Evidence for God from Science

If it was a local flood why build a giant wooden water proof box with the same storage space as the Titanic?
Why did God promise never to destroy the Earth again with a flood, if it was local?
It was either global or God did not keep his promise as there have been countless local floods.

Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive and they that were with him in the ark.

Genesis 8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him in the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth

Supports global flood ( especially since there are still local floods )

Tina wrote:Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive and they that were with him in the ark.

Genesis 8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him in the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth

Supports global flood ( especially since there are still local floods )

Tina, substitute "land", everywhere the word "earth" is used, and then you'll see how the text describes a local flood.

Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the land is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the land.

Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the land: and Noah only remained alive and they that were with him in the ark.

Genesis 8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him in the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole land

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the land

Genesis 9:11 was a promise from God, will not destroy all humans, by a flood.

You are free to check the meaning of the word, translated as "land". Just check Strong's Concordance, and you can see there is more than one literal meaning.

If it was a local flood why not have Noah and family move to a safe location, it worked for Lot and his daughters?
Yes Earth can just mean land, for example the often misinterpreted passage from the Bible about the Earth not moving which the Catholic Church formerly believed proved the Sun went round the Earth. Should actually read the land does not totter.

The only logical reason for Noah to spend decades building a giant wooden box, is there was nowhere to go.
So the whole human race was located in one location that could be flooded? Also the promise was not just made to humans but land dwelling animals.

Its like the movie 2012 several large modern arks are built because nowhere is safe.

The Earth was originally covered by water in the first period of creation, currently 70 % of the world is ocean, if the Earth was smoothed over it would be 100% under water.

ROBE wrote:If it was a local flood why not have Noah and family move to a safe location, it worked for Lot and his daughters?
Yes Earth can just mean land, for example the often misinterpreted passage from the Bible about the Earth not moving which the Catholic Church formerly believed proved the Sun went round the Earth. Should actually read the land does not totter.

The only logical reason for Noah to spend decades building a giant wooden box, is there was nowhere to go.
So the whole human race was located in one location that could be flooded?

Its like the movie 2012 several large modern arks are built because nowhere is safe.

The Earth was originally covered by water in the first period of creation, currently 70 % of the world is ocean, if the Earth was smoothed over it would be 100% under water.

Robe read this from the main site as it answers all your question on a local flood http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

ROBE wrote: The only logical reason for Noah to spend decades building a giant wooden box, is there was nowhere to go.

Or some kind of stimulus/make work project?

4.(macro)Evolution is at least somewhat true, but also the process is subsidized by God to direct it in a more literal biblical fashion.

I have read the arguments for a local flood and they don't hold water compared to Answers in Genesis I am afaid. Which is strange because this site usually wins hands down for me.
Okay I do laugh at their childish depictions of the ark as a big ship instead of a big box.
A big box is easier to build, holds more and is more stable in the water. A ship is build the way it is because it needs to travel from point A to B the Ark didn't.

Why put flying creatures on the Ark if it is local, can't they fly to an area that is safe? Wouldn't plenty of their kind be elsewhere along with land animals?
Again the only logical reason for God to send one breeding pair of unclean and three breeding pairs plus one food/sacrifice spare to the Ark was nowhere else was safe.

The Ark makes no logical sense for a local flood, only global.

As for remains of the Ark being around, people have a habit of using historic ruins as building materials.

ROBE wrote: Why put flying creatures on the Ark if it is local, can't they fly to an area that is safe? Wouldn't plenty of their kind be elsewhere along with land animals?
Again the only logical reason for God to send one breeding pair of unclean and three breeding pairs plus one food/sacrifice spare to the Ark was nowhere else was safe.

A big local one at that. These birds cannot fly for so long a distance. ESPECIALLY in the rain.

The only logical reason for Noah to spend decades building a giant wooden box, is there was nowhere to go.
So the whole human race was located in one location that could be flooded?

