Ancient Chinese History in Light of the Book of Genesis



By Hieromonk Damascene

Note: This is a three- part article submitted by Hieromonk Damascene. Fr. Damascene, from the St. Herman of Alaska Monastery in Platina, California, recently completed a trip to China. (Please see “OMHKSEA News” later in the June 2004 issue.)

1. The Chinese Border Sacrifice:
The Earliest Chinese
Theology and Worship of God

In looking at the Chinese history in light of the Book of Genesis, it will be helpful to look first at the earliest known religion in China. Later, we will see how this ancient religion fits in with the Biblical account of ancient history.
The earliest account of religious worship in China is found in the Shu Jing (Book of History of Book of Documents), the oldest Chinese historical source. This book records that in the year 2230 B.C., the Emperor Shun “sacrificed to Shangdi.” That is, he sacrificed to the supreme God of the ancient Chinese, Shangdi meaning Supreme Ruler. This ceremony came to be known as the “Border Sacrifice,” because at the summer solstice and Emperor took part in ceremonies to the earth on the northern border of the country, and at the winter solstice he offered a sacrifice to heaven on the southern border.
The Chinese have been called one of the most history-conscious and tradition-conscious peoples of the world. This is seen in many aspects of Chinese culture. Perhaps it is seen most of all in this very Border Sacrifice which the Emperor performed twice a year. This ceremony, which goes back at least to 2230 B.C. was continued in China for over four thousand years, up until the fall of the Manchus in A. D. 1911. Even though the people gradually lost an understanding of what the ceremony was all about, and Shangdi was obscured behind all kinds of pagan deities in China, nevertheless the worship of the one God, Shangdi, was continued faithfully by the Emperor up into modern times.
The oldest text of the Border Sacrifice that we have dates from the Ming Dynasty. It is the exact text of the ceremony that was performed in A. D. 1538, which was based on the existing ancient records of the original rituals. Let us look at portions of the recitation script that the Emperor used

Above: The Circular Mound Altar of the Temple of Heaven
in Beijing, built in A. D. 1420, where the Emperor
would offer sacrifice. Temple of Heaven Photo and caption
courtesy of Hieromonk Damascene

The Emperor, as the high priest, was the only one to participate in the service. The ceremony began: “Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark. The five elements [planets] had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and the moon to shine. In the midst thereof there existed neither forms for sound. Thou, O spiritual Sovereign, camest forth in Thy presidency, and first didst divide the grosser parts from the purer. Thou madest heaven; Thou madest earth; Thou madest man. All things with their reproductive power got their being.” This recitation praising Shangdi as Creator of heaven and earth sounds surprisingly like the first chapter of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Genesis 1: 1- 2).
So, in the earliest records of Chinese religion, we see that the people worshiped One God, Who was Creator of all. We also see that the original people of China looked at Shangdi with a sense of love and a filial feeling. The Emperor continued his prayer: “Thou hast vouchsafed, O Di, to hear us, for Thou regardest us as a Father. I, Thy child, dull and unenlightened, am unable to show forth my dutiful feelings.”
As the ceremony concludes, Shangdi is praised for His loving kindness: “Thy sovereign goodness is infinite. As a potter, Thou hast made all living things. Thy sovereign goodness is infinite. Great and small are sheltered [by Thee]. As engraven on the heart of Thy poor servant is the sense of Thy goodness, so that my feeling cannot be fully displayed. With great kindness Thou dost bear us, and not withstanding our shortcomings, dost grant us life and prosperity.”
These last two recitations, taken together, bear the same simile as found in the Prophecy of Isaiah in the Bible: “But now, O Lord, Thou art our Father; we are the clay, and Thou our Potter and we all are the work of Thy hand” (Isaiah 64: 8).
In general, reading the text of the Border Sacrifice reminds one strongly of the prayers of the ancient Hebrews as found in the Old Testament: the same reverent awe before God, the same selfabasement, humility and gratitude before His greatness. For us Christians, these most ancient of Chinese prayers to God are strangely familiar. Why is this? It seems that the most ancient Chinese religion and the ancient Hebrew religion are drawn from the same source. And that is indeed the case, as we will see.

2. The Book of Genesis and the Beginnings of China

Let us begin at the beginning. Adam and Eve, as we know from the book of Genesis, were cast out of Paradise, and Cherubim with flaming swords guarded the East Gate of Eden so that Adam and Eve could not return to it. Paradise, according to tradition, was on a high place, like a mountain. Adam and Eve remained near to Paradise, “over against” it according to the Greek (Septuagint) version. They remained on a high place, viewed Paradise from afar, and lamented what they had lost.
God placed it into the minds of Adam’s sons Cain and Abel (and, we assume, Adam himself) to offer sacrifice. They would have done this near to the border of Eden. The sacrifice, of course, was not enough to save mankind, or open to him the Paradise and the access to heaven which he lost. However, God placed in man the idea of sacrifice in order to prepare man to understand the Sacrifice that would save man: the Sacrifice of the Son of God on the Cross. Adam lived to be 930 years old. According to the Hebrew genealogy, Adam lived at the same time as Noah’s father Lamech: Lamech was 56 years old when Noah died. According to the genealogy in the Greek version of the Old Testament, there about a thousand years more time between Adam and Noah, so there would have been another generation. But, at any rate, Noah would have heard about the creation and the Fall from his father Lamech, who was only one, and perhaps two, generations removed from Adam himself. This gives us an idea of how direct the knowledge was that Noah had.
The Great Flood occurred, according to the Biblical reckoning, in approximately 2348 B.C. It was a global Flood which wiped out the entire earth and all human beings except for Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives (8 people in all).
The Bible says that, when Noah got off the Ark after the Flood, the first thing he did was to offer sacrifice to God, just as his forefather Adam had once done. In fact, before the Flood Noah had brought on the Ark with him some animals which were specifically meant to be offered in sacrifice, in addition to all the other animals that were on the Ark. So, the religion of Noah, which he had received from his forefather Adam, included the sacrifice of animals.
Only 101 years after the Flood, evil abounded again; and therefore, as the Bible tells us, “the earth was divided.” This occurred at the Tower of Babel, when God confounded the languages, and people began to be scattered about the earth. The Tower of Babel incident occurred at about 2247 B. C . And it is soon after this point that Chinese history begins.
The original people of China were undoubtedly a group of people (of unknown number) who traveled to China from Babel. It is probable that most of the people living in China today have descended from this original group.
Many Christians who have looked into this question have suggested that, in the Genesis “table of nations” chronicling the language groups migrating from Babel, the “Sinite people” (Genesis 10: 17) could refer to the group that became the Asian peoples.
Whether or not this is the case, here is a very interesting fact to consider: According to the Chinese records, the establishment of China’s first dynasty, the Hsia (Xia) dynasty, occurred in 2205 B.C. Modern scholars ascribe a somewhat later date of between 2100 and 2000 B.C. Therefore, depending on which reckoning one accepts, the establishment of China’s first dynasty occurred anywhere from 42 to 205 years after the approximate date of the Tower of Babel incident. That was the time it took for the protoChinese to migrate to China from present- day Iraq (the site of the Tower of Babel) and already begin their dynastic civilization.
From the Bible we know that Noah lived 350 years after the Flood. So the founding of China’s first dynasty occurred while Noah was still alive.
The first people of China could have heard about the creation, the Fall, and life before the Flood from Noah himself. And Noah, as we have said, could have learned about these things, through one or at most two intermediaries, from Adam himself. This gives us an idea of how close were the first Chinese people to the first man, Adam.
We know that when the original settlers of China came to their new land, they brought the religion of Noah with them. We know this from the Border Sacrifice of which we spoke earlier. The Border Sacrifice was like the sacrifices of Noah, which were like the sacrifices of Adam. And, as we have seen, the God that was invoked at the Border Sacrifices was the One God, the Creator of universe, that both Noah and Adam worshiped. The prayers that were at the Chinese Border Sacrifice bear remarkable similarity to the prayers of the ancient Hebrews because both come from the same source: the religion of Noah.
An interesting point to ponder is why the Chinese called their sacrifices “Border Sacrifices,” and why the Emperor traditionally performed them at the border of the Empire. We know that Adam would have performed his sacrifices outside the borders of Paradise, probably as close as possible to Paradise, outside the Gate that was guarded by the Cherubim. It is possible that the Chinese Border Sacrifice were based on the tradition of a “border sacrifice” from the time of Adam.
As we have said, the Sacrifices— whether of Adam, Noah, or the Chinese Emperors— could not save mankind from the consequences of the Fall: death, and eternal separation from God. They could not get man back into Paradise. For this, a totally pure and unblemished sacrifice had to be offered, by a totally pure and sinless human being: one who would be the Second Adam and set aright what Adam had ruined. This sacrifice was offered for all time by Jesus Christ, the “Second Adam.” And another interesting point: Just as the first Adam had offered his sacrifice outside the Gates of Eden, the Second Adam offered His Sacrifice outside the Gates of the Holy City of Jerusalem, when He was taken outside the city to be crucified.
Christ fulfilled what was prefigured by the sacrifices of Adam and Noah, and by the Border Sacrifices that were offered by the Chinese from the very beginning of their history.

