The Flood

[Eduard]

What are your thoughts on it?

I'll start:

Was it global or local? The hebrew word for "earth" (erets) can also mean land or country. The word "tebel" is used to describe the Earth as a whole creation, and that word is never used in relation to the flood, instead erets is used. On the other hand it is said that all flesh became corrupted, but that could also be taken figuratively since Noah and his family were flesh too but they were not corrupted.

There are also other versions of the Flood in more Mesopotamian cultures, so I'd rather believe it simply took place in that area.

And now, the most important part: What was this punishment for? It was for making contact with the Watchers (Shemyaza, Azazel and the like) who taught the humans things they weren't ready to learn and had children with women that became known as the Nephilim.  Also, it makes much more sense for God to punish the humans who had contact with the Watchers (the Watchers themselves were only 200 ) and not the entire Earth.


Note: the above is based on the Book of Enoch, not considered canon except by the Ethiopian church, but quoted in the New Testament.


And of course we can now associate Jesus Christ with the Ark, but He did not save just a few but saved All. That's my kind of ark  :laughing7:

[micah7:9]

I believe the flood to be local and science proves it. :dsunny:

[Eduard]

Now that I have read the Book of Enoch, the Flood is so much clearer.  :thumbsup:

[jbertonbounds]

I read some years ago that the Mediterranean Sea was once a fertile, inhabited valley until a sudden catastrophic flood occurred.  According to science the region was below sea level until the Atlantic Ocean finally broke though a barrier and flowed into the valley (kinda like New Orleans after Katrina) and forever flooded it.  Some theorize that that is where the story of the flood came from.  I have studied the sciences and have a masters degree in physical geography.  Trust me, a literal flood as described in Genesis is physically impossible.  The story is either figurative, or there are some problems with the translation of that scriptural text - I don't care what these so-called "Christian scientists" say. 

That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' with it! :laughing7:

[jbertonbounds]

I believe the flood to be local and science proves it. :dsunny:

How do you mean?

[ded2daworld]

I believe the flood to be global and while science cannot "prove" anything non-repeatable and wasn't observed
by any living person but God, Science has abundant evidence for a worldwide flood.
_ Not to mention the Bible says this is what actually happened God's eyewitness account)

[micah7:9]

I believe the flood to be local and science proves it. :dsunny:

How do you mean?

Just look up the dates of the crators just in the U.S.

[Eduard]

I am pretty sure the Flood can be looked at figuratively and there is no harm done. But seeing as how there are more accounts of a flood ordered by God or the gods, I like to think it was a literal event.

[Ken]

Hello Eduard,

The many questions about the "flood" are addressed here, based on the Bible and science:

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/ASK?sitesearch=askelm.com&q=noah%27s+flood&sa=Google+Search

I hope that helps.

Ken

[Eduard]

Thanks Ken. I have my own opinion on the Flood, but I wanted to see what others think as well.


:thumbsup:

[mplsfitter539]

I believe the flood to be global and while science cannot "prove" anything non-repeatable and wasn't observed
by any living person but God, Science has abundant evidence for a worldwide flood.
_ Not to mention the Bible says this is what actually happened God's eyewitness account)

I'm with you on this bro. Science cannot explain God's supernatural way of doing things. Science cannot conceive the parting of the Red Sea either but do we think it didn't happen? Explain then all of the chariots that Michael Rood filmed with an underwater camera in the area of the Red Sea that would be the most likely place for the Israelites to cross. There are even ancient pillars to mark the spot on the shoreline where they crossed which also fits with other crossings like the Jordan.

DuWayne

[Lazarus Short]

Having done a lot of reading on the Flood and related matters, here's my take:

We have the Earth, a planet which always had water, but sometime in the mythical (I say mythical due to all the worldwide Flood myths.) past, it got a lot more.  How did the waters cover the land?  First, we know very little about the pre-flood makeup of the Earth, but it is an easy guess that, though there were mountains, the Earth's surface (above and below water) was more even.  Further, the Earth was smaller:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ - there is just no getting around it, for all the continents fit together with almost no error, on a smaller planet.  This neatly explains where all the water went after the flood.  No, I don't have a mechanism for the expansion of our planet, but the geographical evidence proves it must be so. 

