The Great Flood (of Noah)

[atpollard]

Yes, the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the known earth and all the known high mountains, that were under the whole heaven were covered.

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits above did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." - [Genesis 7:19-20]

2 point question for the "peanut gallery": What word has been added that is not found in the Holy Scripture?
10 point BONUS QUESTION: Does that word change the meaning?

 

[OnlyaSinner]

The old definition of ‘species’ or the new?
When I was growing up a species was an animal group that could breed and reproduce fertile offspring. Now two finches with local adaptations interbreed and their offspring are heralded as a brand new species and proof of “evolution” in only a single generation. By the old definition, all “domestic dogs” are one species and by the new definition, every “breed” is a unique species. So did Noah have to carry two of every breed of Dog and cat and cow and sheep ...?

Do beetles breathe?

Not only domestic dogs interbreeding, but separate species like coyotes and wolves have bred with domestic dogs and produced fertile offspring. Noah needed only to take 2 canids to enable dogs, foxes, jackals, etc. because God had created canids with genetic material able to produce such descendants.

And beetles (all animal life) do breed though many do not have lungs. IIRC, from my 1973 entomology class, insects have multiple openings called spiracles in their thorax. (I may not have the correct term.)

 

[Van]

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits above did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." - [Genesis 7:19-20]

2 point question for the "peanut gallery": What word has been added that is not found in the Holy Scripture?
10 point BONUS QUESTION: Does that word change the meaning?

2 Points for this poster. His view, the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the unknown earth and all the unknown high mountains. I kid you not.

 

[atpollard]

2 Points for this poster. His view, the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the unknown earth and all the unknown high mountains. I kid you not.

There is no "unknown earth" to God. Remember Genesis starts with the thoughts and actions of God, so no man could have recorded Genesis 1 from memory and personal experience ... not even Adam!

God is the author of Genesis. Moses is the Scribe that wrote it down.

 

[Yeshua1]

Theistic evolution is pure heresy.

Its the attempt to accommodate science so called, as a way to avoid being looked at as being loony!

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you prove your timeline?

that is evolutional timeline, not the one of the scriptures!

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no "unknown earth" to God. Remember Genesis starts with the thoughts and actions of God, so no man could have recorded Genesis 1 from memory and personal experience ... not even Adam!

God is the author of Genesis. Moses is the Scribe that wrote it down.

Yes, as the Holy Spirit inspired him to record it down...

 

[Reynolds]

Yes, as the Holy Spirit inspired him to record it down...

God is the author. I have no idea who wrote it down.

 

[Van]

There is no "unknown earth" to God. Remember Genesis starts with the thoughts and actions of God, so no man could have recorded Genesis 1 from memory and personal experience ... not even Adam!
God is the author of Genesis. Moses is the Scribe that wrote it down.

If Bible study to show yourselves approved, is your goal, then use of proper study methods will be helpful.

Do you interpret scripture according to your presuppositions, or do you subordinate your views to an objective contextual view of scripture?

When the scope of a statement is not defined by the statement, do you assume the scope is as large as you can imagine or the minimum?

When Peter says of Jesus, "you know all things" does Peter have in mind everything imaginable or all the things about Peter?
Since Jesus did not know the time of His second coming, less than everything imaginable is certainly indicated.

Now to the method of study, do not nullify what is specifically taught by what you believe is a general attribute of God. Probably the most famous (infamous) assertion is God would not send anyone to "eternal punishment" because God is love.

Here, the idea is that because God is "all knowing" then when we see all in the text, it always means everything imaginable. Hogwash.

 

[timtofly]

2 Points for this poster. His view, the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the unknown earth and all the unknown high mountains. I kid you not.

Actually "his view" would be only the elect mountains were covered. The Biblical view would be all mountains. However God only owned 1000 hills, so if humans had built high mountains, God even flooded those man made mountains.

Otherwise, no rain happened before the Flood. No geological conditions before the Flood could push rock miles into the air. Such actions only happened after the Flood broke open the crust and cause the different continents to separate or collide with each other. It is not speculation. It is common sense. We do know that it never rained, because God declared it had never rained.

 

[Van]

Actually "his view" would be only the elect mountains were covered. The Biblical view would be all mountains. However God only owned 1000 hills, so if humans had built high mountains, God even flooded those man made mountains.

Otherwise, no rain happened before the Flood. No geological conditions before the Flood could push rock miles into the air. Such actions only happened after the Flood broke open the crust and cause the different continents to separate or collide with each other. It is not speculation. It is common sense. We do know that it never rained, because God declared it had never rained.

