Local Flood vs Global Flood

[Gman]

My apologogies Gman. I was correcting the statement that Ptolomey was the first to measure the diameter of the earth. I didn't realize the issue was who was the first to MAP the earth.

No problem Monk.. I appreciate your honesty...

First , let me say the context was Ptolomey and the statement was made that people believed the earth to be flat, but if Eratosthenes knew the earth was spherical hundred of years before Ptolomey, why would the people of Ptolomeys time think it was flat?
Also, Anaximander developed a cosmological model which claimed the earth was suspended in a spherical cosmos. He also believed the earth was round several hundreds years before Eratosthenes. His maps are misleading because he did not use the modern projection techniques used by cartographers today. I don't know when the round earth concept was realized but I would bet very early when men began traveling by boat and realized that on the other side of the horizon was more water, not void. Don't forget, standing on the beach, the visible horizon is only 5 kilometers away. Many lakes and inland seas are wider than this and so the idea of sailing into the horizon was not unknown.

Yes I understand... But I think what history has been telling us is that the ancients had many different theories about it... No one really knew back then until we drew closer to the modern times.. And if we really want to get personal, what do the Jewish sources say about the earth's topology since they were the closest ones to God? Just a thought..

[archaeologist]

Arch, I don't have time for this...

then either provide proof whenyou make those statements or don't make them.

What about Genesis 2:11-14. Where do the rivers Pishon, Gihon, Tigris and the Euphrates reside today currently?

i didn't realize that names of rivers where location names. actually, no one knows. the modern day rivers may not be the same as the ancient ones. you are assuming everything is the same but it isn't. not only do we know that from the flood record but from satelitte photos, excavations and so on. everything changed with the flood.

All the Biblical and archaeological evidence points to the Mesopotamia areas.. I'm sorry, anything contrary to this is just not Biblically sound...

does it really? you haven't proven that yet. the point is, you do not know where noah lived and you do not know the geography of the time.

where exactly do you think the article was off? What specifically

every point.

Again where is your evidence for the global flood?

i gave you sources already plus locations but here is a map of the area see if you can find where the water would be contained

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map01mes.htm

According to Ryan and Pitman there was a huge ice melt from the Eurasian ice sheet which would have altered the terrain considerably there

and you believe secular researchers??

How do you know what the land looked like back then

from research.

Most of the area could have been surrounded with lakes and raging rivers which could have also prevented them from escaping.

you are the one who says it looks the same, so look at the map and tell me where they were? what stopped them from climbing the mountians and crossing to the slope on the other side, escaping the rising water?

who says they weren't sleeping at night and were taken off guard

that is just dumb.

I said check out the early greek maps of Anaximander and Hecataeus who portrayed the earth as a flat disk floating in the ocean...

are you sure? did they have knowledge of longitude back then? we know that the measuring of longitude took place only three hundred years ago at best maybe shorter.*

And what is the truth?

that which is not false.

That is correct Arch.. My point exactly

no it is not your point, you are saying they thought the world was flat, you haven't proved it. citing a couple maps that could only be drawn on a flat surface is not proof.

we already know they knew the earth was round.

Well I just did... Do you follow all of God's commandments? Does anybody

that is just so off it isn't worth commenting on. obviously you are saying hey didn't do it so your theory can be correct besides, the Bible already tells us they did. i have quoted the verses already.

Maybe God did provide blocks.. Who is to say that he didn't

please provide scripture to back that up because i see nothing to imply or directly state that took place.

No... God commanded them to spread out... The question is did they follow that commandment

you are not serious are you? that is as i said before, utterly inane.

No man is an island arch... I

so you disobey God by listening and believing those who do not know God and seek to contradict His word? Jesus said, 'my sheep hear my voice...' are you listening to God or man?

I use to believe in the global flood too. But when I examined the evidence further I found it didn't hold any water nor is it necessary to meet God's objective

what evidence? to block the people you said ' God could have put up blocks'... if that is your evidence you are basing your switch on then you never really believed God in the first place. if you are basingit on deem's article and that other piece of trash then you have things in your life hindering you from knowing and staying with the truth.

It's both the Biblical and archaeological evidence that you need to support.. The global flood at this point can't support both...

NO. archaeological evidence isn't needed because this is a theological issue not a scientific one. THE BIBLE STATES 'without faith you can't please God!' FAITH is the key not evidence. you and all the scientists in the world will never find all the evidence, God will not undermine His requirements.

Well that's funny because that was what I was going to say to you too..

i have provided credible evidence and scripture, you have failed to do either. i just provided a map for you to show me how the water stayed in a local locale, so we shall see if you can do it.

[archaeologist]

here is another map so you can see the mesopotamian area close up. as you can see 2 rivers are missing, they are not in mesopotamia so where are they?

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/NIP/PUB9 ... CFIG1.html

[Forum Monk]

Several months back while studying the effects of varying sea-levels on the earth's topography, I downloaded the USGS etopo5 database which gives the elevation of the entire globe to a resolution of 5 arcminutes. I wrote a simple computer program which allows me to project the data and vary the water level. Here is Meopotamia with current water levels. Higher elevations are in brighter colors, lower in darker colors. Rivers (unfortunately) are not shown but the region is easily recongnized inspite of it.