3. Chinese Recorded History in Light of the Bible

Let us go back now and look at the recorded history of China in light of what we’ve just been talking about, that is, in light of the Biblical history of the world.
We’ve already mentioned the oldest book of Chinese recorded history: the Shu Jing, or Book of Documents. This book was written in about 1000 B.C. and was based on material from the Shang Dynasty, which began in 1700 B.C. (1700 B.C., by the way, is 200 years before the time of Moses, who wrote the book of Genesis.) Even if we assume that the original materials for the Shu Jing came from the beginning of the Shang Dynasty in 1700 B.C., this means that at least 500 years would have passed from the beginning of China to the first written record of its history.
The first thing that students of Chinese history learn is that Chinese history began with a Flood. This is not surprising, since we know that ancient peoples from all the continents of the world have a story of a Great Flood which covered all the earth as a judgment on man’s sin. In many cases, the details are remarkably like the details recorded in the book of Genesis. The Aboriginal peoples of Australia, for example, speak of a global flood and how only eight people escaped it in a canoe.

Above: Noah with his family, having come out of the Ark,
offer a sacrifice upon an altar. 16th- century Russian icon.
Icon image and caption courtesy of Hieromonk Damascene

The flood story was the most pervasive of all the other legends in ancient China. The Shu Jing records: “The flood waters are everywhere, destroying everything as they rise above the hills and swell up to heaven.”
Since the Shu Jing only begins with Chinese history, however, this statement does not refer to the global Flood, but rather to the local flooding that was caused in China by the remnants of the Great Flood. The Shu Jing speaks of how, after the Great Flood, some of the land was not yet habitable because the flood waters were still inundating the land. This was certainly possible. The time between the Flood and the founding of the first Chinese dynasty was as little as 143 years, and we would expect that huge pockets of water would have been on the land at that time, which are not there today. This phenomenon of post- Flood water- pockets is described in the book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, written by a geologist, Steven Austin. Dr. Austin is a believer in the Biblical account of the Flood, and in this book he posits that Grand Canyon was formed by a huge pocket of water that was left over from the Flood, and which broke loose over the land. Since the layers of sediments had recently formed during the Flood and the land was still soft, the leftover Flood waters were able to carve out the magnificent Grand Canyon.
Going back to ancient China: These leftover Flood waters made parts of the land uninhabitable. At that time, according to Chinese history, there were the first righteous Chinese Emperors, Yao and Shun: the first emperors to offer the Border Sacrifices to Shangdi. To a man named Kun given the task of ridding the land of the flood waters, but he was not able to do so. It was not until Kun’s son, Yu, devised a new technique to channel the waters out to sea that the land was eventually made habitable.

Yu the Great

It took nine years for Yu to channel the waters out to sea. He became a hero because of this amazing feat. As a result, Shun turned the rulership over to Yu. Yu became emperor, thus beginning China’s first dynasty, the Xia. After that, China’s dynastic culture lasted almost another four thousand years.
There do exist legends about dynasties in China before the Xia dynasty, but these dynasties are of a different sort, with questionable details attributed to them and very long lives ascribed to their people. The Xia dynasty is the first precisely documented dynasty. Christian geologist Dr. John Morris suggests that the welldocumented dynasties date to dispersion from Babel, “while the prior dynasties were faded memories of pre- Flood patriarchs, preserved as legends.” Emperor Yu of the Xia dynasty “evidently gained prominence when he engineered the draining of swampy land left saturated by leftover flood waters. His following dynasty commenced about the time of Abraham or so, and the memories of long- lived patriarchs of pre- Flood days became legends of early dynasties.”

4. Indications of Ancient Chinese Knowledge of the Creation and the Global Flood

So, now we have looked at Chinese history in relation to the Bible. If we start with the most ancient record of Chinese history, the Shu Jing, we find that the history of ancient China matches very well with the history of mankind as recorded in the Bible. (The Shu Jing, by the way, was the source of Chinese history used by Confucius, considered by him to be the most authentic source of Chinese history.)
Since the Shu Jing begins with specifically with Chinese history, however, it does not refer to Noah, or to what occurred before the Great Flood. Is there anything in ancient Chinese history that refers to the Great Flood or to what occurred before it? Yes, there is, but unfortunately it was written much later than the Shu Jing, and thus filled with legendary material. In the Huainan- tzu, written in the 2nd century B.C., we read the story of Nu- wa (also pronounced Nu- kua), whose name sounds a lot like “Noah.” The story says that, in very ancient times, the habitable world was split apart, waters inundated the earth without being stopped, and fires flamed without being extinguished. “Therefore,” the text reads, “Nu- kua fused together stones of the five colors with which to patch together the azure heaven.” This is perhaps a distorted retelling of the Flood story, over 2,000 years after it happened. The stones of Five Colors by which Nukua patched the heavens may be a legendary retelling of the rainbow that Noah saw in the sky after the Flood, which was to be a covenant between God and the earth that God would never again destroy the earth by water.
Whether or not the Nu- kua legend was based on actual history of the Noahic Flood, we know that the original people of China knew the basic facts concerning the creation of the world. We know this because these facts are laid out in the text of the Border Sacrifice which we have quoted earlier. As we have shown, the Border Sacrifice describes the creation in a way remarkably similar to the book of Genesis.
Dr. John Morris points out that many of the language groups migrating from Babel “took with them technological knowledge which they put to use in their new homelands. History documents the fact that several major cultures sprang into existence seemingly from nowhere at about the same time— the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Phoenecians, the Indians, as well as the Chinese— and each possessed a curious mixture of truth and pagan thought, as would be expected from peoples only briefly separated from Noah and his teachings as well as the star- worshipping, pyramid- building heresy of Nimrod at Babel.”

