ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Was Noah's Flood Just Local

Was the flood universal or local? Just your idea and why.

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---lupe2618 on 7/19/05
     Helpful Blog Vote (9)

Post a New Blog

No matter how you try to spin it Stevenq three chapters is no brief mention. The creation of all there is only gets one chapter!

No matter how many chapters God gave it, for our information,it covers His world-wide flood,giving us all the details God considers we need.

It is rather arrogant of you to claim it's only a brief mention. Surely you are judging God's Word from a very human mind-set.
---Warwick on 5/13/08

Warwick: "I don't agree, the flood story takes up three whole chapters. "

It depends upon one's point of view. You're looking at the Bible through a worldly educated adult. Three chapters and a few verses sprinkled here and there may be a big deal to you, but for me it's a brief mention. One man's lifetime may be a long time to you, but to God it's only a fraction of a second. There is a universe of knowledge that isn't mentioned in the Bible that the Holy Spirit gives freely to anyone.
---Steveng on 5/12/08

It was worldwide.
---Coloopy on 5/12/08

The flood in Noah's day is spoken of very greatly and at great lengths throughout the entire Bible in both the old testament and the New Testament. It details that the tops of the highest mountains were all covered over with water, and the whole world was one vast ocean. Archaeologists and palaeontologists have both discovered fish fossils at high elevations and on mountains which lends strong creedance to the veracity of the world deluge as recorded in the Holy Scriptures.
---Eloy on 5/12/08

Stevenq I don't agree, the flood story takes up three whole chapters in Genesis. It is clearly talking of a world-wide flood as, for one example, the waters covered all the high hills. So it cannot be local.

It is also mentioned quite a few times in the NT and always as a world-wide flood.
---Warwick on 5/12/08

Were any of you present at the Flood?

The story of the flood is only briefly mentioned in the Bible. From the brief story, a person can us his imagaination to concoct any details their heart desires. since knowledged has increase in today's world, the more imaginative people are. Just take a read of any science-fiction story compared to even a hundred years ago.
---Steveng on 5/9/08

lupe2618: "...The rest of Scripture I don't have a problem with."

If you didn't understand Revelation, then you really don't have a good foundation in the rest of Scripture. Try reading the Bible through the eyes of a child, in the Spirit, instead of trying to understand using your earthly knowledge. The Bible cannot be understood using earthly knowledge. And remember: there is nothing new under the sun (including all your technological wonders which are based upon nature).
---Steveng on 5/9/08

lupe2618: Also, you may want to take a sabbatical from the world and read the Bible all the way through without stopping, except, of course, to sleep. And without any concordances, reference books, novels, author's interpretations - just you, the Bible and the Holy Spirit. After you are finished, you'll have a completely different perspective of the Bible and a closer walk with God.
---Steveng on 5/9/08

Frances, the site creationontheweb dot com is an excellent site with thousands of carefully written articles, referenced for further reading.

You're right the religion of evolution is a conspiracy because it's a belief, taught as fact throughout the media and education. Not one evolutionist has been able to suggest a laboratory experiment which can give proof of its extraordinary claims.

Praise God you and countless others have come to understand what a dangerous and pervasive lie it is.
---Warwick on 5/9/08

Neither, the flood in Noah's day was worldwide flooding the entire world.
---Eloy on 5/9/08

Warwick, thanks for telling me about that site. I must take a look some time. I have not up till now because first I was an avid evolutionist, brainwashed by the television, Disney, etc, and then I got converted gradually, by uncovering the Occult Agenda and the Mind Control they use on everyone. After that I checked up on everything and met various individuals whose logical approach made more sense than the so called scientists who get their names printed everywhere.
---frances008 on 5/9/08

No, but you'd be amazed what the RCC gets up to with all that cash it has available. Lol. Yes, it is amazing that seashells ended up on mountains. I believe the flood to have been worldwide.
---frances008 on 5/9/08

Noah didn't save anyone, God did, and Nothing is impossible W/Him.