So, the waters of the Flood receded into the new ocean basins, but where did those waters come from?  There are lots of theories about vapor canopies, ice canopies, water canopies, and even metallic hydrogen canopies which burned.  None are proved or provable.  My idea is different.  There is a source of water close to the Earth, which we call Mars.  Yes, Mars, a planet which once had lots of water, but now has very little.  We know now that Mars once had oceans, and that there are huge "outflow channels" which carried that water - where?  Following Velikovsky and the folks pushing the new paradigm of the Electric Universe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY), I speculate that Mars may have come so close to the Earth, that its gravity pulled off the Martian surface water, while other forces (inertia, gravity, electromotive forces) kept the two planets apart, and in time, restored them to stable orbits. 

Keep in mind that what I wrote above is, in the end, speculation (at least in part), but it is based on a lot of reading of various books, magazine articles, www articles, videos, and dot-connecting.  I may be entirely wrong, but I offer my understanding of how it may have happened.  Remember that the Genesis account is "painted with a broad brush," and a lot of detail is left out. 

[musicman]

more new evidence of flood?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/archaeology/10022628/Lost-city-of-Heracleion-gives-up-its-secrets.html

[redhotmagma]

more new evidence of flood?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/archaeology/10022628/Lost-city-of-Heracleion-gives-up-its-secrets.html

this city sank around 800 a.d. the flood is purported to be 4000 years ago

[WhiteWings]

For the math inclined... why the flood could have been local:
Quantitative Hydrology of Noah's Flood
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Hill2.pdf

In this thread I read God can do miracles. True. But from that pov we can't discuss anything. I just as well can state it was a local flood because God caused a miracle to stop the water flowing away when it went above the highest hill.
I have other arguments.

19 And the water has the mastery exceeding exceedingly on the earth. And covered are all the lofty mountains which are under the entire heavens.
20 Fifteen cubits above has the water the mastery, and covered are all the mountains.

What does  verse 20 mean. It covered all mountains on earth by at least 15 cubits/20 feet?
First of all earth in the flood story is translated from eretz with can mean the whole planet. But I really doubt they thought that way. But I don't have proof of that. What i do have proof is that the whole land of Egtypt was hit by plagues.
Land is translated from the very same word eretz.
The Ark stranded on a mountain top. Noah waited a bit sent a dove brining an olive branch.
Olive trees don't grow near mountain tops. The whole planet was destroyed by the flood so how did that tree grow so fast.
A miracle? Could be.
It also could verse 20 is understood wrong.
Instead of: "The water rose 20 feet above the mountains" it reads "The water rose 20 feet and covered mountains".
Meaning the highest mountain was less than 20 feet. Mountain in Hebrew isn't just the Mt Everest type. It's basicly every bump in the ground. The Temple mount is mountain too. But not Mount Everest hight.
This view also solves the problem of having room for all types of animals and food.
I admit a weak point, but still a hint, the Bible only focusses on Jews and when needed on nations that interact with them. So the world view of the Bible is quite narrow.

[ded2daworld]

It sure doesn't explain why in the world God would have Noah spend a year building an ark to hold all the animals and his family when he could have much more easily had them walk away from a local flood. The animals? God brought them to Noah, he certainly could have them walk away as well. Peter says the world was destroyed at the time of the flood and only 8 survived - sure doesn't sound like a local flood. :Peace2:

[micah7:9]

2Pe 3:6  through which the then world...that is more specific....than "the world."

I don't see that as any proof of a global flood. There is to much scientific proof that there was no global flood, earth's layers, dated crater impacts. I am not a science person but I believe the flood was local and more important, is what the story tells us and the flood being global or local is insignificant. imo.

[jbertonbounds]

2Pe 3:6  through which the then world...that is more specific....than "the world."

I don't see that as any proof of a global flood. There is to much scientific proof that there was no global flood, earth's layers, dated crater impacts. I am not a science person but I believe the flood was local and more important, is what the story tells us and the flood being global or local is insignificant. imo.

Maybe it's a figurative story (kinda like a parable) designed to teach us something about God.  And only those who seek really get it.  Perhaps.  :Chinscratch:

[JulieTang84]

Be ewarned this might offend but it is said with Love.   :HeartThrob:

Does it matter of the flood was literal or not? Does it matter if it flooded the whole world and an untold number of people and animals of all kinds downed? Does it matter?

Well of course it matters. If it is literal and global then Farther  messed up big time. He broke every rule concerning love. He was not loving, patient or long suffering,. He was not compassionate nor was He forgiving. What's more He was cruel and heartless. Oh and he was so sorry that he promised to never to do it again.

