>I read through the Flood account, replacing 'earth', with 'land' and could
>agree that doing so would allow for a local rather than a global flood.
>However, how does one account for Genesis 7:19:
>'And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth/land; and *all* the
>high hills, that were under the *whole* heaven, were covered'.
>This verse was brought to my attention from another list where the
>following 'difficulty' was also posited.
>'. If ALL the high mountains under the WHOLE heaven were covered, then we
>can reasonably conclude that at least several HIGH mountains were covered,
>can't we? So how can this be harmonized with the fact that water will seek
>its own level? In other words, how could water cover just some "high
>mountains" without first leveling off, as it sought its own level, so that
>NO high mountains could have been covered until the water had fallen to a
>level that was higher than the "HIGH" mountain? To imagine the local-flood
>scenario that Matt hinted at, one would have to visualize a "mound" of
>water standing suspended over the mountains of Ararat in defiance of the
>scientific law that says water will seek its own level.'
>Isn't this a legitimate argument against a local flood?
No. The same Hebrew word for mountains means "hills," and
the Hebrew word for heaven also means "sky."
The best way to decide the meaning of a verse is to compare it with
another verse where the meaning is obvious. Take the following
In I Samuel, David and 600 of his men were in hot pursuit of the Amalekite
army. When David's band made contact with the Amalekites, "behold, they
were spread abroad upon all the earth ..." (I Sam. 30:16).
Whereupon David smote them; only 400 young Amalekite men escaped death
(I Sam. 30:17). To those who would insist that the language of Genesis 7 and
8 dictates a world-wide flood because the waters prevailed "upon the earth," I
would invite them to be consistent, and distribute the Amalekite army over the
globe also. Then explain how David was able to eradicate them in 24 hours
with only 400 men (200 lagged behind).
The Amalekite army, in all likelihood, occupied no more territory than did
Confederate troops at the battle of Gettysburg. Knowing that gives us a
means of measurement we can apply to the flood. By using the Bible's
own yardstick, the deluge of Noah's day would be local, not global.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution, http://www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."