by Qcmbr 118 Replies latest watchtower bible
As far as the Bible itself is concerned, it indicates it was a global flood.
If you assume a local flood just for the sake of discussion, would the word choice in the Bible be any different? How so?
I'm guessing Genesis 7:19 would be the most problematic verse?
"Throwing away the bible" : - I threw away religion, in all its forms, when I broke with the JWs:
- they are all the bloody same, no matter who they are.
(I actually had little use for religion before I met up with the Witnesses. They, however, seemed to be somehow different - it took 28 years for the reality to become apparent).
The bible may be a reasonably accurate history of the Hebrew people - but that is all:
- Its stories about such things as Creation and The Flood were attempts by people to explain, as best they could, the things they saw around them or saw going on around them.
There could well have been a catastrophic flood somewhere, early in the history of the human race. It could indeed have happened in that area between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in the Middle East . To the people involved, it may well have seemed that the "Whole World" - as they knew it - was inundated. But to insist, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that the whole Noachin story MUST be a literal one is surely taking matters far too far!
The problem is that if you agree to accept on blind faith such stories as this, then where does it end? You then proceed to go on to accept more and more unlikely stories, and end up convincing yourself that the bible/ the koran / the whatever is the inspired Word of God:
- then, you have set yourself up to be controlled and manipulated by some religion.
-and next thing you know you have just volunteered to be a suicide bomber / a burner of heretics at the stake / a sacrificer of your children (whether from refusing them a blood transfusion, or by burning them on an altar)/ or something else equally as harmful; but all in the name of religion (which you learned from some collection of scientifically inaccurate writings).
All I can say is leave me out of it - right from the bloody start!
Bill.
People that argue a local flood are denying the Bible's account...
Correct
Well the Bible prophesied that there would be scoffers...
Anybody who comes up with a ridiculous theory about anything can prophesy that they will have ridiculers in the same breath. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Debate the evidence.
How did Kiwis and Tuataras get to New Zealand after a global flood? Magic?
I don't need quotations from self proclaimed experts from either side of any theological debate to know that the Bible flood didn't affect the country I live in, or Australia for that matter.
People that argue a local flood are denying the Bible's account...
Why is it that phrases such as "...the flood covered the whole earth..." need to be literal, when there are numerous examples in the Bible where that phrase has to be understood in a relative sense?
Here is an excerpt from a letter to the WTS:
We well know how common it was for Bible writers to describe events from their geographic standpoint, both in the Greek and in the Hebrew scriptures.
At Colossians 1:23 Paul speaks of "that good news which YOU heard, and which was preached in all creation that is under heaven." It is acknowledged in all our publications that since this was written in c.60-61 C.E., Paul meant 'all creation under heaven' known to him at that time. Logically so, since at that time Christianity had by no means reached the Americas, the Far East, Southern Africa or Australasia.
The words at Romans 10:18, "..to the extremities of the inhabited earth...", must of course also be understood in the relative sense.
At Acts 2:5 we read "...there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, reverent men, from every nation of those under heaven." This was written in c.61 C.E. Here too, 'every nation under heaven' cannot be literal, since there were no South American, Chinese or Australian proselytes in Jerusalem at that time. Once again, 'every nation under heaven' is to be understood as a relative phrase.
At Isaiah 13:5 [concerning the Babylonians] we read that "They are coming from the land far away, from the extremity of the heavens." On a global scale, the Babylonians were not far away, they were literally next door to the Israelites! Yet, relative to the known earth of that time, they were "from the extremity of the heavens".
At Genesis 41:57 people from "all the earth" came to buy food from Joseph "because the famine had a strong grip on all the earth." Does this mean Aborigines, South American Indians and Japanese peasants also came to buy food? Of course not, that would be absurd. The famine was limited to Egypt and to the lands immediately around Egypt, like Palestine (Ge.41:54). Yet again we see how "all the earth" does not mean the entire planet, but is to be understood as the lands immediately around the Bible writer.
I'm sure you have anticipated what my primary question is.
Based on the preceding examples, why is it we understand the Flood to be global and not local? Why is it that phrases such as "...the flood covered the whole earth..." need to be literal, when there are numerous examples in the Bible where that phrase has to be understood in a relative sense?