5. About the Evolutionary Explanation of the Origin of the Chinese People

Now that we have gone this far in our examination of Chinese history in the light of Genesis, a few questions may remain. First of all, it may be objected that, according to secular scientists, the first inhabitants of China were actually hominid ancestors of man. About thirty years ago, it was generally believed by evolutionists that the hominid ancestor of Chinese man was the Asian Homo erectus, otherwise known as “Peking Man” or Sinanthropus (meaning China Man). Sinanthropus was supposed to have lived from a million or two million years ago in China. Today, however, some scientists disagree that this Sinanthropus is really an evolutionary ancestor of today’s Chinese people. In fact, the whole field of paleoanthropology is becoming more and more confused as time goes on. The paleoanthropologists can’t agree on the evolutionary tree of man, and different parties among them have heated fights over this question. Now it is generally thought that there is not an evolutionary tree at all in relation to man, but rather a confused “bush.”
If we look at the so- called ancestors of man, we can see that, in some cases they are extinct apes, and in some cases they are human beings. Sinanthropus, whose skulls have been found in China, is a case in point. What is this Sinanthropus? Clearly, he is a human being, probably one of the early settlers in China after the dispersion at Babel. He did not live two million years ago, which is an inconceivable amount of time. All over the world, recorded human history begins no earlier than about 2,400 B.C., which is the approximate date of the Flood. The radiometric dating methods that are used to get ages of a million or a billion years are based on untestable and unprovable assumptions, as the scientists who believe in them will admit themselves. (As an indication of hypothetical nature of these methods, rocks known to have been formed in volcanic eruptions within the last 200 years have yielded radiometric dates of up to 3.5 billion years.)
Many secular and even evolutionist scientists today say that the distinction between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens (human beings) is an artificial one: Homo erectus, including Sinanthropus, is nothing else than a human being. This claim has been made by paleoanthropologists both in the West and in China (such as Wu Xin Zhi at the Institute of Paleoanthropology in Beijing).
Professor William S. Laughlin (University of Connecticut), in studying the Eskimos and the Aleuts, noted many similarities between these peoples and the Asian Homo erectus people, specifically Sinanthropus (Peking Man). He concludes his study with a very logical statement:
“When we find that significant differences have developed, over a short time span, between closely related and contiguous peoples, as in Alaska and Greenland, and when we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong within the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus belongs within this same diverse species.”

6. Chinese Dragons

Another question arises: If, as we believe from the Biblical account, the earth is only several thousands and not billions of years old, and if Adam lived only two or three thousand years before the first Chinese dynasty, then how do we account for the dinosaurs, which supposedly became extinct seventy million years before the first man appeared on earth?
This is a very fascinating subject to discuss, especially in relation to China. What about dinosaurs? Were there dinosaurs in China? The Censer Dragons, of course, are depicted everywhere in Chinese culture. But these are only legendary creatures, some will say. No, not at all. Later depictions of dragons, to be sure, contained fanciful elements, because they were drawn by people who did not see dragons themselves but had only heard about them from others or from historical sources. But dragons did live contemporaneously with humans in the history of ancient China. Dragons are written about in ancient Chinese annals, and not as imaginary creatures, but as real live animals. It is known from Chinese history that certain parts and fluids of dragons were used for medicines. And one historical account even mentions a Chinese family that bred dragons to be used to pull the Royal Chariot during Imperial processions!
What the ancient Chinese wrote about dragons fits in with what ancient people all over the world had to say about them. In all the ancient cultures of the world, people wrote about seeing dragons or killing dragons. They painted pictures of them or, in the case of some Central American cultures, made statues of them. Many of the historical descriptions and depictions of dragons match precisely with the physical features of known dinosaurs such as Triceratops or Tyrannosaurus Rex. They were not called dinosaurs then, because the word “dinosaur” was not invented until 1841 (by the way, it was invented by a Christian scientist who believed the Biblical account of origins).
When the army of Alexander the Great (356- 323 B.C.) went through India, they went to see a dragon living in a cave, which the Indians worshiped as a god, bringing it sacrificial food. This is only one of many historical accounts of dragons from places in the world other than China. One of the Holy Fathers of the Church, St. John Damascene (A. D. 674- 750), wrote of dragons as actual creatures that still existed in his time in small numbers. When people with an evolutionary frame of mind read of such things, they automatically think of them as legends. But it is very hard to explain why peoples from all over the world have spoken of dragons as real, living creatures. From these accounts from all over the world, we know that some dinosaurs went onto the Ark with Noah (probably as babies). There is much evidence that, after the Flood, the climate and conditions of the earth became harsher; and thus the dinosaurs had a more difficult time surviving (hence Alexander the Great’s army saw one living in a cave). They did spread all over the earth, since people from China to South America tell of seeing them. But they were much more rare than other creatures, and they eventually died out due to the new conditions of earth and also, undoubtedly, to the fact that people killed them because they saw them as a threat.
To the ancient Chinese, dinosaurs or dragons were a symbol of power. It was natural that they would be fascinated with them and make them such a frequent subject of their art, because of all the land creatures that ever lived, what was greater and more powerful than a dinosaur?
In the book of Job, chapter 40, God calls Job’s attention to his greatness by reminding him that He created the great and powerful creatures of the earth. And the land creature that God mentions is the behemoth, which has a tail like a cedar tree. The Biblical description of the behemoth matches no other creature than a sauropod dinosaur. Not only Chinese history, but even Chinese sayings and the Chinese lunar calendar, make it clear that the Chinese have traditionally regarded dragons as real creatures.
Here’s an interesting story, which indicates that a few winged dinosaurs may have survived in China into relatively recent times. At the end of the 19th century, a Russian Orthodox saint named St. Barsanuphius was stationed in Manchuria to pastor the Russian soldiers during the RussianJapanese War. From there he wrote in his journal: “I happened to hear from soldiers that stand at the posts at the Hantaza station, forty miles from Mullin, that two years ago they often saw an enormous winged dragon creep out from one of the mountain caves. It terrified them, and would again conceal itself in the depths of the cave. They have not seen it since that time, but this proves that the tales of the Chinese and Japanese about the existence of dragons are not at all fantasies or fables, although the learned European naturalists, and ours along with them, deny the existence of these monsters. But after all, anything can be denied, simply because it does not measure up to our understanding.”
As mentioned earlier, the Chinese people are one of the most tradition- conscious and history- conscious peoples. So it should not be surprising that they, of all peoples, should be the ones to have retained such a strong cultural memory of dinosaurs. Their records showing that dinosaurs lived alongside man, and not in an “age of dinosaurs” ending 70 million years earlier, further supports the Biblical account of the world’s history.

