. We know Jesus verified it without providing details.

Here are a couple of sites you may want to peek into: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part ... -from.html
and http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/li ... ahsark.htm

They at least touch on various questions that have come up on this thread (atmospheric pressure, temperature, where did all the water come from).

Here is a little bit of speculation from the second site:
Atmospheric pressure and oxygen concentration are relative to sea level. As the sea rose, so also did the air we breathe. No matter if the Flood waters were as high as Mount Everest (which isn't likely, as I explained above based on Psalm 104:5-9), the oxygen necessary to sustain life would have been more than adequate.
Candlepower

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: question about Genesis 7:20

Post by steve7150 » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:43 pm

I read a book by Ralph Woodrow who talked about several bible subjects including the flood and he claimed the flood was regional for several reasons. One reason was that it would take much longer then 120 years for slow moving animals and insects to travel thousands of miles to get to the Ark. The atmosphere question is theoretical but i find it unlikely that you can elevate the sea level atmosphere 28,000 feet up and it would remain unchanged plus we still have the temperature issue as well as food and sanitary issues which are unsolvable by natural means. Of course God could have intervened and transported the animals and kept them in a sealed warm contained space , but the bible never even hints about that. Additionally when Jesus referenced the flood he grouped it with the destruction of Sodom & Gemorrah a local event. I think it's odd to group a localized event together with a supposed worldwide flood since the gravity of the two are so different.
Just as in the greek the same word for "land" in hebrew is also the word for "earth" , i believe it's "erets." It's true that the bible is about Jesus but for a skeptic to believe about Jesus the bible has to make sense to be credible to him.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: question about Genesis 7:20

Post by TK » Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:22 pm

I know Hugh Ross believes in a localized flood-- He has articles on his site http://www.reasons.org.

Candlepower- I am like you-- it doesnt interest me greatly, other than the fact that it is a mystery as to what actually happened, and I like a good mystery. I am really curious as to the public reaction and effect it would have if the remains of the ark were truly and indisputably found. I used to have an agnostic co-worker who said if they found the remains of a large boat on a mountain it would just mean they found a large boat. He wouldn't leap to the conclusion that it was Noah's ark. I was always dismayed by that comment because I think he meant it.

TK

User avatar
Candlepower
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:26 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: question about Genesis 7:20

Post by Candlepower » Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:12 pm

TK,
Thanks for the reply. That would be amazing if they ever did find the Ark, wouldn't it? I think your agnostic co-worker is probably representative of most unbelievers. Unbelievers find the flood unbelievable, whether the facts are presented by a partial-flooder or a full-flooder. After they become believers, they fall into one camp or the other. I will check out that website.


Steve 7150,
steve7150 wrote:I read a book by Ralph Woodrow who talked about several bible subjects including the flood and he claimed the flood was regional for several reasons. One reason was that it would take much longer then 120 years for slow moving animals and insects to travel thousands of miles to get to the Ark.


I have not read Woodrow, but it sounds to me that he might be making some unnecessary assumptions. Perhaps he assumes that earth’s climate, atmosphere, and geography before the flood were comparable to the way they are today. That assumption seems improbable.

