Was Noah's Flood Local? (page 2)

KJV

Joe,

It was Faithful2Jah that said he didn't want to be a part of this discussion, not me. I enjoy discussions on the Bible. I remember that J.H. and COJ had a really good debate on this "local flood" issue. COJ is a christian and a very good scholar and made some good arguments. As you know, so much is lost in the translation, there is really no way to know what was meant. It would apprear that the writer meant the whole earth, but don't you think that something could have been lost in the translation? Anyways, I never understood why Noah had to send a dove to check things out. Where was God? Why didn't He tell Noah where dry land was?

JosephAlward

My apologies, KJV. I had found my mistake just one minute before your post correcting me. You make a good point, too. Why didn't God just tell Noah that the waters had receded? This element, and dozens of others, should make it clear to objective observers who don't have to believe the Bible is literally true or else die, that the Genesis stories are mythical.

I'll be signing off soon, and won't be back until late Sunday afternoon.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Faithful2Jah

I'm moving my discussion of this back to the original thread as my official protest against "Bible bashers"! LOL

RWC

Joseph, I stay out of these flood threads for the most part because I contend that the idea of a global verses a "local" flood are a matter of interpretation and we may never know which interpretation is correct and was intended. But I could not resist this one.

Whether a man such as Noah telling the story from his perspective believed that the flood was global would make a lot of sense. He did not have satellite images of the globe. The Bible does not tell us that God told him it was local, so you are assuming that he would have too know that. The more logical assumption is that he believed it was global.

KJV

good point RWC!

Another thought. Why when the ground shakes do scientist call it "earthquakes"? Why aren't they called "landquakes"?

JosephAlward

I agree completely with RWC who says that it's logical to assume that Noah believed the flood was local. But, it is likewise logical to assume that the Genesis writer believed it was global, too. As proof of this, note below that the writer tells us that Noah knew that the flood had receded from the earth.

11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

If the local flood advocates are correct, the Bible writer knew that the flood was local. This writer would know that a dove returning with an olive tree leaf would not be proof that the waters had receded, since the Bible writer knows that Noah would have no way of knowing whether the dove had plucked the leaf from the unflooded area outside the land of Noah, or whether it came from land from which the waters had receded.

Only if the Bible writer knew the flood was global could he know that Noah "knew" that the flood leaf came from land from which the flood waters had receded.

I'll be back about 3:00 pm California time to accept rebuttals to this argument.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Farkel

KJV,

7 MILLION square miles? If it was only 4 million square miles, it would be 2 millions miles long and two million miles wide. The circumference of the earth is less than 30,000 miles.

Faithful2Jah,

: He said that he stays out of threads that are obviously only created to tear down God and the Bible.

That's just a cop-out. Joseph speaks rationally and with respect. If Bible stories get ripped to shreds because of reason and fact, then so be it. Only a fanatic would cling to beliefs when confronted with facts that obviously debunk them. No one is tearing down "God" by showing Bible error. Too many fanatics think one cannot separate God from the Bible. If God directed the Bible we have today to be written, then God is a deranged psychopath. If God didn't direct the Bible we have today to be written, then an entirely new quest can be begun.

:From what I have seen that would apply to any thread that has ever been started on this board by Joseph Alward.

He has a lot more sensible things to say than you do, Faithful.

Farkel

Sargon

I can answer one of KJV's about the dove. Most of the biblical account of the flood is taken from previous flood stories. A dove was used in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the writer of Genesis just borrowed it from this account.

Imagination is more important than Knowledge. Albert Einstein

peacefulpete

Sargon is correct.It was an origin story using the water motif.Repeated tales of passing thru water,rivers,lakes,or floods had symbolic significance to Ugaritian writers as representing newness,rebirth,etc.
It is interesting that numerous pagan cultures had very similar tales, yet never were they viewed as literal.Literal accuracy was not the objective of ancient religious teachers, it was first to provide a cultural identity thu legend and also to give emotional force behind their teaching.
It is a waste of time to find ways to make the story fit the facts of science.To do so is to overlook the beauty of the legend.

peacefulpete

I forgot an interesting piece.The symbolism of the flood and river crossing was not lost on Paul.He connects Baptism with the account at 1 Cor 10.Perhaps he did not view it as actual history,who knows.
We do know that Baptism was a comon religious practice among middle eastern cultures representing the same thing it does for christians.New life.Funny how all their enemies copied the Jews> Even before they began doing it.

Was Noah's Flood Local?

Share this