M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
Because the psalm refers to creation, not the Ark flood. If never again, then the flood must have been local.
(just interpreting posts, not my exegesis, so I could be wrong)
- Status
(just interpreting posts, not my exegesis, so I could be wrong)
J
jeffreedy789
Guest
if that’s what the verse means, then i can see it as an argument for the local flood theory. problem is, i’ve read that verse 100 times, and i’ve never taken it to mean that.
in other words, why do we interpret this verse to mean that ‘never again will they cover the earth’ = ‘the earth won’t be completely flooded’, when genesis makes it pretty clear that it’s talking about the whole earth being flooded? ‘never again will they cover the earth’ can mean alot of things. seriously, think about it. it could even be interpreted to mean that water won’t cover any earth again. that under no circumstances will there be water over earth. this is obviously an incorrect interpretation, or there would be no rivers, seas, oceans, etc.
my point? (that would be nice, jeff) that i think it’s bad interpretation to take an ambiguous verse to mean something that contradicts another part of scripture, whether we suspect that other part to be allegorical or mythical or not.
btw, thanks for the clarification. i honestly didn’t see it.
in other words, why do we interpret this verse to mean that ‘never again will they cover the earth’ = ‘the earth won’t be completely flooded’, when genesis makes it pretty clear that it’s talking about the whole earth being flooded? ‘never again will they cover the earth’ can mean alot of things. seriously, think about it. it could even be interpreted to mean that water won’t cover any earth again. that under no circumstances will there be water over earth. this is obviously an incorrect interpretation, or there would be no rivers, seas, oceans, etc.
my point? (that would be nice, jeff) that i think it’s bad interpretation to take an ambiguous verse to mean something that contradicts another part of scripture, whether we suspect that other part to be allegorical or mythical or not.
btw, thanks for the clarification. i honestly didn’t see it.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:##
People are so concerned with whether the early chapters of Genesis “really happened”, that they miss the literary and theological riches and value of these chapters. Which is a dreadful pity: for, why have a Bible, if one isn’t enriched and built up by it ?Apologetic is secondary to meditation on Scripture, IMHO - the Bible was not given us so that we should tie ourselves in knots about it, but to deepen our communion with God and one another. ##
I’m trying to learn this. I’m trying to read scripture from the perspective of understanding it’e message as opposed to it’s likelyhood of factuality of events. In the later case, it’s difficult to reconcile, in the former, hopefully, it represents what God wants us to know.
I’ll let you know what I think after I read it.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Jeffreed << ‘I understand that such fast continental drift and plate tectonics activity at that rate would have catastrophic effects.’ you do see the humor of that statement, i hope? >>
Yeah, I see the humor. By catastrophic effects though, I didn’t mean a global flood, I meant that Noah, his family, his wooden boat, and all the 2 of each “kind” of animals on that boat, would be crushed to smithereens. I get this from Hugh Ross account of what would happen if you compact the 250,000,000 (million) years of plate tectonic activity into one year of a flood. There are many more problems of course…such as pollution.
As for “how the kangaroos got to Australia.” Good question! They evolved there, and we can deduce that from the similarity of the animals of Australia to those where the continent would have fitted in 250,000,000 years ago before the separation of "Pangea".
For a defense of the “biogeographical” argument for evolution, see this section of Theobald’s article
SUMMARY: Common ancestors originate in a particular geographical location. Thus, the spatial and geographical distribution of species should be consistent with their predicted genealogical relationships. The standard phylogenetic tree predicts that new species must originate close to the older species from which they are derived. Closely related contemporary species should be close geographically, regardless of their habitat or specific adaptations (if not, there should be a good explanation, such as extreme mobility in the case of birds, sea animals, or human intervention).
Examples of present biogeography supporting evolutionary theory are
(1) marsupials (kangaroos, etc) which only inhabit Australia (exceptions such as some South American species and the opossum are explained by continental drift);
(2) conversely, placental mammals are virtually absent on Australia, despite the fact that many would flourish there (humans introduced most of the few placentals found on Australia);
(3) the southern reaches of South America and Africa and all of Australia share lungfishes, ostrich-like birds (ratite birds), and leptodactylid frogs – all of which occur nowhere else;
(4) alligators, some related species of giant salamander, and magnolias only occur in Eastern North America and East Asia (which were once spatially close in the Laurasian continent);
(5) indigenous Cacti (Cactus plant) only inhabit the Americas, while Saharan and Australian vegetation is very distantly related (mostly Euphorbiaceae);
(6) members of the closely related pineapple family inhabit many diverse habitats (such as rainforest, alpine, and desert areas), but only in the American tropics, not African or Asian tropics, etc.
Biogeographic Distribution, a little history
Here is a book on the subject
Phil P
Yeah, I see the humor. By catastrophic effects though, I didn’t mean a global flood, I meant that Noah, his family, his wooden boat, and all the 2 of each “kind” of animals on that boat, would be crushed to smithereens.
