Eternally Grateful
Active Member
that an impossibility, unless we change the meaning of words and ignore scripture
It in no way shape or form can mean the inhabited part of the world. Thats an impossibility
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Flood Evidence Clearly Seen by Geologist
- Thread starter Aaron
- Start date
- Status
It in no way shape or form can mean the inhabited part of the world. Thats an impossibility
Neither does he.
No, that is not an impossibility. You would not have to change the meaning of words or ignore Scripture.
That does not mean I believe the interpretation correct, I don't. But it means I am honest enough to admit that linguistically it could mean the inhabitable area of the world (the world of man at the time).
No. Only if one decides their idea about what God was revealing is the only interpretation (i.e., if one believes themselves God).
Only if one denies that Moses was writing what had been revealed to Him by God.
Eternally Grateful
Active Member
ok, go ahead and show me in scripture where there is a possibility of a local flood. where it could be interpreted both ways. Using ALL mentions of the flood
Mathetes66
Member
Is NYC built on seven hills? Is London built on 7 hills? Is Paris built on 7 hills? Is Shanghai or Dubai built on 7 hills? All answered with a no.
When I saw her, I marveled greatly. 7But the angel said to me, “Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her...This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated...And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.”
Keep using the 'disclosed, uncovered, revealed' clues to know what is going to happen & where & who will be involved in these last days before the close of this age. The largest earthquake in known history will occur, reducing cities around the globe into rubble.
The third angel sounded [his trumpet], and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch [flashing across the sky], and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of [fresh] waters. 11The name of the star is Wormwood; and a third of the waters became wormwood, and many people died from the waters, because they had become bitter (toxic).
A large meteor/comet will strike the earth (flashing across the sky, burning like a torch) and wreck havoc.
These days have been prophecied & are coming. Most will scoff & be just like Jesus said, as in the days of Noah. Are we ready, are we about the Master's business, awake & praying?
Luke 17:26,27 And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so will it also be in the days of the Son of Man: People were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
And he deceives those [unconverted ones] who inhabit the earth [into believing him] because of the signs which he is given [by Satan] to perform in the presence of the [first] beast, telling those who inhabit the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded [fatally] by the sword and has come back to life. 15And he is given power to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast will even [appear to] speak, and cause those who do not bow down and worship the image of the beast to be put to death. 16Also he compels all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead [signifying allegiance to the beast], 17and that no one will be able to buy or sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. 18Here is wisdom. Let the person who has enough insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the [imperfect] number of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.
Are you prepared as a follower of Christ for not being able to buy or sell things without the mark of the the man possessed by Satan? Are you prepared for the war that will be waged against the people of God, that even now is tightening more & more around the globe?
'Watch & pray, be discerning & wise.'
No.....because I believe the flood covered the entire earth.
My point is the language could be interpreted to mean the inhabited earth.
Think of it this way - Scripture says Christ is the Propitiation for not only our sins but the sins of the whole world. Could the language mean "the elect in the whole world"? Yes, it could. It is very doubtful, but it could be interpreted that way.
So rather than arguing possibilities are impossible I find it best to simply get to the point of Scripture, which is all land life except what was on the ark was destroyed.
Eternally Grateful
Active Member
my friend
If your going to tell me I am wrong in what I said. at lease have the common courtesy to show how I can be wrong.
show me how 15 cubits above the tallest mountain or hill can possibly be interpreted only as the inhabited world
Show me how only 8 people survived as the flood covered the whole earth can only mean inhabited land
as for your example. Your just plan wrong.. Jesus did not say he was the propitiation for us (the elect or the saved people ) but also the whole world (meaning elect)
Your wrong. period. I understand you disagree with them.. But that is beside the point. they are wrong PERIOD.
there is no debate.. they make a debate out of changing the word of God period.
The seven hills do not have to be literal mounds of earth. If we don't take Babylon to be the literal city in Iraq, why would we take the hills to be literal? Ever hear of the G7?
I am not saying you are wrong in your interpretation. I agree with you.