7. Conclusion

When the world was inhabited by people groups coming out of Babel, some groups retained more awareness of the original religion Adam and Noah, and some retained less awareness. The Chinese, as we have seen, retained more than most other cultures. They have retained it up until modern times in the Imperial Border Sacrifice. Also, with the great value they place on history, they have preserved a knowledge of their own past which matches in its essentials the history of the world which is given in the Holy Bible.

....

Taken from: http://www.orthodox.cn/localchurch/200406ancientcnhist_en.htm

Sennacherib Made Idol of Beam of Noah's Ark



....

In Rabbinical Literature:Coin of Apamea, with Supposed Representation of Noah's Ark.(From Maspero, "Dawn of Civilization.")
One hundred and twenty years before the Deluge, Noah planted cedars from which he afterward made the Ark (Gen. R. xxx. 7; compare Christian parallels; Ginzberg, "Monatsschrift," xliii. 411). This lengthy period was requisite, partly in order to urge the sinful people to amend their ways, and partly to allow sufficient time for the erection of the Ark, which was of very large proportions. According to one view the Ark consisted of three hundred and sixty cells, each ten yards long by ten yards wide; according to another it consisted of nine hundred cells, each six yards long by six yards wide (Gen. R. xxxi. 11; compare commentaries on the passage for the exact mathematical computations). The lowest of thesestories was used as a depositary for refuse; in the second the human beings and the "clean" beasts were lodged, and the uppermost was reserved for the "unclean" beasts. A differing opinion reverses the order, so that the refuse was deposited in the third story, from which it was shoveled into the sea through a sort of trap-door (καταράκτης; Gen. R. l.c.). For purposes of illumination, Noah used precious stones, bright as the sun at noonday (Sanh. 108b; Yer. Pes. i. 27b; Gen. R. l.c.), which shone by night and were dull by day. The stones were the sole light in the Ark, since the stars and planets did not fulfil their functions during the Deluge (Gen. R. xxxiv. 11). Another miracle witnessed by the occupants of the Ark was the entrance of the animals. They were not led in by Noah, a task which would have been impossible for any human being; but God caused them, as well as the spirits of those whose bodies were yet uncreated, to gather there from all sides (Gen. R. xxxi. 13, xxxii. 8; Zeb. 116a; for Christian parallels see Ginzberg, "Monatsschrift," xliii. 414). Another Midrash says that the angels appointed over the various species of animals brought each his allotted animal with its necessary fodder (Pirḳe R. El. xxiii.). In regard to the feeding of the animals, the greater number of Haggadot say that each received suitable food at the usual time (Tan., ed. Buber, NoaḦ ii.; Gen. R. xxxi. 14); and since Noah was constantly employed in feeding them, he did not sleep for a moment during the year in the Ark. As Noah was an exception among his contemporaries, so also were the animals that were destined to be saved. They were the best of their species, and, unlike the other animals of the time, they remained true to their proper natures, without overstepping the limitations which nature had prescribed for them (TanḦuma, l.c. v.; Gen. R. xxviii. 8; Sanh. 108a). Besides the regular occupants, the Ark supported Og, king of Bashan, and the immense animal "Reëm," neither of whom, owing to their enormous size, could get into the Ark, but held fast to it, remaining alongside (Pirḳe R. El. xxiii.; Gen. R. xxxi. 13). In order that Noah on his entrance into the Ark might not be molested by the wicked people, lions and other wild animals were placed to guard it. A beam of the Ark was found by Sennacherib, and he made an idol of it (Sanh. 96a). Another beam of the Ark was used as the gallows for Haman, according to Midrash Abba Gorion, iv.; ed. Buber, 19a (see Flood in Rabbinical Literature.).

....

Taken from: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1780-ark-of-noah

Professor Carol Hill Brings Science and Common Sense to Noachian Flood Debate



 

 

[THE AMAIC WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY AGREE WITH CAROL'S ARTICLE, BUT NOT E.G. THE VIEW THAT THE LOCALISED FLOOD WAS SIMPLY RESTRICTED TO MESOPOTAMIA]

 

 

For full article, go to: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%201.pdf



Professor Hill introduces her article:
 
 

 The Noachian Flood:

Universal or Local?

The biblical and scientific evidence pertaining to the subject of a universal versus local
Noachian Flood are discussed in this paper. From a biblical perspective, a universal

flood model (and its corollary models: flood geology and the canopy theory) is based

primarily on:


(1) the universal language of Gen. 6.8,

(2) Gen 2:5.6, and (3) the

presumed landing of Noah.s ark on the summit of Mount Ararat (Gen. 8:4).


It is argued

that the .universal. language of Gen. 6.8 was meant to cover the whole known world

of that time (third millennium BC), not the entire planet Earth, and that this

interpretation also applies to Gen. 2:5.6.

the verses on which the canopy theory is

based. It is also argued that the .fifteen cubits upward. flood depth mentioned in

Gen. 7:20 favors a local rather than a universal flood.

From a scientific perspective, a universal flood, flood geology, and canopy theory are

entirely without support. The geology of the Mount Ararat region precludes the

premise of flood geologists that all of the sedimentary rock on Earth formed during

the time of Noah.s Flood. The most likely landing place of the ark is considered to have

been in the vicinity of Jabel Judi (the .mountains of Ararat. near Cizre, Turkey)

within the northern boundary of the Mesopotamian hydrologic basin, rather than on

17,000-foot-high Mount Ararat in northeastern Turkey. Since it would have been

logistically impossible for all animal species on Earth to be gathered by Noah and

contained in the ark, it is concluded that the animals of the ark were those that lived

within the Mesopotamian region. The archaeological record outside of Mesopotamia

also does not support a universal flood model. All of the evidence, both biblical and

scientific, leads to the the conclusion that the Noachian deluge was a local, rather than
universal, flood.
....

The Genesis Flood. Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

 

[THE AMAIC WOULD AGREE WITH MUCH OF THE FOLLOWING, BUT NOT THE VIEW THAT THE LOCALISED FLOOD WAS SIMPLY RESTRICTED TO MESOPOTAMIA]

 

The Genesis Flood
Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

by Rich Deem

 

Introduction

The Bible says the flood was global?

"The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it!" The phrase is a common argument used for those who call for the "literal reading" of the Bible. I have no complaints against reading the Bible literally. However, many who claim to be literalists apparently do not believe everything the Bible says. Creation passages clearly say that God caused the original global seas to be restricted - never to cover the entire earth again. The Genesis flood passage itself says that the water covered "the entire earth" even though Noah could see the distant mountains, indicating that the "earth" was just the entire land of Mesopotamia.

