Ark encounter

[crochet1949]

Hugh, those on this forum for a long time are very familiar with the supportive info - Biblical and scientific/geologic - for a localized/regional flood, as opposed to one that was world-wide:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

http://www.reasons.org/articles/explori ... d-part-one

http://www.reasons.org/articles/explori ... s-part-two

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-waters-of-the-flood

So what is with the whole "ark" and animals two by two?
Does the text clearly say that was the first rainbow?

Regarding the 1st rainbow -- Genesis 9:11 - 16 -- vs 11"Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.-- vs 13 "I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of thecovenant between Me and the earth."

The animals 2 x 2 -- male and female so they can reproduce. And they could get in the door easier going two by two.

[RickD]

Genesis 6:17 "And behold, I, Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die"
That sounds very specific.
Chapter 7: 18 "The waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed 15 cubits upward, and the mountains were covered."
That sounds a bit 'world-wide' doesn't it? How high is 15 cubits? Mountains being Covered with water.

I Will look up 'water canopy' -- find out where I got that from.

Does this sound as specific?
Genesis 6:17

Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the land, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the land shall perish.

The word translated as "earth" is 'erets.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Le ... H776&t=KJV

As you can see, 'erets can literally mean "land". So then the text can literally be saying that the land was flooded. A literal interpretation of the text allows for a local flood. It's only when you are literal and concrete in your interpretation, that 'erets must mean "the entire globe".

And again, I'm not trying to get you to be an old earther. I'm just trying to show you that your interpretation isn't the only literal interpretation of scripture.

[hughfarey]

Try reading what you wrote again. This time, everywhere it says "earth", replace that with "land".

Thank you, Rick; worth a try. So let's assume that the flood was local, presumably approximately to Mesopotamia or the area around Turkey, and that all that polemic about every living thing being destroyed referred only to every living thing in that area. So all the other living things dotted around the world, indeed, the vast majority of God's creation, including any number of people, all survived. The flood, it turns out, is of almost trivial significance. I wonder why it appears in the bible at all. Does the Hebrew allow for this interpretation?

"And all flesh died that moved in a small area of the Middle East, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth about southern Iraq, or maybe Turkey, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was between the Tigris and the Euphrates, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was within a couple of hundred square miles, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from such a tiny area of the earth that it seems hardly worth mentioning ..."

[RickD]

Try reading what you wrote again. This time, everywhere it says "earth", replace that with "land".

Thank you, Rick; worth a try. So let's assume that the flood was local, presumably approximately to Mesopotamia or the area around Turkey, and that all that polemic about every living thing being destroyed referred only to every living thing in that area. So all the other living things dotted around the world, indeed, the vast majority of God's creation, including any number of people, all survived. The flood, it turns out, is of almost trivial significance. I wonder why it appears in the bible at all. Does the Hebrew allow for this interpretation?

"And all flesh died that moved in a small area of the Middle East, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth about southern Iraq, or maybe Turkey, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was between the Tigris and the Euphrates, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was within a couple of hundred square miles, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from such a tiny area of the earth that it seems hardly worth mentioning ..."

Hugh,

Why do you assume that there were other humans outside the flood area? Are you putting the noahic flood only a few thousand years ago?

[Audie]

Audie,

Where'd you get the idea that Noah's day was 4000 years ago?

Not that your q is on topic, which has to do with people being found all over the world at any bible based date one might come up with.

Not that there was a noah or a day for him, but if 4k is off, what date to you claim for the non person and his non event?

Audie,

You made the claim that Noah's day was 4000 years ago. I just want to know where you get that from.

Various places, couldnt say specifically. Does it somehow matter?

It only matters if you want to have an honest conversation about the topic. If you just want to throw random assertions about, then make straw man arguments from those assertions, and then claim you've disproven the bible, then no, it really doesn't matter. It would kinda be like if I said "If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Hah evolution is false!!!"

So, I cannot partake in an honest discussion if I cant recall the first of many many times that I have seen that date proposed? After saying it, the first
site I checked under "date of flood" was, yes", about 4000 years.

The 4000 yr thing is readily sourced as a very widely held Christian belief.
You know that, it is not a "random assertion' for me to say it. I offered no strawman, tho you certainly do with that "claim..disproven the bible"
which in not the remotest sense did I claim.

Odd* that you'd think about strawmen and random, (non)honest and pointless assertions, while writing a paragraph of such.

IOW and shorter, you are full of crap here.

I dont suppose that now, on second request, you'd care to assign even the most tentative date for the "ark"?

There were people all over the world a half million years ago.

If you just want to write nonsense, dont care to give a date for a "flood" and dont care, further, to address my post in context (it was not to you anyway) howaboutcha buzz off?

Maybe Phil or Cro would like to offer a date?

*not actually odd, that is, "sarcasm"

[PaulSacramento]

There are many thesis by well established hebrew theologians that show that the wording in genesis can support a local flood ( or global).
We still do this to this day when we write about certain things, to convey a certain message.
It was very common in the ANE world, in their literary genre.

[PaulSacramento]

Here are some points in a discussion about the similarities of the flood in the bible and the Gilgimesh flood:

http://drmsh.com/biblical-flood-account ... gilgamesh/

Dr. Heiser is a specialist in the Hebrew language.

[RickD]

audie wrote:
The 4000 yr thing is readily sourced as a very widely held Christian belief.

