On the reconciliation of scripture to science

[Mikeenders]

Sounds pretty global to me:

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both birds, and cattle, and beasts, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, of all that was on the dry land, died.

Where? I see nothing in that passage that precludes anywhere in the world not being above water. Certainly not the word earth. There's no global in there. Is it possible it was? perhaps but its not called for from the context. Animals were not guilty of sin men were and the purpose of the flood was to punish men. Best internal implications indicate men did not inhabit the whole globe (above water of course).

[robrecht]

Where? I see nothing in that passage that precludes anywhere in the world not being above water. Certainly not the word earth. There's no global in there. Is it possible it was? perhaps but its not called for from the context. Animals were not guilty of sin men were and the purpose of the flood was to punish men. Best internal implications indicate men did not inhabit the whole globe (above water of course).

"all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered."

[Cerebrum123]

"all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered."

Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earthprolonging a flood it would never last anywhere near that long if it were local.

[shunyadragon]

You are the one person that should know since you live in never never land

Simply no objective evidence for the flood provided . . . still waiting.

[Mikeenders]

"all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered."

[Mikeenders]

Animals were targeted too.

Hi Cerebrum of course or the ark would not be necessary but they were not the reason for the flood

yes the animals with them on the earth/land in reference

Yes the face of the earth/land referenced every living creature made in regard to that reference

Genesis 7:22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

again yes on the earth /land referenced. Earth in the Hebrew does not necessitate globe

God's covenant with Noah was superflous, and false if it was a local flood.

NO even close

Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.[/U]

Never since has all life including and especially human been wiped out in that land/earth

I see no possible way to be any clearer that the flood was not local. Even one mountain covered would be effectively global, and the water didn't go down for about a whole year. Without God actively prolonging a flood it would never last anywhere near that long if it were local.

I see nothing even remotely close to you making your case. I have yet to make the claim tht it would not be sufficiently large but that nothing indicates that every piece of dry land anywhere on the globe had to be covered by water. Its just is not neccessary according to the text and as demonstrated not even the term whole heaven indicates the entire earth by its other uses in the OT

Even one mountain covered would be effectively global,

Sorry C that just does not follow logically or by scripture

[Jorge]

Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earthprolonging a flood it would never last anywhere near that long if it were local.

Agreed 100%!

In addition ... "Best internal implications indicate men did not inhabit the whole globe..."

Let's apply some basic sense here: if the Flood were only local then God could simply have said, "Noah, get out of Dodge!". No need for an Ark. Plus, why take the animals on the Ark if there were plenty of animals scattered all over the Earth?

Instead, God commands Noah to build an ark, bring the animals inside ... etc. Consider also the time that Noah needed to build the ark - around 100 years. These things and others make absolutely no sense unless the Flood was global (i.e., there was no place to hide, to go to, for Noah or the animals - it was the Ark or die).

Jorge

[Mikeenders]

Simply no objective evidence for the flood provided . . . still waiting.

I already have even to the point that Omudd knew what I was referencing and guessed that I do not adhere to a global food being necessary to the Genesis text.. If you wish to be dense about it then theres nothing new about that

[Jorge]

Simply no objective evidence for the flood provided . . . still waiting.

I'll not reinvent the wheel: go to the sites for AiG, ICR, CMI, CRS and others.
There you will find hundreds - hundreds! - of papers providing all the evidence
that should be necessary to convince anyone open-minded enough.

Of course, you are NOT one of those "open-minded". God Himself would have
to grab you by the nose and lead you to the evidence and since that's not
going to happen you will happily remain in your slumber. Enjoy!

Jorge

[Mikeenders]

Agreed 100%!

In addition ... "Best internal implications indicate men did not inhabit the whole globe..."

Let's apply some basic sense here: if the Flood were only local then God could simply have said, "Noah, get out of Dodge!". No need for an Ark. Plus, why take the animals on the Ark if there were plenty of animals scattered all over the Earth?

Thats an easy answer because after the flood you still need to renew the ecology in the area and people still needed to live off it and their animal life. God had no intention of abandoning that area. He had a very specific plan for it including the land of Israel so why would he tell Noah . Okay get up and leave that area and start somewhere else hundreds or thousands of miles away?. Your premise can be be matched easily as well - why doesn't God just tell Noah to go to the highest mountain and then see to it that is not flooded. NO need for an ark there either by that rationale. Not like anyone else would be up there camping out.. So please we are both literalist and I have defended you on other issues please do not do me the unfairness of claiming I lack basic sense and have not thought the issues through. As cherished I know flood geology is to YECs it is not necessary to a literal reading of Genesis

Instead, God commands Noah to build an ark, bring the animals inside ... etc. Consider also the time that Noah needed to build the ark - around 100 years. These things and others make absolutely no sense unless the Flood was global

ANd what was Noah to do? Go around the world gathering up all the animals native to that area and treck them across to the previously flooded plains? You make no sense here (I mean since you insist on this line of no sense argumentation). Building an ark even if it took 200 years makes no indication by itself the flood was global

[Mikeenders]

I'll not reinvent the wheel: go to the sites for AiG, ICR, CMI, CRS and others.
There you will find hundreds - hundreds! - of papers providing all the evidence
that should be necessary to convince anyone open-minded enough.

I'm sorry Jorge but it would be unfair of me to just call out others. Flood geology is a mess. It tries to explain almost every single geological feature on earth by one event and it just does not work.

[robrecht]

So you would you likewise limit God's knowledge, creation, and rule in Job 28,24 37,3 41,3? I'll let you and Jorge debate the point.

[Mikeenders]

So you would you likewise limit God's knowledge, creation, and rule in Job 28,24 37,3 41,3? I'll let you and Jorge debate the point.

actually I thought you were better than that but apparently not. You seem shell shocked by Deuteronomy using the same phrase but not being global so you now have to go to the claim that an expression with a wider rang of uses than you thought has to have the same meaning in every passage so that I would be limiting God

Poor form. Weak retort.

[klaus54]

Abram was told to leave his "erets".

Same word used for "earth" in the flood story.

Abram didn't need a spaceship.

[robrecht]

actually I thought you were better than that but apparently not. You seem shell shocked by Deuteronomy using the same phrase but not being global so you now have to go to the claim that an expression with a wider rang of uses than you thought has to have the same in every passage so that I would be limiting God

Poor form. Weak retort.

There's no reason to assume that Dt 2,25 is limited to just the nations in the promised land, but it certainly could be. There are always lots of different ways to interpret ancient texts. If you want to think that the flood is intended to be local in Genesis, I doubt anyone could prove that your interpretation is impossible, but I don't think most people would be convinced of your reading either. Like I say, I'll let you and Jorge debate the point.