Rich Deem

Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth. If you read our English Bibles, you will probably come to this conclusion if you don't read the text too closely and ifyou fail to consider the rest of your Bible. Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis. If you read the sidebar, you will discover that Psalm 104 directly eliminates any possibility of the flood being global (see Psalm 104-9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?). In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalm 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible. If you like to solve mysteries on your own, you might want to read the flood account first and find the biblical basis for a local flood.

The Bible's other creation passages eliminate the possibility of a global flood

The concept of a global Genesis flood can be easily eliminated from a plain reading of Psalm 104,¹ which is known as the "creation psalm." Psalm 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with a few more details added). It begins with an expanding universe model (reminiscent of the Big Bang) (verse 2,¹ parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a stable water cycle (verses 3-5,¹ parallel to Genesis 1:6-8). The earth is then described as a planet completely covered with water (verse 6, parallel to Genesis 1:9). God then causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8,¹ parallel to Genesis 1:9-10). The verse that eliminates a global flood follows: "You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." (Psalm 104:9)¹ Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local. Psalm 104 is just one of several creation passages that indicate that God prevented the seas from covering the entire earth.² An integration of all flood and creation passages clearly indicates that the Genesis flood was local in geographic extent.

The Bible says water covered the whole earth... Really?

When you read an English translation of the biblical account of the flood, you will undoubtedly notice many words and verses that seem to suggest that the waters covered all of planet earth.³ However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible nearly always refers to local geography. You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God. The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol(Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."⁴ We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets.

• The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
• And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)

Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol eretsis nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area of land, instead of our entire planet.⁵

The "whole earth" often refers to the people not geography

However, there are many more examples of where kol erets is used without reference to any specific land, although the context clearly indicates a local area. For example, in Genesis 11 (the Tower of Babel) the text says, "the whole [kol] earth [erets] used the same language."⁶ We know that this reference is not really to the earth at all (and certainly not to the "whole earth"), but to the people of the earth, who all lived in one geographic location. It wasn't until later that God scattered the people over the face of the earth.⁶ There are many other examples of where kol erets actually refers to peoplerather than the geography of the "whole earth":

• Shall not the Judge of all [kol] the earth [erets] deal justly?" (Genesis 18:25) (God judges the people of the earth, not the earth itself)
• Now behold, today I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets], and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the LORD your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. (Joshua 23:14) (Joshua was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)
• And all [kol] the people of the land [erets] entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground. (1 Samuel 14:25) (The words "the people of" are added to the English, since they are not found in the Hebrew. The actual translation would be "all the land entered the forest," obviously referring to the people and not to the land itself moving into the forest.)
• While all [kol] the country [erets] was weeping with a loud voice, all the people passed over. (2 Samuel 15:23) (Obviously, the earth cannot weep with a loud voice.)
• "I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets]. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. (1 Kings 2:2) (David was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)
• He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (1 Chronicles 16:14) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)
• Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day. (1 Chronicles 16:23) (The people sing, not the planet)
• Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30) (This does not refer to earthquakes!)
• Let all [kol] the earth [erets] fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. (Psalm 33:8) (People, not planets, fear the Lord)
• For the choir director. A Song. A Psalm.) Shout joyfully to God, all the earth; (Psalm 66:1) (People shout, not the earth)
• "All the earth will worship Thee, And will sing praises to Thee; They will sing praises to Thy name." Selah. (Psalm 66:4) (People worship, not the earth)
• Sing to the LORD a new song; Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 96:1) (People sing, not the earth)
• Worship the LORD in holy attire; Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 96:9) (People worship, not the earth)
• Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Break forth and sing for joy and sing praises. (Psalm 98:4) (People shout, not the earth)
• (A Psalm for Thanksgiving.) Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 100:1) (People shout, not the earth)
• He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 105:7) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)
• "The whole [kol] earth [erets] is at rest and is quiet; They break forth into shouts of joy. (Isaiah 14:7) (People shout, not the earth)

The "whole earth" usually refers to local geography

Examples of where kol erets refers to a local area include the following verses:

• "Is not the whole [kol] land [erets] before you? Please separate from me: if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left." (Genesis 13:9) (The "whole land" was only the land of Canaan)
• And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth. (Genesis 41:57) (The people from the Americas did not go to Egypt)
• Then God said, "Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all [kol] the earth [erets], nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you. (Exodus 34:10) (There would be no need to add "nor among any of the nations" if "all the earth" referred to the entire planet.)
• 'You shall then sound a ram's horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets]. (Leviticus 25:9) (The Hebrews were not required to sound a horn throughout the entire earth)
• 'Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land. (Leviticus 25:24) (The law does not apply only to those who own the entire earth)
• behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken." (Judges 6:37, see also 6:39-40) (kol erets could not refer to the entire earth, since it would not be possible for Gideon to check the entire earth)
• And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, "Let the Hebrews hear." (1 Samuel 13:3) (Obviously, Saul could not have blown a trumpet loud enough to be heard throughout the entire earth)
• For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured. (2 Samuel 18:8) (No, the battle did not take place over the entire earth.)
• So when they had gone about through the whole [kol] land [erets], they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. (2 Samuel 24:8) (No they didn't go through the entire earth, just the lands of Palestine.)
• And all [kol] the earth [erets] was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. (1 Kings 10:24) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans went to see Solomon.)
• Then the fame of David went out into all [kol] the lands [erets]; and the LORD brought the fear of him on all the nations. (1 Chronicles 14:17) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans knew about David.)
• And David said, "My son Solomon is young and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for the LORD shall be exceedingly magnificent, famous and glorious throughout all [kol] lands [erets]. (1 Chronicles 22:5) (The temple was famous to all the lands in the Middle East, but was destroyed before the advent of globalism.)
• And they were bringing horses for Solomon from Egypt and from all [kol] countries [erets]. (2 Chronicles 9:28) (It is unlikely that the Chinese brought horses to Solomon)
• Many more examples⁸

As can be seen above, in the majority of instances kol eretsdoes not refer to the entire planet earth. In fact, of the 205 instance of kol erets in the Old Testament, it might refer to the entire planet just 40 times,⁹ and even some of those are questionable. About half of those instance occur in the books of Psalms and Isaiah. The Genesis flood narrative also uses the phrase "the face of the earth." This is the exact phrase used by Cain when he was banished by God (Genesis 4:14). Are we to think that Cain was banished to outer space? In addition, the flood narrative says that "the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth" (Genesis 7:17). If "earth" really refers to the planet, this text would imply that the ark somehow levitated above the planet. Obviously, "earth" refers to the local land on which the ark was sitting, and not to planet earth.

How could the text have more clearly indicated a global flood?

I am glad you asked! There is a Hebrew word that alwaysrefers to the entire earth or the entire inhabited earth. The word is tebel(Strong's H8398), which is found 37 times in the Old Testament. Curiously, this word is never used to describe the flood, although it is used extensively to describe the creation of the earth and the judgment of the peoples of the earth.

The Local Flood - from the Genesis text

Erets revisited

Let's look at the actual Genesis flood passage to determine if it can be interpreted from a local viewpoint. As we determined above, the word erets, often translated "earth" can also refer to the people of the earth. Is it used this way in the actual Genesis flood passage?

• Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. (Genesis 6:11)
• And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. (Genesis 6:12)
• I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. (Genesis 9:13)

Genesis 6, verses 11 and 12 both tells us that the earth was corrupt, although we understand this verse to refer to the people of the earth. Likewise, in Genesis 9:13, the verse tells us that God made a covenant between Himself and the earth. However, later verses clarify that the covenant is between God and the creatures of the earth.¹⁰ The Genesis text clearly establishes (along with the New Testament¹¹) that God's judgment of humans was universal (with the exception of Noah and his family).
Outside Genesis one (through Genesis 2:5), the entire Genesis account through the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) specifically refers to local geography. Allthe place names mentioned are in the Mesopotamian flood plain. Therefore, all the instances of the word erets can and should be translated "land," instead of "earth," since it all refers to local geography. There is no reason to think that the flood account is any different from the rest of the Genesis account through chapter 11.

When "all" does not mean "all"

The flood passage uses many universal descriptions, which suggest global proportions. However, the universal text contradicts itself, if it is to be interpreted globally. For example, the Genesis text tells us that all flesh had become corrupted.¹² However, the same passage tells us that Noah was a "righteous man, blameless in his time."¹³It is clear from the text that "all flesh" did not actually refer to all flesh, since there was at least one exception.

Local perspective of the flood

Does the Genesis text indicate that the flood was local? If you read it carefully, you can determine that the perspective is local. Most English translations are actually interpretations that are intentionally skewed to favor a global flood interpretation. For example, Genesis 7:20 is usually translated as:

The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. (Genesis 7:20)

In reality, the Hebrew word ma‛al, translated "higher" really means "upward." So, in essence, the text is saying that the flood was 15 cubits (20 feet) deep, in total, not 15 cubits above the mountains. In addition, the Hebrew word har really refers most often to hills rather than mountains. See below.
The translators of most English Bibles use the word "earth," which to us means "planet earth." However, their mistranslation can clearly be seen in the following passage:

• Gen 8:5 And the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
• Gen 8:6 Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made;
• Gen 8:7 and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth.
• Gen 8:8 Then he sent out a dove from him, to see if the water was abated from the face of the land;
• Gen 8:9 but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark; for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took her, and brought her into the ark to himself.

We see that in the tenth month, the mountains became visible to Noah (Genesis 8:5). Some 40+ days later (Genesis 8:6), Noah sent a dove out of the ark (Genesis 8:8). However, the dove was unable to land because of all the water (Genesis 8:9). Then, the text tells us that water was "on the surface of all the earth." This is obviously a bad translation of kol erets, since we know that the water had not covered the mountains for at least 40 days. The context makes it clear that kol erets must refer to local geography and should be translated as the "all the land" or "all the ground." In fact, all our major English translations (NASB, NIV, KJV, etc.) make this same error. It is no wonder that people who read the English translation of the Bible "literally" come to the conclusion that the flood must have been global. However, it is apparent that our English "translations" of the Genesis flood text are more than just "translations," but actually interpretations (and probably incorrect ones at that).
There is another indication in the text that the flood did not cover the highest mountains. Again, from Genesis 8:

So he waited yet another seven days; and again he sent out the dove from the ark. And the dove came to him toward evening; and behold, in her beak was a freshly picked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the water was abated from the earth. (Genesis 8:10-11)

If the ark had come to rest on the top of Mount Ararat, this would be at 17,000 foot elevation. Olive trees (and every other tree) do not grow at 17,000 feet. In fact, you will not find olive trees growing much above 5,000 feet. Therefore, we know from the Bible that the ark did not come to rest on or near the top of Mount Ararat, but probably somewhere on the foothills of the mountain.
The method by which the flood ended also tells us that the flood was local. According to Genesis, the water receded and was dried by the wind.¹⁴ If the flood were global, there would be no place for the waters to recede to. Likewise, a wind would not significantly affect a global flood, further suggesting that the Genesis flood was local in extent.

Planet Earth became a desert after the flood!

Another problem for the global flood interpretation is what happened to the "earth" after the flood. Read the following verses and see if you can see why the word "earth" does not refer to the entire planet:

• Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NASB)
  After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NIV)
• Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NASB)
  By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NIV)
• and in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. (Genesis 8:14, NASB)
  By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry. (Genesis 8:14, NIV)

If one were to interpret these verses from a global perspective, one would have to conclude that the entire earth became a desert after the flood. Obviously this interpretation is false, so the translations must be bad. In these verses, the dryness of the earth is obviously referring to the local land area and not the entire planet earth.

New Testament perspective

What does the New Testament tell us about the flood? As mentioned previously, the New Testament tells us that the flood was universal in its judgment.¹¹Besides this, there is an interesting passage from 2 Peter that gives some insight into the nature of the flood:

For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the land was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. (2 Peter 3:5-6)

Peter, instead of just telling us that the entire planet was flooded, qualifies the verse by telling us that the "world at that time" was flooded with water. What was different about the world "at that time" compared to the world of today? At the time of the flood, all humans were in the same geographic location (the people of the world were not scattered over the earth until Genesis 11).⁷ Therefore, the "world at the time" was confined to the Mesopotamian plain. There would be no reason to qualify the verse if the flood were global in extent.

Early Jewish interpretation

Many Christian believe that a local flood interpretation is a recent invention of those who are trying to reconcile science with the Bible. However, the first century Jewish writer, Josephus wrote about other writers who indicated that the flood was local and that some inhabitants survived by seeking higher ground:

"Now all the writers of barbarian [Greek] histories make mention of this flood and of this ark: among whom is Berosus the Chaldean... Hieronymous the Egyptian.... Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them, where he speaks thus: 'There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote'."⁸

Josephus does not seek to correct their narrative. So, the idea that the flood was a local event is not just a 20^th century phenomenon.

Common objections to a local flood

Why didn't God send Noah on a long trip?

If the Genesis flood were local, why didn't God just sent Noah and his family packing. Once they were out of the Mesopotamian flood plain, God could have judged the unrighteous without making Noah go to all the trouble of building a huge ark. It is true that God could have done this, although there are some good biblical reasons why He chose not to do so. Why did God make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down? Why did God make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness? Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness? Were any of these things actually required for God to do His work? No! God could have just wiped out all the evil people in the world, as He did later to the all the Egyptians' first-born. Maybe God had good reasons for Noah to build the ark? God has a purpose for each person of faith to join Him in preaching His message. God's plan will be accomplished regardless of our participation in it. However, God gives obedient humans the privilege of participating in God's plans. Likewise, God had a plan for Noah, part of which was for him and his sons to demonstrate their commitment and perseverance to the Lord.
One will notice in the judgments that God renders, He almost always gives a warning to those who are being judged. For example, God sent angels to Sodom before it was to be destroyed,¹⁵ sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them of the judgment to come,¹⁶ and will send two prophets to warn the people of the earth of the final judgment.¹⁷The building of the ark was a great testimony of the coming judgment, since it was preached for 100 years during the building of the ark. The New Testament states this idea directly, since it says that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness":

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:4-5)

If God had told Noah to just migrate away from the flood area, the people would not have been warned of the impending judgment. Ultimately, they were without excuse in their rebellion against God, since the impending judgment was proclaimed to them for 100 years before it happened. Likewise, God will send two preachers for 1260 days prior to the ultimate judgment of God.¹⁷Those who get on God's ark (Jesus Christ) will be saved from the judgment and pass from death to eternal life.