Has Anyone Figured out HOW "SEA SHELLS" from the OCEAN, GOT on top of some VERY high Mountains?
AND don't tell me it was the Freemasons Either.(sorry frances008 i couldn't resist)
Just for Laughs,no harm intended.
---Duane_Dudley_Martin on 5/8/08

Frances people sometimes imagine, for one example, Noah had to take all types of dogs,poodles, kelpies, doberman etc, when in fact all dogs are one species, able to interbreed. Likewise with other 'kinds' of creatures meaning that the animals we have on land today are descended from those who travelled on the ark.

There is an excellent book on all aspects of the ark and its cargo called Noah's Ark: A feasibility Study by the scientist Woodmorappe. the site creationontheweb is also very helpful.
---Warwick on 5/8/08

I have thought about all the many hundreds of thousands of species of animals and wondered how Noah could have saved them all. But then, if you read the paper, new species are forever being discovered. It is possible that they were created at later dates in an ongoing process. What do you think, anyone?
---frances008 on 5/7/08

The local flood idea doesn't hold water! Why would God,(obviously knew the facts) spend three chapters describing it, saying over and over it covered the whole world, if local?

Why, if local, would God say he wouldn't again bring such a flood upon the world,when local floods are common?

Why if local would God bring the animals from allover the place to Noah, rather than lead them and Noah and co.away?

The local flood idea is contradicted by Scripture and too silly for words.
---Warwick on 5/7/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Depression

Tje Bible records not only rain but the fountains of the deep being broken. It appears that this was a major event, might have included tsunami's etc. Science shows that the continents are still moving today so would seem reasonable that they were very close together and animals migrated from a central location.
---dan on 5/7/08

How do you get that only 46 animals were saved??
---Bruce5656 on 5/6/08

Universal, and of the whole world, only 8 people and 46 animals were saved. The verses were already cited below: Genesis 6:17; 7:19. BTW, very soon the Lord will again destroy the whole complete world, but this time it will be by fire and not water. Please read II Peter 3:3-14.
---Eloy on 8/9/07

The Flood was definitely universal. I'll explain why I believe this when I have more time.
---Kay on 1/6/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study

You know Paul, the more questions we have the better it is cause it really drives us to look up Scripture. The past two months I have been looking a lot. I try not to answer too many personal questions cause we could give the wrong answer to someone because of our experience. Theirs might not be the same so I try to be careful on them. Just when it concerns God then I think I feel ok. This is a lot of fun and really enjoy looking things up. Think of some questions you can put up so we can go after them.
---lupe2618 on 8/3/05

Paul, it is something that all of us think about. I know I do. I think about the UFO's and about the sons of God, Also why sin was allowed by God, How to really interpret Revelations. I have had classes on it from different denominations and they all think different. I acually got a good idea from Pierr. I believe he has it correct. Not too sure though cause many have different outcomes on Revelations. some even say it is easy, The rest of Scripture I don't have a problem with. Most of it can be learned.
---lupe2618 on 8/3/05

Alan, there are so many things that God does that I cannot explain. We could throw this question back and forth until the day we meet God and still not get an answer that satisfied both of us, so I'm going to wait and ask Him. I think we are all in for quite a few surprises when the time comes.
---Paul on 8/3/05

Here is his quote, as a local flood: "The narrative of the flood is probably the account of an eyewitness. Its vividness of description and minuteness of details contain the strongest evidence that it is such. It was probably a tradition handed down from Shem to his descendants until it was finally incorporated in the Books of Moses. The terms "all flesh," "all the high hills," and "all the heavens," denote simply all those known to the observer."
---lupe2618 on 8/2/05

Locate House Parent Jobs

Billy, your thought was great. It could have been that way and this way it could have been local as far as the writer was concern. I don't know why many people think it is universal, I know I do, but most of the theologians I have read about think it was local. I will post only one of them;
---lupe2618 on 8/2/05