Audie,

You do realize that the "4000 yr thing" is a widely held young earth belief? So, you're using a date that young earthers use to date the flood, but you think the young earth flood( global) is not true?

Mind explaining that one?

I dont suppose that now, on second request, you'd care to assign even the most tentative date for the "ark"?

No, I have no idea. But if I had to guesstimate, I'd say that since modern humans have been around for over 100,000 years, then I'd say probably around 100,000 years ago. Give or take.

There were people all over the world a half million years ago.

Modern humans? Homo sapiens sapiens?

If you just want to write nonsense, dont care to give a date for a "flood" and dont care, further, to address my post in context (it was not to you anyway) howaboutcha buzz off?

No Audie. YOU asserted that the flood was 4000 years ago. I never asserted any date. The onus is on you to back your assertion.

And please don't tell me to buzz off.

If you want to have a grown up conversation continue please. If you want to pout and throw temper tantrums, I'll put you in a time out.

[PaulSacramento]

This is a good place to go that addresses the biblical AND scientific evidence that the flood was local:
http://biologos.org/common-questions/bi ... esis-flood

[RickD]

This is a good place to go that addresses the biblical AND scientific evidence that the flood was local:
http://biologos.org/common-questions/bi ... esis-flood

Interesting read.

If I read them correctly, they believe the flood was local, and it was relatively recent. Maybe 6-8000 years ago?

If that's the case, then they believe only the humans in the region of the flood were killed. So, how does that fit with all humans beside 8, dying because of their sin?

[RickD]

I'm open to the possibility that the noahic flood killed only the people in the region, and if there were others throughout the globe, they survived.

But somebody would need to make a case for why only the locals were killed, and not everyone else. And how that doesn't contradict scripture with God being ashamed he made man. Was He only talking about Adam's lineage? Maybe because that lineage was supposed to be set apart from other humans, therefore special?

I'd really like to hear how this fits.

[PaulSacramento]

You need to go back to WHY God brought the flood in the first place.
With WHO was God displeased and Why.
Genesis 6.
Now, we have talked about this before and we are in different camps in regards to who the Sons' of God were.
That said, the issue is that God brought the flood to kill a select group since the OT account FOCUSES on a select group/area and He saved a SELECT group.

On theory is that God brought the flood into that Mesopotamian area because that is where the "contaminated" people's lived.

[RickD]

You need to go back to WHY God brought the flood in the first place.
With WHO was God displeased and Why.
Genesis 6.
Now, we have talked about this before and we are in different camps in regards to who the Sons' of God were.
That said, the issue is that God brought the flood to kill a select group since the OT account FOCUSES on a select group/area and He saved a SELECT group.

On theory is that God brought the flood into that Mesopotamian area because that is where the "contaminated" people's lived.

Ok. For the sake of this discussion, whether Nephilim were half human, half fallen angels, or completely human, doesn't matter, does it? We both agree that whatever happened, it "displeased" the Lord.

So, if only those in the region were so horribly corrupted as to face God's wrath by flood, then you're saying that God punished only those who were corrupted, and the animals associated with them?

The sin, whatever it was was limited only to a specific region? That's why only those affected by the sin, were killed?

You don't happen to have any links that go into detail about this, do you?

[Audie]

audie wrote:
The 4000 yr thing is readily sourced as a very widely held Christian belief.

You do realize that the "4000 yr thing" is a widely held young earth belief? So, you're using a date that young earthers use to date the flood, but you think the young earth flood( global) is not true?

I should now try to sort it out exactly which among the christians do and dont think this or that? it is a widely held christian belief, not a hindu one or
a elks club thing. You have surely seen that date many times; you are merely being tiresome. Unless that is too generous an interpretatyion.


Mind explaining that one?

I dont suppose that now, on second request, you'd care to assign even the most tentative date for the "ark"?

No, I have no idea. But if I had to guesstimate, I'd say that since modern humans have been around for over 100,000 years, then I'd say probably around 100,000 years ago. Give or take.

You can fit that into bible chronology?

There were people all over the world a half million years ago.

Modern humans? Homo sapiens sapiens?

If you wish to deny that your ancestors were human, go for it.

If you just want to write nonsense, dont care to give a date for a "flood" and dont care, further, to address my post in context (it was not to you anyway) howaboutcha buzz off?

No Audie. YOU asserted that the flood was 4000 years ago. I never asserted any date. The onus is on you to back your assertion.

I stated that the non flood and the non existent noah are dated to 4000 years ago. Not quite the same, is it? You (finally) say 100,000, others come up with other numbers. You were not the one I was addressing in any case, in case you forgot.

And please don't tell me to buzz off.

You interject yourself with tendentious irrelevancies and I should say bring it on?

If you want to have a grown up conversation continue please.

A grown up conversation is in part at least, one that involves responses such as you have not offered, and not talking nonsense like the so called "strawman" that didnt exist. Adults like try to avoid nonsense like making things up so they have something to criticize. Perhaps you remember this bit of pure garbage from you:

about the topic. If you just want to throw random assertions about, then make straw man arguments from those assertions, and then claim you've disproven the bible,

If you want to pout and throw temper tantrums, I'll put you in a time out.

Insults, and then the threat. I am so impressed.

Wouldn't it have been easier if you didnt back yourself into such shameful behaviour by employing a mature approach in the first place, like, say not making things up??

[Philip]

Dear Audie, please be more clear with the highlighted portions of your posts - it makes it more difficult to discern who said what and when, and the responses.