Local Flood Theory Calls God An Oath Breaker!

[Pard]

If you believe in a localized flood, as opposed to a global flood, than you are calling God a liar and an oath breaker.

The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.

(Gen 8:21 NAU)

Now for me this is a VERY easy passage to understand. God will never again call upon a flood to cover the ENTIRE world in water.

If you believe in a local flood, as opposed to a global one, then you must also believe God was saying He would never again call upon a flood to cover a PART of the world in water.

There are floods all the time all around the world. So I cannot see how a local flood theory would lead to anything but God being called a liar. Of course we have to set aside the Biblical evidence for a local flood theory to even exist, so right there God is being called a liar, that or you have to admit the Bible is just a bunch of words by men.

 

[jasoncran]

all i ask that you post the ot words for that so we can look at the original language used by the writers.

and i agree with that stament.

 

[Caroline H]

Jason he posted the Scripture passage and verse, what do you mean you want him to post the OT words? Do you want Hebrew?

 

[Pard]

וַיָּ֣רַח יְהוָה֘ אֶת־רֵ֣יחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ֒ וַיֹּ֙אמֶר יְהוָ֜ה אֶל־לִבּ֗וֹ לֹֽא־אֹ֠סִף לְקַלֵּ֙ל ע֤וֹד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ בַּעֲב֣וּר הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֠י יֵ֣צֶר לֵ֧ב הָאָדָ֛ם רַ֖ע מִנְּעֻרָ֑יו וְלֹֽא־אֹסִ֥ף ע֛וֹד לְהַכּ֥וֹת אֶת־כָּל־חַ֖י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשִֽׂיתִי׃

(Gen 8:21 WTT)

Is that what you want Jason? :

Here is God's promise to Noah,

Yes, I am confirming my covenant with you. Never again will floodwaters kill all living creatures; never again will a flood destroy the earth."

(Gen 9:11 NLT)

 

[jasoncran]

with the word the for the land eritz being defined.

that to some means this land.

can you eleborate?

 

[Pard]

Oh, I think I get it. Would Strong's numbers suffice? Or do you want me to define all the words?

 

[jasoncran]

just the word for earth(eritz)

and go from there.

 

[Caroline H]

Jason, do you have a Strongs? Why don't you look it up and see what it means. I'm not trying to be rude, so forgive me if this is coming across that way, that isn't my intention. It's just that I think that if you have a disagreement with his interpretation it is incumbent upon you, not him, to expand on what he has written.

 

[jasoncran]

actually i am in agreement, but i know that counter argument will attack that word.

with barb, i have debated that word with him all the time. and no i dont have a strongs.

 

[Pard]

The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground <0127> on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.

(Gen 8:21 NAU)

<0127> adamah (9c)
Meaning: ground, land
Origin: from the same as 120
Usage: country(1), dirt(1), dust(3), earth(32), farming*(1), fields(1), ground(64), land(112), lands(2), soil(7).

Yes, I am confirming my covenant with you. Never again will floodwaters kill all living creatures; never again will a flood destroy the earth <0776>."

(Gen 9:11 NLT)

<0776> erets (75d)
Meaning: earth, land
Origin: a prim. root
Usage: common(1), countries(15), countries and their lands(1), country(44), countryside(1), distance*(3), dust(1), earth(655), earth the ground(1), earth's(1), fail*(1), floor(1), ground(119), land(1581), lands(57), lands have their land(2), open(1), other*(2), piece(1), plateau*(1), region(1), territories(1), wild(1), world(3).

 

[Caroline H]

actually i am in agreement, but i know that counter argument will attack that word.

with barb, i have debated that word with him all the time. and no i dont have a strongs.

Well then I say let them break out their concordance if they feel the need to. He shouldn't have to anticipate everyone's counter argument and do their work for them. At least I wouldn't

 

[Pard]

Well then I say let them break out their concordance if they feel the need to. He shouldn't have to anticipate everyone's counter argument and do their work for them. At least I wouldn't

I don't mind. Anything to bring people closer to seeing God's Word as the clear truth that it is!

