Local flood and local fire?

[PaulSacramento]

Any one reading through Genesis ( and all of the OT and NT really) realizes that the term for "earth" and "word" and "land" can mean both ALL the world AND a localized region, heck we still us the same forms of speech and writing nowadays.

I really don't know why some Christians hold to the belief that the flood MUST have been global since the reading doesn't even state that it MUST be so.
Even IF the writers and readers of that time believed it to be, there is no reason for US to believe that and no reason what not believing that effects our Faith in Christ OR the bible.

I really don't get it, it is as if believers are slaves to the views and whims of those that are skeptic of the bible.

[Stu]

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.

So scripture is not the inspired word of God then? Because He got it wrong when he said the whole world.

[RickD]

Any one reading through Genesis ( and all of the OT and NT really) realizes that the term for "earth" and "word" and "land" can mean both ALL the world AND a localized region, heck we still us the same forms of speech and writing nowadays.

I really don't know why some Christians hold to the belief that the flood MUST have been global since the reading doesn't even state that it MUST be so.
Even IF the writers and readers of that time believed it to be, there is no reason for US to believe that and no reason what not believing that effects our Faith in Christ OR the bible.

I really don't get it, it is as if believers are slaves to the views and whims of those that are skeptic of the bible.

It makes me wonder if this kind of strict, rigid, legalistic like interpretation of scripture carries over into the rest of their lives. Are they this legalistic with unbelievers who may possibly need God's grace, instead of being bashed over the head with concrete, literal interpretations of scripture?

To me, it seems like a lack of grace if one has to hold to such a concrete interpretation, which doesn't allow for any interpretation that disagrees with theirs. And on a non-salvation issue!

[RickD]

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.

So scripture is not the inspired word of God then? Because He got it wrong when he said the whole world.

No Stu. I think it's pretty obvious that it just means that people think the words translated as "world", "land", and "earth", have other literal meanings than the one you hold to. In other words, when Christians disagree with you, they're simply disagreeing with your interpretation. We're not disagreeing with scripture. In other other words, your interpretation is not equal to scripture.
It's really not rocket surgery.

[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.

So scripture is not the inspired word of God then? Because He got it wrong when he said the whole world.

Did Jesus get it wrong when he said the mustard seed is the smallest seed? ( it isn't)
Or did Jesus use what His AUDIENCE knew as the smallest seed as an example?

[theophilus]

The purpose of the flood was to destroy all human life except for Noah and his family. The flood took place 1636 years after creation. It is unlikely that the entire human race lived in Mesopotamia. There had been plenty of time for them to spread out over the entire earth.

Perhaps the writers of the Bible didn't know the extent of the world but God did and he was the one who inspired the writing of the Bible.

[DBowling]

Perhaps the writers of the Bible didn't know the extent of the world but God did and he was the one who inspired the writing of the Bible.

And nowhere in Scripture does God say that the flood covered the whole planet.

Again look at Scripture...
- Look at how erets is used in Genesis. Erets does not by definition mean the whole planet (God knew that when he guided Moses to use the word erets)
- Look at how kosmos is used in the NT. Kosmos does not by definition mean the whole planet (God knew that when he guided Peter to use the word kosmos)

Asserting that erets and kosmos must refer to the whole planet goes beyond what the text of Scripture actually says.
The assertion that Noah's flood covered the whole planet is a function of Tradition not the Scriptural text.

In Christ

[Kurieuo]

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?

There are equivilent comparisons I do see, but you're drawing a wrong comparison between "the end" judgement and destruction with the middle/dividing point of the flood. In this passage there appear to be three parts, and the third part seems to have equivilent comparisons to the first part.

Consider these three parts:

1. Beginning - "that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God," represents Creation via God's word.

2. Middle - "by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished" is obviously the flood and represents a division between the "heavens existed long ago" (pre-flood) and "heavens and earth now exist" (post-flood).

3. Ending - "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."

I'm not sure if I've sufficiently explained here clearly what I mean.

It isn't "only part of the earth perished in the flood means that the fire that will come in the future will only burn up part of the earth." (this is wrongly drawing comparisons with "the middle" and "the end"). RATHER, the equivilent comparison is to be made between "the start" and "the end" which have more obvious connections. That is, "the heavens existed long ago (pre-flood), and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God" means "by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist (post-flood) are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."

[PaulSacramento]

The purpose of the flood was to destroy all human life except for Noah and his family. The flood took place 1636 years after creation. It is unlikely that the entire human race lived in Mesopotamia. There had been plenty of time for them to spread out over the entire earth.

Perhaps the writers of the Bible didn't know the extent of the world but God did and he was the one who inspired the writing of the Bible.

Where in the bible doe sit say that the flood took place 1636 after creation?
Where is that number?
How many years were Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden?

[RickD]

paulS wrote:
Where in the bible doe sit say that the flood took place 1636 after creation?

Ken Ham said it!

I believe it!

That settles it!


Ken Ham's interpretation of scripture, IS EQUAL to scripture itself.

[DBowling]

Where in the bible doe sit say that the flood took place 1636 after creation?
Where is that number?
How many years were Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden?

I'm actually a little more sympathetic to using Biblical genealogies to track a Scriptural timeline than I have been in the past.

I am inclined to believe that the Biblical genealogies indicate that Noah lived 2,000-3,000 years after the time of the historical Adam. Differences between the genealogies in the Septuagint and Masoretic texts and the known potential for gaps in the genealogies prevent me from being terribly dogmatic about precise time frames, but the Scriptural and extrascriptural data that I am aware of support a timeframe of around 3,000 BC for the historical Noah and 5,000 - 6,000 BC for the historical Adam.

As a proponent of the day-age theory I do not believe that the timeframe of the historical Adam identified in Scripture has any relationship to the timeframe of the creation of the universe.

[theophilus]

And nowhere in Scripture does God say that the flood covered the whole planet.

In Genesis 6:13 God said, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth." A flood could not do this unless it covered all of the earth.

[theophilus]

Where in the bible doe sit say that the flood took place 1636 after creation?
Where is that number?
How many years were Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden?

Chapter 5 of Genesis gives the genealogy from Adam to Noah. It tells how long each person lived and at what age he became the father of the next person. If you use this information you can figure out how much time elapsed between the creation and the flood.

[PaulSacramento]

Where in the bible doe sit say that the flood took place 1636 after creation?
Where is that number?
How many years were Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden?

I'm actually a little more sympathetic to using Biblical genealogies to track a Scriptural timeline than I have been in the past.

I am inclined to believe that the Biblical genealogies indicate that Noah lived 2,000-3,000 years after the time of the historical Adam. Differences between the genealogies in the Septuagint and Masoretic texts and the known potential for gaps in the genealogies prevent me from being terribly dogmatic about precise time frames, but the Scriptural and extrascriptural data that I am aware of support a timeframe of around 3,000 BC for the historical Noah and 5,000 - 6,000 BC for the historical Adam.

As a proponent of the day-age theory I do not believe that the timeframe of the historical Adam identified in Scripture has any relationship to the timeframe of the creation of the universe.

My issue is when people try to calculate the age of the world or of a time period from genesis when Genesis does NOT address to key elements:
When the garden of Eden was created and how long Adam and eve were in it.

[PaulSacramento]

Where in the bible doe sit say that the flood took place 1636 after creation?
Where is that number?
How many years were Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden?

Chapter 5 of Genesis gives the genealogy from Adam to Noah. It tells how long each person lived and at what age he became the father of the next person. If you use this information you can figure out how much time elapsed between the creation and the flood.

What makes you think that the age of Adam is based on when he was created and not when he left Eden?