Paul you have not actually answered my question which was how did Noah distributte the marsupials to Australasia after the Flood?
But your view by extension would be that God carried them back over the oceans.
An alternative view held by many (the majority?) Christians is that the flood was local, and the story of the destruction of every living creature allegorical
---Alan8869_of_UK on 8/2/05

Paul you have not actually answered my question which was how did Noah distributte the marsupials to Australasia after the Flood?
But your view by extension would be that God carried them back over the oceans.
---Alan8869_of_UK on 8/2/05

Just a thought, but what if all the humans alive in the world at that time lived only in one rather local region, instead of being spread out all over the Earth? None could have escaped even a large local flood, if that had been the case, and it would have covered "the whole earth" as far as human beings were concerned. Just a speculation.
---Billy on 8/2/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses

Alan says "How did Noah get them there? There's no record in the Bible of him travelling around the world putting animals in their different places." If God wanted them there He'd get them there just as He made sure all the animals got on the ark in the first place. Noah didn't have to go out and find them all personally. God brought them to Noah.
---Paul on 8/2/05

Ann ... I think the position of the continents was much as it is now from well before the time of Noah.
If there had been massive movement of land masses since then, I am sure the Bible would have recorded it.
---Alan8869_of_UK on 8/1/05

Did the continents float apart before or after the flood? They all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, and were all one body of land at one time. Maybe God just said "Here's a continent all by itself...let's put some weird-looking animals here and make people wonder....." (just joking) real answer.
---Ann5758 on 8/1/05

Great answer Alan, maybe someone out there knows more into this problem. you know I have learned a lot from this one topic. I sure wish we got more ideas that have to do with the flood.
---lupe2618 on 8/1/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis

Matthew ... surely it IS possible to cover one high mountain ... say Mont Blanc .... and yet not cover the Himalayas?

One thing that worries me about the Flood story being literally accurate, is how the different animals were distributed after the flood. For example, marsupials are only in Australasia. How did Noah get them there? There's no record in the Bible of him travelling around the world putting animals in their different places.
---Alan8869_of_UK on 8/1/05

Matthew I liked what you said but can you explain it a little better? Something to think about. It would sure help me to see what exactly you meant. I love to hear what others say towards the flood.
---lupe2618 on 8/1/05

well the BIBLE says that the whole earth was flooded. it's kind of hard to bury one mountain in water and not bury all the other ones. plus i fear the deluge downplayed alot- there was more than enough time to have populated the earth to a couple billion people, and God did not just make it rain. the firmament of water that was "in the heavens" since creation came down, and is no longer there. which is harder to believe, that God created the earth or destoyed it, hmm...
---matthew on 8/1/05

5. the good thing about it is that there is many here on this website that know a lot about Scripture and I do like to hear comments concerning the wrong that would be done to interpret one from the other. Bruce and you and many others have great answers and I just thought of hearing what everyone had to say on the issue. thanks
---lupe2618 on 7/31/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma

4. from man's perspective, because Job went through a lot of pain and he is speaking the way he felt. Yet all of the book is God inspired. The authors perspective is very important. I have read where Milton Terry believes that the flood description should be understood from man's perspective. My question was, "what would be wrong one to the other?" You have answered one thing that could be wrong. I wanted to see if others knew other reasons too.
---lupe2618 on 7/31/05

3. if these same prhrases are understood from (man's perspective) they could mean "all the animals that I could observe died," and "all the high hills that I could observe were covered." this description would imply local flood. The traditional interpretation of these verses has been noumenological, (God's perspective). Now these is important because even in the story of Job, you can see that many of the writings or in man's perspective because it shows Job's feelings and pain.
---lupe2618 on 7/31/05