 

[jasoncran]

i know that, but i did want also see that the word for eritz and what it could mean and i see another word there.

adamah.

hard to deny that word for adamah when it plainly is translated earth.

 

[seekandlisten]

If you believe in a localized flood, as opposed to a global flood, than you are calling God a liar and an oath breaker.

It's not a matter of belief, it's accepting what the evidence tells us and there is no evidence of a worldwide flood or mass extinction in the last 6,000 years.

What was 'God's oath'? It says nothing of localized floods but speaks of not destroying every living thing. We seem to be on track to take care of that ourselves when you look around at the world today anyways.

If you believe in a local flood, as opposed to a global one, then you must also believe God was saying He would never again call upon a flood to cover a PART of the world in water.

Instead of guessing what one MUST believe why not try asking a few questions of those that believe different and weighing in the responses against what we can observe and come to a rational conclusion.

I cannot see how a local flood theory would lead to anything but God being called a liar.

Obviously some do not come to that conclusion so maybe trying to understand how and why might point to something you never took into consideration before. Barbarian would be a good one to ask on this site as he seems to have no problem reconciling the Bible with the evidence we have to look at.

Of course we have to set aside the Biblical evidence for a local flood theory to even exist, so right there God is being called a liar, that or you have to admit the Bible is just a bunch of words by men.

While I personally don't think the Creator of this world authored any books, many do believe the Bible to be the Word of God and are able to view it without have to disregard evidence that contradicts one's interpretation of the Bible.

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

actually barb makes the mistake of not looking at proper logical wording.

if we look at evidence for everything then the cross and the lords resurection cant be confirmed or denied as no scientist can test that. so if we want "proof" then we shalnt have it.

Does science assume something to be so, without testing it?
the lord resurecction isnt testable. WE take that by faith,yet no fool would assume that if we crucify a man he would live again.

if i shoot you you will die and not come back to life.

yet with the cross its somehow not debateable like the flood?

i think not. where would men lie or not know?

if we cant trust the the wording of the bible then how do we really know that the lord did rise from the dead?

guess and hope? or by faith.

i work by the later.

it all comes to down that, we can either accept how the bible is written or not.

it doenst leave much to wiggle with words. He meant all life. if it what a local event then why such a massive boat, after all surely those animals would live elsewhere(the common ones such as chickens, dogs,cats, etc)

yet what does the bible say.

 

[coffeeelover]

When did this world wide flood happen? How could the world be repopulated with all the different races languages and cultures in only a couple thousand years if everyone came from Noahs family. Why would God murder all those innocent people all over the world. Drowning is a terrifying way to die. I wonder if the toddlers who saw the water rising around them, and struggled to and suffered the agony of drowning to death realized that God is all love and they deserved just what they got. Take that toddler your death by drowning is a just Gods righteous judgment.

I hope you all picked up my sarcasm. Fact is the Flood story is a myth.

 

[Pard]

CL,

Please do not bring up the flood debate here, stick the OP. Thank you.

 

[coffeeelover]

CL,

Please do not bring up the flood debate here, stick the OP. Thank you.

? The OP is about the flood.

 

[Pard]

I suggest you re-read the OP. The thread is about a very specific part of the Flood. Your post could have been thrown into any flood topic. Either address the OP or hit the road.

 

[coffeeelover]

I suggest you re-read the OP. The thread is about a very specific part of the Flood. Your post could have been thrown into any flood topic. Either address the OP or hit the road.

What part? You say either believe in a world wide flood or your calling God a liar. Please... not true at all. There was no world wide flood 4000 years ago, as that is impossible. God didn't murder millions of babies in an agonizing death by drowning. we have unbroken history dating back further than when this world wide apocalypse supposedly occurred. It is a myth.

Perhaps there was a local flood and some people thought is was a judgment by God. People during that time used to think a lot of silly things that we know not to be true. They thought thunder was God being angry. Now we know better.