Originally posted by apathistYou must not have viewed the video. It was obviously a worldwide flood, because a series of local floods at different parts of the world does not work.
Worldwide? No. There have been catastrophic events that could lead to such myths, though.
I'm bemused by the human tendancy to uncritically buy into myth and legend. Suspect one day it'll be listed as a mental health disorder.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsRJ, if the definition of "the world" should change in another, say 500 years to include the moon where maybe people live, mars where maybe people live, moons of another planet like mars where people possibly may live, how should we understand a "world wide flood" then ?
You must not have viewed the video. It was obviously a worldwide flood, because a series of local floods at different parts of the world does not work.
The Instructor
When people read the Bible say 500 years from now, should they then understand your expression of "the Worldwide Flood" to include all these places ?
Will future fundamentalists insist that waters covering the tops of all mountains must include mountains on mars, on the moon, on those moons around mars ?
If someone argues that that expression in Genesis means the mountains just on the planet earth, would they be not accepting the literal text ? It says all the mountains under heaven were covered.
Originally posted by sonshipOf course, we must consider what the people knew as making up the world of their time. But we must also consider the explanation of this flood and what it is reported to have done when we evaluate what is meant by the flood. So the idea of this was just a local flood covering only a certain area of the globe does not make sense from the description.
RJ, if the definition of "the world" should change in another, say 500 years to include the moon where maybe people live, mars where maybe people live, moons of another planet like mars where people possibly may live, how should we understand a "world wide flood" then ?
When people read the Bible say 500 years from now, should they then understand your y be not accepting the literal text ? It says all the mountains under heaven were covered.
It would also not make sense to include Mars or any moons.
The Instructor
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYour answer seems to say two things.
Of course, we must consider what the people knew as making up the world of their time. But we must also consider the explanation of this flood and what it is reported to have done when we evaluate what is meant by the flood. So the idea of this was just a local flood covering only a certain area of the globe does not make sense from the description.
It would also not make sense to include Mars or any moons.
The Instructor
You make a move towards "the world" being what was considered the world by the people of that time. Then you say if that was less that what we today would consider the world it doesn't make sense.
It appears that you're giving me a kind of vague "yes and no" answer, unless I just don't understand you.
Your title "Worldwide Flood" - do you mean "world wide" to the geographic senses of 21rst century people or "worldwide flood" to the people of many thousands of years ago, whose "world" we simply are not totally aware of today ?
Originally posted by sonshipWell, obviously it is said to have covered the earth of that day, which according to the Holy Bible had lower mountains than those today.
Your answer seems to say two things.
You make a move towards "the world" being what was considered the world by the people of that time. Then you say if that was less that what we today would consider the world it doesn't make sense.
It appears that you're giving me a kind of vague "yes and no" answer, unless I just don't understand you.
Your ...[text shortened]... thousands of years ago, whose "world" we simply are not totally aware of today ?
The Instructor