was the Flood local or worldwide?

[Yeshua1]

I quite understand. And for what sounds like the same reasons.

Whenever I find a strict young Earth creationist citing agreement from one of those accursed evolutionists, I look into it. For the invention, deception or fraud. Took me about two paragraphs to find it.

think the main problem when you want to have cited the source, is that Christian agreeing with evolution, old aging/dates have minds already made up, and will not let the 'scientic facts" be seen in any other light!

Wasn't there a recent study that incated humanitycame out from Africa, and spread outward, and earliest huamns about 100,000 years old, an "adam and eve?"

I am a younger earth/creationist, but NOT that it had to be only 6,000 years ago, but my upper limits maybe few houndred thousands, no way could be millions, much less billions of years!

 

[Judith]

Which bst fits the bible, and is it really that important?

What does the bible say?

 

[Amy.G]

Genesis 9:11
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
11 I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.”


If the flood wasn't global then God broke His promise as there have been many local floods since He made the covenant with Noah.

 

[Yeshua1]

Genesis 9:11
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
11 I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.”


If the flood wasn't global then God broke His promise as there have been many local floods since He made the covenant with Noah.

which tells me those holding to it being local cannot use the bible as reason why, but MUST resort to some other "facts!"

 

[Winman]

Well, it was deep enough to cover Mt. Ararat;



This mountain is 16,854 feet high, that's about three and a half miles. To completely cover this mountain I imagine the water would spread out quite a ways.

 

[quantumfaith]

which tells me those holding to it being local cannot use the bible as reason why, but MUST resort to some other "facts!"

Just a counterpoint:

http://www.reasons.org/articles/exploring-the-extent-of-the-flood-part-one

http://www.reasons.org/articles/exploring-the-extent-of-the-flood-what-the-bible-says-part-two

 

[quantumfaith]

Well, it was deep enough to cover Mt. Ararat;



This mountain is 16,854 feet high, that's about three and a half miles. To completely cover this mountain I imagine the water would spread out quite a ways.

That is a great deal of water, in fact, simple mathematics would suggest that this amount of water is orders of magnitude greater than the total amount of water currently on the planet. But of course, miracles can and do happen.

 

[Judith]

Biblical Faith does not take math or so called science. Faith believes the One who speaks.
Gen. 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.

 

[quantumfaith]

Biblical Faith does not take math or so called science. Faith believes the One who speaks.
Gen. 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.

So is Your faith....so called faith?

 

[JamesL]

Well, it was deep enough to cover Mt. Ararat;



This mountain is 16,854 feet high, that's about three and a half miles. To completely cover this mountain I imagine the water would spread out quite a ways.

Good point.

I'm not a scientist, by any stretch of the imagination. I believe in the ability of God to create the heavens and the earth, time, energy, and everything in them. I believe the flood was global - even if, according to some, there wouldn't be enough water to do it. Maybe God didn't need as much water to do it as we might think.

It may not be scientifically plausible, but I really believe God could have made the water cover the top of Mount Ararat, only 100 feet deep at New Orleans, 6,000 feet deep in Denver... just deep enough as needed, all around the entire earth.

Water levels could have simply followed the terrain

Maybe using a back-and-forth shift in magnetic poles, or some lunar activity, maybe both. Or maybe just by His awesome power.

I wouldn't put it past God to do anything. He has made the sun stand still, which would be in direct conflict with anything that science could support.

 

[just-want-peace]

Then again, perhaps BEFORE the flood the highest mt may have been only a few hundred feet, and places like the marianas trench only a few hundred ft deep????

Also, with all the legends of "local" floods, how many local floods does it take to make it world-wide????

IOW, a WW flood would have had a tremendous effect in re-shaping the earth's surface from what it was before the flood.

Just some food for thought.:thumbs:

 

[pinoybaptist]

It was worldwide as answered by Scripture.

The earth means the whole earth as the water covered the tops of all the high mountains under the heavens. And EVERY living thing under the face of the earth that lived or moved on land was wiped out.

Not convinced, but, really, who cares ?
It happened, God's power is magnified.

Is it important if Jesus was born on October or December, if He was crucified Wednesday or Friday, or if He rose from the dead on a Sunday ?

The facts are (at least to believers these are facts) they happened, and we now have a hope in heaven.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Yeshua

Wasn't there a recent study that incated humanity came out from Africa, and spread outward, and earliest huamns about 100,000 years old, an "adam and eve?"

Sort of.

Yes, current information indicates mankind (however we started) began (that is the oldest findings of fossils and artifacts) in the African Continent around the Rift Valley area, if my memory serves correctly. Mankind moved out from Africa in one or two 'waves', depending on which information seems more correct.

