Flood and New Testament

this is my 3rd try. Each time I lost my question.

When the Flood is not the worldwide catatrofe 2200 years BC. than what sense does the mentioning of it make by the Lord Jesus and Peter. Even as a warning.

Hi dirkdevries,
Sorry the system messed up on you, but glad you were successful this time.

Even if the flood that was mentioned in Genesis was not the global catastrophe that some organizations portray it as, that doesn’t mean there was no flood at all. So in that sense, it’s perfectly natural for Jesus and Peter to mention it, as it’s still an important story with, as Peter says, symbolism related to baptism.

Here’s one BioLogos article about a way to view the flood:

1 Like

Maybe it was a culturally familiar way of referencing the importance of being prepared for coming judgment.

1 Like

that is in 1 Peter 3. But in 2 P 3 he clearly speaks of the hlobal Flood, as does the Lord Jesus in Mat 24,38 . Hebr. 11 ,7 is also very clear. What sense would it make. Please read it, Peter, Jesus, Hebrew author why do they speak this way.

Well here is another way to look at it. Let’s see what their global understanding is.

First thing to realize is that they did not know how big the earth was. They had no idea the land that became the Americas even existed. But let’s use just a scriptural argument since one is available.

We’re all of these global views just as literal?

Colossians 1:23 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

  • Here Paul says that all of creation under heaven heard the gospel. That means literally, all OT creation. Did the native Americans who paul did not even know existed heard the gospel? If it’s all of creation then technically that includes animals as well. Did the forest ants hear it in Australia? Technically, if it’s literally all of creation then did the rocks on mars hear the gospel?

After all the claim is made rocks will sing.

Luke 19:40 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
40 But Jesus answered, “I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!”

But that’s a bit ridiculous isn’t it? To actually believe while Paul was alive literally all of creation heard the gospel or that rocks would sing out.

Romans 1:8 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.

  • Here it says that the roman Christian’s faith was being proclaimed throughout the whole world. Again, did the aboriginals of Australia, or the indigenous people of southern USA, or even the pagans of norway hear of the Roman christians faiths in the first century? Not likely.

1 Thessalonians 1:8 New American Standard Bible

8 For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything.

  • here it says in every place the word of faith was heard.

Romans 10:18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;

“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.

  • here it says even the ends of the world has heard it.

But we know that in the first century the whole world did not know the gospel if the whole world is the same whole world we know it is as modern humans.

When they thought of the whole earth, just like the ancient Jews in the desert where Moses wrote the Torah, did not know of the whole world as we do.

Yes, I do believe their understanding of the flood would have been fairly universal, but as the ancients at the time of Genesis would not have had a concept of the “globe,” they would not have meant the same thing by “earth” that we mean today. The word they use can also refer to “land” or a “region.” But that doesn’t mean that Noah and the flood did not happen – just that our modern idea of its scope is different from theirs.

1 Like

Peter clearly speaks of the Flood being a warning for the times to come.
He is warning everybody on the planet.
Hebrews 11, 7 is speaking of the faith of Noah doing what he did. He saved his family. How can could we go against this. Why would we believe Jesus died for us on the cross and rose again and not believe the other writings. We are not in a position to judge these words. The whole chapter Hebrews 11 is sabout the believers. About Abel, Henoch, Noah, Abraham, Sara,…Moses…Gideon,… David…to those in modern times.How not logical if the first ones mentioned were not real people with the stories around them. Why would God do such a thing. I believe He is the author of scripture isn’t He ?

I am not going against this. I also believe Noah built an ark and was saved in the flood – just that the flood was regional, not global.

And I also believe all of those Bible characters were also real people and that Jesus died and rose again. We all have to make an interpretation of the text that we read, and some people come to different interpretations about what God intended the original audience of each scriptural book to understand and take from it. So we should ask ourselves how they would have read it and try to avoid applying modern biases to it (such as inserting our understanding of the “globe” in when that may not have been the original audience’s understanding).

Humans are the authors of scripture, but God inspired them. Why he inspired people to write certain ways is not something we can know, but as I said above, the original authors wrote to an ancient audience, so we should try and take that into account as we interpret scripture.

2 Likes

@dirkdevries

I dont think Jesus, or any other human of that age, knew how much of the Old Testament was poetic.

1 Like

And by “planet” Peter would be thinking of the Roman world. He had no knowledge of the rest of the earth.

