Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 80

Thread: The Flood Of Noah ... Global or Local?

  1. #21
    Pastor Bill
    Guest

    Re: The Flood Of Noah ... Global or Local?

    Quote Originally Posted by malachi83 View Post
    Even if non -whites were not on the ark there still would have been non-whites or people of other races around the earth if it was local...
    Exactly, to me the fact that other races survived is proof that it was local, there is no way all the other races evolved on so short a time. And I doubt that Noah rouned up two each of other races, he would have had to travel the entire earth, which was not really possible back then.

  2. #22

    Re: The Flood Of Noah ... Global or Local?

    Would it have been possible for Noah to have migrated out of the area where the flood was to occur? Why spend years building a massive ark when it would have taken a lot less time to simply leave the area? Why gather only the local animals to place on that ark when he could have simply taken them on a 100 mile journey to the other side of the mountains? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm seeking the truth and asking legimate questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pastor Bill View Post
    Exactly, to me the fact that other races survived is proof that it was local, there is no way all the other races evolved on so short a time. And I doubt that Noah rouned up two each of other races, he would have had to travel the entire earth, which was not really possible back then.

  3. #23

    Re: The Flood Of Noah ... Global or Local?

    =malachi83;2394]http://israelitewatchmen.com/archive...s/68-02-28.htm - WEDNESDAY NITE BIBLE STUDY 2-28-68 DR. WESLEY SWIFT


    QUESTION:---Joshua 24:23----"Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood. What does that mean?
    The "other side of the flood" is that time period prior to the flood.

  4. #24
    Obadiah 1:18
    Guest

    Re: The Flood Of Noah ... Global or Local?

    Would it have been possible for Noah to have migrated out of the area where the flood was to occur? Why spend years building a massive ark when it would have taken a lot less time to simply leave the area? Why gather only the local animals to place on that ark when he could have simply taken them on a 100 mile journey to the other side of the mountains? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm seeking the truth and asking legimate questions.
    Because the building of the Ark was a sign of Yahweh's impending judgment on the white race. You have to keep in mind that the construction of the Ark took place over many years and that probably not all the whites who were alive at the time of the commencement of its building had given themselves over to race-mixing, even though they must have eventually. Yahweh always gives His people the opportunity to repent and turn from their sins. Yes, Noah, his family, and the animals could have journeyed the 100 miles to safety, but that wasn't Yahweh's will. Yahweh's will was to demonstrate that the end result of disobedience is death, and the end result of obedience is salvation. Yahweh isn't beholden to what we humans deem logic. He has His own way of doing things, and His Ways are perfect -- even though they may befuddle us at times.

    Isaiah 55:8
    For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

  5. #25

    Re: The Flood Of Noah ... Global or Local?

    I believe that the "other side of the flood" was the time period before the flood. Then there was the flood. Then there was/is this side of the flood which is all the time throughout history after the flood.

    Quote Originally Posted by malachi83 View Post
    So it doesn't refer to while the flood was taking place?

  6. #26

    Re: The Flood Of Noah ... Global or Local?

    Quote Originally Posted by malachi83 View Post
    If it was prior to the flood why not state '' before the flood'' instead?

    Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood
    Because the writer used "the other side of the flood" as a figure of speech to mean "before the flood." Figures of speech are used in the bible often, just like they are used today.

    Take this verse for example:"When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him" (Matthew 2:3). The bible doesn't literally mean "all the people in Jerusalem" here because not every single man, woman, and child in Jerusalem even knew about "these things."

    Another example is in John 3:26, "And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." The writer doesn't literally mean "all men came to John" because we are told that there were many who wouldn't listen to him and wouldn't repent.

    This same logic may hold true for the flood covering "all the earth." Charles Weisman has a good teaching refuting Universalism (I heard it once on Pete Peters' broadcast), which explained that the word "all" in the bible doesn't always mean "all." Makes things tricky, doesn't it? Let's ask the Holy Spirit to bring clarity to these things. He's more than willing to oblige!

  7. #27
    Pastor Bill
    Guest

    Re: The Flood Of Noah ... Global or Local?

    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonJackson View Post
    Would it have been possible for Noah to have migrated out of the area where the flood was to occur? Why spend years building a massive ark when it would have taken a lot less time to simply leave the area? Why gather only the local animals to place on that ark when he could have simply taken them on a 100 mile journey to the other side of the mountains? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm seeking the truth and asking legimate questions.
    Well I'm not saying that local meant only a few square miles was affected, it was more like a couple thousand square miles, it would have took alot more than simply crossing one set of mountains to get away from it. And besides it is what God told him to do, that is why he did it.

  8. #28

    Re: The Flood Of Noah ... Global or Local?

    Most translations use the term "on the other side of the river" or "on the other side of the Euphrates" indicating that the flood of Noah wasn't even a part of the conversation. However, I don't trust those translations. I trust the King James and I believe that it had to do with the flood of Noah. As for the wording of the Bible there are many situations where I might prefer the wording to be one way or another but it is what it is. Take a look at verse 24:14. The same term: "other side of the flood" is used but this time in conjunction with the land of Egypt. Did the local flood encompass the land of Egypt?

    Quote Originally Posted by malachi83 View Post
    If it was prior to the flood why not state '' before the flood'' instead?

    Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood

  9. #29

    Re: The Flood Of Noah ... Global or Local?

    That's a good and reasonable response. I am no longer able to add to anyone's reputations as I am told to spread it around but there isn't anyone left to spread it to LOL. I have several of Charles Weisman's books. He's a scholarly author.

    Quote Originally Posted by DunaMiss View Post
    Because the writer used "the other side of the flood" as a figure of speech to mean "before the flood." Figures of speech are used in the bible often, just like they are used today.

    Take this verse for example:"When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him" (Matthew 2:3). The bible doesn't literally mean "all the people in Jerusalem" here because not every single man, woman, and child in Jerusalem even knew about "these things."

    Another example is in John 3:26, "And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." The writer doesn't literally mean "all men came to John" because we are told that there were many who wouldn't listen to him and wouldn't repent.

    This same logic may hold true for the flood covering "all the earth." Charles Weisman has a good teaching refuting Universalism (I heard it once on Pete Peters' broadcast), which explained that the word "all" in the bible doesn't always mean "all." Makes things tricky, doesn't it? Let's ask the Holy Spirit to bring clarity to these things. He's more than willing to oblige!

  10. #30

    Re: The Flood Of Noah ... Global or Local?

    Do you believe that "clean" animals (cattle, goats, sheep, deer, elk, etc.) existed outside of the area where the local flood took place? The same could be asked of the "unclean" animals. Did pigs, rats, and mice exist elsewhere in the regions not effected by the local flood?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pastor Bill View Post
    Well I'm not saying that local meant only a few square miles was affected, it was more like a couple thousand square miles, it would have took alot more than simply crossing one set of mountains to get away from it. And besides it is what God told him to do, that is why he did it.

Similar Threads

  1. As In The Days Of Noah Thread
    By Erik in forum Current Events & News
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 11-19-2018, 08:14 PM
  2. We Now Know for a Fact that Global Warming is a Lie-
    By Crossman in forum Current Events & News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-17-2016, 12:47 AM
  3. Noah movie is dogma
    By stew88 in forum Current Events & News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-12-2014, 11:14 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •