Local flood and local fire?

[theophilus]

Genesis 6-9 tells the story of Noah. Mankind had grown so evil that God decided to send a flood to destroy them. Noah and his family were the only righteous people left in the world so God told him to build an ark to save his family and to take into the ark one pair of each kind of animal to save them from extinction.

Some Christians believe the flood was not really world wide but confined to the local area where Noah lived. If you are one of them I would be interested in hearing your opinion about something Peter wrote.

Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
2 Peter 3:3-7 ESV

He said that in the past the world was deluged with water and perished and that in the future the heavens and earth that now exists will be destroyed with fire. If only part of the earth perished in the flood does that mean that the fire that will come in the future will only burn up part of the earth?

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Thing is ppl forget the flood was SUPERNATURAL. There's a lot of ways to get by the problem with two n 7 of every kind, n the problem with all the water.

[RickD]

theophilus wrote:
If only part of the earth perished in the flood does that mean that the fire that will come in the future will only burn up part of the earth?

No. As kurieuo shows here, the phrase "heavens and earth" is a phrase that means the entire cosmos.

[DBowling]

Genesis 6-9 tells the story of Noah. Mankind had grown so evil that God decided to send a flood to destroy them. Noah and his family were the only righteous people left in the world so God told him to build an ark to save his family and to take into the ark one pair of each kind of animal to save them from extinction.

Some Christians believe the flood was not really world wide but confined to the local area where Noah lived. If you are one of them I would be interested in hearing your opinion about something Peter wrote.

Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
2 Peter 3:3-7 ESV

He said that in the past the world was deluged with water and perished and that in the future the heavens and earth that now exists will be destroyed with fire. If only part of the earth perished in the flood does that mean that the fire that will come in the future will only burn up part of the earth?

As Rick points out, Peter explicitly states that the scope of the flood which deluged "the world at that time" is not the same scope as the heavens and the earth that are stored up for fire.

In Christ

[thatkidakayoungguy]

theophilus wrote:
If only part of the earth perished in the flood does that mean that the fire that will come in the future will only burn up part of the earth?

No. As kurieuo shows here, the phrase "heavens and earth" is a phrase that means the entire cosmos.

Would that include other universes or just this? Or would other universes not be affected by judgement?

[thatkidakayoungguy]

I wonder why such a big universe should be affected by man's rebellion, especially since God knew we wouldn't get out of the galaxy (i'm including satellites like Voyager I and II) by the time judgement hits.

[Mallz]

I don't see how it can be justified by the context and words in 2 Peter 3:3–7 that the term world means anything less than world. I don't see K addressing Peters words in that link, either (did I miss it?).

Check: https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/2p ... /s_1159003
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Le ... 889&t=NASB
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/ ... rimary_0_1

[DBowling]

I don't see how it can be justified by the context and words in 2 Peter 3:3–7 that the term world means anything less than world.

I agree...
When Peter refers to 'the world at that time' he is referring to...
- nothing less than 'the world at that time'
and
- nothing more than 'the world at that time'

However, when Peter refers to 'the world at that time' he is not referring to the whole planet. He is referring to the known world at the time of the flood, which when you look at the geographical context of Genesis 1-6 centers on the region of Mesopotamia.

In Christ

[Mallz]

However, when Peter refers to 'the world at that time' he is not referring to the whole planet. He is referring to the known world at the time of the flood, which when you look at the geographical context of Genesis 1-6 centers on the region of Mesopotamia.

We don't need to look at Genesis to understand Peter and what he is saying. The underlined is putting words in Peters mouth, is it not? And if you want to use just context I see the argument in favor of Genesis 1-6 not talking about a localized place on Earth. But we don't need to go there (at least until we resolve understanding Peter). Per context and language Peter talks about an event affecting the World, not a part of Earth. The term time in 'the world at that time' is used by Peter exactly how it appears, the world at that time.

[PaulSacramento]

Genesis 6-9 tells the story of Noah. Mankind had grown so evil that God decided to send a flood to destroy them. Noah and his family were the only righteous people left in the world so God told him to build an ark to save his family and to take into the ark one pair of each kind of animal to save them from extinction.

Some Christians believe the flood was not really world wide but confined to the local area where Noah lived. If you are one of them I would be interested in hearing your opinion about something Peter wrote.

Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
2 Peter 3:3-7 ESV

He said that in the past the world was deluged with water and perished and that in the future the heavens and earth that now exists will be destroyed with fire. If only part of the earth perished in the flood does that mean that the fire that will come in the future will only burn up part of the earth?

So, why are we ONLY taking the part that says "world" as literal?
Why not the part that says people feel asleep ( they didn't die, they are asleep) or the part that said the world perish ( it didn't it was only covered in water) or what about here where Peter says the earth was formed out of water ( Genesis says God created/ made the earth appear: 9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,[d] and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.).

I mean, if we are going to be literal about what every single word means...
If we are going to nitpick...


Of course, if you read in context what Peter is trying to say and address, you will see that it really has very little to do with IF there was a global or local flood, at all.

[theophilus]

However, when Peter refers to 'the world at that time' he is not referring to the whole planet. He is referring to the known world at the time of the flood, which when you look at the geographical context of Genesis 1-6 centers on the region of Mesopotamia.

The whole world existed, whether or not the people knew about it. And how do you know they knew of nothing outside of Mesopotamia? There was plenty of time after the creation for them to have explored the entire world.

Why would Noah have needed to build an ark when it would have been possible for him to escape the flood simply by taking his family and moving outside of the area that would have been affected by it? And why would he have needed to take a pair of each kind of animal to save them from extinction? There is geological evidence that the flood covered the entire globe.

[Stu]

However, when Peter refers to 'the world at that time' he is not referring to the whole planet. He is referring to the known world at the time of the flood, which when you look at the geographical context of Genesis 1-6 centers on the region of Mesopotamia.

The whole world existed, whether or not the people knew about it. And how do you know they knew of nothing outside of Mesopotamia? There was plenty of time after the creation for them to have explored the entire world.

Why would Noah have needed to build an ark when it would have been possible for him to escape the flood simply by taking his family and moving outside of the area that would have been affected by it? And why would he have needed to take a pair of each kind of animal to save them from extinction? There is geological evidence that the flood covered the entire globe.

Good point! The time it took Noah to build the ark he could've easily just taken a walk to safer ground.

And wasn't the point to wipe out all of humanity because they had become corrupt, was all humanity located in that one area at the time?

[DBowling]

However, when Peter refers to 'the world at that time' he is not referring to the whole planet. He is referring to the known world at the time of the flood, which when you look at the geographical context of Genesis 1-6 centers on the region of Mesopotamia.

The whole world existed, whether or not the people knew about it. And how do you know they knew of nothing outside of Mesopotamia? There was plenty of time after the creation for them to have explored the entire world.

The problem with your argument is it is based on the extrascriptural presumption that 'world' equates to whole planet. A quick study of how the world 'world' is used in the NT demonstrates that is not the case.

The geographical scope of the 'world' described in Genesis 2-6 is Mesopotamia. Eden was located in Mesopotamia and, the mountains of Ararat are located in Mesopotamia. The 'world' described in Scripture from the time of Adam to the time of Noah is the region of Mesopotamia.

It is after the time of Noah that the geographical scope of the Genesis narrative begins to expand beyond Mesopotamia beginning with the end of Genesis 9. But the 'world' at the time of Noah as described in Scripture (Genesis 2-6) refers to the region of Mesopotamia.

There is geological evidence that the flood covered the entire globe.

Prior to Genesis 1:9... Yes
However, there is zero geological evidence that a flood covered the entire world within the timeframe of the history of humanity.

[DBowling]

And wasn't the point to wipe out all of humanity because they had become corrupt, was all humanity located in that one area at the time?

The point of the flood was to wipe out all the people "in the land" who were part of the wickedness described in Genesis 6:1-6.
Again... it is an extrascriptural presumption to assume that land (erets) in Genesis 6 refers to the whole planet as opposed to the land of Mesopotamia. Again a quick study of how erets is used in Genesis demonstrates that erets does not by definition mean the whole planet.

[PaulSacramento]

Did the readers and writers think that WHOLE world when they wrote it?
Yeah, probably because their understanding of the whole world was limited to what they know of the whole world.
No one knew of Alaska or the northern steeps of Mongolia or South America 5000 years ago or even 2000.
This is why Paul believed that when he would preach the gospel in Spain, he would have preached it across the whole world.