Because the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ isn’t dependent on the Old Testament at all.

Says who?

First off, God was writing to a people who had a forigen concept of reality far different from ours and God had to communicate to them in a way that they could understand, thus God inspired the writers of Genesis 1-3 to write a creation story that was of a common style of other Ancient Near Eastern themes but it is radically different in that Yahweh alone is Creator, He hadn’t to fight off other gods or chaos creatures or need the aid of other gods to help Him in creation and that humans are made in His Image to be caretakers and co-rulers with Him rather then be mere slaves to serve the gods. Also the Bible is the product of humans. While yes the Holy Spirit inspired them to writing something, God didn’t dictate what they authors where to write down. God didn’t write this thing called the Bible and just plopped it down to the 2nd century church as we have it now. The Bible is a series of documents thousands upon thousands of years old, written by different people with many agenda’s behind for what they wrote. It was written by an ancient people to an ancient people. Though the Bible is for us indeed not everything in the Bible was written to us or for us. We need to pick out the spiritual kernels out of the dead husk of the ancient environment that the Bible was made out of.

2 Likes

Have you considered the verses I used to explain how the whole world was obviously regional?

we are dependant on the holy Spirit. He is the one who leads us into a true understanding. I think Peter ment the whole earth. He warns all that judgement will come.He says through the holy Spirit that heaven and earth will be lost in fire, not just a local place. Jesus said similar thing. Heaven and earth will pass away but the word of God will remain.
That is like at the Flood. It brought destruction everywhere.
Many geologists see the results because they interpret them that way. Others believe different and make different theorie .I am reading Oads and Reed about the Flood and the geological impact at the moment. It is very thouroughly.
A Dutchman named Stef Heerema is a geologist and explains the mountains of saltrock underneath us ( 3000 mtr high) from Flood theory. No other interpretation - and people tried- makes sense.

And if that is your conviction, then you are free to believe it and I wouldn’t want to try and convince you to accept something that does not fit into your present view of faith. But all the same, I’m glad you’re here asking questions.

Flood geology had a place in science a long time ago, but has not been accepted science since the early 1800s. Most scientists who teach it now do so because of prior theological commitments (in other words, they need it to try to explain the geologic column), not because it is the best model to explain all of the evidence that is found.

If you’re interested, the GeoChristian has an article where he talks about Stef Heerema’s young-earth model in light of modern geology:

2 Likes

Just to bite we are not fully dependent on the Holy Spirit making scriptures come together. After all anyone can make those claims. We also are told to meditate on scripture, ponder on nature, and be like the Bible bereans. God does expect us to do the work as well.

1 Like

I think it is best not to try to draw conclusions from 2 Peter, as the vast bulk of New Testament scholars recognize it as a forgery.

That aside, referring to a story that others know to make a point is a valid thing to do. Jesus was not on earth to correct the views of people on history or science. He was here to reveal the Father.

2 Likes

2 peter 3:6 speaks of the world perished in water. And in vers 7 Peter compares it with the future event that heaven and earth will be jidged in fire.

Also in Genesis the Flood was not local. It clearly is a different story. Genesis read 7 verses 17-19. It speaks of all the high hills that were under the whole heaven. Does God gives us untrue information? vers 21 and 22 All flesh, all land-animals died that moved upon the earth…that is not local ! At Jesus time this was in the Tenach, his father’s book. He believed it. He also speaks of Adam and of Abel. How is it possible to be christian and believe different then the Lord himself. I can not understand. I do not want to fight with you. But can yopu give me a reasonable answer. When we pray how can we talk to God and not believe what He says in his word.

As I mentioned earlier, the word “earth” here can be translated to mean “region” or “land,” not the globe as we would think of it now. I believe the flood was a true event and very important story that meant a lot to its original readers (but should be put in that context before we read too much into it), and Jesus knew this and used it accordingly. So I do not see this as “believing different” than Jesus. I don’t believe the scope of the flood changes its symbolic value as spoken of by Jesus or Peter. But I can understand why this would seem strange if you are used to seeing it another way, and if you cannot reconcile a local flood with your faith, then I hope you won’t let it trouble you too much.

When did God write to us?

Forgive me in how I put it. What I meant to say is inspire the people to write down the story. And when I don’t know.

Hey Sealkin. You put it just fine. No forgiveness necessary. Au contraire.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.