However, the information suggests the first humans existed about 150,000 years ago and started exiting Africa 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. This from a report dated in May of 2007. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htm)

I am a younger earth/creationist, but NOT that it had to be only 6,000 years ago, but my upper limits maybe few houndred thousands, no way could be millions, much less billions of years!

Now here's something I want you to think about and discuss with yourself: The YEC movement in general adhere to the chronology of James Ussher (or Usher, depending) Bishop of Armagh in Ireland. The Bishop's chronology was based on a 'literal' reading of Genesis, with additional information based on the 'literal' lists of genealogies in the Old Testament.

That comes out to 4004 BC as the year of Creation. So - according to Bishop Ussher, the Universe is now (as of Jan 2014) 6,018 years old. According to one 'timeline' (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35220255/Timeline-Chart-bishop-Ussher) that creation date has been revised to 4175 BC, making the Universe 6,189 years old.

Here's the question: How do you justify (what caused you to think or believe) the Universe could be older than that? And, what causes you to think or believe the Universe is no older than '... a few hundred thousands...' of years?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Miss Judith

What does the bible say?

That's an excellent question.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

About Mt. Ararat

The word 'Ararat' occurs four times in the NET Bible:
Genesis 8:4 On the seventeenth day of the seventh month, the ark came to rest on one of the mountains of Ararat.

2 Kings 19:37 They escaped to the land of Ararat...

Isaiah 37:38 They ran away to the land of Ararat... (parallel text to above)

Jeremiah 51:27 Call for these kingdoms to attack her: Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz.

Twice in the KJV:
Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Jeremiah 51:27 ...call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashchenaz...

The other two verses shown in the NET Bible translate "Ararat" as "Armenia".

So what? I've heard from primary Sunday School days to most recently the Ark of Noah landed on "Mt. Ararat". However, that isn't what the Bible says. The verse in Genesis says '...the mountains of Ararat...' Ararat being a region or country from the context.

The translation in the KJV suggests a link between Ararat and Armenia. Mt Ararat - the currently known mountain - is in eastern Turkey. A glance at a map shows Armenia is right next to Turkey - on the eastern side. Still, I can find no positive information that the current Mt. Ararat is the same as the mountains of Ararat identified in the Bible.

But I still back the idea of a massive flood.

 

[saturneptune]

Which bst fits the bible, and is it really that important?

When God says in His Word He will destroy all of mankind, that is exactly what He meant. He flooded any or all of the earth to accomplish that task. I suppose you could say it was local to the earth, as the flood did not reach the moon.

 

[Winman]

The word 'Ararat' occurs four times in the NET Bible:
Genesis 8:4 On the seventeenth day of the seventh month, the ark came to rest on one of the mountains of Ararat.

2 Kings 19:37 They escaped to the land of Ararat...

Isaiah 37:38 They ran away to the land of Ararat... (parallel text to above)

Jeremiah 51:27 Call for these kingdoms to attack her: Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz.

Twice in the KJV:
Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Jeremiah 51:27 ...call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashchenaz...

The other two verses shown in the NET Bible translate "Ararat" as "Armenia".

So what? I've heard from primary Sunday School days to most recently the Ark of Noah landed on "Mt. Ararat". However, that isn't what the Bible says. The verse in Genesis says '...the mountains of Ararat...' Ararat being a region or country from the context.

The translation in the KJV suggests a link between Ararat and Armenia. Mt Ararat - the currently known mountain - is in eastern Turkey. A glance at a map shows Armenia is right next to Turkey - on the eastern side. Still, I can find no positive information that the current Mt. Ararat is the same as the mountains of Ararat identified in the Bible.

But I still back the idea of a massive flood.

Well, there are two mountains, the lesser and the greater. I think this is what is meant by the "mountains" of Ararat.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Winman

Well, there are two mountains, the lesser and the greater. I think this is what is meant by the "mountains" of Ararat.

That works - until someone finds evidence of the 'nation of Ararat' somewhere else.

Seriously, I'm not real wound up about it, it's just curious to me; and I am a bit compulsive obsessive at times.

 

[quantumfaith]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014...reveals-new-details-about-noah-ark-prototype/

 

[Yeshua1]

That is a great deal of water, in fact, simple mathematics would suggest that this amount of water is orders of magnitude greater than the total amount of water currently on the planet. But of course, miracles can and do happen.

the thing though is that the binble seems to indicate that there was a firmimite/canopy over the earth, where vast quanties of water was being stored up for releasing, as in time of the ark, no on e evr saw rain!

Also, there appeared to be vast quanities of waters stored underground, in oceans bottoms, so would have had big dekuge from BOTh canopy spliting open above, and water released down below!