God promised no more floods like the Genesis flood

What about the Genesis 9:11 and 9:15. If the flood was local, did God lie, since floods have destroyed local areas since the Genesis flood.

"And I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:11)
and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:15)

The first part of the verse is a promise not to exercise universal judgment by means of a flood, "all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood." The flood, although local in extent, was global in judgment, since all humanity lived in the same locale. It wasn't until God confused the languages (Genesis 11) that people began to spread over the earth. So, God promised to never again execute universal judgment of humans by means of a flood. The second part, "never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth" can be explained by other verses found in the Genesis flood account.

Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

The passage in this instance refers to the people of the earth, since planet earth itself was not corrupt. Likewise, Genesis 9:11 is referring to the people of the earth rather than the planet itself. Ultimately, even if the flood were global, it did not "destroy the earth," but just the people on the earth. As stated above, "people" is often understood from the Hebrew word erets.

Why were birds on the ark?

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? They could simply have flown to a nearby mountain range. Most birds (other than a few migratory birds) have a very localized territory. They would have been killed in the local flood, since they are not designed to fly long distances. Certainly archaeopteryx was not a strong flyer. Hummingbirds would drop dead in 20 minutes or less. One thing that you will notice when there is a strong rain is that birds do not fly. Flying in heavy rain is not easy. They would have sat on their perches until the water drowned them.

Why did God required Noah to take animals if the flood was local?

Some animals are indigenous only to the Mesopotamian area. More importantly, it would have taken hundreds of years longer to replace the fauna if everything had been wiped out and had to migrate back in. In addition, Noah would have had a huge problem replacing his herds.

How could the flood waters rise 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains in a local flood (Genesis 7:20)?

Didn't the flood cover the highest mountains? The Hebrew word "har," translated "mountains," occurs 649 times in the Old Testament. In 212 instances, the word is translated "hill" or "hills" or "hill country". In Genesis, it is translated "hill" in 10 out of 19 occurrences. Of course, 4 out of 9 times that it is translated as "mountain" is in the flood passage (the translators were wearing their global glasses when they did that translation!). In every instance in Genesis, the text could be translated "hill". Since no specific mountain range is mentioned in this verse, it is likely that the word refers to the hills that Noah could see.

Conclusion

This paper has shown that the Bible declares the Genesis flood to be local in extent, though universal in its judgment of humans (with the exception of Noah and his family). The evidence presented here is purely biblical, although a strong case could also be given for extra-biblical reasons. A global interpretation of the Genesis flood requires that certain non-flood-related verses of the Bible contradict each other. In addition, a global interpretation of the Genesis flood would require the Genesis text to contradict itself. The lack of global references in the book of Genesis through chapter 11 (with the exception of Genesis 1), reveals that all the early events of Genesis occurred in a small geographic area. In addition, an examination of the original Hebrew text of the Genesis flood passage demonstrates that the global wording of our English translations misrepresents the original intent of the account. Your assignment at this point is to re-read the Genesis flood text with the words "land" or "people" (depending upon the context) substituted where for the word "earth." When you are finished, you will discover a remarkably different flood account than what you have read before.

Potopul Genezei: De ce spune Biblia că trebuie să fie local (Romanian)

 

...

 

Taken from: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

How Does the Regional Flood Impact the Origins Debate?

 

Thoughts and Selections from Tim Martin’s “Beyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood and Impacts the Biblical Origins Debate”

By Walt Hibbard

Many preterists have come to assume that the acceptance of the traditional understanding of the extent of the Flood of Noah’s day requires a global-encompassing deluge that covered every continent and rose to the highest mountains of the world. This view teaches that every human being and land animal on the face of the earth was wiped out, and that only Noah’s family of eight people survived that monumental catastrophe.

Timothy P. Martin, coming from a dispensational background and embracing of the popular Creation Science movement, has found through diligent study that there is much more involved in studying this doctrine than a mere “surface reading” of the texts of Genesis. There is an urgent need to examine the language to determine how key words are used elsewhere in the Bible. This has brought Mr. Martin to the conclusion that the Genesis account is describing a great Flood which was regional but not worldwide.

He views the preterist movement as a good working out of the grammatico-historical hermeneutic in passages such as our Lord’s Olivet Discourse, II Peter 3, and the Book of Revelation. However, he has been disappointed to find that many preterists still cling to interpretative ideas in other passages that are inconsistent with the careful and studied work that they have done in the prophetic areas. Mr. Martin believes that the early chapters in Genesis need to be re-studied with the same care as the prophetic material.

I consider this new book, which Mr. Martin began to write prior to 2001, to be an important and eye-opening study that preterists need to examine carefully. The Creation Science people are already quite happy with their hyper-literal system and this prevents many of them from embracing preterism; they are consistent! But preterists who accept the global flood are betraying the hermeneutic principles that brought them initially into the preterist movement; namely, recognizing the covenantal manner in which God deals with his people, choosing them out of the great masses of worldwide humanity.

Now, here are several clips from Tim Martin’s book – his own words in this debate:

(Taken from Pg. 5 and 6 of the Necessary Introduction)

This book is a critique of the main Creation Science presupposition from the perspective of covenant thinking. I hope to demonstrate a methodological, theological and historical correlation between the rise of Creation Science ideology and the prevalence of dispensational theology in America during the 20^th century. I hope to convince those who have already abandoned dispensational futurist eschatology in favor of preterism (regardless of any particular brand) of the need to completely re-examine the Creation Science paradigm. As preterism grows to eclipse dispensational futurism in American Christianity, I believe this re-examination will lead naturally to the wholesale abandonment of Creation Science ideas.

This critique of the Creation Science movement is a call to consistency. My argument is simple. It is time for those committed to a general preterist understanding of Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3, and Revelation to think through the logical implications of their beliefs as they relate to the rest of the Bible.

(From Pg. 11 & 12 of Covenantal Exegesis of Genesis 7)

The flood may be global if these same constructs support that conclusion as used elsewhere in Scripture. It is also possible the flood may not be global in physical detail if these same constructs are used elsewhere in cases we know were regional. In other words, if we are self-consciously covenantal, we will not first ask, “What is the literal meaning of this text?” nor “What does science say about a global flood?” We will first say, “Let’s examine these same constructs as used elsewhere in the Bible and interpret this Scripture in light of the rest of Scripture.”

There are three textual keys to understanding the language of this passage (Gen. 7:17-23). First of all, the term “earth.” Secondly, the phrase “all the high mountains under the entire heavens” must be understood. Thirdly, the related phrases “Every living thing that moved on earth perished” and ”Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out” must be compared to similar use in Scripture. Let’s look at how all three are used elsewhere in the Bible.

