Comments on: Did the Flood cover the whole world?

By: Luke Buckler

Luke Buckler — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:32:18 +0000

Hi Jim,

Your comment above isn’t very constructive — it doesn’t help further the discussion one way or another. Please deal with the points in the original answer rather than accusing others of not accepting God’s word. The original answer demonstrates that the Genesis account can be read either globally or locally.

By: Jim Day

Jim Day — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 07:43:43 +0000

Hi Carol, Peter and Mark,

A few weeks ago I felt like Jeremiah and was beginning to wonder if I was the last of the Bible believing followers who just accepted what God said was true.

Thank you for your comments and I agree thoroughly with you three – I have been most encouraged by your comments.
Let us just accept that it is a whole earth flood as the Genesis record very clearly shows.

By: Luke Buckler

Luke Buckler — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:58:41 +0000

Hi Carol,

No one is denying that God could do whatever he wants (after all, all things are possible with God: Mat. 19:26). The issue is over what God actually did.

The original answer above demonstrates that the record in Genesis of the Flood can be read in both a global or a local way (and the very end of the article hints that the evidence outside of the Bible meshes best with a “local” reading of the text).

By: carol

carol — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:59:46 +0000

i believe just what GOD said that the whole world was covered. it is impossible in men eyes , but we are talking about GOD who made HEAVEN AND EARTH, he made it so i’am very sure he can cover it

By: Luke Buckler

Luke Buckler — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:40:54 +0000

Hi Mark,

The view that Robert Roberts takes is that all the people were localised in the (no global) area that the flood covered. Thus the covenant after the flood was still with all people.

Another view is that the judgement was on God’s people — people who should have known God — and these people were localised in the (no global) area that the flood covered. The covenant made after the flood was again made with God’s people — this time, Noah, his family, and their offspring (v9) — and with the animals with them, who were representative of all animals (v10).

By: Mark Morgan

Mark Morgan — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:21:30 +0000

At the end of the flood, God made a covenant, established with descendants of Noah and “every living creature that is with you” (Genesis 9:10). If the flood was only a local catastrophe, this covenant would not cover the remaining living people (if any) and creatures on the planet. There would be no guarantee for these others that another such flood would not come in their area. The covenant would not hold for the majority of the world despite its wording and clear intent. Only Middle Eastern rainbows in the area flooded would have any meaning.

If we assume that the flood was global, this problem of internal Biblical consistency goes away. The covenant was made with all living and the rainbow can still be relied on everywhere – even down under in Australia!

By: Richard Abbey.

Richard Abbey. — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:40:18 +0000

According to science it would have been impossible for the whole world to be covered in water, Further more, it was destroyed by earth quakes and volcanic eruptions and yes, it did rain but not enough to cover the entire earth with a deluge. If you go to Gen 1: it reads: And God Created the heavens and the earth; then at verse 2 is a in coded message, which reads: and the earth was without form, and void etc. Which suggests that the earth was destroyed before it was re-created with Human beings. This period would have been the Jurassic and the hominids who were but an experiment by God. If not then why does God say let us now create man in our image after our likeness at verse 26?? More proof of the hominids after Cain slew his brother and God drove him away from the protected area of Eden. Wasn’t he afraid someone may harm him? But according to scripture there were only his father Adam and mother Eve in the world. So who was he afraid might harm him? The hominids of course..! An in coded message that has gone unnoticed for thousands of years. Then there is the concept of the son Jesus Christ. Originally there were sun worshipers, sun rise and sun set when darkness fell upon the earth and when morning came the light of the world arises. Christ came into the world to rectify that which man has and is still worshiping the ‘Sun God’ and not its Creator, the reason for these inbuilt coded messages, or Christ would not have said: ‘Seek first the truth and the truth will set you free.’ Free from what? you may well ask…free within ourselves of the religious lies that have been told down through the centuries.

By: Luke Buckler

Luke Buckler — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:47:05 +0000

Hi Peter,

Peter Morgan :
I’ve read the comments and am puzzled.
This is a Christadelphian web site isn’t it? And they believe the Bible and take it as literal unless there is compelling reason to think otherwise?

That's correct. In the answer to the question two Christian writers are quoted; those Christians are both Christadelphians: Robert Roberts and Alan Hayward. Those two, along with many others, believe the Bible and take it as literal unless there is compelling reason to think otherwise. The view that the Flood was local has existed in the Christadelphian community, alongside the view that the Flood was global, right from the early days.

The implied criticism of Whitcomb and Morris is rather too vague isn’t it? Only their comments about the universality of the flood are in question here, so what are the errors in their chapter 1? The 7 arguments they advance for the universality of the flood?

I refer you to the articles and books already recommended. Various people have recommended various resources for and against both sides -- if people would like to investigate the different view points further then they are free to do so. The main thrust of the answer above is to demonstrate both global and local readings of the Flood are possible (they are both views that the Christadelphian community have held simultaneously right from the early days of the community).

... the flood was universal or God’s words mean nothing at all.

The bulk of the main answer above present an argument from within the Bible that the Flood could have been local. The Bible still has meaning if the Flood was local.

By: Peter Morgan

Peter Morgan — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:15:04 +0000

I’ve read the comments and am puzzled.
This is a Christadelphian web site isn’t it? And they believe the Bible and take it as literal unless there is compelling reason to think otherwise? In terms of the flood being universal (i.e. over the whole earth) there is no such compelling reason to think otherwise, in fact every reason to see the Bible means exactly what it says.
The implied criticism of Whitcomb and Morris is rather too vague isn’t it? Only their comments about the universality of the flood are in question here, so what are the errors in their chapter 1? The 7 arguments they advance for the universality of the flood?
Rob Johnson’s comments on the water and its amount are fine, but we weren’t there and God was, and He said through Moses that it was all flesh died and all the world covered and all….. Let’s not sully the word of God (inerrant) with our doubts and worries about how it happened.
Luke Buckler’s comment worries me also. He says “The answer above is written to accommodate both views that (a) the flood was global and (b) the flood was local. If someone wants to believe either (a) or (b) then that’s fine.” Who says it’s fine? Only one of the two views can be true, surely? And if that is so it behoves us to find out which IS true, and start believing it.
And in this case it’s clear – the flood was universal or God’s words mean nothing at all.
Enough for a start.
Peter Morgan

By: Jim Day

Jim Day — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:33:58 +0000

1 God said he covered the mountains (N.B. there are 35+ “complete, total and alls” in the relevant chapters of Genesis – I get the message -ALL)

2. God said he did it – really then that is a FACT- if you wonder about certain aspects of “how” that is fine but because we cannot necessary know “how” certainly does not mean he didn’t.

3 A possible solution n.b possible

If the earth was a smooth spherical ball then the current oceans would cover the whole Earth to about 1.5km (about 1 mile) or about 7500 ft ie above our Australia’s highest mountain.- now that is a lot of water but not enough to cover Mt. Everest.

Solution

(a ) the earth is flooded by rain and the fountains of the deep broken up – bottom of the oceans raised .and mountains recede. – earth entirely covered

(b ) Stops raining and the mountain ranges pushed up and ocean floors lowered allowing the water to recede as in Genesis 8:3