Jump to content
IGNORED

OEC...MUST have a Local vs Global Flood


Enoch2021

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

Here is an article that gets into the Hebrew that explains why this may not be a global flood, if you are interested-

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

 

 

So let me get this straight....you want to help me by having someone else explain to me what my AKJV of the Bible clearly and plainly says?  Are you implying that my reading and comprehension skills need some work?  :huh:

 

That's it, I'm taking these strawberries up to the grocer and have him try to tell me there not strawberries they're watermelons.

 

Spock do you realize how much I've read on this subject...it's alot. 

 

In fact, I never should've read any of it!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

Here is an article that gets into the Hebrew that explains why this may not be a global flood, if you are interested-

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

 

 

The article fails for the following reasons

 

1.  The article doesn't show how the Hebrew of Genesis 6-8 demonstrates a local flood.   What the article does is take kol haeretz  in other contexts where the phrase may be used in a hyperbolic sense, may be referencing a geographic locality, or may be used to refer to people and assume that this is usage meant in Genesis 6-8. 

 

2.  If the article was really interested explaining why the Hebrew doesn't really reflect a global flood, the article would have not wasted time and bandwidth focusing on every other part of the Bible and actually focused on exegeting the text of Gen. 6-8..

 

3. Hebrew words are used differently based on different contexts and what the authors of this article are doing is committing the error of eisogesis.  They are looking at how "kol haeretz" is used elsewhere and then plugging that usage into Genesis 6-8.   They are reading into the flood narrative the meaning THEY want the passage to reflect.  They are not leading out the meaning the human author of Genesis meant to convey.    Furthermore, one thing the article fails to note is the difference between word meaning and word usage.  

 

4.  How kol haeretz is used in Samuel or Joshua or Chronicles doesn't necessarily apply to Genesis 6-8.  The question for the interpreter/exegete is, what does the actual text that describes the event say?   This was not addressed in the article.

 

5.  The article does refer to the word, 'te-vale," as if THAT word would have been used if "global" flood was really what was intended.   But like any other word in Hebrew, It has several different usages and it is understood by those usages and it is often used in a limited or local sense just like kol, so to argue that this word is only word that would have been used in Genesis 6-8 if a global flood was being indicated is fallacious.  Both kol and te-vale are used in a global or local sense.  Furthermore, it is fallacious logic to waste time on a word that isn't even used in the text of Genesis 6-8 in order to interpret that very text. 

 

There are some other problems, though, with a local flood.  For one thing, the violent nature of this flood is not something we have a point of reference for.  We have never experienced this kind of a flood.   Most of the flooding we have encountered is the product primarily of huge rain/storm events.    In the Bible the first thing the Bible says is that the fountains of the deep broke forth.   That means that the earth was being flooded from underneath and that water that existed below the earth's crust broke forth on to the earth giving a huge cataclysmic event.  There would have been no place to run, no place on the earth that would have been untouched or unaffected by the flood.

 

The flood is described as coving the very mountains, which makes no sense if the flood is local because it would place rather impossible hydraulic demands on the flood waters.   You would end up with an flood shaped like egg in one locality.

 

Now a direct quote from the article: 

 

Let's look at the actual Genesis flood passage to determine if it can be interpreted from a local viewpoint. As we determined above, the word erets, often translated "earth" can also refer to the people of the earth. Is it used this way in the actual Genesis flood passage?

  • Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. (Genesis 6:11)
  • And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. (Genesis 6:12)
  • I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. (Genesis 9:13)

 

 

 

The mistake the authors make in their assumption that "earth" must mean "people" when it says the whole earth was corrupted.  They assume it means the whole population people were corrupted.  But in that fails to take into account that fact that sin defiles more than just mankind.  Sin defiles the physical planet.  This is what is being communicated in the flood text.  God looks down and sees not only a irretrievably wicked people, but a defiled land.  Note in the passages cited by the authors that the earth is NOT being used as a reference to the people.  In Genesis 6:11-12, we see a principle that will be carried over into other parts of the Bible, namely that man's sin can defile the physical planet.    Adam's sin brought death, disease and thorns into the earth.  The whole of creation has been under a curse because of Adam's sin and we see and extension of this principle in Genesis 6-8.

 

The text distinguishes the land from the people.  God looks at the eretz and IT was corrupt. It doesn't say that God looked at the earth and THEY were corrupt.  It was corrupt because of the corruption of the people or "all flesh."   The entire land was defiled not just the inhabited part.  There is no concept of a partial defilement.  The whole of the earth, the whole thing is defiled and must be judged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,239
  • Content Per Day:  0.86
  • Reputation:   1,686
  • Days Won:  6
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Here is an article that gets into the Hebrew that explains why this may not be a global flood, if you are interested-http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

 

So let me get this straight....you want to help me by having someone else explain to me what my AKJV of the Bible clearly and plainly says?  Are you implying that my reading and comprehension skills need some work?  :huh:

 

That's it, I'm taking these strawberries up to the grocer and have him try to tell me there not strawberries they're watermelons.

