Noah's ark: Global or Local??

[Prezken]

I would like to get an idea of what everyone thinks about this topic?? I haven't made up my mind completely about this particular subject, but from my studies of the original hebrew it would seem to indicate a universal flood meaning complete annihilation locally instead of a truly global flood.

When you look at the hebrew words used to describe the animals taken, they refer to soulish animals that have a direct impact on man's economical system. Also, the intent of the flood was to wipe out the taint of man's sin. I have one question in which I have never recieved an adequate answer for...How did man's sin taint the penguins in antarctica??

[freshstart]

GOD could not wipe out all of man without doing so globally...

animals were a necessary sacrifice... they are only animals after all... they were created for the good of man... not the other way around...

what i always wonder is why the fish and other sea dwelling animals got off so easily...

[Prezken]

GOD could not wipe out all of man without doing so globally...

animals were a necessary sacrifice... they are only animals after all... they were created for the good of man... not the other way around...

what i always wonder is why the fish and other sea dwelling animals got off so easily...

Well, it is very possible that man just hadn't followed through with God's command to fill the earth. Just look at what followed the flood with Babel. Just a thought

[freshstart]

im not following you...

[karenoka27]

This question has been asked before:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=24600

thought you might like to look at some of the responses.

[matthew94]

How man's sin tainted all of creation is a worthwhile discussion, but THAT it tainted all of creation is not up for debate in my opinion:

Romans 8
19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

I think it was a world-wide flood. Otherwise, it seems to me, God's promise never to do it again has been broken on thousands of occasions. Further, His command to build an ark for 120 years seems silly when He could have simply had them travel outside the habited zone. What's more, a local flood fails to explain so many cultures around the world have a similar flood legend.

[TEITZY]

I would like to get an idea of what everyone thinks about this topic?? I haven't made up my mind completely about this particular subject, but from my studies of the original hebrew it would seem to indicate a universal flood meaning complete annihilation locally instead of a truly global flood.

Well if that's the case about the Hebrew, obviously the English translators got it all wrong because the language clearly indicates a global catastrophy, not a local one. Furthermore, if the flood was only local, the need for an ark becomes totally pointless.

This is from an old post of mine:

Gen 6:17 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.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.

Gen 8:9 But the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, and she returned into the ark to him, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself.

Jesus said that the flood killed everyone not on the ark (Matt 27:37-39). As I said earlier, if the flood was only local why the need for the ark? If God wanted to save Noah He could of just told him to move somewhere else! Same with the birds - why did they need to be on the ark when they could just fly to another location not flooded? The duration of the flood waters (12 months) would also suggest this was not just a local event. If it was just a local flood then God has also broken the promise He made to Noah (Gen 8:21) many times over.

When you look at the hebrew words used to describe the animals taken, they refer to soulish animals that have a direct impact on man's economical system. Also, the intent of the flood was to wipe out the taint of man's sin. I have one question in which I have never recieved an adequate answer for...How did man's sin taint the penguins in antarctica??

Adam's sin affected ALL of creation and not just man (Rom 8:19-22), so the location of animals is irrelevant (indeed the flood was global because ALL creation was affected by sin). Anyway, how do you know that there were penguins in Antarctica or that Antarctica even existed prior to the flood? From what we can gather, glaciers were more than likely a result of the flood (ie. caused by the following ice age) and we simply don't know enough about the pre-flood topography and climate to say there were penguins in Antarctica before the flood.

Cheers
Leigh

[Prezken]

Interesting responses, but I do have one comment to make. If you believe in a global flood AND you believe in a 6000-10000 year old earth, you do realize that you believe in a very very rapid form of evolution that would have animals morphing right infront of your eyes, right? Given the dimensions of the ark it would be physically impossible for all the animals on the earth to fit. You can't even fit baby animals of every kind, it is just an physical impossibility. So the animals on board the ark must've been the cause of every animal on earth today. That means such a rapid speciation that would make most evolutionary believers cringe. Just something to think about.

As to why noah wouldn't have left, that is a good question. If I was guessing i would say it had something to do with obedience and the need to save all of the soulish animals that was required of him. If it was a local flood there is no way to know for certain just how widespread it would've been. It is possible it was not feasible to leave the region with all of the animals that were on board the ark. Think about it, would it be more feasible to care for the animals on an ark or to travel hundreds of miles with those animals?