3. As an example of the importance of the principle, the question of whether the flood was universal or local, it is difficult to determine from the context whether the language in Genesis 6:9 was intended to be understood noumenologically (God's perspective) or phenomenologically(from man's perspective). If the Phrases "all flesh died" and "all the high hills were covered" are understood from (from God's perspective) a universal flood is implied.
---lupe2618 on 7/31/05

2. which is easier for him to say then to give the more cumbersome description of a section of the earth rotating out of the path of the sun's direct rays. He will take the normal way many times. This happens in Scripture many times. Distinquishing the author's intention to be understood as a direct spokesman for God from his intention to speak as a human reporter describing an event (man's perspective) is so important for an accurated understanding of his meaning.
---lupe2618 on 7/31/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol

brother Elder, when studying hermeneutics there was a question on "What was the perspective of the author?" The authors sometimes write as if looking through the eyes of God (as a spokesmen for God,) particularly in moral matters, but in narrative sections they frequently describe things the way they appear from a human perspective(like reporters speaking phenomenological metaphor) Let me give a description; sometimes the writer will speak in terms like, "sun's setting,"
---lupe2618 on 7/31/05

Thank you Bruce, I see what you meant. You are so right on that. Brother Elder, your answer is great too and that is what I wanted to read. You see I have read both ways and know why both ways when read hermeneuticaly sound right. Of course I do believe it was universal myself, but when I read both ways I wondered what would be wrong one way to another. It does have complications each way.
---lupe2618 on 7/31/05

Lupe, I respect and honor your stand you take so many times. I do not give this answer to "prove" you wrong but to bring clarity to your question to Bruce on
You are interested to find out what is wrong in universal v/s local flood.
1. The flood was completely universal because God said so.
2. If it was only local some could have excaped to another region. All of sinful man would not have been destroyed as God promised thus adding doubt to other parts of Scripture.
---Elder on 7/30/05

I have always understood the flood to be universal.

The "doubtful disputations" refers to the incredible math used to describe just how many animals were involved. Or more to the point, the dogmatic way in which those numbers are being presented.
---Bruce5656 on 7/29/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery

Brother Bruce, I read your answer but you didn't answer the question. Can you explain what you mean? It must have a purpose are you wouldn't have wrote it. I put the post up for a reason, though many went to the number of animals, which was somewhat funny. I then posted that I was interested to find out what is wrong in universal to local. That was all. I figured people would go look and study, plus some have a lot of knowledge so they might know something that can help me.
---lupe2618 on 7/28/05

You know, this blog reminds me of the verse:Romans 14:1, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations."
I wonder why?
---Bruce5656 on 7/28/05

Eloy; one thing you forgot that after creating He "rested" (from creating) Evolutionists try to say that new species came into existence by cross-breeding, but it just doesn't happen! and mutations are ALWAYS harmful! You think a frog is not a seperate creation?or kangaroo? chimp?bat?(they are not flying mice,and have no feathers!)
---1st_cliff on 7/28/05

Alan, God's command for the procreation process, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" is still continuing today, but i also believe that that is not the only process in operation: i believe that God our Creator still creates new things and creatures at his pleasure. Even as i write this, he's probably making something new in creation, it's his nature to do so. i think it's awesome how fruitful people and animals have become in such a short time- maybe somethin' in the water (side joke).
---Eloy on 7/28/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion

There's a cute picture hanging in our doctor's office...a cartoon of the ark, and all the animals standing on the roof, one on top of the other, the ladies all cleaning and scrubbing, and old Mr Noah just leaning on the side of the boat with his head in his hands....I get a giggle out of it every time I see it.
---Ann5758 on 7/27/05

Question: where do some people get the idea it took 120 years to build the ark? Gen.5: 32 states "After Noah was five hundred years old, Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth." Since they helped him build the ark, he was over 500 when they started. Then in Gen.7:6, it says "Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth." To me, that adds up to less than 100.
---Ann5758 on 7/27/05

