CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Why couldn't the rivers just re-form as the waters subsided. If the old names of the rivers were still remembered, then people would probably just resume calling them by the same names, and if they couldn't be remembered, then those who wrote the bible would just have had to use the new names to describe the rivers of Eden.
Why couldn't the rivers just re-form as the waters subsided.
A global flood would cause major geological changes.
If the old names of the rivers were still remembered, then people would probably just resume calling them by the same names, and if they couldn't be remembered, then those who wrote the bible would just have had to use the new names to describe the rivers of Eden.
Why couldn't the rivers just re-form as the waters subsided.
The flood would of caused major geological changes in the Earth.
If the old names of the rivers were still remembered, then people would probably just resume calling them by the same names, and if they couldn't be remembered, then those who wrote the bible would just have had to use the new names to describe the rivers of Eden.
You must really want a response here if you posted the same argument twice. :)
Why couldn't the rivers just re-form as the waters subsided.
The flood would of caused major geological changes in the Earth.
This is your claim, but it's not obvious how much change and whether or not that would be sufficient to change the course of rivers. Mountains are likely to remain as they were before the flood, and that means their runoff would go in roughly the same valleys. Whether they would follow roughly the same course is hard to say, but I think that's close enough to give it the same name. Also, you mentioned that only two of the original four rivers remained, so that potentially points to a fairly significant geological change, just not enough of a change to destroy all of the rivers.
If the old names of the rivers were still remembered, then people would probably just resume calling them by the same names, and if they couldn't be remembered, then those who wrote the bible would just have had to use the new names to describe the rivers of Eden.
Unlikely
I'm not sure which of my options you're calling unlikely, probably both, but either way I'm just going to point out people name things in a fairly ad hoc manner. The turkey got it's name because American settlers thought it looked like another bird that had been imported to Europe through the country Turkey:
I also remember reading about certain birds and trees in the new world that were named after old world trees and birds just because they reminded the settlers of the old world versions. (Unfortunately, I don't remember which birds/trees these were.)
In short, if you were one of those post-flood survivors, lost and alone in a barren post-flood world, and you came across some as yet unnamed river, wouldn't you want to give it some nice familiar name that evoked fond memories of the rivers that Grandma used to talk about, a name that would be easily recognizable by others in your group? Of course you would. :)
This is your claim, but it's not obvious how much change and whether or not that would be sufficient to change the course of rivers. Mountains are likely to remain as they were before the flood, and that means their runoff would go in roughly the same valleys. Whether they would follow roughly the same course is hard to say, but I think that's close enough to give it the same name. Also, you mentioned that only two of the original four rivers remained, so that potentially points to a fairly significant geological change, just not enough of a change to destroy all of the rivers.
Support:
However, a flood of the proportions described in Genesis would have resulted in vast amounts of erosion and redepositing of sediments, fossilization of plants and animals, volcanism, and redistribution of radioisotopes.
-http://www.icr.org/article/440/
Also it would cause major sedimentary and geological changes BECAUSE according to the bible the flood waters (Genesis 8:3?) would of caused major erosion of rivers and of all the earth.
All Genesis 8:3 says is that the rain stopped and the waters gradually receded. It doesn't say anything about erosion. Also, as the waters receded, it would have washed soil down, not up. The Bible says that the ark came to a rest on Mount Arafat, so the mountains would have remained. As the waters pulled away from the mountains and valleys, they would have followed the low courses of the land, basically where the earlier rivers would have been. If anything, they would have dug the courses of the rivers deeper.
The article you quote mentions a redistribution of surface soil, but not a changing of the contours of the earth, which is what would be required to significantly change the course of rivers. The courses of rivers change in minor ways even today, but that doesn't cause us to change their names, so a much bigger change than that would have been required to justify a name change.
I'm not claiming to prove that the existing rivers would have reappeared, only that it's plausible that they could have. Also, there's still the possibility that people could have reapplied the old names to new rivers. Basically, I'm just saying that you're a long way off from proving that the flood was local based on these few sentences from the Bible.
I'm a young earth creationist and I don't see why a river bead must always be changed if a flood goes over it. And even if it were local, since the Garden of Eden was destroyed during the flood, then the flood would have had to have been over the rivers anyways. But even if it did change, then it doesn't negate that the rivers could still have been called the same, even though they followed different paths.
However, remember, rivers follow with gravity. So what we would most likely see, if a great flood happened, is a river becoming enlarged and deepened, since more pressure would have been forced into the river bed. But since water, and there are under water rivers, follows the lowest point, then it wouldn't change much past enlargement.
Despite the many, many other issues with the story of the flood and the ark, it also contradicts other passages.
Genesis 7:19-23"They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."
If it was local all mountains wouldn't be covered and all living things on earth wouldn't have been wiped out.
Despite the many, many other issues with the story of the flood and the ark, it also contradicts other passages.
Genesis 7:19-23 "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."
If it was local all mountains wouldn't be covered and all living things on earth wouldn't have been wiped out.
The whole earth in the bible is usually refereed to figuratively so there is no contradiction.(1)
I disagree. Given the context and the repeated descriptions of total destruction I think it's very clear that the author is trying to convey that it was a global flood by using terms like "under the entire heavens" and "every living thing on the face of the earth." If it were local there would be no need to use such extreme and repetitive descriptions. Here are more verses conveying the same thing over and over and over.
Genesis 6:12-13: "God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."
Genesis 6:17: "17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
Genesis 7:4 "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
Genesis: 9:11 "I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
I know the Bible uses colorful descriptions sometimes, but I think it's very clear by the wording and repetitiveness that the author is trying to make it very clear to us that this is not just some local flood but is the total annihilation of all life on Earth, with the exception of those on the ark.
Regardless of whether the story was meant to be local or global really doesn't matter since the whole story is clearly fictitious. There are soooo many problems with the story I wouldn't know where to begin and I don't want to get too far off topic since this debate is just about whether it was local or global.
God realized that he didn't have to kill everyone, and that he could just use natural selection to weed out the unworthy, i.e. those of inferior genetic quality.
I think it was just his way of saying, "My bad. I may have overreacted a bit there by drowning everyone. Sorry about that. Won't happen again. My anger management counselor isn't going to be happy about this."
I disagree. Given the context and the repeated descriptions of total destruction I think it's very clear that the author is trying to convey that it was a global flood by using terms like "under the entire heavens" and "every living thing on the face of the earth." If it were local there would be no need to use such extreme and repetitive descriptions. Here are more verses conveying the same thing over and over and over.
Genesis 6:12-13: "God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."
Genesis 6:17: "17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
Genesis 7:4 "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
Genesis: 9:11 "I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
I know the Bible uses colorful descriptions sometimes, but I think it's very clear by the wording and repetitiveness that the author is trying to make it very clear to us that this is not just some local flood but is the total annihilation of all life on Earth, with the exception of those on the ark.
Regardless of whether the story was meant to be local or global really doesn't matter since the whole story is clearly fictitious. There are soooo many problems with the story I wouldn't know where to begin and I don't want to get too far off topic since this debate is just about whether it was local or global.
So do you still think it was local?
Kol erets in the old testament is almost always local.
Kol erets in the old testament is almost always local.
Yes, but since the old testament is a collection of many manuscripts by different authors we should be analyzing the linguistics of each book individually. In Genesis the word erets is almost always translated "earth" and in most cases where it isn't translated as earth it's very obvious from the context that it's not referring to the earth. For example, "the whole land (erets) of Ethiopia" or "the whole land (erets) of Havilah." If you go to this site and scroll down to the section titled "Concordance Results using KJV" it shows all the verses where the word erets is used.
ma‛al translated means upward.
Yes, the verse I quoted actually has the word upward in it so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that.
The word there is har which can mean hill
The word har occurs 18 times in Genesis. 17 out of those 18 are translated mountain or mount. The one verse that is translated hill makes sense as hill because of the context. Here is the verse along with the one right after it that translates the same word as mountain.
Genesis 7:
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills (har), that were under the whole heaven, were covered .
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail ; and the mountains (har) were covered.
So if we translated har in verse 19 as mountains it would be redundant because of verse 20, and if we translate har in verse 20 as hills it would also make those verses redundant, which is why they translated the first one hill and the second one mountain. Plus the one in verse 19 is prefixed by the word "high", and saying "high mountain" would also be redundant because all mountains are high. The passage just describes the rising waters, first covering the high hills and then rising over the mountains.
The description of the flood makes it very clear that it was meant to be global by the excessive usage of phrases like "all the people on earth", "end to all people", "destroy all life under the heaven", "every creature that has the breath of life in it", "Everything on earth will perish", "all life", and "destroy the earth." I don't know how the author could make it any more clear. Think about it, if the author wanted to convey a global flood what more could he say other than all that?
Another thing to consider is gods promise, "Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” If the flood was only a local flood then he has broken his promise many times because there are been many very large local floods.
