Local flood, not all humanity killed?

[hughfarey]

If you feel there is a doctrine that needs the flood to be a GLOBAL event to be correct, please share.

I wish I was more of a theologian, but a little earlier I have already shared what I think may be some of the point of the story. I think the early chapters of Genesis are explorations of God's relationship with the universe, and mankind as a whole, not specifically the 'chosen race'. The story of Noah prefigures the notion of Redemption, and establishes the immutability of "the promises of God." It may also have something to say about man's responsibility to the rest of the living world. Whereas Genesis 1 gave him 'dominion', Genesis 6 and 7 make him look after them, even presumably, the 'nasty' ones like crocodiles and wasps. Even the snake seems to be partly rehabilitated. The water speaks of washing, and prefigures baptism. There may be more - an origin for the olive branch as a sign of peace, a celebration of a maritime economy? - but that'll do for a while. The main point is that the message at this point in the bible is for all mankind; the ubiquity of the rainbow perhaps illustrates that. That this has always been the interpretation of the Christian world is reflected in almost every translation of the bible.

How's that? What's your interpretation of the real meaning of the Noah story?

[PaulSacramento]

And what doctrine is effected if the flood is not global?

[hughfarey]

And what doctrine is effected if the flood is not global?

Do you mean the story does not refer to a global flood, or any actual flood upon which that story may be based is not global? I think the story must refer to a global flood, or the entire relevance of early Genesis to mankind shrivels into a petty squabble between a stroppy God and a few Iraqui farmers, while the bounty of creation and the vast majority of mankind rolled on wholly unaffected.

[Audie]

And what doctrine is effected if the flood is not global?

Do you mean the story does not refer to a global flood, or any actual flood upon which that story may be based is not global? I think the story must refer to a global flood, or the entire relevance of early Genesis to mankind shrivels into a petty squabble between a stroppy God and a few Iraqui farmers, while the bounty of creation and the vast majority of mankind rolled on wholly unaffected.

So, if it is about a global flood, what is the relevance of an entirely apocryphal story?

[RickD]

And what doctrine is effected if the flood is not global?

Do you mean the story does not refer to a global flood, or any actual flood upon which that story may be based is not global? I think the story must refer to a global flood, or the entire relevance of early Genesis to mankind shrivels into a petty squabble between a stroppy God and a few Iraqui farmers, while the bounty of creation and the vast majority of mankind rolled on wholly unaffected.

But what doctrine is affected, and how so?

If you think there's a difference between a local flood that all humanity dies, and a local flood that only the "locals" die, then please explain which doctrine(s) is/are affected, and why.

[Jac3510]

It effects the doctrine that creation fell with mankind and is looking to be liberated along with mankind. That effects a very specific view of the imago Dei, in which man is understood to be the visible representation of God on earth. That, in turn, effects the exegesis of the commandment not to make idols or graven images, and all of that effects one's understanding of the Incarnation and Christ as the Image of God and the Second Adam. In fact, it takes away a pillar of interpretation of Genesis 1-11, in which the Fall is broadly understood as a separation between God Elohim ruling over the world through His Omnipotence and God Yahweh ruling over the world through His image (mankind) and the whole purpose of Israel being restorative of that brokenness.

Just to name a few.

[hughfarey]

And what doctrine is effected if the flood is not global?

Do you mean the story does not refer to a global flood, or any actual flood upon which that story may be based is not global? I think the story must refer to a global flood, or the entire relevance of early Genesis to mankind shrivels into a petty squabble between a stroppy God and a few Iraqui farmers, while the bounty of creation and the vast majority of mankind rolled on wholly unaffected.

But what doctrine is affected, and how so?

If you think there's a difference between a local flood that all humanity dies, and a local flood that only the "locals" die, then please explain which doctrine(s) is/are affected, and why.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'doctrine', which is a teaching of a Church, not a personal interpretation of the Bible. Do you adhere to any? The Catholic doctrine of the flood compares the Old Testament stories to its New Testament mentions, in which it appears that Jesus and more particularly Peter, definitely used the story as if it applied to the whole world. Of course they were specifically thinking of people dying rather than areas covered, but I consider it mere sophistry to attempt to universalise the one but not the other. It is, I fear, merely one of the desperate measures by which biblical literalists attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. There is no possible way in which a real flood could have destroyed the human race as described in Genesis. Unless you invoke miracles, of course, in which case no scientific argument is necessary.

I've just noticed Jac3510's contribution above, which seems very sound to me. I'll go with that.

[RickD]

jac wrote:
It effects the doctrine that creation fell with mankind and is looking to be liberated along with mankind.

The doctrine that creation fell with mankind?

I mean actual Christian doctrine. Not Young Earth specific doctrine. Creation didn't fall when Adam sinned.