To answer this earlier question from the main site "If the Genesis flood were local, why didn't God just sent Noah and his family packing. Once they were out of the Mesopotamian flood plain, God could have judged the unrighteous without making Noah go to all the trouble of building a huge ark. It is true that God could have done this, although there are some good biblical reasons why He chose not to do so. Why did God make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down? Why did God make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness? Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness? Were any of these things actually required for God to do His work? No! God could have just wiped out all the evil people in the world, as He did later to the all the Egyptians' first-born. Maybe God had good reasons for Noah to build the ark? God has a purpose for each person of faith to join Him in preaching His message. God's plan will be accomplished regardless of our participation in it. However, God gives obedient humans the privilege of participating in God's plans. Likewise, God had a plan for Noah, part of which was for him and his sons to demonstrate their commitment and perseverance to the Lord."

I have read the arguments for a local flood and they don't hold water compared to Answers in Genesis I am afaid. Which is strange because this site usually wins hands down for me.

Your opinion is valid and so is mine.

Okay I do laugh at their childish depictions of the ark as a big ship instead of a big box.
A big box is easier to build, holds more and is more stable in the water. A ship is build the way it is because it needs to travel from point A to B the Ark didn't.

I agree.

Why put flying creatures on the Ark if it is local, can't they fly to an area that is safe? Wouldn't plenty of their kind be elsewhere along with land animals?
Again the only logical reason for God to send one breeding pair of unclean and three breeding pairs plus one food/sacrifice spare to the Ark was nowhere else was safe.

Birds struggle to fly in the rain,they can't fly for 40 days and 40 nights,they also may have been native to that particular area and some birds cannot fly.
The flood although local still would have covered an extremely large amount of land and after the waters receded Noah and his tribe ( family ) would need animals to breed to rebuild the population in that area.

The Ark makes no logical sense for a local flood, only global.

In your opinion not mine.

As for remains of the Ark being around, people have a habit of using historic ruins as building materials.

I agree, the necessity for building materials would have been present.

Dan

The flood was sent to stop the spread of sin, so all animals which may have been influenced by the all out reprobation of man (Genesis 6:5-7, 11-13) had to be destroyed.

Four creation accounts show that the earth was originally covered by water and that once continents were formed, water would never again cover it (Genesis 1:2-10; Job 38:8-11; Psalm 104:5-9; Proverbs 8:27-29; also see Jeremiah 5:22).

Below are some common young-earth questions

1) Why did the flood account use global language?
The main Hebrew word describing the extent of the flood is erets, but this word can mean a number of things. The context is the key to its meaning.
Planet – Gen. 1:1, 2
Continents – Gen. 1:10, 24
Region/country – Gen. 2:11, 12 and 13; 4:16
People – Gen. 11:1 (see 11:6 - What had the same language?)

Three other words are also used:
Har – It can mean mountain or hill. Even some Y.E. creationists believe that Gen. 7:19-20 is only referring to hills. They claim that mountains were formed towards the end of the Flood.

Charabah – Gen. 7:22 it means dry land/ground

Adamah – land/ground. It is used interchangeably with erets in Gen. 7:21-22, 7:23, 8:7-8 and 8:13.

Here are places in the Flood account where both erets and/or adamah are defining a clearly local area in Gen. 8:7, 8, 11 & 13.

As shown above, there are three Hebrew words used to describe the extent of the flood: erets, adamah, and charabah. The last two have a more limited definition and adamah is used interchangeably with erets in the text. Since both erets and adamah are used in the flood narrative to describe clearly local areas, there are really no good reasons to see the flood as global, even in this main flood text.

Likewise, the use of "all the earth" (Gen. 7:3) does not have to mean the whole planet. It is used in Genesis 8:9, from the dove's perspective, even though Noah could see land (Gen. 8:5). The same words are used in Genesis 41:57, but then shown to be localized in Gen. 42:5 and 47:13. In fact, just about everywhere, in the O.T., that you see "whole land," "all of the land," "the whole earth," etc., it is the same Hebrew words (kol eres).

Well, what about other Biblical texts describing the Flood?

