Local flood, not all humanity killed?

[RickD]

Regardless, I take the point as proven. More to the point, if the flood is global, then the theology I am pointing to isn't just a side doctrine effected but the intended meaning of the text.

Sure. And if you're wrong, then you're wrong.

No shame in that. Most of your theology is spot on. You're just having difficulty with your young earth belief. Nobody's perfect. We wouldn't want you to be right all the time.

It might go to your head.

[Jac3510]

Sure, agreed on all counts. Perhaps you can acknowledge that it's incorrect to dismiss the global v local flood as of theological insignificance in the manner that has been done very recently in this thread. Agreement or disagreement on said theology, an honest recognition of a difference would at least be a start (or even less of an at least an appropriate end).

[crochet1949]

If I can interject a thought -- in Genesis God said that mankind had become So violent / So sinful that He decided to destroy His creation -- sinful people. And Romans says that All have sinned and deserve death. So why Wouldn't God cause a world-wide flood? Global flood - whatever terminology it takes to destroy the world in a flood. And there's ALSO a passage that tells us that the water rose 15 cubits and covered the mountains. chapter 7 vs. 20 -- so what do we do with THAT?
The theological thing is that Everyone had 120 yrs to hear the Gospel -- the Why's of that ark being built -- people talk to other people and the story spreads fairly quickly, I'd say. Something Very Unusual is happening. Apparently the people didn't believe what Noah and his family were saying and didn't repent of their sinning as God wanted them to. So -- they died in that flood. The ark Could have saved them.
And We are really no better are we? We hear / read about Noah and his family and discuss it and do We accept what God has told Us? Or do we try to find reasons to Not.
The cross is the present day ark. Everyone Still sins and Will end up drowning in 'hell' IF we don't accept the gift of the cross / the ark. The cross takes care of Everyone who trusts in it. Our Next home / dry land / will be heaven as a result of the cross. The next home of Noah's family was Still the earth --but a Different earth. The effect Of the flood waters, changed the land scape tremendously. Noah and his family were told to 'multiply' --produce More people. Repopulate the earth.

[crochet1949]

BTW -- doctrine is teaching found in Scripture. Sin, 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. to name two.

[Philip]

OK, here's a silly question: Are there any OECs that believe in a global flood? That is, who don't also believe in some former world?

[Kurieuo]

Really, I think a bigger issue than the flood, is more with the Nephilim. Now this is one most Christians would prefer to walk away from a plain literal reading on, leaving their answer rather obscure.

Want a belief that can really change how you see the world, what better than fallen angels coming down and trying to corrupt the creation of man? That is, through taking our daughters and producing offspring. Now this can really change how you see things, and many on both sides, YEC and OEC, shirk the plain reading here, that the sons of God are intended to be fallen angels.

Believe what you will, but the case for fallen angels and support for such an interpretation seems to me very very strong. It is the plainest reading and one that makes the most sense without introducing new covenant doctrine of some sons of Seth intermingled with Cain's daughters because God somewhere made a promise with "Serbians". It has extra-biblical support, mythical support, and traditional support... I encourage anyone to read over non-canonical book of Enoch 1 where it touches on this, many accept was written 200BC or so.

Now I was guilty of saying Hugh over-naturalises his theology, and then took time out last night to reinvestigate this most puzzling passage in Gen 6 which I would prefer just didn't exist. It just rubs our modern naturalistic sensitivities way too much, right? A plain reading which makes the most sense? Well unless you are, heaven forbid I say, a Gappist like ACB.

[Jac3510]

No, K, the text stands in pretty strong opposition to that reading if for not other reason than this: the nephilim were on the earth in the days of the flood and also after. So if the idea was to "clean out" the human race as if Noah was the only one who didn't have a messed up blood line, it was a pretty bad plan. And besides, the idea of a corrupted gene pool doesn't mean anything to that time in history. And the idea of trying to corrupt the Messiah's bloodline would be, at best, a 1500 year anachronism.

The most obvious reading of the text is that the "sons of God" was the line of Seth. The nephilim were tyrants of the day. The word doesn't mean "giant." There's absolutely no basis for that interpretation. It means "one who falls upon." And that view makes perfect sense in the context--the entire world had become corrupt and full of violence. Tyrants ruled by the sword. There was no law and no fear of God, and so the need for the flood. In fact, doubly fits because it shows the sin of Cain has permeated all of mankind.

Nope . . . a "fallen angels" view makes absolutely no sense and requires reading WAY too much into the text that isn't anywhere near the text. Take those foreign ideas out that you don't get from the text and there is just no way to get there.

