By His Outstretched Arm
Puritan Board Freshman
Didn’t know this was already a debated topic but I’m curious what the majority here believes.
Global flood or Local flood?
- Thread starter By His Outstretched Arm
- Start date
- Status
I made this an actual poll. You don't need to post to voice an opinon. Vote in the poll.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Thread 'Regional Flood or Global Flood?' https://puritanboard.com/threads/regional-flood-or-global-flood.5522/
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
I watched Gavin Ortlund's recent podcast on this:
I agree that it isn't heresy, but it seems that most people adopt the local flood view in order to import beliefs that ARE heresy or at least heterodox, e.g. not all humans (apart from the ark) died in the Flood, not all men are descended from Adam, macroevolution, uniformitarianism, etc. His point about the land vs. the earth in translation is perfectly valid, and I agree the English translations frequently get this one wrong, especially pertaining to eschatology. But what need is there to bring all animals into the ark if there are already plenty of animals living outside that region? A global flood also better accounts for geographical phenomena like marine fossils on the top of Everest (and worldwide fossilization for that matter).
I agree that it isn't heresy, but it seems that most people adopt the local flood view in order to import beliefs that ARE heresy or at least heterodox, e.g. not all humans (apart from the ark) died in the Flood, not all men are descended from Adam, macroevolution, uniformitarianism, etc. His point about the land vs. the earth in translation is perfectly valid, and I agree the English translations frequently get this one wrong, especially pertaining to eschatology. But what need is there to bring all animals into the ark if there are already plenty of animals living outside that region? A global flood also better accounts for geographical phenomena like marine fossils on the top of Everest (and worldwide fossilization for that matter).
Last edited:
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree the Flood was global, but it is equally valid to read this as the Lord God said He would bring a flood of waters upon the land to destroy all flesh and that everything that is in the land shall die.
TooManySystematics
Puritan Board Freshman
Genesis 6:17, NKJV: "And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die."
I know this isn't your position, but wouldn't this view require us to believe that "all flesh in which is the breath of life" would have to be exclusively contained "in the land," since only "the land" would be flooded? What would the scientific ramifications of that view be?
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
It reminds me a bit of having to create epicycles to account for planetary motion in a geocentric model. Alternately, the flood could be "local" if literally all land was in a supercontinent/Pangea, but that's definitely not what the local flood advocates are talking about.
The deliberate destruction of all animal and human life other than that in the ark requires a lot of extra parts to make it work [edit: in a local flood]
Last edited:
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
Yes, they ignore the "all flesh" component of the text. Not only that, but the consummation of the world in 2 Peter 3 contains the parallels. The world [kosmos] was overflowed with water. That is as far of an idea from a local flood as possible. In a parallel way, we will find the earth will melt with fervent heat at the 2nd Coming. The NT indicates a global flood in terms of extent.
2 Peter 3:5-12 KJV
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world [kosmos] that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2 Peter 3:5-12 KJV
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world [kosmos] that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
Last edited:
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
That's not how I've always read the account; perhaps language experts here can correct the common translations such as:
"destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die." ESV
"destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life;" NKJV
"to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life" KJV
This would seem to exempt fish, etc, that don't breathe in air. Leaving the more interesting question, to me at least, whether the alterations in salinity would impact them. Or whether the increase of mineral content during the runoff from the initial phase of the flood would have offset the additional volumes of water, and left the content of the waters largely unchanged.
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
You’re quite right, I was unclear and meant land animals (broadly construed) and birds. I did not mean to include sea creatures since they weren’t brought on the ark.
Sovereign Grace
Puritan Board Junior
I think the flood was global as well. Seeing that two and seven of every kind was to preserve animal life world wide.
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
The view is that the original audience would have only been concerned with the flesh and life of which they were aware. Not the correct interpretation in my opinion, but I won’t rule it out as entirely implausible and heretical.
83r17h
Puritan Board Freshman
On a hermeneutical note, I always find appeals to "the original audience" perspective to support contemporary trends dubious...if for no other reason than that none of those invoking such a perspective share that perspective, and so it is often extra-scriptural speculation.
On the other hand: 1 Pet. 1:12 indicates that by virtue of the divine authorship of Scripture, it is in fact the Christian church (in all ages) which is the "original audience" of all Scripture.
Christodulus
Puritan Board Freshman
This is a debate because the global flood contradicts the dogmas of secularism, and that makes it offensive to the wise men of the world. Therefore, if one desires to be wise in the sight of the world, he must deny the global flood. The counter-argument to your prooftext is that all life on earth at the time was isolated to the region of the regional flood. Much more inescapable are Genesis 7:19 and Genesis 9:15, since 1. It is physically impossible for a local flood to cover a single mountain peak, let alone all of them 2. God has sent many local floods, which is contrary to His promise not to repeat it if it was only a local flood
StevieG
Puritan Board Freshman
One of the things I've never understood about the local flood idea is considering how long it took Noah to build the ark, couldn't God simply have got Noah and the animals to move rather than building the ark? Surely some of the birds at least could have just flown away?
No matter how you define local they had decades at least to leave the area.
No matter how you define local they had decades at least to leave the area.
C4MERON
Puritan Board Freshman
Not disagreeing, but how do you know this?
Christodulus
Puritan Board Freshman
I have watched the debates between Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. Hugh Ross.
- Status
Similar threads