I think the biblical view is all the mountains the author had in view. It certainly included all the mountains known to the author and his audience. But did it include unknown mountains in the "new world?" The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.

 

[atpollard]

Actually "his view" would be only the elect mountains were covered.

I love it!

 

[atpollard]

I think the biblical view is all the mountains the author had in view. It certainly included all the mountains known to the author and his audience. But did it include unknown mountains in the "new world?" The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.

Then all of the plants and animals and people living above the flood may not have died and God didn't necessarily destroy all life like He claimed ...
Did he?

 

[Van]

Then all of the plants and animals and people living above the flood may not have died and God didn't necessarily destroy all life like He claimed ...
Did he?

Reading between the lines is your bag, not mine.
How about seals and otters, whales and dolphins? Air breathers that live in water?
Just what does Second Pollard say?

 

[atpollard]

Reading between the lines is your bag, not mine.
How about seals and otters, whales and dolphins? Air breathers that live in water?
Just what does Second Pollard say?

No, you just add words where you think Moses left them out.

 

[Van]

No, you just add words where you think Moses left them out.

Another, you, you, and you post, addressing and disparaging, but never admitting scripture does not say all the unknown mountains were covered. So, (1) he adds them in, and (2) he charges me with adding to scripture.

If Bible study to show yourselves approved is your goal, then use of proper study methods will be helpful.

Do you interpret scripture according to your presuppositions, or do you subordinate your views to an objective contextual view of scripture?

When the scope of a statement is not defined by the statement, do you assume the scope is as large as you can imagine or the minimum?

When Peter says of Jesus, "you know all things" does Peter have in mind everything imaginable or all the things about Peter? Since Jesus did not know the time of His second coming, less than everything imaginable is certainly indicated.

Now to the method of study, do not nullify what is specifically taught by what you believe is a general attribute of God. Probably the most famous (infamous) assertion is God would not send anyone to "eternal punishment" because God is love.

Here, the idea is that because God is "all knowing" then when we see all in the text, it always means everything imaginable. Hogwash.

 

[atpollard]

God says ...

Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who [were] with him in the ark remained alive. And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days. - [Gen 7:17-24 NKJV]​

Van says ...

I think the biblical view is all the mountains the author had in view. It certainly included all the mountains known to the author and his audience. But did it include unknown mountains in the "new world?" The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.

... it 'Taint So'.

Sorry, but I'll stick with a hermenutic where "all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered" means all the high hills (not some) under the whole heaven (not 'that I can see) were covered (were actually covered) and "the mountains were covered" means (all) the mountains (not just some) were (actually) covered.

It is just simpler to believe that God said what He meant, and meant what He said.

 

[Alcott]

I didn't claim a thing. I simply quoted Scripture. But apparently you think you can read my mind.

No, and that's why it was phrased in interrogative form.

Noah preached righteousness. He told people to get right with God. I fully believe that many were saved through his preaching contrary to those who put Noah up as an example of fruitless evangelism. However, by the time Noah and his family climbed into that ark, no one was left who truly believed in God except he and his family.

I don't have time now to look over the whole story again, but I don't recall any scripture stating that any of Noah's family "truly believed in God." It only says that about Noah himself.

ed. And I don't think those are the words applied even to Noah. Rather he "walked with God" and was a "preacher of righteousness." It is often easy to forget the exact words, ain't it?

 

[Alcott]

Sorry, but I'll stick with a hermenutic where "all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered" means all the high hills (not some) under the whole heaven (not 'that I can see) were covered (were actually covered) and "the mountains were covered" means (all) the mountains (not just some) were (actually) covered.

It is just simpler to believe that God said what He meant, and meant what He said.

Then somewhere there exists a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen-- Matthew 4:8. What mountain would that be? If that is a physical impossibility-- as we know it is-- then why any mountain? Is the Bible always literal when it talks about mountains? If so, then move one ... unless you don't have faith the size of a mustard seed.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

No, and that's why it was phrased in interrogative form.



I don't have time now to look over the whole story again, but I don't recall any scripture stating that any of Noah's family "truly believed in God." It only says that about Noah himself.

ed. And I don't think those are the words applied even to Noah. Rather he "walked with God" and was a "preacher of righteousness." It is often easy to forget the exact words, ain't it?

Those exact words in Genesis do not state objectively that Noah "truly believed in God" However, it's hard for me to reach a different conclusion when reading Hebrews 11:7 - "By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith."