Originally Posted by arnoldo

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gflood.htm

1. The Bible does not say that it must be global. The word which the translators translate "earth" is more often used as "land". In Genesis 6:17"earth" and "ground" are the same word. The choice to translate 'eretz' as the "planet earth" is strictly an interpretation. Arthur Custance (1958, p. 3) points out:

"Assuming that Young's list is exhaustive, actual count shows that the word is translated Earth about 677 times and translated land 1458 times. Moreover, of the 677 occurrences in at least 100 instances the word may be equally, if not more appropriately, rendered land rather than Earth. Whereas in the cases where it is translated Land in the English the instances in which Earth would have been more appropriate are rare. That is to say, the choice of Earth or Land as a translation of the original in any particular instance is a matter of context: and on the whole, if we exclude the account of the Flood, usage elsewhere shows that the context favours the word Land rather than Earth."

Often 2 Peter 2:5 is cited as evidence that the ancient "world" was destroyed an thus the flood must be global. This verse says NIV,

"If he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven other;"

The Greek word which is translated as "world" is kosmos. According to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon,(Thayer 1962, p. 356) the translation in preferred order is: harmonious arrangement or order, ornament, the universe, the earth, the inhabitants of the world, the ungodly multitude, worldly affairs, an aggregate. People act as if the absolutely only way this verse can be interpreted is applying to the earth. Considering the way the rest of the New Testament translates this word as either "worldly affairs", or the "ungodly multitude" why are these not perfectly acceptable translations?

All of the below are acceptable translations.

God destroyed the harmonious order.

God destroyed the earth.

God destroyed the inhabitants of the world. . .

God destroyed the ungodly multitude.

God destroyed the worldly affairs.

1 Peter 3:20 says 8 people were saved in the Flood. In order to argue that this means the Flood was global, one must assume that people were spread all over the earth. This is not at all clear from the Scripture.. .

Conclusion

The Bible does not require a global flood, and the evidence goes against that view. Local flood theories are Biblically acceptable and observationally required.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gflood.htm

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Well, arnoldo has done it again, he has been refuted by his own source. G.R. Morton DOES NOT believe that a regional flood occured in Mesopotamia. Arnoldo's other source Dr. Hugh Ross does believe that the flood occured in Mesopotamia. In an article at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mflood.htm, Morton says "The details of a Mesopotamian Flood do not fit the Scriptural account." He also has a number of scientific arguments against a regional flood in Mesopotamia.

Arnoldo has used Dr. Hugh Ross as a source, and G.R. Morton. Since Ross says that the flood was only in Mesopotamia, and Morton says that the flood was not in Mesopotamia, I request that arnoldo tell us how he can use two sources who disagree with each other, and which source he actually agrees with, and why he agrees with whichever source he agrees with.

Arnoldo's own source also refuted him at the Biblical Criticism and History Forum. Consider the following:

Arnoldo

"FYI, for a more scholarly examination......."

Johnny Skeptic:

"Better yet, for an even more scholarly examination, please read all of Elaine Pagel's and Bart Ehrman's major books."

Arnoldo:

"Both of those individuals support Christianity, try again."

"http://bartdehrman.com/index.htm
"http://www.princeton.edu/religion/pe...?netid=epagels

Johnny Skeptic:

"Now readers, those SAME LINKS show that Pagels and Ehrman DO NOT support Christianity.

In another thread at this forum, arnoldo said:

Arnoldo:

"Just from a quick check on wikepedia there seems to be conflicting “scientific” theories on the origin of life on earth......."

Johnny Skeptic:

"And yet many theists dispute which God exists. In addition, Christians have disputed many issues among themselves for 2,000years.

"One wonders to what extent arnoldo will go to embarrass himself more than he already has."

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

How is a global flood a reasonable possibility? A global flood violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of gravity, and the well-established science of hydrodynamic sorting.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

How would a global flood violate:

(1) second law of thermodynamics,

(2) the law of gravity, and

(3) the well-established science of hydrodynamic sorting.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you not realise that the earth does not contain enough water, either in the atmosphere or sub-terranean, to flood totally itself as described in the Bible?

If every single drop of water from every source was evaporated into the atmosphere and released back to the earth as rain, then that very rain would only refill all the places where the water was first evaporated.

All that would be left would be the same rain clouds that was there originally.

The worlwide flood as described in the Bible is bogus.