Finally as to the translation, that's the problem with the hebrew language. Most words have so many different possible meanings, we just have to look at the record of nature and the rest of the text to get an idea of which definition is intended. The usage of the words to describe the animals makes one thing crystal clear, that every animal kind was not on board the ark, only soulish animals that had a direct impact on man's economy. Also to Teitzy, the term whole heavens in the original hebrew can also simply mean a specific region or area. This is one of those things in which we probably will never know for certain, but is fun to discuss and dialogue.

God Bless!!

[matthew94]

You are severely (SEVERELY) exaggerating to say they'd be morphing before our eyes. Yes, YEC's do believe in rapid (though bounded) evolution. Of course, that's the only kind of evolution we have evidence for. Even the Darwinists are now sliding over to the punctuated equilibrium end of the spectrum.

You are also wrong about the limits of the ark. You must be assuming that every type of canine would have had to be on the ark, forgetting that biblical 'kinds' need not be the same as modern scientific classifications. If you purchase and read a book called "Noah's Ark: A feasability study" you'll find the information necessary to understand YECism.

I can tell you have great passion for Scripture and for your view. Cool. But I think you'd be well served to take some time to understand the YEC position b/c you are misrepresenting it at certain points.

God bless,
matthew

[Brother Mark]

I would like to get an idea of what everyone thinks about this topic?? I haven't made up my mind completely about this particular subject, but from my studies of the original hebrew it would seem to indicate a universal flood meaning complete annihilation locally instead of a truly global flood.

When you look at the hebrew words used to describe the animals taken, they refer to soulish animals that have a direct impact on man's economical system. Also, the intent of the flood was to wipe out the taint of man's sin. I have one question in which I have never recieved an adequate answer for...How did man's sin taint the penguins in antarctica??

Well, when Adam sinned, God killed an animal to clothe him. Prior to that,there didn't seem to be any death anywhere. In Genesis, God stated that the whole world was Adam's and he was to go and subdue it.

Gen 1:28
28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
NASB

But when Adam sinned, we learn that Satan then became the ruler of the world.

2 Cor 4:4
4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
NASB

John 12:29-32
30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. 31 "Now judgment is upon this world ; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out.
NASB

So the penguins in antartica were tainted by Adam's sin because they went from being ruled by a pure Adam to being ruled by Satan. And we have this principle from God concerning strongmen.

Mark 3:27
27 "But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.
NASB

When the world's stong man (Adam) was bound, his property (the world) became plundered.

Blessings,

Mark

[Brother Mark]

Interesting responses, but I do have one comment to make. If you believe in a global flood AND you believe in a 6000-10000 year old earth, you do realize that you believe in a very very rapid form of evolution that would have animals morphing right infront of your eyes, right? Given the dimensions of the ark it would be physically impossible for all the animals on the earth to fit. You can't even fit baby animals of every kind, it is just an physical impossibility. So the animals on board the ark must've been the cause of every animal on earth today. That means such a rapid speciation that would make most evolutionary believers cringe. Just something to think about.

As to why noah wouldn't have left, that is a good question. If I was guessing i would say it had something to do with obedience and the need to save all of the soulish animals that was required of him. If it was a local flood there is no way to know for certain just how widespread it would've been. It is possible it was not feasible to leave the region with all of the animals that were on board the ark. Think about it, would it be more feasible to care for the animals on an ark or to travel hundreds of miles with those animals?

Finally as to the translation, that's the problem with the hebrew language. Most words have so many different possible meanings, we just have to look at the record of nature and the rest of the text to get an idea of which definition is intended. The usage of the words to describe the animals makes one thing crystal clear, that every animal kind was not on board the ark, only soulish animals that had a direct impact on man's economy. Also to Teitzy, the term whole heavens in the original hebrew can also simply mean a specific region or area. This is one of those things in which we probably will never know for certain, but is fun to discuss and dialogue.

God Bless!!

Well, I am not sure about the dimensions of the ark but I do know this it was big enough to get all the animals on it. Only one pair of dogs would be needed. All the rest could be bread from that pair.

In other words, it was most likely animals "after their kind" that loaded in the ark instead of every little beagle, wolf, and coyote.