That effects a very specific view of the imago Dei, in which man is understood to be the visible representation of God on earth. That, in turn, effects the exegesis of the commandment not to make idols or graven images, and all of that effects one's understanding of the Incarnation and Christ as the Image of God and the Second Adam. In fact, it takes away a pillar of interpretation of Genesis 1-11, in which the Fall is broadly understood as a separation between God Elohim ruling over the world through His Omnipotence and God Yahweh ruling over the world through His image (mankind) and the whole purpose of Israel being restorative of that brokenness.

I assume you are referring to a local flood that doesn't kill all of humanity. Not a flood, local or global, that kills all of humanity, correct?

Even though I don't believe in a local flood that killed only the line of Adam, I still don't buy what you're selling. If Noah and his family were the only survivors in the lineage of Israel, Israel through Noah, still played its part in the restoration.

[RickD]

And what doctrine is effected if the flood is not global?

Do you mean the story does not refer to a global flood, or any actual flood upon which that story may be based is not global? I think the story must refer to a global flood, or the entire relevance of early Genesis to mankind shrivels into a petty squabble between a stroppy God and a few Iraqui farmers, while the bounty of creation and the vast majority of mankind rolled on wholly unaffected.

But what doctrine is affected, and how so?

If you think there's a difference between a local flood that all humanity dies, and a local flood that only the "locals" die, then please explain which doctrine(s) is/are affected, and why.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'doctrine', which is a teaching of a Church, not a personal interpretation of the Bible. Do you adhere to any? The Catholic doctrine of the flood compares the Old Testament stories to its New Testament mentions, in which it appears that Jesus and more particularly Peter, definitely used the story as if it applied to the whole world. Of course they were specifically thinking of people dying rather than areas covered, but I consider it mere sophistry to attempt to universalise the one but not the other. It is, I fear, merely one of the desperate measures by which biblical literalists attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. There is no possible way in which a real flood could have destroyed the human race as described in Genesis. Unless you invoke miracles, of course, in which case no scientific argument is necessary.

I've just noticed Jac3510's contribution above, which seems very sound to me. I'll go with that.

Nice bail out on the answer Hugh.

By doctrine, I mean doctrine. If you think any doctrine would be affected, which? It could be a young earth doctrine like Jac says, or maybe the doctrine of the atonement of Christ. Whatever you think.

[hughfarey]

Well, I've told you what I understand the Catholic doctrine to be. I don't think I can go further than that. I'm really more of a scientist, and I'll happily go to the wall on that!

[RickD]

Well, I've told you what I understand the Catholic doctrine to be. I don't think I can go further than that. I'm really more of a scientist, and I'll happily go to the wall on that!

Fair enough. You don't know of any doctrine affected.

Then really, I'm not sure what your issue is. You seem like a lot of "I don't knows" make up what you believe. At least that's how it's coming across. It all seems kinda vague with you.

[Philip]

Audie: You respond with a long rather hysterical personal attack, that appears to say that if I cant answer the deepest mysteries of the universe, then i have nothing to say about the 'flood".

Audie, you always respond to your POSITION being critically examined with your "little girl is being attacked by the clueless, heartless mods." Quite your whining and put on your "big girl" pants!

My point wasn't about the WHEN or technical questions about many questions concerning the flood. My point was merely that you are always very condescendingly spouting about "the magic God of gappisms," without realizing that you yourself have admitted you have NO, ZIPPO, ZERO idea of what began the universe or HOW it began. So if science cannot explain the extraordinary aspects of the universe, how it operates with great sophistication and consistence, etc., then you cannot rightly - and certainly not credibly - assert ANY Godless cause or causes for the universe as being fact-based/scientific. So your supposedly superior rational scientific analysis has shown you what about the cause of the universe - what, that cause has functioned astoundingly AND you don't' know who, what, why or how.

And so, you are left with very few possibilities as to the NATURE of the universe's cause/or Cause, which you HAVE already admitted that science cannot explain. One possibility is that some thing existed (but that wasn't a BEING) that was eternally super intelligence and immense powerful created and began the universe. So, an eternal nonliving thing or things that were simply all-powerful and intelligent was the agent. Choice 2: Random, unintelligent things - which also HAD to be eternal - eventually developed stupendous abilities beyond all human imagination and intelligence. Really, this idea of randomness or non-intelligence that eternal rocks and bits of wood, given unlimited amounts of time, assembled themselves into an orchestra able to play the most beautiful complex classical concerto. But one thing is clear, WHATEVER the ULTIMATE source the universe is derived from, that source HAD to be eternal - so, that is one inescapable parameter - that is, unless you think a thing can create itself (impossible!) or that such a thing can simple come into existence without a prior cause. And that source either had to be eternally powerful and unfathomably intelligent, OR it randomly developed into such power and intelligence - which is as unscientific as it gets. Leave those rocks in the backyard for vast trillions of years, and at the end of that time, they'll still be dumb rocks.

Audie: I do see a lot of what you called, yes, Wild speculation, upon which there is no ability to apply the scientific method to replicating, testing, falsifying - well, just don't call it science, because it is NOT - concerning this "flood".

