Local flood, not all humanity killed?

[RickD]

I was hoping we could work through the discussion that PaulS and I started here.

The position that I've been leaning towards, is a basic progressive creationist stance. Local flood, all humanity lived only in the area of the flood. All humanity except those on the ark died.

Now for those who believe it was a local flood that killed only those in the area of the flood, and everyone else on the earth survived, could you please help me work through why you believe that?

Links, or discussions would be helpful.

[hughfarey]

Remember it was not only all humanity that perished, but all life on land, including plants. Do you think there were no living things at all except those concentrated in this local area?

[Katabole]

Now for those who believe it was a local flood that killed only those in the area of the flood, and everyone else on the earth survived, could you please help me work through why you believe that?

Since this is a thread about the flood, this is not a salvation issue and I hope everyone understands that.

I believe there were two different creations of men. The first creation of man is found in Gen 1:26, which is "humanity" in general, denoting the different races or better said ethnic groups (Greek ethnos). The other creation of man is found in Gen 2:7, denoting specifically and exclusively, "the man Adam".

We briefly touched on this a number of years back Rick on another thread where we were arguing with a former member of the forum who insisted the flood was global. It has to do with the English word "man" found in the Genesis account. You would need a good interlinear Bible to study the differences. I will briefly explain using notes I have here at home.


There are four principal Hebrew words rendered as the English word "man", and these must be carefully distinguished. These words represent "man" from four different points of view:

1/ Adam, denotes his origin, as being made from the "dust of the Adamah" ground.
2/ Ish, has regard to sex, a male.
3/ Enosh, has regard to his infirmities, as physically mortal and as to character.
4/ Geber, has respect to his strength.

Adam, without the article, "eth" denotes "man or mankind, humanity" in general (Gen. 1:26; 2:5; 5:1)

Adam. With the article, "eth" denotes "the man Adam" though it is still is rendered in the text as "man" in Gen1:27; 2:7 (twice), 8, 15, 16, 22 (twice); 3:12, 22, 24; 5:1; 6:1. After this, the Hebrew word Adam = man or men and is used exclusively of the descendants of Adam. Hence, Christ is called "the son of Adam", not "the son of Enosh."

With the particle "ha" in addition to the article "eth" it is very emphatic, and means self, very, this same and this very. Gen. 2:7 is the first occurrence, 8, 15.

In the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) the word "man" is rendered as (anthropos) 411 times; (aner) eighteen times (fifteen times alone in the book of Proverbs); (brotos), meaning mortal (all in the book of Job); once (gegenes), meaning earth-born man, Jer. 32:20.

Ish. First occurrence in feminine, Gen. 2:23, ishah = woman. Therefore, ish = male, or husband; a man, in contrast with a woman.

Enosh. First occurrence Gen. 6:4, men of name. Always in a bad sense (Isa. 5:22; 45:14. Judg. 18:25). Morally depraved, and physically frail and weak. It is from 'anash, to be sick, wretched, weak, and denotes inability.

Geber. First occurrence in Gen. 6:4, mighty men, and denotes man in respect of his physical strength, as Enosh does in respect of the depravity of his nature. It is rendered "man" sixty-seven times, "mighty" twice, "man-child" once, "every one" once.

In Genesis 6:4, three out of the above four words are utilized : "daughters of men" = daughters of the man Adam; "mighty men" = (geber); "men of renown". Enosh, men of name, i.e. renowned for their moral depravity.


In regards to the flood account starting in Genesis 6, the story begins with using the word "men" in Gen 6:1. This is specifically and exclusively in regards to the descendants of Adam alone and not humanity in general. If the word "men" used in Gen 6:1, did not use the article and the particle, it would change the entire context of the story, which is frankly why there are so many discrepancies when it comes to fully understanding the flood account.

I believe that humanity had already dispersed around the globe by the time Genesis 6 roles around. The descendants of Adam were in a small geographical area. Genesis 6 describes a specific attack on the line of Adam, evidently organized by Lucifer and perpetrated by "the sons of God", the "Napha" or fallen ones. Fallen angels.

Lucifer (the serpent) was told by God that somewhere down the timeline, someone would come who would "crush (bruise) his head" in Gen 3:15. Evidently knowing this, Lucifer began his first series of attacks on Adam's specific bloodline, to prevent Christ from ever being born, starting in Gen 6. There are a whole series of these after the flood as well. I will list a few:

The destruction of the chosen family by famine, Gen 50:20.

The destruction of the male line in Israel, Ex1:10, 15, Ex2:5, Heb11:23.

