Local Flood

[mattrose]

Global flood theory is not simply based on insistence than "erets" equals the whole earth. The passage seems to go out of its way to describe a worldwide flood. "ALL the high mountains under the ENTIRE heavens were covered" (emphasis mine). The waters covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. If it was a local flood, what does this mean? Was there a wall of water at the edge of the local area, making a choice to go no further? What of God's promise to never do such a thing again? Assuming "erets" means "land" the verse reads "Never again will there be a flood to destroy the land." Certainly there have been hordes of local floods since then. Has God repeatedly broken His promise. But my support for the global flood isn't simply biblical evidence, I believe the topography of the entire planet insists on a past deluge. What uniformitarianists interpret as old age, I think is better explained as past destruction. Just my 2 cents.

[Paidion]

You may want to check out these links:

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

[steve7150]

Global flood theory is not simply based on insistence than "erets" equals the whole earth. The passage seems to go out of its way to describe a worldwide flood. "ALL the high mountains under the ENTIRE heavens were covered" (emphasis mine). The waters covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. If it was a local flood, what does this mean? Was there a wall of water at the edge of the local area, making a choice to go no further? What of God's promise to never do such a thing again? Assuming "erets" means "land" the verse reads "Never again will there be a flood to destroy the land." Certainly there have been hordes of local floods since then. Has God repeatedly broken His promise. But my support for the global flood isn't simply biblical evidence, I believe the topography of the entire planet insists on a past deluge. What uniformitarianists interpret as old age, I think is better explained as past destruction. Just my 2 cents.





The phrase "under the whole heaven" is often used in a limited way. The same phrase is in Duet 2.25 "the nations which are under the whole heaven" referred to local Cannanite tribes. In Isaiah 13.5-7 "The Medes came from a far country , from the end of heaven" or Duet 1.28 " Cities were "walled up to heaven" so this is a figure of speech to paint a word picture.
If the flood rose 20 feet over the mountains it might sound like a lot but Mt Ararat is 17,000 feet so 20 feet statistically is insignificant and a small amount of water could have spilled over to the other side of the mountains.
Re God's promise to never flood the earth/land again, yes we have had many local floods but where is it ever said in scripture that God caused these floods? We live in a fallen world with natural disastors but unless you are a Calvinist , why would you assume God caused these things?
Now consider this verse please, "And the ark rested in the 7th month on the 17th day upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the 10th month and on the 1st day of the month were the tops of mountains visable." Gen 8.4-5
OK the ark rested on Ararat which is 17,000 feet high and after 2 1/2 months other mountains were visable , which makes sense in a regional flood.
But for a global flood we have mountains at 29,000 feet which would be visable long before the ark rested on Ararat at 17,000 feet.

[Suzana]

The links that Paidion provided have some interesting information regarding the many different types of evidence actually available for a global flood.

The first link especially (Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood) is good, and there is an easy to read general overview of various points near the end of the page, under the "IQ test" link.

[Homer]

I find it ironic that the scientific community, which sees the biblical account of the flood incredible, is now telling us that the geological features of the planet Mars have been shaped by floods. Perhaps the water that flooded the earth in Noah's day and the water that was once on Mars are in the same place now, wherever that is.

[mattrose]

The phrase "under the whole heaven" is often used in a limited way. The same phrase is in Duet 2.25 "the nations which are under the whole heaven" referred to local Cannanite tribes. In Isaiah 13.5-7 "The Medes came from a far country , from the end of heaven" or Duet 1.28 " Cities were "walled up to heaven" so this is a figure of speech to paint a word picture.

I don't doubt that the language MAY be used that way. The question is whether it IS being used that way in the story of the flood. It just doesn't seem like the most natural reading to me.

If the flood rose 20 feet over the mountains it might sound like a lot but Mt Ararat is 17,000 feet so 20 feet statistically is insignificant and a small amount of water could have spilled over to the other side of the mountains.

I am not quite sure I understand what you are saying when compared to how water works. Water naturally seeks the lowest available level. How could water rise 20 feet over the highest mountain in the area without first filling in all the other areas? I'm trying to picture that without a comical wall of water.

Re God's promise to never flood the earth/land again, yes we have had many local floods but where is it ever said in scripture that God caused these floods? We live in a fallen world with natural disastors but unless you are a Calvinist , why would you assume God caused these things?

I am by no means I calvinist, but I do think God is in charge. It seems like a pretty empty promise to me if He simply meant "I personally won't do it, but there will be plenty of pretty much identical events in world history"

Now consider this verse please, "And the ark rested in the 7th month on the 17th day upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the 10th month and on the 1st day of the month were the tops of mountains visable." Gen 8.4-5
OK the ark rested on Ararat which is 17,000 feet high and after 2 1/2 months other mountains were visable , which makes sense in a regional flood.
But for a global flood we have mountains at 29,000 feet which would be visable long before the ark rested on Ararat at 17,000 feet.

Visible to whom?

[TK]

One thing to consider, also, is that if all the continents at the time of the flood were together (Pangaea) then a global flood would not be required to cover the entire land mass.

here is what pangaea looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

of course, science tells us this was 250 million years ago. but they have been wrong before; the question is whether modern science can be THAT wrong.

TK

[RND]

One thing to consider, also, is that if all the continents at the time of the flood were together (Pangaea) then a global flood would not be required to cover the entire land mass.

here is what pangaea looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

of course, science tells us this was 250 million years ago. but they have been wrong before; the question is whether modern science can be THAT wrong.

TK

Or could God be THAT right.

[TK]

RND-

I think it is a mistake to simply disregard what science has to tell us. Of course I am no geologist, and to some extent it is an inexact science, but to entirely poo-poo the conclusions that modern geologists make, is, in my view, the height of arrogance.

The more science I read about, the more amazed I am at the complexity of God's creation.

TK

[mattrose]

Geology is my favorite branch of science. And I'm a young earth creationists.

It's not so much, in my opinion, that mainstream geologists have made a mistake in their methods. It's that they've made a mistake in their philosophy. Their 'science' (properly so called) is not the issue. For example, science (basic observation) tells scientists that erosion (for example) takes place at such and such a rate at present. That is science. It is even science to say that IF this current rate of erosion is the explanation for what we see (like, the Grand Canyon, for instance) then it would have taken this many years to bring such a topography about. I'm fine with that. But when they say natural forces (like erosion) MUST account for what we see today, they have moved from science to philosophy. When they reject a global flood out of hand simply b/c it's in the Bible, that is philosophy, not science.

In geology, there are basically 2 schools. Uniformitarianists and catastrophists. The uniformitarianists, basically, claim that the present is the key to the past. Modern geology is the product of present forces (slow and gradual as they are) impacting the earth over an incredibly long period of time. The catastrophists, basically, claim that the past is the key to the present. Many of them take the global flood as a historically reliable event and then take such a catastrophe into consideration when looking at the present topography. Both groups make the same observation: The earth has been carved up! The uniformitarianists say this is the result of old age. The catastrophists say this is the result of a historical cataclysm. These are simply 2 interpretations of the same observations.

I have a good friend who is a geologist. He helped me to understand something a few years back. If the global flood was a real event in history, almost all geologists would agree that IT (And not millions of years) explains the present condition of the earth. It is only because they reject the global flood that they have to explain the appearance with age (millions of years). This is why there are almost no examples of learned people who are both global flood believers and old earth creationists.