Eloy ... do you suggest that all the different types of animal came from just seven pairs of animal, over a period of perhaps 6000 years?
It ust shows how we can read the same words differently.
I read it that Noah was told to take 7 pairs of each clean beast ... i.e seven horses, seven cattle, seven lions, seven tigers, etc. You read it differently. We will have to differ in peace
---Alan8869_of_UK on 7/27/05

I got the same view of them fishing. Eloy, you just amaze me sometimes. But sometimes you do shock me. Plus you have a good sense of humor. Great answer as far as a joke is concern. What I want to know is what would be wrong in seeing one way of the flood to the other. I know there is many out there with a lot of knowledge, I have seen that many times. So write what you think is wrong.
---lupe2618 on 7/27/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause

I just saw a really interesting documentary on the history channel called "Noah's Flood". Three american scientists who are typically sceptical about biblical stories have found scientific evidence that validates Noah's flood which affected the black sea, the mediterranean and the "bosforous" (not sure of the spelling sea. It affected that whole alpine region of the upper mediterranean, which was much of the entire world back then.
---lisa on 7/27/05

Eloy for once you have made me laugh instead of making me scream. I have to agree with you for once regarding the fact that there would be no need of fish on the ark because they could catch all they needed. A picture then popped into my head of Noah and family on the roof of the ark with their fishing rods and nets.
---Xanthi on 7/27/05

1st cliff, they could have taken fish on the ark just to feed some of the animals. But that's funny, no fish on the ark. The Noah clan wouldn't need too, all they had to do is throw a pole out the window and catch all the fish they wanted.
---Eloy on 7/27/05

Alan, The Bible says their are 3 kinds of animals: 1- Birds, 2- Beasts, 3- Crawls. And to take 7 and 7 in their kinds (7 male and 7 female)=14. And to take 2 and 2 of the unclean beasts=4. Thus, 14 + 14 + 14 + 4= 46. You're wrongly reckoning by the number of animals present today, so certainly you would need alot more then merely one ark. The earth was very young in Noah's day, so it would stand to reason that there were not many kinds of animals then, as we have today.
---Eloy on 7/27/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals

Eloy; as an example, scientists have tried to "cross-breed" fish without success, as with animals they come up with "hybrids" that are ALWAYS sterile! There were no fish in the arc.
---1st_cliff on 7/26/05

But Eloy, you reckon that there were only 46 animals ... but I just cannot read the Bible account as saying that !!
You earlier said there were only 7 kinds of animal ... let's see .. the following are all different types
Butterfly & Moth (these being totally dependent on land, unlike birds

And that is before consulting a nature book
---Alan8869_of_UK on 7/26/05

i believe that since there were only 46 animals and 8 people on the Ark, that is what our present world was bred from. Yet we cannot exclude that God, being Creator, at any time can say, "Let there be..." and behold, there is. So even as i write this, God can be creating new things, that is, creatures as it were.
---Eloy on 7/26/05

Eloy ... I have reread your blog ... sorry I did not read it properly before.
Are you saying that there were only a pair of cats, and that from them all the present cat family ... lions, tigers, cheetahs, panthers, and so on, developed? That would have to be some rapid development in 6000 odd years. There is no record of that sort of development in the Bible.
---Alan8869_of_UK on 7/26/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting

I agree, Eloy, but to say only 7 pairs of clean animals is something quite different. The difference between black and white cats is not quite the same as that between lions and cheetahs, and tigers, and panthers, let alone, dogs and foxes, and marmosets, and rhinos and moose, and kangaroo, and crocodile, and horses, and beavers, and bears and rabbits, and ...
You seem to suggest they all developed from 7 pairs of animals.
---Alan8869_of_UK on 7/26/05

Alan, let me clarify. Actually, you would only take 1 male and 1 female of the cat family, no matter ho many different kinds of cats were living in the world; and you would take 1 male dog and 1 female dog, no matter how many different kinds of dogs were living the world; and you would take 1 male horse and 1 female horse; and 1 male elephant with 1 female elephant; etc. etc. totalling 46 animals. Else if you took like 2 leopard, 2 lion, 2 tiger, etc. Noah would have had to built around 100 arks or more.
---Eloy on 7/26/05