The destruction of the whole nation in Pharaoh's pursuit Ex 14.

After David's line was singled out (2Sam 7), that was the next selected for assault. Satan's first assault was in the union of Jehoram and Athaliah by Jehoshaphat, notwithstanding 2 Chron 17:1. Jehoram killed off all his brothers (2Chron 21:4).

The Arabians slew all his children, except Ahaziah (2Chron. 21:17; 22:1).

When Ahaziah died, Athaliah killed "all the seed royal" (2Chron. 22:10). The babe Joash alone was rescued and for six years, the faithfulness of God's word was at stake (2Chron 23:3).

Hezekiah was childless, when a double assault was made by the King of Assyria and the King of Terrors (Isa 36:1; 38:1). God's faithfulness was appealed to and relied on (Psalm 136).

In Captivity, Haman was used to attempt the destruction of the whole nation (Esther 3:6, 12, 13. Cp. 6:1).

Joseph's fear was worked on (Matt. 1:18-20). Notwithstanding the fact that he was "a just man", and kept the Law, he did not wish to have Mary stoned to death (Deut. 24:1); hence Joseph determined to divorce her. But God intervened.

Herod sought the young Child's life (Matt. 2).

At the Temptation, "Cast Thyself down" was part of Satan's temptation to Christ.


All these are examples of Lucifer attempting to prevent Christ from being born.

So when the Bible claims there were only eight souls on the ark, the text is specifically speaking in regards to eight 'Adamic" souls.

As to why I believe it was a local flood, I have already written about previously. For example, In Exodus 10:5-15 we read about a plague of locusts that "covered the face of the whole earth similar in wording to the flood "covered the whole earth". It should be pretty evident that this locust plague covered only a limited amount of LAND of Egypt... yet it is the same wording in both places. Why is it we never assume these locusts covered the entire globe???

Gen 41:56. Famine was over "all the face of the earth" similar to the flood being over "all the face of the earth". But keeping it in context, the famine was certainly only a localized famine in the Mediterranean region. Why is it we never assume the famine was over the entire planet???

The Hebrew word 'erets' or Earth is transliterated into the English as the words "earth" 665 times, "land" 1581 times, "country" 44 times, "ground" 119 times, "lands" 57 times and "countries", 15 times. Proper contextual understanding of this word is necessary to understand if the flood was indeed local or global and I believe it was local.

I could go into greater detail but I believe that explanation would suffice as to why I believe Noah's flood to be a local flood, that only affected a small geographic area. And the sole purpose of the flood was to destroy the offspring of the fallen angels and the descendants of Adam. And only eight members of the Adamic line were saved. The rest of humanity were not affected as they were not in the geographic area of the flood.

So although I agree with the Progressive Creation stance that the flood was indeed a local flood and not a global flood, I disagree on the premise that the flood affected all of humanity and instead affected specifically the bloodline of Adam; (the man Adam) ('eth 'Ha Adam).

I hope that helps clarify.

[RickD]

Remember it was not only all humanity that perished, but all life on land, including plants. Do you think there were no living things at all except those concentrated in this local area?

Not sure how this has anything to do with the op.

[RickD]

Katabole,

Thanks for the post. I'll digest what you wrote, and I'll get back to you.

[hughfarey]

Remember it was not only all humanity that perished, but all life on land, including plants. Do you think there were no living things at all except those concentrated in this local area?

Not sure how this has anything to do with the op.

In a single verse of Genesis, we learn that "all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man". If you think that this translation can be read to mean that all the people on the earth were concentrated in one small area - so that 'every man' could perish in a local flood - then presumably you must suppose that every beast and bird was also concentrated into the same space - so that 'all flesh' could perish with them. Other verses refer to 'every living substance' which surely includes plants.

It may be possible for biblical literalists to pretend that, as man had but recently emerged on the earth, then perhaps people were all concentrated in a small area, but if they do, they must logically extend that proposition to include all other living things too, which is much less credible.

[RickD]

Remember it was not only all humanity that perished, but all life on land, including plants. Do you think there were no living things at all except those concentrated in this local area?

Not sure how this has anything to do with the op.

In a single verse of Genesis, we learn that "all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man". If you think that this translation can be read to mean that all the people on the earth were concentrated in one small area - so that 'every man' could perish in a local flood - then presumably you must suppose that every beast and bird was also concentrated into the same space - so that 'all flesh' could perish with them. Other verses refer to 'every living substance' which surely includes plants.

It may be possible for biblical literalists to pretend that, as man had but recently emerged on the earth, then perhaps people were all concentrated in a small area, but if they do, they must logically extend that proposition to include all other living things too, which is much less credible.

