"Look it wasn't a global flood.."

by Qcmbr 118 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • PSacramento
  • simon17

    We find something we agree on simon17!!! Celebrate!

    You're a good guy, I like having you in a debate (on either side)

  • PSacramento

    Guys, these are questions that we do NOT have the answers for, neither did those before us, but we just to best express how we feel about them and why and what we base it on.

    We are just stating our opinions, nothing more and nothing less.

    Its not about being right or wrong, not up for US to decide that, it just about exchanging out views and learning from each other.

  • sir82
    Jesus' words were incredibly (and unnecessarily) misleading.

    See my post higher up on page 4.

  • simon17

    See my post higher up on page 4.

    Your argument there is really troubling. First off, it might have been known that regular literature at that time was often exaggerated. Does that mean that the inerrent Word of God would stoop to such a low standard?

    Second, you're suggesting a model of the Bible that gets used time and time again: View the Bible as accurate, because really, you're too stupid to understand the truth anyway. If you're smart enough to figure out something is, indeed, wrong or exaggerated, then just realize it was written that way to trick the common man's stupid mind into believing what they should.


    * The World was created in 6 days. Ok, sounds good. Wait no, science says it wasn't. Oh, well, the Bible knew that it just said "days" because thats what idiots would understand.

    * The earth and light was created before the sun and stars. Ok, makes sense. Wait no, science disagrees. Oh well, the Bible knew that it just said the sun was "created" on the 4th day because if you are an idiot standing on earth during creation, thats what it looks like happened.

    * There was a global flood and Jesus talked about it. Ok explains the rainbows and stuff. Wait no, science disagrees. Well, it got the point across to idiots, and anywya Jesus didn't really say "global" anyway.

    That leads to:

    * The Bible is God's word. Ok, makes me feel better about my crappy life. Wait no...

  • sir82


    I think you are missing my point.

    I am not a fundamentalist, inerrantist, nor any other "ist".

    I do not believe very much of the Bible is literally true. I do not believe it is inerrant. I have not since my JW eyes were opened many years ago.

    I have no particular vested interest in whether or how much of the Bible is literally true. I find it fascinating literature which explains much about the human condition, and which does contain much useful information.

    You seem to be arguing against a position I have not taken.

    You may wish to re-read my earlier post with that in mind.

  • Leolaia

    It isn't simply the references to the Flood covering the "entire earth" that make the biblical Flood universal.

    • The purpose of the Flood is to "wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created, and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground, for I regret that I have made them" (Genesis 6:7). The purpose is to undo the very creation of animals and humans; the Flood is thus not limited to a particular locality if humans and animals exist elsewhere.
    • There are similar universal references to "all living creatures of every kind on the earth" (Genesis 9:16) and "everything on the earth" (Genesis 6:17). These expressions are not just hyperbole because they are in accordance with the enormous size of the ark (unless the size of the ark is similarly dismissed as hyperbole). Although it is too small in light of modern scientific understandings of zoological diversity, it is also unnecessarily too large for a local flood. The idea of constructing such a huge zoo to save the seed of every animal is not compatible with a local flood, inasmuch as it is concerned with mitigating the extinction of the animal species that Noah attempts to save. The appropriate action would simply have been to move representative pairs of the animals out of the affected area, rather than enclose them in a ship for over a year.
    • The waters "rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits" and "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered" (Genesis 7:19-20). Although one may again cite hyperbole and consider that the text does not literally mean "all" the mountains, it certainly has in mind the "mountains of Ararat" which are specifically named in the next chapter. The elevation of Mount Ararat alone is nearly 17,000 feet, taller than any of the Alps, the Balkans, the Carpathians, and most of the Caucasus mountains. The waters needed to cover the "mountains of Ararat" would far exceed a local flood (Genesis 8:4).
    • The divine promise under the Noachian covenant "between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth" (Genesis 9:16-17) is similarly universal. God promises to never send a Flood "to destroy the earth" (v. 11) and "all life" (v. 15). If the Flood was only a local flood (with the "earth" limited to a particular locality), then this promises that there never would again be any local floods, which is rather unlikely. The universality of the shedding of human and animal blood in v. 3-6 is part of the same picture. God is not construed as letting some kinds of animals off the hook for killing humans, just as he is not construed as letting humans off the hook for eating the meat of some animals with blood and not others. The universality of the covenant reflects the universality of the animal life saved from the Flood via the ark.
    • The Table of the Nations in ch. 10 of Genesis construes every nation or tribe known to the ancient Hebrews, and all the languages spoken by these groups, as descended from Noah and his three sons, and the Babel story in ch. 11 similarly posits that linguistic diversity had its origin in a confusion of languages that occurred at one particular place where all of humanity, not long after the Flood, was gathered. Since linguistic diversity is universal, the confusion of languages is construed as a universal event affecting humanity.
    • The NT references to the Flood, comparing this event to the coming parousia and destruction of the world, similarly construe the former as universal on account of the universality of the latter. The former and present "earth" in 2 Peter 3 (the former destroyed by water, the present to be destroyed by fire) is in neither case a locality.
  • just n from bethel
    just n from bethel