Alan, for example, if you had 100 black cats, 100 white cats, 100 red cats, and 100 multi-colored cats in the world. You would only bring 14 of them on the ark (7 male + 7 female), because "in their kind" means "of the cat classification or family".
---Eloy on 7/26/05

Ann, There were billions of less animals back then as there are today. At that time there were only 23 classes on animals: for the world was only 1,556 years old at the time of the flood (omitting the 1000 to 1 ratio). There were 14 clean birds(7 male + 7 female); 14 clean beast (7 + 7); 14 clean crawls (7 + 7); and 4 unclean beasts (2 male + 2 female)= totaling 46.
---Eloy on 7/26/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers

But Eloy the Bible does say 7 pairs of each kind of clean animal (so umpteen depending on just how many kinds of animal there are) Not just 7 pairs clean animals. (14 clean animals in total)
---Alan8869_of_UK on 7/25/05

Sorry, Eloy....I have no idea where you come up with 23. Nothing adds up. Where exactly do you get 23? And sorry also, your post, I took it that you said not just 7 of clean, but of every kind of beast.(7/24/05)
---Ann5758 on 7/25/05

Anne ... I did mean of every kind of clean beast, as was made clear in the words I quoted from the Bible.
I was just trying to say that this was not just 7 pairs of clean beast, as Eloy calculates, because there are many kinds of clean beast.
And ditto of unclean beasts.
---Alan8869_of_UK on 7/25/05

1st cliff, we breathe the same breath as animals. Like usually runs with like, but occassionally you'll get an ugly duckling, or a beautiful one. Reality is, God is omnipotent and can do anything he so desires. Recall how he turned the water into wine? How about calling things into existent things that are not yet? He says, "Let there be..." And behold, there is. How about how he hangs the world on nothing, in keeping it in perfect alignment and both rotating and revolving. That is reality.
---Eloy on 7/25/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce

Ann5758, i have cited the text below, it is translated from Hebrew.
---Eloy on 7/25/05

Eloy; You cant compare humans and animals; God seperated the "kinds" so that they couldn't interbreed.By saying God can do"anything" dosn't cut it1He could make the moon swiss cheese too, dosn't mean He did! Sometimes you have to face reality.
---1st_cliff on 7/25/05

Eloy, where do you get 23 different kinds of animals...where is that scriptural? And what kind of Bible are you quote words I've never seen before.
---Ann5758 on 7/25/05

1st cliff, God can easily make a geep and a catalow, or any sterile creature give birth. Remember Sarah, Abraham's wife was old and sterile. And Abraham was 100 years old when God made them have a baby named Isaac, which means laughter. Because Sarah laughed at the word from the angel saying she would give birth, and when others heard they also laughed. Evenso old crony Sarah who was barren gave birth to laughter, that is Isaac. For with God nothing is impossible.
---Eloy on 7/25/05

Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry

Alan, the ark was 450' x 75'; 23 different kinds of animals (with elephants). "Of birds in their kind, and of beasts in their kind, and of all manner of crawls of the earth in their kind: a pair of every thing will come to you to keep alive. Of all benius beasts take to you seven and seven, the male and his female: and of maligim beasts two and two, the male and his female: Likewise of the birds of the air seven and seven, the male and the female, to save seed upon all the earth. Genesis 6:20; 7:2,3.
---Eloy on 7/25/05

Billy no apology was necessary but thank you anyway. God bless.
---Xanthi on 7/25/05

Alan, it does not say 7 of every says:Gen 7:2 "Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female..." Also, if you compare how many offspring clean animals produce, & how many unclean do, you don't need that many unclean to keep the species, how many baby calves compared to how many baby piggies.
---Ann5758 on 7/24/05

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.