 

Spock do you realize how much I've read on this subject...it's alot. 

 

In fact, I never should've read any of it!!!

Hey, my head was spinning last night too. Noah's arc used to mystify me when I thought it was global. When I read Reasons to Beliece, and they showed me it could be local, I quit asking how did the kangaroo get in Australia or how did the Emperor Penguin get to the Antarctica..

I know some will accuse me of using science to interpret scripture, but I prefer to see it as me using science to HELP interpret scripture.

PS. Weren't you the one who started some of these Noah's arc threads? Serves you right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

 

Here is an article that gets into the Hebrew that explains why this may not be a global flood, if you are interested-http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

 

So let me get this straight....you want to help me by having someone else explain to me what my AKJV of the Bible clearly and plainly says?  Are you implying that my reading and comprehension skills need some work?  :huh:

 

That's it, I'm taking these strawberries up to the grocer and have him try to tell me there not strawberries they're watermelons.

 

Spock do you realize how much I've read on this subject...it's alot. 

 

In fact, I never should've read any of it!!!

Hey, my head was spinning last night too. Noah's arc used to mystify me when I thought it was global. When I read Reasons to Beliece, and they showed me it could be local, I quit asking how did the kangaroo get in Australia or how did the Emperor Penguin get to the Antarctica..

I know some will accuse me of using science to interpret scripture, but I prefer to see it as me using science to HELP interpret scripture.

PS. Weren't you the one who started some of these Noah's arc threads? Serves you right.

 

A Christian should be using Scripture to measure men's assumptions.  There is no science in the local flood view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,239
  • Content Per Day:  0.86
  • Reputation:   1,686
  • Days Won:  6
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Here is an article that gets into the Hebrew that explains why this may not be a global flood, if you are interested-http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

 

So let me get this straight....you want to help me by having someone else explain to me what my AKJV of the Bible clearly and plainly says?  Are you implying that my reading and comprehension skills need some work?  :huh:

 

That's it, I'm taking these strawberries up to the grocer and have him try to tell me there not strawberries they're watermelons.

 

Spock do you realize how much I've read on this subject...it's alot. 

 

In fact, I never should've read any of it!!!

Hey, my head was spinning last night too. Noah's arc used to mystify me when I thought it was global. When I read Reasons to Beliece, and they showed me it could be local, I quit asking how did the kangaroo get in Australia or how did the Emperor Penguin get to the Antarctica..

I know some will accuse me of using science to interpret scripture, but I prefer to see it as me using science to HELP interpret scripture.

PS. Weren't you the one who started some of these Noah's arc threads? Serves you right.

A Christian should be using Scripture to measure men's assumptions.  There is no science in the local flood view.

There may be no science in the local flood view, but there are MANY observable problems with the global view if you assume only two of each kind were spared. I can't pretend I'm an ostrich running around saying, "well God said it so that is good enough for me...."

There may be much more if you go DEEPER! I think that article showed you, all doesn't necessarily mean all as we know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
There may be no science in the local flood view, but there are MANY observable problems with the global view if you assume only two of each kind were spared. I can't pretend I'm an ostrich running around saying, "well God said it so that is good enough for me...."

 

So the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful God isn't good enough for you?   Why do you trust more in the claims of sinful fallible men over the word of a sinless all knowing God?

There may be much more if you go DEEPER! I think that article showed you, all doesn't necessarily mean all as we know it.

 

There was nothing "deeper" about that article. The article is a exegetical trainwreck as I demonsrated in my response to it.  It violated the rules of hermenetics  over and over and over.  

 

I guess it is hard for people to see the kind of danger inherent in letting your presuppositions and theology drive your interpretations.   What OEC does is assume the age of the earth and then try to make the Bible FIT that assumption.  It should not be lost on anyone that the OEC view was NOT the product of biblical exegesis.  It wasn't even Christians who first proposed it.   OEC is the product of a rejection of the testimony of Scripture.   Trying to mold the Bible around an assumption that was first proposed by unbeleivers who rejected what the Bible says is simply the opposite of a sound interpretation of Scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

I am simply amazed how when dealing with "yom" how it is used in other parts of the bible is central to what it means in Genesis. Yet when that is tried with other phrases, it is all of a sudden not important in the least.  What we have here is a failure to communicate a consistent message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

I am simply amazed how when dealing with "yom" how it is used in other parts of the bible is central to what it means in Genesis. Yet when that is tried with other phrases, it is all of a sudden not important in the least.  What we have here is a failure to communicate a consistent message.

Nope. I am being entirely consistent.    I can exegete Genesis 1 and show that my exegesis of the use of yom is consistent with how it is used in like manner in other historical narratives.  

 

What the above article fails to do is exegete the flood narrative and demonstrate that the very flood narrative itself demonstrates a local flood.  What the article does is take how key word are used in other passages and impose those meanings backwards on to the flood narrative.

 

The difference is that my use of "yom" is based on exegesis (leading objective meaning out of a passage), while the above article relies on eisogesis (reading subjectrive meaning into a passage). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...