I get this from Hugh Ross account of what would happen if you compact the 250,000,000 (million) years of plate tectonic activity into one year of a flood. There are many more problems of course…such as pollution.As for “how the kangaroos got to Australia.” Good question! They evolved there, and we can deduce that from the similarity of the animals of Australia to those where the continent would have fitted in 250,000,000 years ago before the separation of "Pangea".
For a defense of the “biogeographical” argument for evolution, see this section of Theobald’s article
SUMMARY: Common ancestors originate in a particular geographical location. Thus, the spatial and geographical distribution of species should be consistent with their predicted genealogical relationships. The standard phylogenetic tree predicts that new species must originate close to the older species from which they are derived. Closely related contemporary species should be close geographically, regardless of their habitat or specific adaptations (if not, there should be a good explanation, such as extreme mobility in the case of birds, sea animals, or human intervention).
Examples of present biogeography supporting evolutionary theory are
(1) marsupials (kangaroos, etc) which only inhabit Australia (exceptions such as some South American species and the opossum are explained by continental drift);
(2) conversely, placental mammals are virtually absent on Australia, despite the fact that many would flourish there (humans introduced most of the few placentals found on Australia);
(3) the southern reaches of South America and Africa and all of Australia share lungfishes, ostrich-like birds (ratite birds), and leptodactylid frogs – all of which occur nowhere else;
(4) alligators, some related species of giant salamander, and magnolias only occur in Eastern North America and East Asia (which were once spatially close in the Laurasian continent);
(5) indigenous Cacti (Cactus plant) only inhabit the Americas, while Saharan and Australian vegetation is very distantly related (mostly Euphorbiaceae);
(6) members of the closely related pineapple family inhabit many diverse habitats (such as rainforest, alpine, and desert areas), but only in the American tropics, not African or Asian tropics, etc.
Biogeographic Distribution, a little history
Here is a book on the subject
Phil P
W
Writer
Guest
While I believe there was indeed a flood which took place, it would not affect my faith if it were proven somehow otherwise. It is something I am inclined to believe, but it is not exactly fundamental to the faith to believe in a strictly literal sense. That being said, there is a mention of the “Great Flood” in a number of cultural mythologies, as I understand it. That seems to support the belief that something did indeed take place of this nature. In fact, it was a Catholic by the name of J.R.R. Tolkien who brought issues like this up to C.S. Lewis in the fall of 1931. Lewis understood that Christianity represented the “True Myth”, and that the other beliefs were simply a pale reflection of this truth.
B
buffalo
Guest
How come everyone talks around these verses ignoring them? What do they mean?
11 I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth.
15 And I will remember my covenant with you, and with every living soul that beareth flesh: and there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh.
What exactly was God saying here?
11 I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth.
15 And I will remember my covenant with you, and with every living soul that beareth flesh: and there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh.
What exactly was God saying here?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Apres le deluge, la flamme.
S
spauline
Guest
Dear davy39,
I believe that the beast of Revelation is in fact a summary of the entire course of Salvation History (including the Flood), and I have an article that expands on this point if you would like to read it.
In her and her Son,
Scott
S
spauline
Guest
This is just a side note, I know that I have not been a part of this thread, but my position is closer to Phil’s. I believe that when interpreting the texts of Scripture that involve scientific questions, we should consult science to AID in our interpretations.
Anyway, my basic belief is that the Historical Books of the OT, i.e. Genesis through Maccabbees, is all HISTORY, that, essentially, Abraham through Maccabees is LITERAL history, and that Genesis 1-11 is basically ALLEGORICAL history, i.e., not pure parable, as with a modernist heretic, but actual history, although in a NON-literal sense. Hence, I could care less whether the Flood was global or local, in either case, I believe there really was a Flood, so I would say this RCIA director is liberal heretic. And I’m not an expert, but from a cursory observation, it seems that Phil’s argument is reasonable, and that therefore the flood was only local because maybe man was still inhabiting only the local area in the middle portion of the world at that time.
Also, I believe that the Gospels and Acts are literal history, and that the NT Apocalypses outline the remainder of history following the Apostles’ death until the end of the world. This, I believe, is a balanced approach to the subject of the apocalypses, keeping me from the extremes of the liberals and the Fundies. Specifically, the Liberals believe the NT apocalypses only address the beginning of Church history, the Fundies believe they only address the very end of Church history, and I believe, while not denying these interpretations on a minor level, that the intended scope of the prophecies was for the major WHOLE of Church history.
continued…
Anyway, my basic belief is that the Historical Books of the OT, i.e. Genesis through Maccabbees, is all HISTORY, that, essentially, Abraham through Maccabees is LITERAL history, and that Genesis 1-11 is basically ALLEGORICAL history, i.e., not pure parable, as with a modernist heretic, but actual history, although in a NON-literal sense. Hence, I could care less whether the Flood was global or local, in either case, I believe there really was a Flood, so I would say this RCIA director is liberal heretic. And I’m not an expert, but from a cursory observation, it seems that Phil’s argument is reasonable, and that therefore the flood was only local because maybe man was still inhabiting only the local area in the middle portion of the world at that time.