I am saying that it is possible for the world to mean the inhabited world. I am not going to show you where, or even explain why, because I do not believe it the correct interpretation. You can take or leave the fact that language could mean less than the entire planet.
BasketFinch
Active Member
Moses tells us Cain was driven from the face of the earth in Genesis 4:14.
"Behold, this day You have driven me from the face of the earth, and from Your face I will be hidden; I will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
Cain was driven into outer space? According to Moses? When Cain was driven from the face of the earth?
It has to be consistent if we accept flood waters covered the face of the earth, thinking that means the entire globe.
Therefore, if Cain was driven from the face of the earth, he had to be driven from the face of the globe.
Genesis 7:4 "For seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living thing I have made."
What's the date of the deluge?
quote
1. Human sin is pervasive, encompassing all humans, not just those in a local area.
2. God regretted making human beings on the earth, not just those in a local area.
3. The flood as God’s judgment is the first part of re-creation. In the creation account, God moves the cosmos from nonorder to order. The first phase should be pictured as a watery blob, which over six creation days is brought into a functional order. The flood is a reversal of order to nonorder, with the ultimate goal of reestablishing order. In this scenario the flood would need to be worldwide.
4. The need to take pairs (and in some cases seven pairs) of animals, including birds, on board indicates a worldwide flood, not just a local flood.
5. The size of the boat indicates flood waters beyond the imagination of a local flood.
6. That “all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened” (Gen 7:11) indicates a worldwide flood.
7. The height of the waters as fifteen cubits (twenty-three feet) over the mountains (Gen 7:20), and the only mountains mentioned being the sizeable “mountains of Ararat” (Gen 8:4), point to a global flood.
Thus, it is our conclusion that Genesis 6–8 describes a worldwide, not a local flood. This conclusion leaves us with what at first read, at least from our twenty-first-century Western perspective, is an error or at least a contradiction. The Bible describes a worldwide flood, yet absolutely no geological evidence supports a worldwide flood. ... end quote
1. Human sin is pervasive, encompassing all humans, not just those in a local area.
2. God regretted making human beings on the earth, not just those in a local area.
3. The flood as God’s judgment is the first part of re-creation. In the creation account, God moves the cosmos from nonorder to order. The first phase should be pictured as a watery blob, which over six creation days is brought into a functional order. The flood is a reversal of order to nonorder, with the ultimate goal of reestablishing order. In this scenario the flood would need to be worldwide.
4. The need to take pairs (and in some cases seven pairs) of animals, including birds, on board indicates a worldwide flood, not just a local flood.
5. The size of the boat indicates flood waters beyond the imagination of a local flood.
6. That “all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened” (Gen 7:11) indicates a worldwide flood.
7. The height of the waters as fifteen cubits (twenty-three feet) over the mountains (Gen 7:20), and the only mountains mentioned being the sizeable “mountains of Ararat” (Gen 8:4), point to a global flood.
Thus, it is our conclusion that Genesis 6–8 describes a worldwide, not a local flood. This conclusion leaves us with what at first read, at least from our twenty-first-century Western perspective, is an error or at least a contradiction. The Bible describes a worldwide flood, yet absolutely no geological evidence supports a worldwide flood. ... end quote
John H. Walton, Tremper Longman III, and Stephen O. Moshier, The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2018), 48–49
BasketFinch
Active Member
We have been told in the biblical account that the flood would cover the "earth," that everything in the "earth" would die, and other statements about the "earth," all of which would teach the idea of a world-wide flood - EXCEPT for one thing: Hebrew word "erets", especially in the Book of Genesis.
Erets (#776 in Strong's), the Hebrew word that translated "earth" throughout the flood account and it does not require a world-wide meaning. This word translated "country" (140 times) and "land" (1,476 times!) in the Bible. Many of them are often of limited land areas.
We need to keep in mind that the people living at the time of Moses had no concept of a "global" planet ... to them the "earth" would be the extent of the geographical land area known to them. To apply this literal meaning throughout the Bible causes problems. (as does other LITERAL exegesis)
These false interpretations are assumed and encouraged so that we can continue to support "tradition" or orthodoxy - never mind what Scripture is really saying. In so doing, we allow these min-interpretations to contradict other verses where the same word is used! We end up making a mockery of Scripture by trying to get it to fit ill-conceived theology.
If we view the flood as global, then we must (if we are consistent) apply that same usage in other places were the same words and phrases are used.
For example, Cain was cursed by God and driven from the "face of the earth" (Genesis 4:14) We know Cain was not driven off the planet... but out of the land he knew as "home" ...
The word is used concerning Abraham. "Get thee out of thy country [erets]...unto a land [erets] that I will shew thee" (Genesis 12:1). Or another one, "Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country [erets], and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur" (Genesis 20:1).
Other references in Genesis also show that "erets" was used to show specific lands: "The whole land [erets] of Havilah," "the whole land [erets] of Ethiopia," "the land [erets] of Nod, on the east of Eden," Famine at the time of Joseph affected "all lands [erets]",etc.
Also during the plagues upon Egypt, at one point we read that "the rain was not poured upon the earth [erets]" (Ex. 9:33). Do the word study. Try put the word "land" instead of global "earth" and it may make more sense. I believe some Bible translations are misleading.
Here's a good one too: In Exodus 10:5-15 we read about a plague of locusts that "covered the face of the whole earth." It should be pretty evident that this locust plague covered only a limited LAND of Egypt... it is the same wording in both places. Yet we never assume these locusts covered the entire globe...
Genesis 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."
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 into the ark, for the waters [were] on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark."
But remember we let the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures about "the face of the earth [erets]":
Genesis 41:56 "And the famine has been over all the face of the land, and Joseph openeth all [places] which have [corn] in them, and selleth to the Egyptians; and the famine is severe in the land of Egypt," There is no evidence of a global famine at that time... the Bible states "all countries (erets) came to Egypt" to buy corn (Genesis 41:57) Surely it means the countries close to Egypt... Certainly not "all" countries -- unless we assume the Australians or the American Indians... were in Egypt buying corn.
If we take "erets" to mean the entire planet, then we also have to interpret that OTHER PLANETS came to Egypt to buy corn. All this, so we can maintain the false teaching of a universal flood.
Num. 11:31 "And a spirit hath journeyed from Jehovah, and cutteth off quails from the sea, and leaveth by the camp, as a day's journey here, and as a day's journey there, round about the camp, and about two cubits, on the face of the land."
1 Sam. 20:15 "but thou dost not cut off thy kindness from my house unto the age, nor in Jehovah's cutting off the enemies of David, each one from off the face of the ground."
2 Sam. 18:8 "and the battle is there scattered over the face of all the land, and the forest multiplieth to devour among the people more than those whom the sword hath devoured in that day."
Isa. 23:17 "And it hath come to pass, At the end of seventy years Jehovah inspecteth Tyre, And she hath repented of her gift, That she committed fornication With all kingdoms of the earth on the face of the ground."
Jer. 47:2 "Thus said Jehovah: Lo, waters are coming up from the north, And have been for an overflowing stream, And they overflow the land and its fulness, The city, and the inhabitants in it, And men have cried out, And howled hath every inhabitant of the land."
After the Israelites were delivered from Egypt and settled in Canaan, the scripture says they "covered the face of the earth" (Numbers 22:5,11) Not even fundamentalists would say that Israelites covered every square foot of the planet...This is simply a way of stating that they occupied the land in which they were dwelling.
Jeremiah said he was "...a man of contention to the whole earth!" (Jeremiah 15:10). Obviously, the whole planet did not know about Jeremiah.
Zechariah 5:3, "Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it." Only Israel knew of God's covenant. The Heathen nations did not know the details of God's Law.
There are many instances in the Bible where it speaks of "the earth" or the face of the earth... which clearly refers to a limited land, area, or country. We read about "all" the hills being covered... or "all" flesh destroyed. When God spoke of destroying "all flesh", He said he "will destroy them with the earth" (Genesis 6:13) The planet earth was not destroyed (of course not) neither was all the flesh on the planet -- only that flesh and land where Noah lived was destroyed.