Of COURSE there is wild speculation. But the wild speculation on the non-theist side seems very unreasonale, immensely and mathematically improbable. But it's not telling lies as to what you believe, Audie, it's stating parameters which you refuse to accept, that nonetheless exist.

Audie, please tell me:

What OTHER possible and necessary certainties must the Cause of the universe include?

The ultimate source of the universe had to be eternal? Yes or no?

The ultimate source of the universe could not create itself? Yes or no?

The ultimate source of the universe either had to SIMPLY BE all-powerful and astoundingly intelligent, OR, it had to have the capacity to begin, purely randomly, GAINING and INCREASING in intelligence, vastly over time, and it had to just be phenomenally lucky that, through pure chance, that ultimate source was able to eventually become and do all that has astounded the best minds the world has ever produced.

Audie, in the previous sentence paragraph, WHAT other possible construction of necessary characteristics would the universe's ultimate cause have to include? This is YOUR chance to not be misunderstood, have lies told about what you believe, nor any of that. So, what characteristics, MINIMALLY, did the first cause HAVE to have - or the first COLLECTIVE cause (in accumulated abilities) HAVE to have? I want you to name just ONE parameter or characteristic that I have stated you MUST, as a non-theist, include in a list of such parameters/characteristics for the ultimate, that is inaccurate or a lie. Because, even if unknown, the cause of the universe HAD to have, minimally, certain characteristics. Don't confuse the parameters that ALL non-theists are trapped in, with someone supposedly lying about what you believe. Because what you, as a non-theist MUST believe, cannot go beyond certain fixed parameters.

This should be good. I predict less detail and more attitude! But I do hope to be pleasantly surprised!

[Jac3510]

I mean actual Christian doctrine. Not Young Earth specific doctrine. Creation didn't fall when Adam sinned.

Circular reasoning. By definition, if a doctrine is effected by a global flood, then it is a young earth doctrine. Everyone agrees that the interpretation of the Flood is not a salvific issue. In other words, if you believe in a global flood, it's going to change your views on other things. You say creation didn't fall when Adam sinned. Of course you say that. Your local flood theology demands it. And there's proof why this is theologically important. You will now read Rom 8 differently than I do--and wrongly, I would add.

I assume you are referring to a local flood that doesn't kill all of humanity. Not a flood, local or global, that kills all of humanity, correct?

Even though I don't believe in a local flood that killed only the line of Adam, I still don't buy what you're selling. If Noah and his family were the only survivors in the lineage of Israel, Israel through Noah, still played its part in the restoration.

You assume incorrectly. Even if all of humanity died in a local flood, all of the issues I mentioned are very much effected. To be it succinctly, your eschatology will be dramatically different if you hold to a global flood than if you hold to a local flood, and since eschatology determines a lot of those other issues, then those other issues will be messed up, too. To use a salvific example, when Augustine changed his eschatology from premill to amill, he messed up the gospel by making perseverance a requirement for salvation based on a misreading of Jesus' statement that "he who perseveres until the end will be saved." Your local flood is doing the same thing to other areas of your theology.

[RickD]

I mean actual Christian doctrine. Not Young Earth specific doctrine. Creation didn't fall when Adam sinned.

Circular reasoning. By definition, if a doctrine is effected by a global flood, then it is a young earth doctrine. Everyone agrees that the interpretation of the Flood is not a salvific issue. In other words, if you believe in a global flood, it's going to change your views on other things. You say creation didn't fall when Adam sinned. Of course you say that. Your local flood theology demands it. And there's proof why this is theologically important. You will now read Rom 8 differently than I do--and wrongly, I would add.

I assume you are referring to a local flood that doesn't kill all of humanity. Not a flood, local or global, that kills all of humanity, correct?

Even though I don't believe in a local flood that killed only the line of Adam, I still don't buy what you're selling. If Noah and his family were the only survivors in the lineage of Israel, Israel through Noah, still played its part in the restoration.

You assume incorrectly. Even if all of humanity died in a local flood, all of the issues I mentioned are very much effected. To be it succinctly, your eschatology will be dramatically different if you hold to a global flood than if you hold to a local flood, and since eschatology determines a lot of those other issues, then those other issues will be messed up, too. To use a salvific example, when Augustine changed his eschatology from premill to amill, he messed up the gospel by making perseverance a requirement for salvation based on a misreading of Jesus' statement that "he who perseveres until the end will be saved." Your local flood is doing the same thing to other areas of your theology.

Actually,

It's only part of Romans 8 that we read differently. So it's only part of the chapter that you are wrong about. And your understanding that part incorrectly, really doesn't affect a whole lot. At least as far as what I've seen. So, you'll be ok.

Since I really don't hold to any specific eschatology, my local flood belief can't change that.

[Jac3510]

Regardless, I take the point as proven. More to the point, if the flood is global, then the theology I am pointing to isn't just a side doctrine effected but the intended meaning of the text.