Dr. Michael Heiser

[Stu]

If the flood was local why was Noah told to take with him every kind of animal?
And if you say it was only local animals (which is a little hard if the Lord said take every animal), then why was the ark so big, all that wasted space for a few animals in a local flood.

[Philip]

Psalm 104 refutes a global flood - and it's all about God's creation activities on the earth (see verse 9, and as to where God PERMANENTLY set the boundaries for where the waters cannot again cover, post their being given their boundaries!

5 "He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.

6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains[/b].

7 At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.

8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.

9 You set a boundary that they may not pass,so that they might not again cover the earth.

Do you believe verse 9 or not?

And read here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

and here: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html

[RickD]

If the flood was local why was Noah told to take with him every kind of animal?
And if you say it was only local animals (which is a little hard if the Lord said take every animal), then why was the ark so big, all that wasted space for a few animals in a local flood.

Because "every" doesn't always mean, "all on the face of the planet".

For example, let's say you're a ranch owner, and I work for you. You have various animals wandering around your 1000 acre ranch. You call me, and tell me a bad storm is coming, and you say, "gather up all the/every animal, and bring them to safety in the barn."

Does that mean you want me to go to all the other ranches, and gather their animals? Do you want me to go to Australia, and bring every animal from there too?

The context is key. Who was the audience being spoken to?

[Stu]

If the flood was local why was Noah told to take with him every kind of animal?
And if you say it was only local animals (which is a little hard if the Lord said take every animal), then why was the ark so big, all that wasted space for a few animals in a local flood.

Because "every" doesn't always mean, "all on the face of the planet".

For example, let's say you're a ranch owner, and I work for you. You have various animals wandering around your 1000 acre ranch. You call me, and tell me a bad storm is coming, and you say, "gather up all the/every animal, and bring them to safety in the barn."

Does that mean you want me to go to all the other ranches, and gather their animals? Do you want me to go to Australia, and bring every animal from there too?

The context is key. Who was the audience being spoken to?

That's one of the best examples of a false equivalency I've ever seen

But never mind that what about my size question, why make the ark so big if it's just for a few local animals?

[RickD]

If the flood was local why was Noah told to take with him every kind of animal?
And if you say it was only local animals (which is a little hard if the Lord said take every animal), then why was the ark so big, all that wasted space for a few animals in a local flood.

Because "every" doesn't always mean, "all on the face of the planet".

For example, let's say you're a ranch owner, and I work for you. You have various animals wandering around your 1000 acre ranch. You call me, and tell me a bad storm is coming, and you say, "gather up all the/every animal, and bring them to safety in the barn."

Does that mean you want me to go to all the other ranches, and gather their animals? Do you want me to go to Australia, and bring every animal from there too?

The context is key. Who was the audience being spoken to?

That's one of the best examples of a false equivalency I've ever seen

But never mind that what about my size question, why make the ark so big if it's just for a few local animals?

False equivalency?
It's an example that shows that the word "every" doesn't have to mean what YECs say it has to mean. The meaning of "every" that I'm using, fits the text perfectly fine.

I'm sure the ark would've been too big for just a "few" local animals. But where in the text does it say that only a "few" animals were taken?

And, I'm not sure that you understand what we mean by "local" either. In this case, local is a pretty big area.

[PaulSacramento]

If the flood was local why was Noah told to take with him every kind of animal?
And if you say it was only local animals (which is a little hard if the Lord said take every animal), then why was the ark so big, all that wasted space for a few animals in a local flood.

Are you suggesting that Animals native to Australia made it to Mesopotamia for Noah?
That the Ark was big enough for two of EVERY kind of living creature on the WHOLE earth ?

[RickD]

If the flood was local why was Noah told to take with him every kind of animal?
And if you say it was only local animals (which is a little hard if the Lord said take every animal), then why was the ark so big, all that wasted space for a few animals in a local flood.

Are you suggesting that Animals native to Australia made it to Mesopotamia for Noah?
That the Ark was big enough for two of EVERY kind of living creature on the WHOLE earth ?

Yes. And some say, even big enough for two of every kind of dinosaur.

[PaulSacramento]

Oivay...

[Kurieuo]

But were talking babies, even eggs, and then just kinds, and God took care of the logistics of getting them to Noah so...

[DBowling]

But were talking babies, even eggs, and then just kinds,

And the Scriptural basis for those assertions is?...

[neo-x]

The biblical account simply talks about a global flood because I am pretty sure they thought their geographic boundaries must have been all there is. They certainly had not met Scandinavians or aboriginals or red indians, had not crossed oceans.

Its easier to say the flood was local in hindsight but the biblical language is simply too grand, too apocalyptic for that kind of thing. Now, in reality the flood must have been local and hence we see that now but Noah and co would have felt different.

[JButler]

I've got a different angle on the local vs global flood puzzle. The clues are right in the Bible in plain sight. Here goes: the flood came to destroy the wicked, right? Now, after the flood the population should be much more obedient than the previous occupants, nephilim and their offspring and followers.

But this 2nd population will not obey God and move out of the Mesopotamian delta to disperse across the Earth, until they're forced. So if the 1st group was so much more evil and debased, what makes anyone think they were more obedient to God and spread over the Earth????

To me it seems pretty apparent the flood only needed to be local, albeit a large local event. That's where the targeted population was located. Why destroy the entire planet if only a small part (percentage wise) is the only location of the problem?

Did God destroy the planet or the Middle East or even the Rift Valley region because Sodom/Gomorrah and a couple neighboring towns were evil? No, He destroyed them but spared the rest of the region. Why would God apply a different principle in dealing with one evil bunch vs the other local areas of evil?

Ok, there's the issue of every culture having a flood legend in its history. So that means its a global flood, right? Wrong! The flood legend went with the peoples who were dispersed from Babel to settle the Earth. Over time variations appear in each culture's version which is natural with isolated populations.