2) What did Jesus say?
Jesus in Matt. 24:38-39; Luke 17:27-29 only refers to the flood as universal to humanity, not to it being global. Luke shows the flood was limited (geographically), but universal by using the exact same phase that he used for the destruction of Sodom in the days of Lot, "and destroyed THEM all." This phrase is clearly referring to the people not the planet.

3) What did Peter say?
Peter indicates that it was local. II Peter 3:5 refers to the creation of the heavens and the giving of form to the planet. This last part is obviously referring to when God gathered the seas and made dry land appear to give the planet contour (creation day 3). In verse 7 he says that the same heavens and earth (planet) will be destroyed by fire.

Unlike what many Y.E. creationists say, verses 5-7 are not a contrast between a global judgment by water and a global judgment by fire. Peter is stating that each event was and will be controlled by God's word. The flood is not being contrasted with the final judgment.

The word for earth in verses 5, 7 and 10 is the Greek word Ge. But, what Peter says was flooded, by water (vs. 6), is the Greek word Kosmos. He uses this word earlier in II Peter 2:5 to describe the flooding of the people. Both places are referring to the people and the area in which they live, not the planet.

4) Why does the text uses the term ALL.
ALL here means everything in the region (erets).
Why is the effect said to be limited to land creatures (Gen. 6:7, 17; 7:4, 21-23) if it was a global event? Surely the creatures in the sea would have died. But, a flood covering Mesopotamia and Saudi Arabia would not have affected sea life, especially if it occurred when sea levels were low (no Persian Gulf).

5) Why didn’t Noah just move? Why build an Ark?
Noah was a Preacher (II Peter 2:5) and God wants all people to repent (Ezek. 18:23 and II Peter 3:9). How would all people hear about the coming judgment and the need for repentance if they lived on the other side of the planet?
The building of the ark was part of the message of coming judgment (Heb. 11:7 and I Peter 3:20).

6) Why didn’t birds just fly away?
God’s purpose in sending the flood was to kill them too. It likely covered 1.5 million square miles (see #8). The 40 days of rain must have been severe enough to ground and drown them. Severe storms like hurricanes can blow them far off their migration courses, destroy their habitats and the birds can starve from not being able to forage in the severe weather. All of this would have been true during the flood's storm.
http://www.enature.com/articles/detail.asp?storyID=580

7) How could a local flood cover the mountains?
As mentioned above (see #1), even some young-earth creationists do not believe that mountains are what were meant in Genesis 7:19-20. The text speaks of high hills. No land would have been visible because the horizon would have concealed even the distant mountains.

How could a local flood last a year?
The destruction from the flood probably covered an area over 1.5 million square miles. 40 days and nights of continual extreme rain was likely covering the area from the Arabian Sea, North to the mountain range just above the Syrian-Turkey border and from the Red Sea, East to the Western Mountains of Iran. Anything in and around these mountains would have been inundated with a tremendous amount of flowing waters and mudslides. There is some evidence that sand dunes blocked the southern opening of the Persian Gulf region during at least one era when sea levels were low (see link to Ward, E. Stanford's essay). The mountains, plus this blockage, would have formed a large bowl. The waters of the flood could have settled to form a lake, 600 plus feet deep covering 320,000 plus square miles. It would have covered the Persian Gulf, northward into Mesopotamia and southward into Saudi Arabia.

This could easily last a year.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/video ... ds_pa.html
http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/gallery/ ... stan/3667/

9) How were people living outside of the area killed by a local flood?
The Bible, in Gen. 1-11, indicates that everyone lived in one location (Mesopotamia/Saudi Arabia). Chapter 10 refers to events after chapter 11.

10) Did God lie about never sending another flood, because there have since been many local floods?
No local flood has since destroyed the whole human race and the land and animals associated with them (Gen. 9:11, 15).

11) Why was a special word used to refer to the flood (mabbuwl)?
Any flood as extensive and destructive as this one deserves a special word (see #8). Even a local flood like the one old-earth creationists believe in is far larger and more destructive than any flood since. Remember, it killed the entire human race except for Noah and his family.

12) How did Noah know that all of the high mountains were covered?
Since God never said that they would be, this is evidence that the account is from Noah's perspective (Gen. 8:5-6 & 13). See 7 above.