Fallacy, nothing more and nothing less. As if Father could ever feel sorry. How can pure love murder? How can pure  patience ever give up? How could the most divine wisdom be so unwise?
How can a perfect Father drown 99.9% of his children?

Simple, He can't.     :HeartThrob:

It's a metaphor for things to come. Yes, most of the people we know will be destroy. They will suffer loss but be saved. I feel a great majority likely myself included will lose a whole lot. And that part of the populous will be lost to the lake though this time one of fire.

Likely there was a catastrophic flood st one time and Father used this story to invoke fesr. The spiritual development was not where it is today. We should be looking at this through spirit instead of through our minds.

Father is PERFECT LOVE.   :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:

Love Julie

[JulieTang84]

2Pe 3:6  through which the then world...that is more specific....than "the world."

I don't see that as any proof of a global flood. There is to much scientific proof that there was no global flood, earth's layers, dated crater impacts. I am not a science person but I believe the flood was local and more important, is what the story tells us and the flood being global or local is insignificant. imo.

Maybe it's a figurative story (kinda like a parable) designed to teach us something about God.  And only those who seek really get it.  Perhaps.  :Chinscratch:

:iagree:  :HeartThrob:

[WhiteWings]

Maybe it's a figurative story (kinda like a parable) designed to teach us something about God.  And only those who seek really get it.  Perhaps.  :Chinscratch:

Maybe. But I find it a slippery slope.
Creation was a parable because it's evolution.
Abraham never lived. It's just folklore with a message.
King David is a fable. He's just a name in a great Biblical teaching.
Jesus wasn't crucified. Crucifixion is a term for something else.

I mean where does end? Why is it good/ok to call creation an parable and rejecting crucifixion is blasphemy.

[micah7:9]

I don't believe I called it a parable.

"Creation was a parable because it's evolution"........No. But evolving is something that is, has, and does happen.
Abraham never lived. It's just folklore with a message." Not so, he lived and his life has value with learning value.
King David is a fable. He's just a name in a great Biblical teaching." Not so, David was real, but there is more that just the history story.
Jesus wasn't crucified. Crucifixion is a term for something else."
Jesus was crucified, hung on a tree; some things one can't dispute, should one believe in the Word of God.

I am more inline with Julie's thoughts.. and reason.

[JulieTang84]

Maybe it's a figurative story (kinda like a parable) designed to teach us something about God.  And only those who seek really get it.  Perhaps.  :Chinscratch:

Maybe. But I find it a slippery slope.
Creation was a parable because it's evolution.
Abraham never lived. It's just folklore with a message.
King David is a fable. He's just a name in a great Biblical teaching.
Jesus wasn't crucified. Crucifixion is a term for something else.

I mean where does end? Why is it good/ok to call creation an parable and rejecting crucifixion is blasphemy.

WhiteWings now it is you that are using fallacies  :HeartThrob:  Just because "one" story is deemed a parable, does NOT mean in any shape or form that ALL stories must therefore be parables.


But just give a moments thought on how Noah kept the Polar bears alive. Do you have any idea how much food two elephants could consume in 40+ days. What about the kolar bears of Australia and the fresh Eucalyptus leaves they need to live. Same with the Panda's and the bamboo shoots. I hate to even bring up Grizzly bears, Lions and every other large carnivorous animal, what did Noah feed them on. Either additional animals were brought along to feed them or I guess we have a lot of animal species that didn't make it. Attrition.


Yes, it is easy to say that if it is in the Bible then it must be so. But is the literalness of the story evermore important than the spiritual message?  :HeartThrob:


I believe never.


I truly hope I have not burned a bridge here, it was not my intention, honestly.  :friendstu:


Father certainly doesn't need me defending him, but isn't LOVE a better option than a monster?


Love Julie  :girlheart:

[micah7:9]

Julie, I love you, most certainly in the biblical sense, but to adjust the horns(so to speak) questioning WW is, well, if you are ready, a great learning process. The brother is adequate  and has great depth in his studies, one swath of his learning could possibly set you back ages. I only say this because I feel your journey is new, and I mean no offence.  :HeartThrob:

[Lazarus Short]

Any serious student of the Great Flood should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml15qU_mZIo

Even if you do not accept the premise, you need to be aware of what is really happening.