Also, I believe that the Gospels and Acts are literal history, and that the NT Apocalypses outline the remainder of history following the Apostles’ death until the end of the world. This, I believe, is a balanced approach to the subject of the apocalypses, keeping me from the extremes of the liberals and the Fundies. Specifically, the Liberals believe the NT apocalypses only address the beginning of Church history, the Fundies believe they only address the very end of Church history, and I believe, while not denying these interpretations on a minor level, that the intended scope of the prophecies was for the major WHOLE of Church history.
continued…
S
spauline
Guest
That being said, I believe the beast indirectly addresses the question of the historical validity of the Scriptures. Some ECF’s, as per the Douhay Bible footnotes, saw the beast as an image of the entire scope of history, symbolizing the “entire company of infidels, persecutors, and enemies of the People of God, from the beginning until the end of the world.”
Building on this, I see the beast outlining the very mystery of iniquity itself. St. Paul tells us in 2 Thess. 2 that at the time of THE antichrist, the Church will reveal the “mystery of iniquity.” Clearly, in this Creation, “iniquity” has been at work since the Fall. Hence, the Church’s dogma would have to somehow summarize the entire progress of Salvation History, from the Fall the end of the world. This, I believe, could easily be done through examining the beast and the dragon of Revelation. There is an immediate parallel between the dragon and the beast: both have seven heads and ten horns. Hence, both images symbolize satanic activity in deception and sinful man’s cooperation with these deceptions for the whole of human history. In that vein, the seven heads of the beast symbolize the eight great epochs of evil resistance to the Divine Plan for Redemption, themselves being partitioned by the great Salvific Acts of God in the course of the Redemption of the human race.
continued…
Building on this, I see the beast outlining the very mystery of iniquity itself. St. Paul tells us in 2 Thess. 2 that at the time of THE antichrist, the Church will reveal the “mystery of iniquity.” Clearly, in this Creation, “iniquity” has been at work since the Fall. Hence, the Church’s dogma would have to somehow summarize the entire progress of Salvation History, from the Fall the end of the world. This, I believe, could easily be done through examining the beast and the dragon of Revelation. There is an immediate parallel between the dragon and the beast: both have seven heads and ten horns. Hence, both images symbolize satanic activity in deception and sinful man’s cooperation with these deceptions for the whole of human history. In that vein, the seven heads of the beast symbolize the eight great epochs of evil resistance to the Divine Plan for Redemption, themselves being partitioned by the great Salvific Acts of God in the course of the Redemption of the human race.
continued…
S
spauline
Guest
Here is the outline of this alternating trial-salvation sequence:
**
**
]Creation*
]The Fall and Pre-Flood Corruption
]The Flood
]The Tower of Babel
]The Confounding of Languages at Babel and the Calling of Abraham
]Egypt’s Enslavement of the Hebrews
]The Exodus
]Israel Falls Away / Chastisement: Babylonian Exile***
]Israel Returns to God and their Home Land********
]OT Antichrist: Antiochus and Maccabbees****
]The First Coming of Christ
]Pagan Rome Persecutes
]Western Civilization Converts (Christendom)*
]The Minor Apostasy / Conditional Chastisement***
]The Millennium: Western Civ Returns to God / Age of Peace******
]NT Antichrist: Great Apostasy and Tribulation**
]The Second* Coming of Christ / New Creation**
**Extracting the eras of sin from the outline, we get exactly eight major stages of sinful resistance:
**
]The Fall and Pre-Flood Corruption
]The Tower of Babel
]Egypt’s Enslavement of the Hebrews
]Israel Falls Away / Chastisement: Babylonian Exile*
]OT Antichrist: Antiochus and Maccabbees
*]Pagan Rome Persecutes
]Western Civ Falls Away / Conditional Chastisement
]NT Antichrist: Great Apostasy and Tribulation
**continued…
S
spauline
Guest
Applying these eight stages to the explanatory delineation of the heads of the beast in Revelation 17:9-11, we have the following correlation:
"Five have fallen:" St. John is writing most likely somewhere between 65 A.D. and 98 A.D. Hence, as of his time, the current stage is VI, Pagan Rome. Then, truly, “five [stages] have fallen:”
**
**
"Five have fallen:" St. John is writing most likely somewhere between 65 A.D. and 98 A.D. Hence, as of his time, the current stage is VI, Pagan Rome. Then, truly, “five [stages] have fallen:”
**
**
]The Fall and Pre-Flood Corruption*****
]The Tower of Babel***
]Egypt’s Enslavement of the Hebrews***
]Israel Falls Away / Chastisement: Babylonian Exile****
]OT Antichrist: Antiochus and Maccabbees
**“One is:” Clearly, as of St. John’s time, Pagan Rome:
**- Pagan Rome Persecutes**
**- Minor Apostasy / Conditional Chastisement**
8. NT Antichrist: Great Apostasy and Tribulation
**
Expanding on similar theology, the Church could interpret these verses in a way so as to “dogmatize” history, forever silencing the liberal scholars who doubt so much of the historicity of the OT and Church.
GB,
Scott
ps, I have an article that further expands on this if anyone is interested.
- Status