Again,

Insert "land" in place of "earth". Maybe It is talking about a specific area.

[RickD]

What I guess I'm looking to find out, is if the only people to die in the flood were restricted to a local flood area, and there were others throughout the globe that weren't affected, what does that do theologically, if anything?

[hughfarey]

A full theology of the story of the Flood is beyond me, but I see it as an illustration, perhaps the first, of the idea of a covenant between God and man. In earlier chapters, we see God creating the Universe and giving man 'dominion' over it, but the relationship between man and God is strictly one of subservience, and punishment for disobedience. The Flood narrative introduces more of a relationship between God and man, and the unconditional guarantee that man (and the rest of creation) will not be wiped out again. Every day at the school where I teach, we say the Angelus, one couplet of which reads: "Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God, That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ." The point here is not that we will not enjoy the promises of Christ unless we are made worthy of them, but that we will enjoy them anyway, and pray that we are worthy of them out of love and duty. This, I think, is close to some of the meaning of the covenant with Noah. Various ideas regarding the symbolism of water and baptism, rainbows, a rather feeble speculative account of how God can permit animals to eat each other, or humans to eat animals, and ideas about community, family leadership and so on can all be extracted from the same story, making it sufficiently valuable to be included as part of scripture.

Anyway, the whole of these first few chapters of Genesis are, to mind, clearly about the relationships between God and his creation, and are not to be interpreted theologically as applying to one small group of people, or to imply that there were other people created separately from Adam and Eve. Man, per se, was disobedient and was punished, and man, per se, was righteous and was rewarded with the covenant. The stories adapted to illustrate these meanings were taken from various folk mythologies, none of which was literally scientifically or historically true (although some probably based on actual events), but which carried, and continue to carry, the most profound truths about what it is to be human in God's universe. Attempting to extract scientific literalism from them is not only fraught with contradictions, but likely to trivialise the true meaning of them as well.

[abelcainsbrother]

I will be honest and say I have always believed in a global flood in Noah' s flood however Katabole has got me to question it based on his post.I also believe that the bloodline or even DNA of humans was contaminated by fallen angels in order to stop the birth of Jesus but Jesus was a Jew so only a certain race would matter.However based on the wording when it comes to Noah's flood it does seem to imply a global flood and I always try to go by God's word first( not that ya'll don't) and then I might try to look for evidence for it.

It can be hard to find evidence for a global flood though but there are those who have and are finding evidence if you know where to look. I can't remember the name of the book right now but there was a book written years ago forwarded by Albert Einstein written before young earth creation science t that used real science to make a case for a global flood. I think that although the intentions of young earth creationists to defend God's word is understandable the way they have taught a global flood happened has really done more harm than good and it has actually caused people to doubt it happened when it comes to science and the way they have taught it happened.

Still God's word tells us it happened whether it was global or local.No offense to OEC's and the local flood idea but IMO I think the idea for a local flood was not based on what the bible says but instead was based on how YEC's have taught a global flood happened or just based on how hard it is to defend and so it is easier to defend by making a case it was not global but a local flood instead which is one reason why I've been reluctant to accept the idea of a local flood,still though Kataabole has made a reasonable biblical case for a local flood that I feel I need to look into more.

As far as the effect of it theologically? God did not tell Satan what race Jesus would be born through and so it is very possible that Satan caused it to effect all of humanity.However this would only apply if you believe Satan sent fallen angels to contaminate the human bloodline in order to try to prevent the birth of Jesus.There were half-breeds that needed to be wiped out and I would think regardless of the race it effected. Right now I still lean toward a global flood but I could change my mind.

[Jac3510]

Just for the record, Katabole's post has several inaccuracies wrt Hebrew grammar. First, eth is not the Hebrew article, nor is ha a particle sometimes associated with words or the article. Rather, ha is the article. So ish by itself is called an anarthrous noun (a noun without the article) and so has a different meaning that ha-ish (which would usually be translated "the man"). Eth is actually a particle used in Hebrew grammar to designate the direct object of a verb.

Second, ish and ishah does not refer to gender. The words that do refer to gender are zakar and nĕqebah. You can see those words used in Gen 1:28. Ish can be properly translated "mankind" (or "humankind" if you really want to be gender-neutral)--that verse says that God created ish in His image; zakar and nĕqebah He created them in His image.

Third, enosh does not designate men according to some moral character, as if it is always used in a bad sense. See Psalm 8:5 for just one example. If we are to find a special semantic flavor, the idea relates to man's mortality and thus frailty.

