Gen. 9:11 // Noah's covenant and world flood theory

[OneEternalSonata]

"And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. "

This verse struck me differently, tonight. Especially, neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Earth= ארץ" 'erets: From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world." (Strong's Hebrew Numbers)

EDIT: I see where my view isn't clarified by the Hebrew. ~~

Edited December 14, 2009 by OneEternalSonata

[Justice]

Here is evidence that it included America (either North or North and South, depending how you want to see it):

Ether 13:

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

I believe your interpretation of the scripture you posted is correct. I believe there was one land mass before the flood.

[deseretgov]

But that wouldn't make sense. If the flood only applied to a small area of land. Then God's promise to never destroy the earth by a flood would mean God promised never to destroy an undetermined area of land by flood. We know this isn't true because floods happen all the time. This would make God's promise false.

[Justice]

But that wouldn't make sense. If the flood only applied to a small area of land. Then God's promise to never destroy the earth by a flood would mean God promised never to destroy an undetermined area of land by flood. We know this isn't true because floods happen all the time. This would make God's promise false.

My thoughts exactly.

[Maxel]

But that wouldn't make sense. If the flood only applied to a small area of land. Then God's promise to never destroy the earth by a flood would mean God promised never to destroy an undetermined area of land by flood. We know this isn't true because floods happen all the time. This would make God's promise false.

For the sake of argument, I'd say this statement isn't technically accurate. It's very possible, assuming Noah's flood was a localized event, that the area hasn't been flooded since. Although floods do occur all over the earth, that doesn't mean that every inch of the earth has been flooded since the days of Noah.

But for the record, I support your conclusion deseret, that the flood was worldwide.

[Justice]

For the sake of argument, I'd say this statement isn't technically accurate. It's very possible, assuming Noah's flood was a localized event, that the area hasn't been flooded since. Although floods do occur all over the earth, that doesn't mean that every inch of the earth has been flooded since the days of Noah.

I don't think if the flood was localized that that means the Lord's promise should be extended to non-localized flooding only. It doesn't mean that since only part of the land was covered and part of the people were destroyed, that to break His promise another flood (or floods) had to cover the whole earth a little at a time.

I do think that there are lessons to be learned from how the Lord had people make boats of sanctuary to protect them from "floods" and "many waters." If you look at the Jaredite account the Lord and the brother of Jared both call the water "floods" at times, even though we typically think of them crossing an ocean.

So, there are terms we need to understand before we can reach an accurate conclusion. But, other than the argument "it's impossible to get enough water to cover the mountains," there really is nothing in the scriptures to say that the flood was not global. There are many possibile ways the Lord could have produced enough water to cover the earth.

[Snow]

I believe there was one land mass before the flood.

You are correct. There were, at various times during earth's 4.6 billion year history, single lass masses, the most recent one being called Pangaea.

However, Pangaea broke up into separate land masses hundreds of millions of years ago.

At the time of the flood, the earth was NOT one land mass.

[Snow]

But that wouldn't make sense. If the flood only applied to a small area of land. Then God's promise to never destroy the earth by a flood would mean God promised never to destroy an undetermined area of land by flood. We know this isn't true because floods happen all the time. This would make God's promise false.

NO - it would make the anonymous account found in Genesis to be less than historically and factually accurate and complete.

Sheeze.

[pam]

But that wouldn't make sense. If the flood only applied to a small area of land. Then God's promise to never destroy the earth by a flood would mean God promised never to destroy an undetermined area of land by flood. We know this isn't true because floods happen all the time. This would make God's promise false.

My question is..how would this make God's promise false? If going by your statement that would mean that God causes ALL floods to happen. I don't believe this.

[prisonchaplain]

The larger picture is that God bless obedience and curses disobedience. Whether the flood was truly global or confined to "the known world," the lesson is clear--let's please God, and be thankful He will not bring this particular curse upon us again.

Edited December 13, 2009 by pam
flood not food :)

[Justice]

You are correct. There were, at various times during earth's 4.6 billion year history, single lass masses, the most recent one being called Pangaea.

However, Pangaea broke up into separate land masses hundreds of millions of years ago.

At the time of the flood, the earth was NOT one land mass.

I know what science says about this, that the land masses are moving at a certain rate per year and can therefore be projected back to a time when they were joined. However, I believe they separated a great distance at once during the flood, and that makes it impossible to use the current movement formula to project it backward.

What proof do I have? None. Heck, there's even very little evidence.

But, possibly? Certainly.

[Snow]

I know what science says about this, that the land masses are moving at a certain rate per year and can therefore be projected back to a time when they were joined. However, I believe they separated a great distance at once during the flood, and that makes it impossible to use the current movement formula to project it backward.

What proof do I have? None. Heck, there's even very little evidence.

But, possibly? Certainly.

This is perhaps the most frustrating thing for me in religion - the absence of critical thinking.

People create ideas for no good reason and then believe those ideas when the ideas are void of critical thought... and in this case if one asks, okay - how did it happen, the "answer" comes... magic. It all happened by magic.

It contradicts a primary tenet of the gospel, negating what we understand to be the importance or intelligence, light and knowledge.

[deseretgov]

My question is..how would this make God's promise false? If going by your statement that would mean that God causes ALL floods to happen. I don't believe this.

Hmm. I believe God is control of all things except for those things that have agency.

This is perhaps the most frustrating thing for me in religion - the absence of critical thinking.

People create ideas for no good reason and then believe those ideas when the ideas are void of critical thought... and in this case if one asks, okay - how did it happen, the "answer" comes... magic. It all happened by magic.

It contradicts a primary tenet of the gospel, negating what we understand to be the importance or intelligence, light and knowledge.