13) How did Noah know that all of the land animals and birds had died?
First, God said that they would (Gen. 6:7, 13 & 17; 7:4). Second, Noah could see the waters had flooded everything (Gen. 8:6). Therefore, the animals would have drowned. Lastly, after the flood Noah would not have found any other animals besides the ones on the ark.

14) How did Noah know that the fountains of the deep had closed?
He probably saw the waters bursting forth at the same time that the rains began (Gen 7:10-12). So when the rains stopped, he probably assumed God had finished increasing all of the waters (Gen. 7:17; 8:6-7)

15) How did Noah know that the flood was over?
Noah knew it was over because of his eyes and the actions of a bird (Gen. 8:5-13). It was not divine revelation, because God did not speak to him until after this. Even then it was only to give him permission to leave the ark and to say be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 8:15-17).

Some extra questions
1) Didn't the ark land on a mountain?
Actually, the text says the mountains of Ararat. There is the sight, in the northern part of the flooded area, which has 400+ ft. hills, on which the ark could have settled. The Hebrew word for mountain (har) can refer to anything from a small hill to the highest peak. From there the horizon would have kept Noah from seeing any land. This would still be considered the "mountains of Ararat." In fact, an ancient civilization once ruled most of the mountainous region North of Mesopotamia. Its name was Urartu. Many believe that its name comes from the fact that it existed in the region known as "the mountains of Ararat."

2) How many people survived?
Only eight people survived; Noah and his sons and all of their wives (Genesis 6:10, 8:18; 1 Peter 3:20).

Thanks Dayage, great post.

Seems I was wrong about the number of people, but since as you say that the landing was not necessarily on top of the mountain they easily could have harvested the wood for building materials.

Again if it was local it would not kill all humans outside of the Ark, Noah lived in a violent society in a violent society people move elsewhere, what about the people in Africa and Europe?
Likewise God sending land animals and flying creatures to the Ark was pointless, what about the animals in Europe, Africa and the Americas?

The only logical reason for the Ark was a global flood.


I think the resistence to a global flood is a fear this gives ground to YEC, as in that fossil may have been created thousands of years ago instead of millions.
Which is rubbish a global flood tells you when things were destroyed not created.

Fear of helping YEC is the problem.

ROBE wrote:Again if it was local it would not kill all humans outside of the Ark, Noah lived in a violent society in a violent society people move elsewhere, what about the people in Africa and Europe?
Likewise God sending land animals and flying creatures to the Ark was pointless, what about the animals in Europe, Africa and the Americas?

The only logical reason for the Ark was a global flood.


I think the resistence to a global flood is a fear this gives ground to YEC, as in that fossil may have been created thousands of years ago instead of millions.
Which is rubbish a global flood tells you when things were destroyed not created.

Fear of helping YEC is the problem.

Everything you have just stated has been answered in dayage's post and on the main site including what you have just said, did you even read it?
I consider myself O.E.C. because that is where the evidence has lead me and has nothing to do with being scared of of another point of view, I consider Y.E.C. a possibility but more likely O.E.C.

I think you fear knowledge as you seem to gloss over any that is given and continue to use arguments that an answer has already been given.

Before I get asked again, I believe that Christ Jesus came in the flesh and was fully God and fully man. 1 John 4:2

I can read Answers in Genesis that can prove beyond any doubt they are right and everybody else is wrong.
Likewise I can read this site that can prove beyond any doubt they are right and everybody else is wrong.

The truth is what you want it to be.

That is why the world is full of different religions that then divide up into sects.

YEC believe there was darkness in the first day because the sun didn't exist, while I believe the Earth had an opaque atmosphere that then became translucent and finally transparent.

I have had lots of discussions with YEC and they have not convinced me and I did not convince them.
The same thing has happened re global flood with OEC.

You firmly believe the whole human race was living in one local area and Noah built a massive box for a local flood, while I find that silly.

As I have said before I find many beliefs of AIG silly but many beliefs on this site as having gone to far.