After raising the height of the water to 100 meters (slightly more than 300 ft) the water covered most of the traditional region of Mesopotamia but with the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates at the Persian Gulf, the low elevation forms a perfect spout to drain the water into the Persian Gulf. The elevation of the area is low enough there are no natural barriers.

The next picture illustrates the water level at 300 meters (around 1000 feet). At this point the water has covered the entire headwater region of the rivers and if it went much higher it is easy to see, it would begin draining westward into the Mediterranean Sea. Further one can see the Zagros mountains to the northeast and north are uncovered.



I apologize for the quality of the images as the program was written for my personal study and was not meant to be publication quality.

[archaeologist]

in all three maps, i do not see where a local flood was possible or even feasible, so i am still waiting for these local flood enthusiasts to show me where it took place.

here is your chance to prove your theory.


monk-- on your map i am having trouble seeing why it would stay with in the river boundaries, at 300 meters wouldn't the water drain into the surrounding desert?

you are right it is not a very clear map but it proves the point.

[Forum Monk]

monk-- on your map i am having trouble seeing why it would stay with in the river boundaries, at 300 meters wouldn't the water drain into the surrounding desert?

you are right it is not a very clear map but it proves the point.

Some day I will convert the program into something pretty. But not until I have the need. The Saudi peninsula is not inundated because the portions bordering the river basin are obviously higher then 300 meters.

While I know geopgraphically where the nations of Mesopotamia were located, I am not sure which geographic areas are being claimed by this local flood theory.

[archaeologist]

The Saudi peninsula is not inundated because the portions bordering the river basin are obviously higher then 300 meters.

okay wasn't sure and couldn't tell.

here is another question for the local flood enthusiasts--if the flood was going to be local, why did God need 120 years to warn everyone? if everyone was right there, then maybe a year or two at best would have sufficed or the length of time it took to build an ark.

here is a recent news article which provides an idea for that length of time--remember noah had help:

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/13226044/detail.html

[Gman]

in all three maps, i do not see where a local flood was possible or even feasible, so i am still waiting for these local flood enthusiasts to show me where it took place.

here is your chance to prove your theory.

monk-- on your map i am having trouble seeing why it would stay with in the river boundaries, at 300 meters wouldn't the water drain into the surrounding desert?

you are right it is not a very clear map but it proves the point.

Hey why all the maps?? Archaeological evidence isn't needed remember??

NO. archaeological evidence isn't needed because this is a theological issue not a scientific one. THE BIBLE STATES 'without faith you can't please God!' FAITH is the key not evidence. you and all the scientists in the world will never find all the evidence, God will not undermine His requirements.

Why are you doubting God? Where is your faith??

[archaeologist]

Hey why all the maps?? Archaeological evidence isn't needed remember??

NO. archaeological evidence isn't needed because this is a theological issue not a scientific one. THE BIBLE STATES 'without faith you can't please God!' FAITH is the key not evidence. you and all the scientists in the world will never find all the evidence, God will not undermine His requirements.

Why are you doubting God? Where is your faith??

i am not the one doubting God. if you read the posts you will see that i asked you to point out to me how your theory fit the geographical area.

the above is not doing so and i hope Judah is taking note of your response.

so again, i asked the local flood enthusiasts to show me on those maps how a local flood worked and how was it applied so no one escaped.

also i am waiting to see some answers to forum monk's population figures. so far you have come up with nothing. so why would anyone want to believe your theory when you can't even back it up?

[Gman]

i am not the one doubting God. if you read the posts you will see that i asked you to point out to me how your theory fit the geographical area.

But according to your last statement FAITH is the key not evidence.. Why are you changing your position now demanding physical evidence?

the above is not doing so and i hope Judah is taking note of your response.

Remember this statement by you? Haunting isn't it?

here you seem to lack faith in God and His ability. if you rcall, God gave noah the instruction to use gopher wood {cyprus,in another trans.} we are told in proverbs not to lean to our own understanding, thus if God said to use wood, then wood was sufficient for the job.

so again, i asked the local flood enthusiasts to show me on those maps how a local flood worked and how was it applied so no one escaped.

Why? I thought we are basing our decisions on faith?

also i am waiting to see some answers to forum monk's population figures. so far you have come up with nothing. so why would anyone want to believe your theory when you can't even back it up?

I don't think you understand... You see I have FAITH that the flood was local...

[archaeologist]

Why? I thought we are basing our decisions on faith?

so you are using blind faith? didn't someone accuse me of that already or derided me for that?

i am trying to get you to show me how a local flood is in line with God's word. if you can't show me then why would i even consider your point of view? just saying i have faith is not good enough when you are trying to convince other people especially when they know that God's word says something different.

the Bible says the water rose 15 cubits above the highest mountain, please show me on those maps, which if you noted are on ancient mesopotamia, how a local flood is feasible and could meet what God said.

back up your point of view.