Why, then, should any insist that the flood covering "the face of the whole earth [erets]" must mean a universal flood?
We know that after Joshua had led the Israelites into the promised land, we read: "So Joshua took the whole land [erets]...and the land [erets] rested from war" (Joshua 11:23). No one would think of reading "earth" into this passage! We know that the conquest of Canaan didn't include America, China, and Australia! So, I think the "land" in a limited area is more correct than the "earth" or global flood.
The following are all limited land areas that were destroyed:
Isaiah 13:5, "...to destroy the whole land [erets]" (speaking of Babylon).
Jeremiah 4:27, "...The whole land [erets] shall be desolate..." (speaking of Jerusalem).
Jeremiah 12:11, "...the whole land [erets] is made desolate..."
Jeremiah 25:11, "And this whole land [erets] shall be a desolation..."
Zephaniah 1:18, "...but the whole land [erets] shall be devoured by the fire..."
As I said before, the Hebrew word "erets" can be translated "land" or "country" which is more consistent than the word "earth". Also the "mountains" can be translated "hills" We must not forget that the waters were dried from the "earth." You may have seen the list of why the global flood may not be true.
"Known world," meaning known to the author. Who is the author, and what did He know of the world?
BasketFinch
Active Member
(Sic...Cont'd)
Did Noah's flood cover the whole planet?
To determine this, we might first look into the meaning of the word used for "earth" in the Genesis account of Noah's Flood.
The word is #776 'erets (eh'-rets); from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land) KJV translates it: common, country, earth, field, ground, land, nations, way, wilderness, world.
That, in itself, may not tell us very much. So we must look to the context of the surrounding scripture.
There is another word which is also translated "earth" in these same passages concerning Noah's flood... That word is : #127 'adamah (ad-aw-maw'); from 119; soil (from its general redness): KJV translates this -- country, earth, ground, husband [-man] (-ry), land.
This word relates to Strongs #120 ADAM
So the scripture reads:
Genesis 6:20, "Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth [#127 Adam's earth) after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."
Here is a case where the TWO Hebrew words are used in the same passage!
Genesis 7:4, " For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth (erets #776] forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth (Adam's earth #127]."
Would we be assuming too much to say that the usage of #127 "adamah" interdispersed with #776 "erets" would qualify that word? Would we be assuming too much to say that land affected was "Adam's" land, field, ground etc? (Opposed to Cain's or other tribes or nation's ground)
Did Noah's flood cover the whole planet?
To determine this, we might first look into the meaning of the word used for "earth" in the Genesis account of Noah's Flood.
The word is #776 'erets (eh'-rets); from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land) KJV translates it: common, country, earth, field, ground, land, nations, way, wilderness, world.
That, in itself, may not tell us very much. So we must look to the context of the surrounding scripture.
There is another word which is also translated "earth" in these same passages concerning Noah's flood... That word is : #127 'adamah (ad-aw-maw'); from 119; soil (from its general redness): KJV translates this -- country, earth, ground, husband [-man] (-ry), land.
This word relates to Strongs #120 ADAM
So the scripture reads:
Genesis 6:20, "Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth [#127 Adam's earth) after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."
Here is a case where the TWO Hebrew words are used in the same passage!
Genesis 7:4, " For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth (erets #776] forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth (Adam's earth #127]."
Would we be assuming too much to say that the usage of #127 "adamah" interdispersed with #776 "erets" would qualify that word? Would we be assuming too much to say that land affected was "Adam's" land, field, ground etc? (Opposed to Cain's or other tribes or nation's ground)
I don't see "face of of the earth" in "all the high hills under the whole heaven."
Maybe talk about what is meant by "whole heaven."
No. Known world, meaning world known to man (the audience).
It's like Calvinist arguing that the whole world can mean a specific people group. It is called "language".
BasketFinch
Active Member
It means Psalm 104 is about creation.
Not the deluge.
- Status