[Kurieuo]

OK, here's a silly question: Are there any OECs that believe in a global flood?

Normally an older earth interpretation is the first thing to happen, then understanding that words can carry other possible meanings which English translations often neglect, the flood is read through new eyes. A person's method of interpretation changes, they feel the correct interpretation is the one supported most compatible with science, and a local flood becomes the obvious interpretation and "way out" given the natural impossibly of a global flood.

I've seen a handful of people transition from YEC to OEC... an interpretation of the flood normally changes soon after their views on creation and age of the earth.

[Jac3510]

they feel the correct interpretation is the one supported most compatible with science

and a local flood becomes the obvious interpretation and "way out" given the natural impossibly of a global flood.

[abelcainsbrother]

OK, here's a silly question: Are there any OECs that believe in a global flood? That is, who don't also believe in some former world?

A former world has nothing to do with whether Noah's flood was global or local,it comes down to interpretation just like with everythieg else of both scripture and science.

[abelcainsbrother]

No, K, the text stands in pretty strong opposition to that reading if for not other reason than this: the nephilim were on the earth in the days of the flood and also after. So if the idea was to "clean out" the human race as if Noah was the only one who didn't have a messed up blood line, it was a pretty bad plan. And besides, the idea of a corrupted gene pool doesn't mean anything to that time in history. And the idea of trying to corrupt the Messiah's bloodline would be, at best, a 1500 year anachronism.

The most obvious reading of the text is that the "sons of God" was the line of Seth. The nephilim were tyrants of the day. The word doesn't mean "giant." There's absolutely no basis for that interpretation. It means "one who falls upon." And that view makes perfect sense in the context--the entire world had become corrupt and full of violence. Tyrants ruled by the sword. There was no law and no fear of God, and so the need for the flood. In fact, doubly fits because it shows the sin of Cain has permeated all of mankind.

Nope . . . a "fallen angels" view makes absolutely no sense and requires reading WAY too much into the text that isn't anywhere near the text. Take those foreign ideas out that you don't get from the text and there is just no way to get there.

Jac how can you say sons of God refers to Seth's line? Read Job 1:6 and sons of God are angels,yet in Genesis 6:2 you change the meaning to line of Seth?Where does the bible say that?

[Kurieuo]

No, K, the text stands in pretty strong opposition to that reading if for not other reason than this: the nephilim were on the earth in the days of the flood and also after. So if the idea was to "clean out" the human race as if Noah was the only one who didn't have a messed up blood line, it was a pretty bad plan.

That would pass as a refutation of the position, if a core link in believing the "sons of God" to be angels was that the flood was God's way of cleaning out the human race rather than merely destroying evil. However, if you believe it was punishment upon corruption of some covenant God has with the lines of Seth, who intermingled with or took daughters of Cain, then there is a similar issue since as you point out there were still Nephilim (the offspring) "also after".

And besides, the idea of a corrupted gene pool doesn't mean anything to that time in history. And the idea of trying to corrupt the Messiah's bloodline would be, at best, a 1500 year anachronism.

Corrupted gene pool talk, sounds like more modern speak of saying as in Genesis 6:4: "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them."

The most obvious reading of the text is that the "sons of God" was the line of Seth.

No, that's perhaps the most obvious interpolation given when Christians are challenged as to what we seriously believe. Mr. Skeptic comes along, perhaps even in our heads, and says to us: "What do you seriously believe? Do you really believe angels had sex with humans and like demon offspring?" And then we, the Christian, defiantly respond, "No, sons of God was the line of Seth!" I can tell you, now, Seth is nowhere to be read in that text. My wife didn't know what to make of it, but was scratching her head, "Wha, who's Seth? Oh... brother to Cain and Abel?" Obvious reading? No, it requires some explaining, much explaining to get there.

Let it be said that Noah was considered righteous by God, and God made a covenant with him to not destroy all humanity, there's no covenant with any line of Seth mentioned anywhere. Furthermore, Noah was of the line of Seth and took to himself a daughter of Cain, Naamah. So then, if part of the flood is God's punishing a Seth lineage for corrupting themselves with Cain's and breaking some covenant... if that's the reason, then Noah isn't very pure himself according to such. What "righteous man" participates in breaking a covenant God has made with them?

The nephilim were tyrants of the day. The word doesn't mean "giant."

No, it also has "fallen" connotations also, which I notice you explain further on. Which you know, kind of perfectly ties in too with a reading that these are angels who have fallen.

There's absolutely no basis for that interpretation.