    Leolaia - In case I never get the chance to say it, You're amazing.

    You're thinking skills are unprecedented in the neutral way that you present the facts. If there's ever anyone that can present factual data in an unemotional way that allows the information to speak for itself, it's you.

  • PSacramento

    Leo, awesome as ever :)

    And you have a very fair point, IF the original writers of Genesis and before them the original passers down of orla tradition, had in mind the WHOLE world as conceived by US or even the whole POSSIBLE world as conceived by them.

    And that may well be the case, but as we know, Historical writers didn't typicallt have that in mind when they wrote things.

    As for 2 Peter, "the world" mentioned there is, as you know, the greel term "kosmos" which can mean that and even the universe, but lets remember that very same word was used when Satan made the offer to Jesus when he SHOWED him "all the kingdoms of the world" and we certainly don't think that Jesus actually saw ALL the kingdoms of the world.

    One can certianly TAKE the literal view of Genesis and the flood account and one can also take the non-lteral view.

    The very language of Genesis doesn't seem to lend itself to "factual account" as much as story, does it?

    (I ask this because you certaibly know FAR MORE than I about than, far more the anyone here I wager).

  • Hoffnung

    There are no eye-witnesses of the flood. All others cannot prove or disprove too much, as their is not really conclusive evidence against or for either case, just indications at best. Why all these discussions? Limiting your imagination to what humans can achieve today or a non-eyewitness report of the event 1000 years later, cannot be sufficient to provide us an all details covering explanation. Just remember, it is not the purpose of the bible. And whatever others have said about the use of the word 'earth' and 'world' in hebrew in Greek is also true.

    If you would have unlimited resources at your disposal, and would have concluded to remove every living being on the planet by water, why should you limit yourself to using only rain? Why not using some extra gravity to make water raise and drop (let the moon come near, or another satelite or comet)? Or use some extreme wind force to push up levels? Or using some magnetic distortion with the same effect? Or a combination of all of it? The options are unlimited, really. Any of these means would:

    - leave almost no traces, after more then 4000 years

    - achieve the goal of killing all humans

    - having the mountains covered in one area while in other areas the ocean is nearly empty is not a problem

    - Solve the problem of sufficient water volume, the volume in the oceans is enough as supply

    - still leave the possibilty of letting the flooding in the Iraq-Turkey area last longer then anywhere else, making it possible the arch ended up on the Ararat.

    If you can believe God created the universe, creating a flood of moving waters all over the globe is actually nothing really major to do. Just imagine yourself with enormous (divine) power with a set challenge to make the flood happen. Would you limit yourself to just using rain? I don't think so... I think the only debatable point is the moment of the event, but that is another topic.

    Did I prove the global flood? No. I only made it a possibility. If you want to believe in God and the bible, then try to think about his possibilities, even magic is in reach. If you want to discredit the bible and God, you will find the means to do so. Either way, your motivation is your drive and cause, and it will define your arguments. Who is correct? We will only find out later on.

Share this