Was Noah's Flood Local or Global?

[Guest shiloh357]

The Bible goes to a lot of trouble to communicate that the flood of Noah was a global catastrophe. Why should it be considered a local catastrophe?

[humbleseeker]

I am sure it was global as the bible points too.

[nebula]

Can you add:

Why would it be addressed as actual if it were allegorical?

[Guest shiloh357]

Can you add:

Why would it be addressed as actual if it were allegorical?

Very true, if it is allegorical, then what it is it allegorical of? Where does the Bible point to the flood and refer to it as allegorical??? Those who claim it is allegory bear the burden of proof to show those textual indicators.

[Blien]

Some people think it's allegorical because there was a documentary about it on the Discovery channel. That show was a complete hoax.. totally false.

[nebula]

The Bible goes to a lot of trouble to communicate that the flood of Noah was a global catastrophe.

The only objection I have - and I don't know if this can be proven or disproved by either side - is what the "entire earth" means.

To us, Earth means the globe. But the concept of the globe did not exist back then that we know of.

The word "earth" in Hebrew is eretz, which means "land". Even in our language "earth" is another term for soil. Basically, when it became understood that the land we live on is in a globe shape, people called the entire structure "ground" or "land" - even though we now know the bulk of the planet is ocean!

We live on the land. The planet is the land we live on.

So the argument is:

Was the Lord saying "entire earth" or "entire Earth"?

Or

Was He speaking of the extent of the flood from His perspective, or was He speaking to Noah at Noah's level? (As a point of argument, in Job the Lord speaks of the ostrich about not caring for her young because she lays her eggs on the ground - but scientists having studied the ostrich discovered this isn't an accurate portrayal. The only explanation I could figure was that the Lord was speaking to Job at Job's level.)

[Axxman]

I believe it was localized...but...

since the mods believe I follow poor Shiloh around simply to pick fights with him...I'll avoid this topic...lol!

[Guest shiloh357]

The only objection I have - and I don't know if this can be proven or disproved by either side - is what the "entire earth" means.

To us, Earth means the globe. But the concept of the globe did not exist back then that we know of.

The word "earth" in Hebrew is eretz, which means "land". Even in our language "earth" is another term for soil. Basically, when it became understood that the land we live on is in a globe shape, people called the entire structure "ground" or "land" - even though we now know the bulk of the planet is ocean!

We live on the land. The planet is the land we live on.

Well the first question one would need to ask is how much water covered the earth before the flood. Obviously, the flood would not have near the same destructive impact on the oceans as it would on the land.

Yet the flood did have an impact, in fact the Bible says that the fountains of the deep broke forth. So it would seem to indicate that oceans exceeded their boundaries and washed up on land. The water was coming from below and from above.

The Localized argument is that the flood only affected Noah's immediate locale, the local region in which he lived.

[traveller]

I believe it was localized...but...

since the mods believe I follow poor Shiloh around simply to pick fights with him...I'll avoid this topic...lol!

No we don't.

[Blien]

The Bible goes to a lot of trouble to communicate that the flood of Noah was a global catastrophe.

The only objection I have - and I don't know if this can be proven or disproved by either side - is what the "entire earth" means.

To us, Earth means the globe. But the concept of the globe did not exist back then that we know of.

The word "earth" in Hebrew is eretz, which means "land". Even in our language "earth" is another term for soil. Basically, when it became understood that the land we live on is in a globe shape, people called the entire structure "ground" or "land" - even though we now know the bulk of the planet is ocean!

We live on the land. The planet is the land we live on.

So the argument is:

Was the Lord saying "entire earth" or "entire Earth"?

Or

Was He speaking of the extent of the flood from His perspective, or was He speaking to Noah at Noah's level? (As a point of argument, in Job the Lord speaks of the ostrich about not caring for her young because she lays her eggs on the ground - but scientists having studied the ostrich discovered this isn't an accurate portrayal. The only explanation I could figure was that the Lord was speaking to Job at Job's level.)

There is a theory by a certain man I forgot his name.. but he came to the conclusion that the Pangaea super continent was the geographical layout of the world at that time. The Bible says that the water came from the ground so he theorized that a crack in the crust let out all this water and flooded the earth. If I find the link, I'll add it to this topic but it's very interesting and highly probable from what I gather. It was the flood that caused the earth to separate and form today's land masses according to his description... its very interesting.