Except that "Nephilim" is also used in talking of how small Moses' spies felt when sent to Canaan: "We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:33)

It means "one who falls upon." And that view makes perfect sense in the context--the entire world had become corrupt and full of violence. Tyrants ruled by the sword. There was no law and no fear of God, and so the need for the flood. In fact, doubly fits because it shows the sin of Cain has permeated all of mankind.

Yes, perhaps. Interestingly, Jude 6-7 writes:

• 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:4-7 also draws an interesting picture back-to-back with Noah's story, and we shouldn't also forget in the story of Lot how the men of Sodom wanted to have their way sexually with the angels. See the common vein between the three stories mentioned here in 2 Peter 2?

Nope . . . a "fallen angels" view makes absolutely no sense and requires reading WAY too much into the text that isn't anywhere near the text. Take those foreign ideas out that you don't get from the text and there is just no way to get there.

It makes no sense to me either, but that's because it crosses too much of my natural sensibilities. Perhaps, sometimes, reality really is stranger than fiction. Who of us really knows except God.

[Jac3510]

That would pass as a refutation of the position, if a core link in believing the "sons of God" to be angels was that the flood was God's way of cleaning out the human race rather than merely destroying evil. However, even if there is an intermingling in the lines of Seth taking daughters of Cain, there is the same issue, since as you point out there were still Nephilim (the offspring) "also after".

That is sort o the point. And see your comment about the nephilim below being the sons of Anak. If "the sons of God" refers to angels, then the sons of Anak are also angels.

Corrupted gene pool talk, sounds like more modern speak of saying as in Genesis 6:4: "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them."

No. It doesn't. At all. Not even a little bit.

No, that's perhaps the most obvious interpolation given when Christians are challenged as to what they seriously believe. Mr. Skeptic comes along, perhaps even in our heads, and says to us: "What do you seriously believe? Do you really believe angels had sex with humans and like demon offspring?" And then we, the Christian, defiantly respond, "No, sons of God was the line of Seth." I can tell you, now, Seth is nowhere to be read in that text. My wife didn't know what to make of it, but was scratching her head, "Wha, who's Seth? Oh... brother to Cain and Abel?" Obvious reading? No, it requires some explaining, much explaining to get there.

Considering the fact that this view is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, I'm going to tell you that I don't agree that this interpretation is an attempt to explain away modern challenges.

Let it be said that Noah was considered righteous by God, and make a covenant with him to not destroy all humanity, there's no covenant with any line of Seth mentioned anywhere. Further more, Noah was of the line of Seth and married a daughter of Cain, Naamah. So then, God's punishing a Seth lineage for corrupting themselves with Cain's? If that's the reason, however strange it seems, Noah isn't very pure himself according to that logic.

No, God isn't punishing them for marrying Cain's daughters. Read the text. God is punishing them or becoming violent. Moreover, there is no evidence that Noah married Naamah. That comes from a Hebrew midrash, not from the text of Scripture.

No, it also has "fallen" connotations also, as you say. Which you know, kind of perfectly ties in too with a reading that angels had fallen.

No, it does not tie perfectly. "Fall" in this context means "attack," not to lose one's status. "To fall upon", not "to fall." The original interpretation of "giant" was based on a mistaken etymology that we now know is a mistake (and we have for a long time -- see Gesenius' entry https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5303&t=KJV).

Except that "Nephilim" just happens to be used in talking of how small Moses' spies sent into Canaan felt: "We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:33)

Which, as stated above, stands against the stupid fallen angels interpretation. The sons of Anak were not sons of angels, and the "and also after" is absolute defeater. Moreover, the assumption that "we were like grasshoppers" means that they were giants is a stretch in and of itself. It just means that they were fierce warriors, an easy enough interpretation when you remember that these people had been slaves, their fathers had been slaves, their grandfathers had been slaves, and so on; and we do know, in fact, that the Canaanites of the time were very warlike. That's one of the reasons Joshua's conquest is so very astounding. But, again, the absolute key here is "the nephilim" are on the earth after the flood and found in the sons of Anak. If the nephilim are the product of fallen angels, then it happened again. So, no, it isn't something a modern skeptic dismisses because an anti-supernatural bias. It is something a man of Moses' stature would have dismissed because he was a literary genius, and to think he would make such a sophmoric mistake is a presentist fallacy of the highest degree. Have some respect for the author of the text.

