I want to preface this by saying that I think these are legitimate questions worth pondering. I am asking them because they are part of a series of questions I have been asking for several months in my own thinking and meditation. These questions come from many I have about the creation of mankind and particularly the creation of Adam and Eve. We can get all hung up on creation and then forget that while we may believe we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, we are also all descendants of Noah.
I'm not really trying to debate whether or not the flood was world-wide. But I am very interested in how this story would have become a part of so many cultures whether it was a world wide flood or not.
Since we believe that there were only a few survivors of the flood. Is it possible that the legend of the flood is world wide but the flood itself was not? This would have been a very important part of the stories of origins for the people as they populated the earth after the flood. It would have remained a part of their history.
If we assume the flood destroyed the whole world then there would not have been any people in other parts of the world who would have survived to tell about it. If the story of Noah is a story that is a part of the history of so many cultures then it is likely that it is a true event and it was passed down as the people spread around the earth after the flood.
Since there are so many flood legends around the world, how do we know that the story Moses tells us is any more true or accurate than any other culture's story of the flood? That is, do we assume that all other legends prove that the Bible story is the true story or do we look at each story as told by the culture it comes from and accept them all as versions of the same event without any of them giving substance to the Biblical version?
If there were people all over the earth at the time of the flood is it possible that there is more than one "Noah" and therefore more than one of these events that may have taken place in other parts of the world? Are we to believe then that the entire earth was populated between the time of creation and Noah? Is that possible? If it was then perhaps it is also possible that there was more than one "Noah".
If the entire earth was not populated then what would be the point of flooding all of it when the intention was to destroy the evil people on the Earth?
I believe that there was one flood and it was in the day of Noah. Him and his family were spared along with the animals (male/female). It covered the earth and i believe it remained 150 days (?) not sure about that though.
I agree with river. I believe there was One flood that covered the entire earth. The story of Noah is a great one that shows God's love and mercy towards man.
"I want to preface this by saying that I think these are legitimate questions worth pondering. I am asking them because they are part of a series of questions I have been asking for several months in my own thinking and meditation."
Thunder, I agree this is a great subject for months of thinking and meditation, however the questions are only legitimate if you haven't studied on the subject.
I don't want to rob you of the treasure which awaits you, but allow these tidbits to entice you to dig deeper.
* it is mathematically possible for Noah and his three sons to populate the earth to the present population in 4000 years.
* many of the flood stories have commonalities, in the method of surviving and the number of survivors.
* many of the flood stories have in it the name "Noah" in one form or another.
* the Welch can document their ancestry back to the descendants of Japheth when they migrated to England.
Genesis 9:18
"The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth..... from them came the people who were scattered over the
earth"
Two very interesting things to google :
1) flood story comparisons
2) table of nations
(the table of nations traces back every people group on earth to the 3 sons of Noah)
Genesis 6: 1-9 says "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
There is a connection between the giants and God's intent to destroy man. Verse 9 says Noah was perfect in his generations, meaning he was a pure descendant of Adam and Eve. This is part of the story. God's used the floor to purify the bloodlines of man, so that in Noach and his offspring God started again with a bloodline from Adam and Eve.
Giants in Genesis 6 is from the Hebrew word Nephilim. Strong's number 5303 "nphiyl nef-eel' or nphil {nef-eel'}; from 5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant."
On http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Genesis-6-Sons-of-God
They say "There has been much speculation about who these "sons of God" mentioned in the sixth chapter of Genesis were. Three basic interpretations of this passage have been advanced.
The first, and oldest, belief is that "the sons of God" were fallen angels who consorted with human women, producing giant offspring called nephilim (Heb. נפלים). This view was widely held in the world of the first century, and was supported by Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius and many of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Commodianus.
sons of
The second view is one which was first suggested by Julius Africanus and later advocated by Saint Augustine, the Catholic Bishop of Hippo. Augustine rejected the concept of the fallen host having committed fornication with women. In his early fifth century book The City of God, he promoted the theory that "the sons of God" simply referred to the genealogical line of Seth, who were committed to preserving the true worship of God. He interpreted Genesis 6 to mean that the male offspring of Adam through Seth were "the sons of God," and the female offspring of Adam through Cain were "the daughters of men." He wrote that the problem was that the family of Seth had interbred with the family of Cain, intermingling the bloodlines and corrupting the pure religion. This view has become the dominant one among most modern biblical scholars."
However, the writer of this site does not agree with Augustine and his theory that the
sons of God were the line from Seth and not fallen angels. Augustine, of course. is a major father of Roman Catholicism, and the Catholic Seth theory appears to have been taken over by some protestants. The writer of this site concludes in saying "As shown above, the evidence that "the sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 are fallen angels is substantial. By their sexual immorality, these angels produced offspring which were strong and violent. The concept of a race of giants which resulted from the union of gods and humans is virtually universal in the world's early civilizations."
There are two typos in one sentence on my past above. It should say "God used the flood to purify the bloodlines of man, so that in Noach and his offspring God started again with a bloodline from Adam and Eve."
The Nephilim were on earth after the flood, ie: Goliath and his brothers, king of Bashan to name a few. (I think) Noah, his Wife or daughter inlaws must of had some nephilim dna in their ancestry, so that these men were throw backs, or out crops.
Steve Quayle, a former short wave broadcaster, and now on the Internet, on his web site has photos of evidence that giants lived on earth after the flood, and after the time of Goliath.
Christ in Luke 17: 24-37 says "For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
25. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
26. And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all."
The question is whether Jesus in saying that when he appears again it will be like in the days of Noah limits the similarity to people living life with no awareness that the end of the age is upon them - or if he is also talking about the very end time being like that period when the Nephilim lived on earth. There is now a genre of Christian discussion of space ships, the Roswell UFO Crash of July 1947, and abductions of humans by supposed "aliens" who seem to be interested in human genetics. Some of this discussion is about these supposed "aliens" in the space ships being fallen angels, and not beings from other planets.
Was the earth all one piece of land mass, or was it the 7 continents we see today?
"To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother�s name was Joktan." Genesis 10:25
A lot of people think the flood story is impossible, because our continents are so spread out, but what they forget is that it was possible the land was all one piece and not separate units.
Violakat, that is so cooool! I always assumed it referred to the Tower of Babel, that is a good alternate meaning I had not considered, thank you for sharing.
