John Kesler

In addition to the verses that Anat quoted above, which show that a worldwide event is in view, I'll add Genesis 6:17:

Also, consider Genesis 9:15-16:


1) These verses indicate that God destroyed "all flesh," which is incompatible with a local flood.

2) If you argue that "all" doesn't really mean "all," then God has broken his promise, because there have been many local floods since Noah's flood.

Additionally, have you wondered why God would command Noah to build a huge boat and stock it with animals and provisions if only a local area would be flooded? Why not just tell Noah and his family to migrate to the area that wouldn't get flooded?

Berggy

I acknowledge that all of those verses are completely valid. However, they are all in context of Genesis 5:1. Genesis 5:1 defines the context of the Flood of Noah, for you can only have a world-wide flood if you believe that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, which can be easily proven that they were not, which means that Adam and Eve were a specific people, with a specific lineage, which means that the Flood of Noah affected Noah's people and the area around where they were.

I have never really wondered about that, because I really dont think its relevant. It happened the way it happened. Hypothetical situations are not really my concern.

Anat

I don't see the problem, Breggy, considering that there were also the generations of the heavens and the earth.

I don't worry about how it happened since it did not. I want to see what the authors are telling their intended audience. And at least one of the authors does consider Adam and Eve to have been the first people on the earth and the progenitors of all humanity.

Berggy

If you believe that the Bible, in any part, says that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, then lets have a formal debate. I contend, as with the minute evidence that I have shown thus far, that the Bible clears states that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth and because of that, the flood of Noah, by default and by result and/or conclusion, could not have been world-wide.

Are you up for it?

Anat

I don't do formal debates. Too much time for too little benefit. We'd have to go into authorship, how many authors, how many independent or semi-independent sources there were, etc. But regardless of Adam and Eve, the flood cycle stories repeatedly state that all living beings (not just humans) perished. The flood is a reversal of the creation, followed by a recreation. So tell me how the possible existence of a non-Adamic human lineage demands or even supports the idea that the Noachic flood was non-global?

John Kesler

How does believing that Adam and Eve weren't the first people change the meaning of "all," as in "all flesh"? You didn't answer my point about Genesis 9:15-16. If the flood was regional, then of what relevance is God's promise to never again "destroy all flesh" with a flood? "All" flesh has been destroyed many times with regional floods.

Paul apparently thought that Adam was the first man:

Also note that according to Genesis 3:20, Adam "named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living."

Berggy

Genesis 9:15-16 speaks of Noah and the animals that were within the ark "WITH" Noah as stated by verse 12. If Noah and the animals were the only animals left on the entire planet, then there would be no need for the specification here.

Even more so, the specification explicelty shows that the flood had to be regional, for it dealt with only Noah and his people and the specific animals that were brought onto the ark.

This passage would indeed seem to show me that I am wrong, but I say that Paul was speaking in context of Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth, but were specific people of a specific race with a specific lineage, which were created last in the Genesis account and that there were human being being created before him.

Yes, the mother of her particular race, in context. Now, I can just imagine the thoughts running through your head when the topic of "race" comes up. However, I wouldnt mind having a debate concerning this on the formal debates sections on the forums.

If you are so inclined to find out the reasons as to why I say that Adam and Eve were a specific race and that they werent the first people created by God on this earth, then lets have a debate about it. Im sure that you will, at the very least, find it quite interesting

Anat

Huh??!! verse 12 "And God said: 'This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:" - it does not make a distiction between the animals that were with Noah and some other animals elsewhere, but includes the animals with the humans in the covenant.

Of course you do not address the repeated use of 'all' 'every' and so on for describing the victims of the flood.

Regarding the A&E stuff, I suppose you would want to base it on an attempt to reconcile the creation of humans in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2. If that is the case, you can save yourself the keystrokes. These are two independent creation accounts, by different authors, probably from different times. In one unnamed humans of both sexes are created after the creation of plantlife and non-human animals, in the other a man, later named Adam (though it is hard to tell from the Hebrew where the naming takes place, since man and Adam are the same word), is created, then plantlife, then animals, then a woman, who is later named Eve. In this version of the creation account these are the first humans.

The two stories were placed together, but there is no reason to reconcile them, just like there is no reason to reconcile the various Greek accounts on the creation of humans.

John Kesler

You are so hung up on your "preadamic races" theory that you wave off numerous verses in the OT and NT that conflict with this view. Just as you do with this comment about Genesis 3:20:


That's okay. I've seen enough of your eisegesis in this thread, and I'm already familiar with British-Israelism, Christian Identity, "seedline" doctrine, gap theory, etc. If I had to guess, I'd say you like Arnold Murray, though there are various proponents of the "preadamic races" doctrine.

Berggy

Oh really? Then lets have a "formal debate" about it. All your sayings here are nothing but here-say, opinion, and assumption. Im willing to debate you and prove what I say to be true - can you say the same?

You've seen enough of it, but are not willing to step up to the plate to defend your position concerning this in a formal debate environment? Ah, I see. That only shows that you cannot defend your position and are willing to spout much out of your mouth in order to make those who you disagree with to look like a fool/idiot/liar.

Your choice