For what reason are the words regarding "all the earth" at Genesis 6-8 to be understood differently from the words at Colossians 1:23, Romans 10:18, Acts 2:5, Isaiah 13:5, Genesis 41:57 and other like verses?
It says in the Creation book p25, par2: "When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers". I know those words were written with the Genesis creation account in mind, but for what reason can they not apply to the Flood account?
Surely a huge local flood would also prompt expressions such as: "...I am bringing...waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force of life is active from under the heavens. Everything that is in the earth will expire." (Ge.6:17)?
Why would Jehovah expect Noah to understand those words to mean the entire globe and its life, when Noah did not even know the entire globe existed? All that existed to Noah was the visible land and its indigenous wildlife; to him that was "the earth".
In all earnestness, do you not agree that words such as the ones at Genesis 6:13, 19 and 7:4, 10, 19, 20, 21, 23 can also be understood as pertaining to a local flood?
My question then brothers is just this: if the possibility exists that the words at Genesis 6-8 can apply to a local occurrence, why do we say the Flood must have been global?________________________________
And this:
The book of Genesis states that the flood was earth wide. The Hebrew word for 'earth' is 'erets'. Other occurrences of erets include:
Exodus 9:33: this verse states that the "rain did not pour down on the earth". Here, the word earth must be understood to mean only in the area of Egypt.
2 Chronicles 36:23: here, Cyrus' empire is said to include "all the kingdoms of the earth". But surely this scripture is not meant to include empires in the Far East, Africa or in the Americas.
At other times, the word erets is not even translated as earth, making it even more obvious that the word does not necessarily imply the entire physical globe. Examples of this include:
Genesis 12:1. That reads: "Go your way out of your country...to the country that I shall show you".
Genesis 19:31: here Lot's daughter's state that there is "not a man in the land (earth, King James version) to have relations with us". Obviously, they are not referring to the entire physical globe, only the general area in which they live.
And Genesis 20:1 states "Abraham journeyed from there to the land of the Negeb".
Thus, it appears as though the word erets can be translated as earth, land or country.
.
To ancient peoples Pre-Bronze Age the whole world was the horizon. If that area of purview was covered in water for whatever reason you might naturally think the whole world was deluged. Just saying.....
Dan: just be sure here, do you claim that the burden of proof is on the people who do not believe in the global flood?
secondly, what is the main scientific evidence that indicate the global flood happened?
Dan -- just one last thing. Do you believe this to: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
There have been MANY cataclysms and deluges in the history of this planet, but the most recent, the one that sank Atlantis, is the one that most of the flood stories are centered around. It was NOT global, and it was a LOT longer than 4,000 years ago. More like 12,000. There simply isn't nearly enough water on the planet and there never was. These cataclysms are the result of pole shifts, rogue meteors, comets, or asteroids, and upheavals in the earth's electromagnetic grid.
The writers of the Bible were using METAPHORS. That's why they say "all" this or "every" that. It is hyperbole designed to drive the points home.
brotherdan said
''The case about a global flood is this:
Jesus believed in it and spoke of it. If I reject the flood, then I reject Jesus. That is why I take an all or nothing approach to the Bible. When you begin to throw out 1 part, you end up having to throw out the whole thing.'' (my bold)
How about this.
Imagine in 2000 years time someone reading a speech of Barak Obama's where he allegedly said
''Just as in the days of Huckleberry Finn people can be racist.''
Or,
''Just as in the days of Oliver Twist some children end up as pickpockets.''
That would not be proof enough for me that Huckleberry Finn or Oliver Twist actually existed as real people. It wouldn't be proof enough for me that Barak Obama believed that they were real people.
I actually used to think very similar to you. I wrote off to the Society asking about the book of Genesis. I wrote that if God had simply left it at Gen 1:1 I would have been happy. He created everything, end of. But no, we have all the nonsense of the first 12 chapters of Genesis to contend with.
I then followed up with your system of thinking. One out, all out.
I'm much happier now not having to try and perform mental contortions to try and get things to fit, eg ice cores, tree rings, glaciers, mountains, ancient human artifacts, totally waterproof pyramids etc.
For people that believe in global fllod. One thought.. saltwater sea life and fresh water sea life don't mix. Upsetting the delicate ecosystem would mean most sea sea life woul have died our. Or were thaey taken on the ark also? it would have been a very big boat!
Arte
