Was Noah's Flood Local?

JosephAlward

aChristian believes those who think the Bible teaches that the flood was global look foolish. He wrote,

“I encourage all Christians to investigate the possibility that the Bible does not really teach that the whole earth was flooded at the time of Noah. For I believe that when Christians now promote such a teaching, a teaching which conflicts with all serious scientific evidence, they only succeed in making themselves, and Christianity, look very foolish to very many people.“

I believe that aChristian is the one who is wrong, and I would like to explain why the Genesis writer could not possibly have believed the flood he was describing was local. Here is the relevant verse:

8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited SEVEN more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. (Genesis 8:8-11)

According to aChristian, the flood was local. Well, if that's true than the Genesis writer must have known it was local, too. But, it seems not to be possible that the writer thought that, for the writer describes a Noah who sent a dove to see if the waters had receded from the land. As proof that the waters had receded, Noah would receive an olive leaf.

But, what would that prove? Noah--according to the local flood theory--would have known the flood was local, and that therefore there was unflooded land just outside the flooded "land of Noah," wouldn't he?

Thus, receiving the olive leaf would prove nothing if the flood was local. If the dove returned with a leaf, why wouldn't Noah just assume that the dove had flown outside the boundaries of the "land of Noah," if it were really true that Noah--and the Genesis writer--thought the flood was local?

aChristian doesn't imagine that the dove knew it was only supposed to fly to the boundaries of the "land of Noah," does he?

The local flood theory is obviously ridiculous here; the only way plausible way to reconcile this problem without one having to invent implausible how-it-could-have-been scenarios, and twist the meanings of words, is with a global flood.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

KJV

Joe,

The local flood of Mesopotamia was 7 million square miles. I doubt that a dove could have made it to the "boundery". An Albatross yes...a dove no.

JosephAlward

KJV notes,

The local flood of Mesopotamia was 7 million square miles. I doubt that a dove could have made it to the "boundery". An Albatross yes...a dove no.

That would be true if the ark was at the center of the flooded area, but Noah couldn't have known how far he was from the boundary; it could have been just over his horizon.

By the way, aChristian wishes forum members to know that he has provided many responses to my questions about the local flood in another thread. That thread is now off-screen; its address is

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23616&site=3

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

KJV

7 million sq. miles is a large area. Even if Noah wasn't in the center he could have still been too far away from land for a dove to rest. Maybe by the time the dove came back with an olive branch the ark had floated closer to the boundry. In fact that makes more sense because no olive tree could have survived the flood.

JosephAlward

KJV writes,

Even if Noah wasn't in the center he could have still been too far away from land for a dove to rest.

Yes, he could have been, but how would he have known where he was?

In an area that large, there are a virtual infinity of places close enough to the boundary of the alleged flooded area for a dove easily to have flown to and returned with an olive tree leaf. Thus, receiving a leaf wouldn't tell Noah anything for sure. Did it come from land from which the flood waters had receded, or did it come from land outside the "land of Noah"?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Faithful2Jah

KJV: >>>>>>>> 7 million sq. miles

Where in the world did you come up with a figure like that? Mesopotamia is in Iraq. A small part of Iraq. Iraq's total area is 169,235 square miles. Noah's flood would have been about 10 % of that figure. Probably less. a lot closer to 7 thousand square miles than 7 million.

KJV

Faithful2Jah,

I remember a debate about this was on H20 about a year ago involving J.H.,C.O.J. and Alan F. Alan F is the one who said that the flood was 7 million square miles. It would have covered the Black Sea and all the surrounding areas.

Faithful2Jah

KJV,

I've read a lot lately from "local flooders" and I've never read anything like that. Do you have any idea how big 7,000,000 square miles is? Thats more land area than is contained in all of China and all of Australia combined! Anyone who is going to say that a flood of that size actually occurred a few thousand years ago might as well say a global flood occurred a few thousand years ago. One is just as preposterous as the other.

I'm going to stay out of this discussion. I think AC just made a good point in the other flood thread that started this one. He said that he stays out of threads that are obviously only created to tear down God and the Bible. From what I have seen that would apply to any thread that has ever been started on this board by Joseph Alward.

JosephAlward

Irrespective of the size of the alleged "local" flood, Noah still could not have known where he was relative to the boundary between the flood and the unflooded area; he could only see as far as the horizon, which would have been just a few miles at most. Thus, when the dove came back with the olive leaf, he would not have known whether it came from land in the unflooded region, or from the land from which the waters had recently receded. Thus, it would have not been possible for him to conclude, as the Bible says, that "the waters had receded" unless the flood had been global.

In an attempt in another thread to explain away the dove-olive leaf problem, aChristian offered the opinion that it’s possible that

Noah did not know that the flood was local.

and that this would explain, he believed, why he would send a dove in search of land from which the waters had receded.

However, aChristian seems to have forgotten that when he was challenged just a few days ago to explain why the huge ark didn't mean that two of every animal on the face of the earth were to be put on board, he claimed that ark’s great space was intended by a hopeful God to be filled by a horde of sinners from the “land of Noah” who might repent in time and be given space on the ark.

However, since it was Noah who built the ark, he would have had to have been told by God to make most of the space livable for a horde of humans in aChristian's local flood scenario. Thus, he obviously would have been told by God--or would have concluded on his own--that the flood would only be a local one, since his ark could not carry the potentially millions of sinners from over the surface of the earth who might repent if the flood was global.

Also left unexplained by aChristian is why the Genesis writer, inspired by God to tell us the Word of God, didn't bother to make it clear to thousands of years of Bible readers that God actually intended to restart civilization with all of those sinners which failed to repent, and that the ark actually rode quite high in the water because it was mostly empty.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

JosephAlward

Faithful says,

I'm going to stay out of this discussion.

Don't be so quick to remain silent, Faithful. Remember what the writer of 1 Peter said:

be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: (1 Peter 3:15)

In my experience true believers will always answer a skeptic if they think they have a viable rebuttal, because they feel that defeating the skeptic gives God a good reason to look upon them with favor. I think in this case, Faithful doesn't have a strong response to offer.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Was Noah's Flood Local?

Share this