We don’t know exactly how God arranged for all those animals to get to the Ark in time, but that was not Noah’s job. It was God’s. I have no doubt God could have gotten them there in 120 seconds (or less) if He had wanted to. It doesn’t make sense to me to limit God to our mathematics. God does not have to do things according to our definition of “naturally.” Our tiny brains hardly understand nature, I think. God, being its Creator, knows it infinitely. I try not to hold Him to my understanding of nature. And I try not hold myself to it either.
steve7150 wrote:The atmosphere question is theoretical but i find it unlikely that you can elevate the sea level atmosphere 28,000 feet up and it would remain unchanged
But do we know how high the mountains were before the flood — or how deep the oceans were — or how much water there was in the atmosphere — or how much water there was under the earth — or how many continents there were — or what the distribution of plants and animals was like? We don’t know for sure. We probably can’t know for sure. Based on their research and experiments, however, many Christian scientists (not the denomination) believe that before the flood, the entire earth was covered with a thick canopy of water vapor, that there was a global green-house-like climate, that plants and animals were distributed rather uniformly everywhere, that mountains were not as high nor oceans as deep as they are now, and that there may have been only one continent. I don’t find any of those theories improbable. But even if none of these theories is correct, and if everything is today as it was then, I find it improbable to conclude that in order for God to make a global flood happen, He had to abide by the rules of physics and mathematics as we understand them now. If the flood was local/regional, it still was a whopper that only God could have accomplished. For God, one size flood would not be more difficult to accomplish than another, IMO. Personally, I find a global flood more likely than a local flood, and, based on God’s ability to do whatever He wants with His creation, I see nothing improbable about it.
steve7150 wrote:plus we still have the temperature issue as well as food and sanitary issues which are unsolvable by natural means.
Again, this assumes that the climate was the same then as it is now. You may be right that the food and sanitary issues are unsolvable by natural means. I’m glad God does not have to limit Himself to natural means to solve problems. If I can think of ways God might have overcome the problems you mentioned, how much easier it is for God to create solutions.
steve7150 wrote:Of course God could have intervened and transported the animals and kept them in a sealed warm contained space , but the bible never even hints about that.
I believe God did intervene, Steve. Scripture doesn’t say God transported the animals to the Ark (though He could have if He had wanted to). It says they went to Noah. This is a hint as to how it might have happened. It’s not improbable that the animals may have needed to travel only a few miles and that they went under their own strength in their natural manner. Certainly there are more hints about how all this happened than there are hints about how God created the stars. All we are told about that in the creation account is that, “He made the stars also.” (Genesis 1:16). That’s it! So, keeping elephants fed, clean, and warm seems like a snap to me. Probably God figured out a way to help Noah accomplish what sounds impossible to you and me.
steve7150 wrote:Additionally when Jesus referenced the flood he grouped it with the destruction of Sodom & Gemorrah a local event. I think it's odd to group a localized event together with a supposed worldwide flood since the gravity of the two are so different.
I think it’s odd to conclude that just because Jesus mentioned The Flood in one sentence and Sodom/Gomorrah in the following sentence that He was therefore equating them as both local. Must we segregate local things from worldwide things and discuss them only on different occasions lest someone conclude we are grouping everything as either local or global? I don’t think Jesus was necessarily “grouping” anything. And I see no logic in assuming that just because He mentioned Sodom (a local event) it necessarily required Him to be stating that The Flood was local as well. It seems a stretch to construct such a doubtful attachment between Sodom and The Flood in order to support your argument, brother. It is your assumption and I find no strength in it. Neither Sodom nor The Flood were Jesus’ subject in Luke 17:26-30. It was the lifestyle of people prior to His coming in judgment.
steve7150 wrote:It's true that the bible is about Jesus but for a skeptic to believe about Jesus the bible has to make sense to be credible to him.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Perhaps I’m reading it wrong. Are you arguing in favor of a local flood because an unbeliever would consider it more credible than a global flood, and that that credibility would help a skeptic to believe about Jesus? As I said before, I favor a global flood scenario because I think the arguments in favor of it are strong. But, I’m not dogmatic about it because I know I may be wrong! And I love my partial-earth brothers and sisters. They may be right. This is not a hill I choose to die on. But I don’t think we should choose where to stand on a particular point based on our concern for how credible it might be to the skeptic. That premise puts all of our beliefs at risk and puts the skeptic in charge. The resurrection is incredible, to the unbeliever. Everything about Jesus is incredible, to the unbeliever. Remolding the Bible until it is sufficiently “credible” to convince skeptics is not wise. We shouldn't worry about dressing Scripture in outfits that make it more appealing to its critics.

The Bible is what it is. And Christians are what they are. There are plenty of disagreements among us. These disagreements provide us opportunities to extend grace toward one another as we seek the truth and advance God's Kingdom. When a skeptic becomes a Christian, it doesn’t take him long to discover that there’s a lot of disagreement in the family. That’s allowed.

Here's a good discussion of the issue http://www.thenarrowpath.com/mp3s/bible ... /gen07.mp3

God bless you,

Candlepower

User avatar
Suzana
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:09 am
Location: Australia

Re: question about Genesis 7:20

Post by Suzana » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:43 pm

"Remolding the Bible until it is sufficiently “credible” to convince skeptics is not wise. We shouldn't worry about dressing Scripture in outfits that make it more appealing to its critics" (Candlepower)

[quote function doesn't seem to be working for me today...or bold...or any other highlight] :(

I apologize for digressing from the thread subject, but this reminded me of an excellent essay I recently read, to do with a similar objection but in a different context (watering down Christianity in general) in "Strong Meat" by Dorothy L Sayers - an excerpt as follows:

"Somehow or other, and with the best intentions, we have shown the world the typical Christian in the likeness of a crashing and rather ill-natured bore—and this in the Name of One Who assuredly never bored a soul in those thirty-three years during which He passed through the world like a flame.
Let us, in Heaven’s name, drag out the Divine Drama from under the dreadful accumulation of slip-shod thinking and trashy sentiment heaped upon it, and set it on an open stage to startle the world into some sort of vigorous reaction. If the pious are the first to be shocked, so much the worse for the pious—others will pass into the Kingdom of Heaven before them. If all men are offended because of Christ, let them be offended; but where is the sense of their being offended at something that is not Christ and is nothing like Him? We do Him singularly little honour by watering down His personality till it could not offend a fly.