[Gman]

Why? I thought we are basing our decisions on faith?

so you are using blind faith? didn't someone accuse me of that already or derided me for that?

i am trying to get you to show me how a local flood is in line with God's word. if you can't show me then why would i even consider your point of view? just saying i have faith is not good enough when you are trying to convince other people especially when they know that God's word says something different.

the Bible says the water rose 15 cubits above the highest mountain, please show me on those maps, which if you noted are on ancient mesopotamia, how a local flood is feasible and could meet what God said.

back up your point of view.

Answer the question!! According to your last statement FAITH is the key not evidence.. Why are you changing your position now and demanding physical evidence?

[archaeologist]

i am not changing my position, i want you to show me how a local flood is feasible given the geography of the area.

your addressing faith is just your way of saying you can't do it. the question to you is: given the evidence what do you believe: a local flood or a global one?

given your inability to address the issues, and i asked on several occasions for you to provide an answer for different problems with your theory but so far you haven't done anything but looked to avoid addressing the issues.

by the way, all evolutionists do this same strategy as well and here are somethings to think on:
1. if a local flood were true--we would not be having this conversation
2. if a local flood were true, you would be able to answer all challenges
3. if you were right, the Bible would be worded differently

you can't even answer me, how canyou convince a non-believer your way is theory is correct whenyou don't have an answer for their questions?

[Banky]

GMan,

I read through some of your posts (and only skimmed the rest of the thread). I think you make some very good points, but to sum up my position on the subject I'll simply add:

1) The concept of a global flood and the story of Noah is physically impossible.
2) God can do whatever he wants and is not bound by physics.

So then the question begs, is the Bible literally correct, was the Bible written by fallible man and only got parts of the story correct but did capture the spirit (maybe he misunderstood God and actually thought the whole world had flooded. Maybe God was just telling him to save his ranch from the flood.), or is the story mostly a fictional allegory based loosely on the events of a large flood that had been pased down through the generations?

Neither can be proven and it is up to each individual to decide what he believes is the most likely scenario.

[Canuckster1127]

GMan,

I read through some of your posts (and only skimmed the rest of the thread). I think you make some very good points, but to sum up my position on the subject I'll simply add:

1) The concept of a global flood and the story of Noah is physically impossible.
2) God can do whatever he wants and is not bound by physics.

So then the question begs, is the Bible literally correct, was the Bible written by fallible man and only got parts of the story correct but did capture the spirit (maybe he misunderstood God and actually thought the whole world had flooded. Maybe God was just telling him to save his ranch from the flood.), or is the story mostly a fictional allegory based loosely on the events of a large flood that had been pased down through the generations?

Neither can be proven and it is up to each individual to decide what he believes is the most likely scenario.

I think you're narrowing your options considerably more than necessary.

I believe the local flood theory is exegetically a better interpretation of the material so the physical science issues are moot.

God can do whatever He wants and is not bound by the laws of Physics, as obviously by definition, He is the one who established those laws. The issues then that arise include:

1. Did God work within or outside those laws?
2. Have those laws been uniform in their effect throughout the past?
3. Did God work in such a way as to disguise the evidence of His work or Hide his handiwork?

In terms of the literal correctness of the Bible, I believe it is literally correct. The sense of "literalness" is one that is frequently misunderstood and misapplied. The literal sense of a passage includes what the passage was intended by the Author and how it was understood by the original audience. Often, many Christians in fact, have reduced the sense of what is "literal" to that which is the most simple and devoid of literary device or metaphore. Doing that does a grave disservice to the text and in my opinion and observation often leads to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the text. Unfortunately, when many see this who are either unaware of these important considerations, or they are outside the community of faith and accept the misrepresentation of Scripture in this manner as the Scriptures themselves being wrong, there is a lot that is lost.

The idea of inspiration can include several different understandings. I don't believe inspiration involved verbal dictation in the sense that God specifically, mechanically and precisely dictated the exact verbiage of every word within Scripture. I believe God moved by His Spirit and involved and engaged the personality, vocabulary, literary style etc of the human author in a way that ensured the result was what God intended and in that sense, fully inspired. This is usually referred to as a verbal plenary theory of inspiration.

So, to understand the Flood narratives correctly, it involves some work on our part to bridge the gap between our place, time and culture and reconcile it to the time of Moses' writing of the text while under inspiration of God and included in that needs to be an understanding of Moses' purpose, intended audience and the context in which they would understand that message. The "literal sense" could be an allegory, if that is what God intended and what the original audience received and if that were the case, then that would be the literal way to read the passage.

I believe however, that this was intended as a narrative history and retelling of familiar material to the Isrealites, who at the time this was written, were literally in the midst of the Exodus. Genesis in that context was inspired by God and delivered through Moses to a nation that was re-establishing its identity and being prepared for the next stage of their covenant relationship with God in the possessing of the Promise Land.

This is very bird's eye of course, but I give it to encourage you to avoid the temptation to try and reduce this issue down to a simple black and white choice between options when in fact it is a much more involved and subtle process, even for those of us within the faith.

Bart