Blessings,

Mark

[TEITZY]

That means such a rapid speciation that would make most evolutionary believers cringe. Just something to think about.

Well we have actually observed rapid speciation in many plant and animal populations and it does indeed make evolutionists "cringe". Importantly though, speciation results in organisms becoming less genetically diverse than their parents which is actually de-evolution.

It is possible it was not feasible to leave the region with all of the animals that were on board the ark. Think about it, would it be more feasible to care for the animals on an ark or to travel hundreds of miles with those animals?

Noah was given 120 years advance notice about the flood. Surely this would have been more than enough time for Noah to move all the animals in the region thousands of miles away. Also remember that God brought the animals to Noah and so with God's intervention Noah could have easily moved the aminals to another location.

Finally as to the translation, that's the problem with the hebrew language. Most words have so many different possible meanings, we just have to look at the record of nature and the rest of the text to get an idea of which definition is intended. The usage of the words to describe the animals makes one thing crystal clear, that every animal kind was not on board the ark, only soulish animals that had a direct impact on man's economy. Also to Teitzy, the term whole heavens in the original hebrew can also simply mean a specific region or area. This is one of those things in which we probably will never know for certain, but is fun to discuss and dialogue.

Yes CONTEXT is always essential in determining the meaning of any word or statement and when you look at all the references to Noah's flood in the Scriptures there is nothing in the context to suggest a local flood is what is meant. What sort of 'local' flood would be capable of covering the highest mountains in the Ararat region and still remaining local? We're talking about peaks that are now in excess of 5000m above sea level.

Cheers
Leigh

[Equipped_4_Love]

what i always wonder is why the fish and other sea dwelling animals got off so easily...

I always thought that it was because God cursed the ground when Adam and Eve sinned....He did not curse the sea.
Also, it appears that God DID curse the land animals as well, and not just the serpent:

Gen 3:14 Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all the cattle, and more than every beast of the field.........

The term more than seems to denote a comparative factor, as in God cursed ALL land animals, but the serpent's curse was more severe. It appears as though God destroyed those forms of life on which He placed the original curse.

Anyhow, this was just my impression

[dworthington]

There is a possibility that there was only one land mass when the flood occured, and later the land masses split apart into the continents we now observe, therefore it could have been both local and global.

[Prezken]

Well we have actually observed rapid speciation in many plant and animal populations and it does indeed make evolutionists "cringe". Importantly though, speciation results in organisms becoming less genetically diverse than their parents which is actually de-evolution.

We have not observed speciation at the rate you are stating. I'm talking about all the dogs on earth for example from a single pair within a few thousand years? So the pitbull and the teacup chihuahua came from the same two dogs? Wow, I thought christians were against evolution, apparently I was wrong.

Noah was given 120 years advance notice about the flood. Surely this would have been more than enough time for Noah to move all the animals in the region thousands of miles away. Also remember that God brought the animals to Noah and so with God's intervention Noah could have easily moved the aminals to another location.

That is a good point, i'll grant you that one. Of course you have to think of one thing, this was a very mountainous area, not all of the animals could've necessarily made the journey. Can you really see Noah dragging an elephant up a 1000 ft mountain?

Yes CONTEXT is always essential in determining the meaning of any word or statement and when you look at all the references to Noah's flood in the Scriptures there is nothing in the context to suggest a local flood is what is meant. What sort of 'local' flood would be capable of covering the highest mountains in the Ararat region and still remaining local? We're talking about peaks that are now in excess of 5000m above sea level.

You do realize the same words used in the story of the ark are used numerous other times in the OT and have a local meaning, right? Also, the hebrew words used to describe the animals as i have stated are very clear. It was not every animal kind, only those which were soulish and directly impacted our economy. There is no other way to interpret those words. Given that information, where does things like penguins and other animals come from? We know the ark from the dimensions given would've been the size of a small aircraft carrier, so once again we must use evolution as the only explanation. I do not believe in common ancestry darwinian evolution, but this scenario you are painting would make it necessary.

Now, on a final note, i'm not trying to argue, i am just curious as to why most christians are so afraid to actually read the OT text in the original language. I love the truth of God's perfect and infallible word. Why do christians so often accept one science and completely disregard another just because it doesn't jive with their english bible? To my knowledge there was only one inspired version of the bible and it wasn't the KJV