So you are saying that if we posessed critical thinking skills we would arive at the same conclusions that most scientists have.

[prisonchaplain]

I know what science says about this, that the land masses are moving at a certain rate per year and can therefore be projected back to a time when they were joined. However, I believe they separated a great distance at once during the flood, and that makes it impossible to use the current movement formula to project it backward.

What proof do I have? None. Heck, there's even very little evidence.

But, possibly? Certainly.

There are those who agree with you: Fish Studies Answer Flood Question Young Earth Creationists are a small minority in the scientific community. They, and their more moderate cousins, the Intelligent Design people (Intelligent Design), have a hard time getting an objective hearing from Darwinists. But their out there, for those interested.

Edited December 13, 2009 by prisonchaplain
add link

[Snow]

So you are saying that if we posessed critical thinking skills we would arive at the same conclusions that most scientists have.

I am saying that any rational, intelligent person who thoughtfully considers known facts and evidences would not arrive at the conclusion that the the earth was one single land mass 4-5 thousand years ago.

In order to believe that it was one land mass, one must abandon reason, evidence and fact, and bury the critical mind in a sea of magic... without any good reason for doing so.

[pam]

Hmm. I believe God is control of all things except for those things that have agency.

So you are saying that if we posessed critical thinking skills we would arive at the same conclusions that most scientists have.

Interesting..now looking at the flood in New Orleans, I was always with the understanding that New Orleans was flooded due to levee failures. I didn't realize that God caused New Orleans to be flooded causing numerous deaths and thousands to be homeless.

[Snow]

There are those who agree with you: Fish Studies Answer Flood Question Young Earth Creationists are a small minority in the scientific community. They, and their more moderate cousins, the Intelligent Design people (Intelligent Design), have a hard time getting an objective hearing from Darwinists. But their out there, for those interested.

Your post implies that creation and ID proponents have some legitimate arguments that are not objectively considered.

Do you have legitimate, unbiased source for such a thought?

[deseretgov]

I am saying that any rational, intelligent person who thoughtfully considers known facts and evidences would not arrive at the conclusion that the the earth was one single land mass 4-5 thousand years ago.

In order to believe that it was one land mass, one must abandon reason, evidence and fact, and bury the critical mind in a sea of magic... without any good reason for doing so.

So please present the reason, evidence, and fact that has been abandoned.

Interesting..now looking at the flood in New Orleans, I was always with the understanding that New Orleans was flooded due to levee failures. I didn't realize that God caused New Orleans to be flooded causing numerous deaths and thousands to be homeless.

So God doesn't control the elements that make up the levees and the elements of water?

[pam]

Whether he controls the elements or not..he doesn't control the making or breaking of those levees that failed.

[deseretgov]

Whether he controls the elements or not..he doesn't control the making or breaking of those levees that failed.

He allowed humanity to move the elements the built the Levees did he not? He allowed those elements to remain in their position after they were made into the levee did he not? When the water was breaking through he allowed those elements to be moved out of the way did he not?

If He didn't allow the elements to made into levees then either they would not have been built or mankind is more powerful than God. Since they were built the only reasonable conclusion we can draw is that mankind would have been more powerful than God. Thus you are saying God is weak.

If He didn't want the elements to remain in their places then the levees could not have been built as they would have quickly fallen apart. But since they did stand for a time then the elements would be more powerful than God meaning God would have been too weak to move them.

If He didn't want the levees to break apart then it means water elements are more powerful than God.

If God doesn't have controlover the elements then he is still weak becuse He cannot controlsuch a basic things. Humans would have more power than God.

So either way any conlcusion, other than God controls the elements and allowed those things to be done with those elements, says God is weak, or doesn't care. Either conclusion is inconsistent with our knowledge of God found in the scriptures.

[Snow]

So please present the reason, evidence, and fact that has been abandoned.

If you are unfamiliar with geology, take a class. I have no interest in educating you.

[pam]

That's doesn't entirely make sense to me. Didn't God also say he would never scourge the earth by a flood again? So if God did in fact say that..he wouldn't have caused the flood in New Orleans. It would have then had to have been because of fault of a man made item such as the levees in New Orleans.

[Justice]

This is perhaps the most frustrating thing for me in religion - the absence of critical thinking.

People create ideas for no good reason and then believe those ideas when the ideas are void of critical thought... and in this case if one asks, okay - how did it happen, the "answer" comes... magic. It all happened by magic.

It contradicts a primary tenet of the gospel, negating what we understand to be the importance or intelligence, light and knowledge.

I don't think so. I don't believe the way you do. I take some things on faith. It's that simple.

The Bible says and describes a global flood. There is evidence of a global flood in the Book of Mormon. I believe the flood was global, I don't havge time to quote all the verses right now, but I will if needed.

I believe God can do things science can't explain, with our limited understanding.

[Snow]

I don't think so. I don't believe the way you do. I take some things on faith. It's that simple.

The Bible says and describes a global flood. There is evidence of a global flood in the Book of Mormon. I believe the flood was global, I don't havge time to quote all the verses right now, but I will if needed.

I believe God can do things science can't explain, with our limited understanding.

A belief in something that is not correct isn't faith. It's just a wrong idea in your head.

If you think that the account found in Ether is actual evidence of a flood as described in the Bible (worldwide - up to the tops of the mountains), then I'll simply say that you don't understand the difference between evidence and heresay.

[prisonchaplain]

Your post implies that creation and ID proponents have some legitimate arguments that are not objectively considered.

Do you have legitimate, unbiased source for such a thought?

I'm not sure if there is such a thing. I don't have them. My sources are incredibly biased, and rooted in a sense of victimhood. Then again, I still wonder if the human impact on global warming is that signficant. :)