(From Pg. 47 & 48 of the Recent Rise of New Flood Geology)

How many Christian conservatives would have looked at The Genesis Flood a little more carefully if they were aware up front of its Adventist roots? How many preterists will re-examine Creation Science once they discover it is the direct product of radical, modern futurism? Most Creation Scientists today remain completely unfamiliar with George McCready Price. Given the choice between Josephus and his regional flood comments going back millennia and George McCready Price and his global flood geology formulated in the early 20^th century, the choice is easy for any reasonable preterist. The time has come to move beyond Creation Science.

Preterism refutes a global flood and therefore discredits the entire Creation Science movement. It negates Creation Science ideology by textual and theological analysis of the biblical language. Historical investigation reveals its ignoble background in hyper-futurism. A large factor in the future success or demise of the Creation Science movement will be the growth of preterism. Wide acceptance of preterism among American Christians will inevitably prove fatal to the Creation Science paradigm. The popularity of Creation Science in the 20^th century will likely guarantee its grave will be marked for future generations as one more example of counter-productive cul-de-sac thinking related to dispensationalism.

Conclusion

This brief review of Timothy P. Martin’s book is intended to whet the appetite of Christians, especially preterists, to take a closer look at what many, including this reviewer, believed was the only acceptable interpretation of the early chapters of the Book of Genesis. Compare the language of Genesis with the language of the Olivet Discourse, 2 Peter 3 and the Book of Revelation, and then strive for a more consistent, and thereby, a more accurate understanding of those early historical accounts. And be sure to keep in mind that it is always wise to constantly be taking a closer look at those time-honored conclusions of traditional Christianity, since a true and biblical understanding has nothing to fear from honest exegetical investigation!

THE END

How Does the Regional Flood Impact the Origins Debate?

By Walt Hibbard

_________________________

As we have already seen from the material in Timothy P. Martin’s book reviewed above, the hyper-literal interpretation of the biblical Flood is untenable. And if so, what can we say about the implications as they relate to the first two chapters of Genesis? I wish to quote Mr. Martin’s book further, this time on pg. 66-67:

The Creation Science movement was a result of sincere Christians desiring to defend the credibility of the Bible in the face of modern skepticism and unbelief. That motive is one that should be evident in all Christians who name Jesus Christ as Lord of all and wish to see the Kingdom of God expand in our day. The problem in this case is not the sincerity or spiritual goals of those within the movement. Nor is the problem their dedication to the cause. The problem is that the movement has backfired on its proponents.

Reading the Bible according to the methods of Creation Science ideology will convince those who read the Bible carefully of the fallibility of the Bible. It leads logical people to unbelief and ultimately to atheism.

Just a few pages ahead, on pg. 72, he writes:

At this time, I do not believe it is possible to replace Creation Science ideology with any particular old-earth creationist view in some simplistic, cut and paste process. What I would like to offer the thoughtful reader is an introduction on how to pursue the mammoth origins issue in light of the paradigm shift to preterism.

Then on pg. 111 of his book, and with support from the 19^th century interpretative genius, Milton S. Terry, and his book, “Biblical Apocalyptics,” Mr. Martin offers the following:

The key Milton Terry offers in his work on apocalyptics is that our textual understanding of Revelation and Genesis are mutually dependent and related to each other … And this is where I believe preterism has so much to offer to the biblical origins debate. If preterism represents an advance in biblical understanding of Christian eschatology, particularly the apocalyptic genre of Scripture, then that advance will have tremendous implications in our understanding of Genesis. Put simply, as we understand the covenantal redemptive focus and Hebraic nature of biblical prophecy better, we will naturally acquire the theological tools to better understand the creation account in Genesis. The key to unraveling the origins debate in the modern church is eschatology …Just as biblical prophecy communicates through the big picture of Hebraic apocalyptic poetry, so the creation account in Genesis follows the same form and structure. (Emphasis his)

Quoting Milton Terry from pg.43 of his book, we read:

But if these opening chapters of the Bible are a revelation of God’s creative relation to the world, may they not be apocalyptical in character? Is it not fitting that the canon of Scripture should open as well as close with an apocalypse?

Then on pg. 113, Mr. Martin makes this interesting comparison:

Let us begin our textual comparison with the seven-fold pattern of the creation days. This pattern is repeated seemingly endlessly through the book of Revelation. All the apocalyptic events in Revelation are categorized in this same seven-fold structure and what’s more, they mirror the creation order.

Following this theme, we read on pg. 117 of Mr. Martin’s book:

Another evidence of the apocalyptic nature of the creation account is its prominent use of repetition and recapitulation. Many have pointed out the repeated examples of repetition and recapitulation in John’s Apocalypse. In fact, it is common in all biblical apocalyptic. The book of Revelation constantly repeats events of great covenantal significance and with each repetition enlarges on the redemptive historical work of Jesus Christ.

Lest the reader fears that reading the book of Genesis from this viewpoint will remove the element of real history from the biblical account, Mr. Martin writes on pg. 122:

The concern that this relegates the Genesis record to anti-historical myth is unfounded for another important reason. There is a common misconception fostered by literalists regarding the nature of apocalyptic language. Literalists often complain that all non-literal methods rule out historical events. But the fact that a text is apocalyptic in nature does not in anyway prohibit historical events to underlie it.

Drawing to the conclusion of his book, we read Mr. Martin’s words concerning the purpose of the creation account as understood from an analytical and textual

perspective, on pg. 122-125:

The creation of the universe is obviously a historical event, as is the creation of Adam and Eve. They are real, historical humans who were created innocent, yet they sinned and broke the covenant relationship between God and man. While this is perfectly compatible with apocalyptic, it is equally clear that a plain, historical record is simply not the purpose of the creation account. That it all happened according to the wisdom and benevolence of God is the point. How it all happened in scientific detail and physical phenomena is not in the priority of apocalyptic communication … Put simply, the apocalypse of creation is about worship and covenant relationship, not science. Understood this way, it is just as relevant to God’s people today as it was in Moses’ day as Israel was leaving Egypt with all its pantheistic idolatry of the creation … We are so used to reading Genesis in terms of the intramural origins debate among Christians or the creation-evolution debate that we have totally missed the reality that the apocalypse of creation is a powerful unveiling of the meaning, essence and goal of covenant life between God and man … Christians desperately need to change their focus from the supposed scientific implications of creation and instead feed off the apocalyptic vision of creation which demands covenant faithfulness in all aspects of life and dimension of God’s world.

And there we find the challenge to our erstwhile literal interpretation of Genesis. Tim Martin has done an immeasurable service to the Christian community by offering this book for study and consideration. It is the hope of this reviewer that none of us will shrink from our responsibilities as Christians to test these teachings in the light of the preterist-biblical hermeneutic. And then perhaps we can come up with a fuller and more accurate view of God’s plan for His people as recorded in His Word, both in the beginning as set forth in Genesis, as well as in the book of Revelation. Both are inspired revelations of His old and new creational work that only apocalyptic language could ever adequately give expression and meaning to.

 

 

....
 

Taken from: http://www.preteristviewpoint.com/id61.html