Surely it is not the business of the Church to adapt Christ to men, but to adapt men to Christ".
Suzana
_________________________
If a man cannot be a Christian in the place he is, he cannot be a Christian anywhere. - Henry Ward Beecher

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: question about Genesis 7:20

Post by steve7150 » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:08 pm

Again, this assumes that the climate was the same then as it is now. You may be right that the food and sanitary issues are unsolvable by natural means. I’m glad God does not have to limit Himself to natural means to solve problems. If I can think of ways God might have overcome the problems you mentioned, how much easier it is for God to create solutions.





Hi Candle,

Certainly God could have intervened , no bible believer would dispute that, but my point was that at least IMO you have believe things that are not said in the bible to accept a global flood. I'm sure many things did happen not described in the bible but i think we ought to be cautious about concluding something not in scripture because God could have done it, or the earth could have looked different.
Actually the best way not to remold the bible is to stay within it and the very beginning of the discussion starts with why "erets" should mean world when it was used for "land" 1,500 times if i remember Woodward correctly and also it was used for "country" many times.

User avatar
Candlepower
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:26 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: question about Genesis 7:20

Post by Candlepower » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:49 pm

Suzana wrote:Surely it is not the business of the Church to adapt Christ to men, but to adapt men to Christ".
Thank you, Suzana, for that wonderful excerpt. I think it was very appropriate.


steve7150 wrote:you have (to) believe things that are not said in the bible to accept a global flood.
Steve,

I think that statement goes for either a local or a global flood. Both views are theories, which means they rest partly on untestable suppositions. Both have strengths and weaknesses, and the differences of opinion will continue until...whenever. For each individual, it comes down to which theory he feels is most compelling, and with which he is more comfortable. In the end, both cannot be right, but our relationship with one another and with Jesus is not based on either, thank God.
steve7150 wrote:the discussion starts with why "erets" should mean world when it was used for "land" 1,500 times if i remember Woodward correctly and also it was used for "country" many times.
Concerning "erets," I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but I do have a Strong's Concordance with Greek and Hebrew dictionaries in the back. In Genesis chapter 6, the word "earth" appears 14 times (KJV). Three time (verses 1,7, 20), it is translated from the word "adawmaw," and the remaining times it is translated from the word "erets." Both words, apparently, can be (and were) translated as either land or earth (globe) depending on what the translator understood the the writer's intent to be. Making such translations can be tricky at times, I'm sure, and translators probably have made a few mistakes. Sometimes it may have boiled down to personal preference, perhaps swayed by ones doctrines. Which is the way it is in the debate between local-flooders and global-flooders. If you're a local-flooder, you want the word to be translated "land" in order to support your theory of a local flood. If you're a global-flooder, on the other hand, you prefer the word to be translated "earth" to imply a world-wide deluge.

The way I see it, when it comes to erets and adawmaw, it's a draw. Neither side can claim a clear advantage. If you've concluded erets always means land, fine. It fits your theory. But don't forget that it fits mine also.

I have enjoyed discussing this subject with you, Steve. Please remember that my conclusions are neither conclusive nor final. I hear what you're saying, and I appreciate your saying it. I'm learning every day. My present position is that the evidence I've heard for a local flood is not compelling enough to convince me what I feel Scripture seems to be implying in plain language -- that the flood covered the entire earth. That's what it seems to say on the face of it. But maybe I'm missing something.

God bless you,

Candlepower

By the way, have you listened to this link? http://www.thenarrowpath.com/mp3s/bible ... /gen07.mp3

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: question about Genesis 7:20

Post by steve7150 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:50 am

I have enjoyed discussing this subject with you, Steve. Please remember that my conclusions are neither conclusive nor final. I hear what you're saying, and I appreciate your saying it. I'm learning every day. My present position is that the evidence I've heard for a local flood is not compelling enough to convince me what I feel Scripture seems to be implying in plain language -- that the flood covered the entire earth. That's what it seems to say on the face of it. But maybe I'm missing something.





Candle, thanks you for your gracious response. The following info is from Ralph Woodrow's book "Noah's Flood, Joshua's Long Day and Lucifer's Fall" a really good book and is meant for anyone interested in the flood discussion.
After 222 years after the flood (Gen 11.10-26) Abraham found civilizations in Canaan like the Kenites,Kenizzites,Kadmonites,Hittites,Perizzites,Rephaims,Amorites,Canaanites,Girgashites and Jebusites (Gen 15.9-21). Twenty six cities are mentioned in Canaan alone. In Egypt he found a civilization under the control of a Pharaoh (Gen 12.15) and in Damascus he rescued Lot and others who had been captured by certain kings (Gen 14.1-16).
According to Woodward these civilizations add up to a combined total of people that could not have developed in 222 years from a base of 8 people and the response is that in Gen 11.10-26 the list must contain gaps not mentioned. Woodward responds that the list is precise and to assume gaps makes the list almost meaningless. So there you have it, are there gaps or is the list in Gen 11 precise?

Post Reply

Return to “Christian Evidences & Challenges”