I think you're grasping at straws trying to find some way to make the flood story about a local flood. Am I correct in assuming it's because you've discovered all the evidence that proves that there was no global flood and you're trying to find a way to make the flood story fit this evidence?
Yes, the verse I quoted actually has the word upward in it so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that.
Oh some of the translations have another word in it that makes it look like it was global.
Yes, but since the old testament is a collection of many manuscripts by different authors we should be analyzing the linguistics of each book individually. In Genesis the word erets is almost always translated "earth" and in most cases where it isn't translated as earth it's very obvious from the context that it's not referring to the earth. For example, "the whole land (erets) of Ethiopia" or "the whole land (erets) of Havilah." If you go to this site and scroll down to the section titled "Concordance Results using KJV" it shows all the verses where the word erets is used.
Thanks for the link and because of Genesis 8:14 it couldn't of been global as the earth would of been completely dry which it was clearly not. If the writer meant it to be global he could of used the word tebel which he never did describing the flood.
And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
-KJV
I think you're grasping at straws trying to find some way to make the flood story about a local flood. Am I correct in assuming it's because you've discovered all the evidence that proves that there was no global flood and you're trying to find a way to make the flood story fit this evidence?
because of Genesis 8:14 it couldn't of been global as the earth would of been completely dry which it was clearly not. If the writer meant it to be global he could of used the word tebel which he never did describing the flood.
The word tebel isn't used even once in Genesis, so clearly the author doesn't use that word. However he uses erets to describe the earth over and over and over again. Read these verses in Genesis and tell me you think that the word earth in all of those should really be land. http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/strongs_776.htm
Was genesis 1:1 really supposed to say "In the beginning God created the heaven and the land."
You're picking one verse, taking it to its literal extreme and ignoring the complete context of the story and the book of Genesis as a whole.
Do you think all those passages I quoted you were translated incorrectly?
"all the people on earth" should be "all the people in the area"
"end to all people" should be "end to all people in the general vicinity"
"destroy all life under the heaven" should be "destroy all life in this area"
"every creature that has the breath of life in it" should be "every creature in the area that has breath of life in it"
"Everything on earth will perish" should be "everything around here will perish"
"all life" should be "all life around here, which is actually a very small amount of life on earth"
"destroy the earth." should be "destroy the area around here"
Do you see just how much you have to alter the story to fit a local flood?
For the sake of argument let's assume it was a local flood. Would you then agree that god lied when he promised he wouldn't flood the "land" again?
Would you also agree that nearly every verse in the story was translated incorrectly?
You're picking one verse, taking it to its literal extreme and ignoring the complete context of the story and the book of Genesis as a whole.
That is exactly what young earth creationist are doing since it would contradict psalm 104:9.
Also the flood account it appears to be from Noah's perspective also so that could be it.
Also since it doesn't talk about mountain location it was probably refers to hills that the person (Noah) could see.
For the sake of argument let's assume it was a local flood. Would you then agree that god lied when he promised he wouldn't flood the "land" again?
No because it really did kill everyone expect for Noah because the judgment was UNIVERSAL since according to the bible at that time people lived only in a small area. So there is no contradiction.
In order for it to be a local flood you have to change almost every verse in the story, ignore the context of the story, ignore the literary context of the entire book of genesis, and say that over 100 verses in genesis were translated incorrectly. You also failed to address most of my arguments and questions and it's very clear that no amount of evidence will change your mind. So I'm not going to waste any more time on this debate, especially since it really makes no difference whether it was meant to be global or local.
In order for it to be a local flood you have to change almost every verse in the story, ignore the context of the story, ignore the literary context of the entire book of genesis, and say that over 100 verses in genesis were translated incorrectly. You also failed to address most of my arguments and questions
I am going to reread Genesis and to be honest debating about the flood is not my strong point.
and it's very clear that no amount of evidence will change your mind.
false see above
So I'm not going to waste any more time on this debate, especially since it really makes no difference whether it was meant to be global or local.
True it is not a salvation issue or a measure of Christan Orthodoxy.
I wouldn't necessarily say it's not your strong point. You're debating skills aren't bad. You actually take the time to look at the original language which is more than most Christians do. I think your only weak point in this particular debate was focusing on one or two verses instead of the whole context of the story.
I'm sorry if I came across a little snippy with my last argument. I was just getting frustrated. It's just that almost every time I debate a Christian they avoid my questions, so it's just a pet peeve of mine. Please don't take it personally.