The word geber is not some special word for "man." It is used to emphasize strength, and so David's mighty men are called geber, so you can't make a connection here to being "renowned for their moral depravity." Those words just don't and can't carry that meaning.

I could address a lot more issues, but I'll limit it to one more problem since by Katabole's own admission, "If the word "men" used in Gen 6:1, did not use the article and the particle, it would change the entire context of the story." Now, as it happens, Katabole is incorrect. The word "men" here does not "use the article and the particle." Here is the actual Hebrew text:

וַֽיְהִי כִּֽי־הֵחֵל הָֽאָדָם לָרֹב עַל־פְּנֵי הָֽאֲדָמָה וּבָנֹות יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶֽם׃

The word in bold is ha-adam -- literally, "the man." Now, one of the main = functions of the article is to designate what is called a "class noun," such that the word refers to the general class. Thus, ish refers to a man; ha-ish refers to the particular man (one of the functions of the article--to make the word definite) or it might refer to mankind generally, as it does in Gen 6:1. Now, as Katabole states, this changes the meaning quite a bit and the entire exegesis provided simply doesn't follow.

For those interested in a discussion on the article, see Waltke's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (and skip to page 144). You may also want to skip to page 299 for a full discussion of general use of the article to mark out class nouns. That is part of the entire chapter on definiteness in Hebrew, which begins on page 289. This chapter really is worth a read even if you've never taken a day of Hebrew (although, of course, you're understanding of the material is enhanced if you can read the Hebrew examples he provides rather than just the English translations).

That is all.

[DBowling]

Now for those who believe it was a local flood that killed only those in the area of the flood, and everyone else on the earth survived, could you please help me work through why you believe that?

I'm open to the possibility that the noahic flood killed only the people in the region, and if there were others throughout the globe, they survived.

But somebody would need to make a case for why only the locals were killed, and not everyone else. And how that doesn't contradict scripture with God being ashamed he made man. Was He only talking about Adam's lineage? Maybe because that lineage was supposed to be set apart from other humans, therefore special?

I'd really like to hear how this fits.

Some thoughts...
Here is the text of Genesis 6:1-8

6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

I think one of the keys to understanding the narrative above is to note the geographical scope that is established by the phrase "in the land"
The geographical scope of the sin in question (the sons of God marrying the daughters of men) is provided in verse 1, "the face of the land"'
The geographical scope of the wickedness that God is responding to is provided in verse 5, "on the land".
The geographical scope of the men that God regretted that he made is provided in verse 6, "on the land".
The geographical scope of the men that God would blot out is provided in verse 7, "the face of the land".

In Genesis 6, the geographical scope of the sin of intermarriage and the wickedness of men is the same geographical scope used to describe the men God destroyed as well as the scope of the flood itself.

In Genesis 6 there is continuity between the geographical scope of the sin described in Genesis 6:1-5, and the geographical scope of the judgement that God pronounces in Genesis 6:6-8, and then later executes in Genesis 7-8.

In Christ

[Katabole]

Just for the record, Katabole's post has several inaccuracies wrt Hebrew grammar. First, eth is not the Hebrew article, nor is ha a particle sometimes associated with words or the article. Rather, ha is the article. So ish by itself is called an anarthrous noun (a noun without the article) and so has a different meaning that ha-ish (which would usually be translated "the man"). Eth is actually a particle used in Hebrew grammar to designate the direct object of a verb.

Second, ish and ishah does not refer to gender. The words that do refer to gender are zakar and nĕqebah. You can see those words used in <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gen%201.28" data-reference="Gen 1.28" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Gen 1:28</a>. Ish can be properly translated "mankind" (or "humankind" if you really want to be gender-neutral)--that verse says that God created ish in His image; zakar and nĕqebah He created them in His image.

Third, enosh does not designate men according to some moral character, as if it is always used in a bad sense. See <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Ps%208.5" data-reference="Ps 8.5" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Psalm 8:5</a> for just one example. If we are to find a special semantic flavor, the idea relates to man's mortality and thus frailty.

The word geber is not some special word for "man." It is used to emphasize strength, and so David's mighty men are called geber, so you can't make a connection here to being "renowned for their moral depravity." Those words just don't and can't carry that meaning.