Yes, perhaps. Interestingly, Jude 6-7 writes:

• 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

No, there's nothing interesting about Jude 6-7. In the first place, then in and of itself is an obscure passage, and you simply do not use obscure passages to interpret obscure passages. In the second place, it is fifteen hundred years removed from Gen 6:4 and so bears absolutely no interpretive power whatsoever on our passage . . . as if Moses had this passage in mind when he wrote. And even if all that is not sufficient, you're already misinterpreting this obscure passage. The "they" in your second underlined passage doesn't go back to angels. It goes back to Sodom and Gomorrah.

2 Peter 2:4-7 also draws an interesting picture, lets not also forget in the story of Lot how the men of Sodom wanted to have their way sexually with the angels.

Again, it isn't interesting. It's bad hermeneutics. And even beyond those principles, the fact that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with what they thought were men in no way proves that any angel could or ever did have sex with a woman.

It makes no sense to me either, but that's because it crosses too much of my natural sensibilities. Perhaps, sometimes, reality really is stranger than fiction. Who of us really knows except God.

Of course it crosses your natural sensibilities, but not because of angels having sex with women. Rather because it's a ridiculous interpretation. It's a fairy tale that makes a mockery of the text. It's a bad conspiracy theory that takes a bit of data here and a bit of data there, both of which unrelated, rips them out of their own contexts, and then applies them in ways that look like they tell some profound story. Read it like a 15th century Jew who didn't have Jude or Peter or Job. You see the "sons of God" you are going to interpret it exactly the way the Qumran community did: as the line of Seth. Don't treat them like they're fools.

edit: edited to take out unnecessarily inflammatory language

[Kurieuo]

Consider the book of Enoch, which isn't a part of our canon of Scripture (thank God!), written around 200BC to 300BC. Whatever you say, clearly many throughout the ages have considered "sons of God" to be angels. Jac, do you know when the Seth interpretation came along?

• 1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 2 them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men 3 and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not 4 indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves 6 by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn 7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, 8 Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaq1el, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens.
  
  [Chapter 7]
  
  1 And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms 2 and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they 3 became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed 4 all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against 5 them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and 6 fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.
  
  [Chapter 8]
  
  1 And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all 2 colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they 3 were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . .
  
  [Chapter 9]
  
  1 And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being 2 shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said one to another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their cryingst up to the gates of heaven. 3 And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, "Bring our cause 4 before the Most High."' And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages, the throne of Thy glory (standeth) unto all the generations of the 5 ages, and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed unto all the ages! Thou hast made all things, and power over all things hast Thou: and all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all 6 things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee. Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which 7 men were striving to learn: And Semjaza, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates. And they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the 9 women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins. And the women have 10 borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness. And now, behold, the souls of those who have died are crying and making their suit to the gates of heaven, and their lamentations have ascended: and cannot cease because of the lawless deeds which are 11 wrought on the earth. And Thou knowest all things before they come to pass, and Thou seest these things and Thou dost suffer them, and Thou dost not say to us what we are to do to them in regard to these.'
  
  [Chapter 10]
  
  1 Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, 2 and said to him: 'Go to Noah and tell him in my name "Hide thyself!" and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come 3 upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. And now instruct him that he may escape 4 and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world.' And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening 5 in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may 6,7 not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the 8 Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted 9 through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.' And to Gabriel said the Lord: 'Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy [the children of fornication and] the children of the Watchers from amongst men [and cause them to go forth]: send them one against the other that they may destroy each other in 10 battle: for length of days shall they not have. And no request that they (i.e. their fathers) make of thee shall be granted unto their fathers on their behalf; for they hope to live an eternal life, and 11 that each one of them will live five hundred years.' And the Lord said unto Michael: 'Go, bind Semjaza and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves 12 with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is 13 for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and 14 to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all 15 generations. And destroy all the spirits of the reprobate and the children of the Watchers, because 16 they have wronged mankind. Destroy all wrong from the face of the earth and let every evil work come to an end: and let the plant of righteousness and truth appear: and it shall prove a blessing; the works of righteousness and truth' shall be planted in truth and joy for evermore.

[Jac3510]

Your point? There were all kind of fantastic ideas floating around. All that shows was that somebody saw the same "sons of God" connection in Job and Genesis and built a myth out of it. And I've already pointed out the Qumran interpretation.

K, it's ridiculous. You are literally appealing to a myth written over a thousand years later to try to make a serious interpretation of text. REALLY?!?! And further, Enoch wasn't even recognized as canonical by Jews! They read it. They thought it was stupid and rejected it. So why should we take it seriously? I've taken the time to offer some serious thoughts on the actual text and you are going to return with this rubbish? I expect that from ACB, but you know better. You been drinkin' tonight, buddy?