I could address a lot more issues, but I'll limit it to one more problem since by Katabole's own admission, "If the word "men" used in <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gen%206.1" data-reference="Gen 6.1" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Gen 6:1</a>, did not use the article and the particle, it would change the entire context of the story." Now, as it happens, Katabole is incorrect. The word "men" here does not "use the article and the particle." Here is the actual Hebrew text:

וַֽיְהִי כִּֽי־הֵחֵל הָֽאָדָם לָרֹב עַל־פְּנֵי הָֽאֲדָמָה וּבָנֹות יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶֽם׃

The word in bold is ha-adam -- literally, "the man." Now, one of the main = functions of the article is to designate what is called a "class noun," such that the word refers to the general class. Thus, ish refers to a man; ha-ish refers to the particular man (one of the functions of the article--to make the word definite) or it might refer to mankind generally, as it does in <a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gen%206.1" data-reference="Gen 6.1" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Gen 6:1</a>. Now, as Katabole states, this changes the meaning quite a bit and the entire exegesis provided simply doesn't follow.

For those interested in a discussion on the article, see Waltke's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (and skip to page 144). You may also want to skip to page 299 for a full discussion of general use of the article to mark out class nouns. That is part of the entire chapter on definiteness in Hebrew, which begins on page 289. This chapter really is worth a read even if you've never taken a day of Hebrew (although, of course, you're understanding of the material is enhanced if you can read the Hebrew examples he provides rather than just the English translations).

That is all.

Thanks Jac for the comments and clarification. I have not checked my notes on the flood in some time as I have found the flood story in the past to cause a plethora of arguing and there are other Biblical concepts I would rather deeply consider, rather than rehashing a non-salvation issue like the flood. I will thoroughly read the link you provided.

For anyone interested, if you Google Noah's Flood there are hundreds of sites discussing virtually every aspect of the flood. If you access the search function on this site, there are 98 pages dedicated to discussion of Noah's flood, containing a number of very long and well thought out and discussed threads. The general consensus among Christians regarding the flood is that there is no consensus. YEC's generally believe that the flood was global. OEC's generally believe that the flood was local.

My own personal creation stance is that of Ruin/Reconstruction or Gap creationism so I believe that there were two floods: one global and one local. Regardless, I do not want to make Noah's flood story a bone of contention between Christians because believers seem to have the ability to make it a bone of contention regardless. But the flood is a story has fascinated and continues to fascinate both believers and non-believers and questions that are not answered properly do not go away. However, I will relink some of the older threads if others want to re-read what has been thoroughly discussed in the past in order to grasp some of the well known and lesser known aspects of the flood story.

The Case For The Global Flood

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... %27s+flood

Local Flood vs Global Flood

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... %27s+flood

Bible Stories Literal or Symbolic

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... %27s+flood

Genesis Flood Question to Ponder

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... %27s+flood

OEC and Redemptive History

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... %27s+flood

Building the Ark...Take 2

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... %27s+flood

Some Genesis Flood Questions

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... %27s+flood

Will Creationists Admit They Are Wrong and Apologise

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... %27s+flood

And there are many, many more.

This is the owner of this site Rich Deem's article on the flood:

The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

http://www.godandscience.ohtmlrg/apologetics/localflood.

[hughfarey]

I'm not going to read every page of the links, which may be wrong of me, but the from the first couple of pages of each I do not find a discussion of what to me is the most important factor, namely why the story of Noah and the flood is included in the bible at all? What is its meaning for the progress of mankind?

[DBowling]

I'm not going to read every page of the links, which may be wrong of me,

One of the most significant articles for me is the following

This is the owner of this site Rich Deem's article on the flood:
The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
http://www.godandscience.ohtmlrg/apologetics/localflood.

because it presents a very strong Scriptural case for a local flood

but the from the first couple of pages of each I do not find a discussion of what to me is the most important factor, namely why the story of Noah and the flood is included in the bible at all? What is its meaning for the progress of mankind?

Here'is my take on that specific issue...

The flood narrative theme is actually very familiar to a theme that we see repeated a number of times throughout the pages of Scripture as God uses his 'covenant people' to spread his truth to those who do not know him.

In Genesis 2 and 3, God establishes a special personal relationship with Adam and Eve, and they become the very first people in the long line of God's covenant people (the son's of God) that are tracked throughout the rest of Scripture.
In Genesis 6 we see that instead of spreading God's truth, God's covenant people (the family line of Adam) intermarry with and are corrupted by the indigenous inhabitants of "the land" that they are living in ("the land" of Mesopotamia).

However, there is a 'righteous remnant' left in God's covenant people named Noah. So God passes judgement on his covenant people and "the land" that corrupted his people ("the land" of Mesopotamia). And God continues his line of covenant people through the righteous remnant who survived the judgement (Noah and his family).

In Christ