2nd Peter 3:3-7 ..

" Knowing this first, there shall come in the last days, scoffers, who will walk after thier own lust, saying where is the promise of his coming for since the fathers  fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."For this they willingly are ignorant of that by the word of God, the heavans were of old, & the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was being overflowed with water, perrished, but the heavens and the earth which are now by the same word are kept in store reserved unto fire against the day of judgement & perdition of ungodly men."

Pre-flood World Conditions and Giantism

 

Most creationists believe that the world before Noah's flood was very different.  It was a lush  tropical garden, from pole to pole.  The "canopy" layer  of a water vapor above the Earth's atmosphere is the best way to understand how this is possible.  The Scripture tells us that God separated the "waters from the waters on creation day 2 and placed waters above and on the Earth. The increased atmospheric pressure would have allowed a large amount of condensation at the end of each night cycle. This very heavy dew along with the "mist" would have been adequate to water the ground, so there was no need for rain on the Earth.  This water above would have compressed the atmosphere and created both much larger creatures and greatly increased longevity.  In laboratory conditions bacteria life spans are increased 10 times by this increased pressure.  Our 70 to 90 years would be increased to 700 to 900 years.  There would have been more animals before the flood since , noah only needed to bring with him just two of every basic kind of animal to be ablke to repopulate the planet, he didnt have to bring all the variety of species that there was. God created "Kinds" of animals not all the various species, the many difrent varieties we have today comes from inbreeding, mixed breeding and all kinds of genetic manipulation. There would have been a dog kind that included all the genetic variation to produce all the modern dogs plus wolves, dingoes, coyotes... When Noah's flood was over, the earth had changed radically. It rained for the first time.  The lush vegetation was gone. The climate was much more severe. And predatory behavior, animals killing other animals for food, became dominant. So the dinosaurs became extinct because of these new conditions. And the government of turkey says it has found the grave of Noah himself.

 and they said the skeleton is 12ft tall

We have fossils of other very large creatures from the pre-flood world (dragonflies with a 3-foot wingspread, 6-foot tall rabbits, giant sloth's, etc.). When God told Noah about the coming flood he told Noah to take two of each "kind" of land living, air breathing animal on the ark. This would have included each "kind" of dinosaur. But weren't they too big? Dinosaurs hatch out of eggs and the larger dinosaur eggs are about the size of a football. So even the giant T-Rex was once the size of a small dog soon after he hatched. So space for young ones on the Ark would not be a problem. Natural Selection is a real process in nature.  but, It does not contribute to "evolution" since it only shows deterioration of genetic diversity.  The Evolutionists MUST explain how increased amounts of information are added to gene pools to achieve improvement.  But, they have NO way to explain this.  Mutation, one of their arguments, is a loss of information or a genetic mistake not an increase in information content.  This reality is FATAL to evolution.  Men still believe evolution because their view of life (presuppositions) will not let them consider the possibility of God.  Each "kind" would represent great variety. For example a pair of dogs would represent the dog kind including wolves, coyotes, dingoes, etc. Not two Great Danes, two Poodles, two Daschund, two Timber Wolves, two Chihuahua, two whatever...  When Noah's flood was over, the earth had changed radically. The lush vegetation was gone. The climate was much more severe. And predatory behavior, animals killing other animals for food, became dominant. So the dinosaurs became extinct because of these new conditions.

Fossil Giantism by Bob Gentet

When I first took Historical Geology in the spring of 1960, we used the book
Historical Geology (Second Edition) by Carol O. Dunbar; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
New York, London, 1960 edition.  On pages 237 in the chapter on the Pennsylvanian
Period, the following is said:

    "The insects of this time were truly remarkable for their great size.  Out of four hundred forms known from Lower and Middle Pennsylvanian strata, more than a score exceeded 4 inches in length, six attained nearly 8 inches, and three exceeded a foot, the average length being about 2 inches.  The largest of all was a dragonfly like type found in the Coal Measures of Belgium, which had a wing spread of 29 inches (Fig. 192).  No period since has produced insects so large.  Most of these insects were of strange primitive stocks not exactly like any of the modern orders.  Cockroaches, however, were very like the living ones, only larger, and so common that the period has sometimes been called the Age of Cockroaches (fig. 195).  Several of the Pennsylvanian species achieved a length of 3 or 4 inches.

    "The presence of several hundred species of insects in the Pennsylvanian makes their sudden appearance at this time the more remarkable.  The [begin page 238] diversity of the forms represented implies a long antecedent evolution whose record may yet be found in Mississippian if not in "Devonian rocks.

    "Scorpions, remarkably like modern ones in size and structure, occur with the insect fossils.  Spiders (Fig. 196) likewise occur, though none of the fossils shows clear evidence of spinnerets, and it may be that these early forms did not make webs. Centipedes (or myriapods) of several kinds are known,  the largest of which, found at Mazon Creek, Illinois, had a length of 12 inches.

    "Land snails were first discovered in the famous Joggins section of Nova Scotia, where they were associated with the skeletons of Amphibians.  Both had taken refuge in standing hollow stumps that were overwhelmed by floods and buried by sand and mud.  Land snails are extremely rate fossils in the Paleozoic rocks, however, and all are small".

Citations by Carl Froede; Basically, the two quotes that I will provide are cited in all of my historical geology text books up to recent editions.

1.  Levin, H.L. 1992. The Earth Through Time. Fourth edition. Saunders College
Publishing. New York. p. 406.

     "Carboniferous strata contain a slightly better record of insects, including giant dragonflies with wingspans of over 70 cm (2 feet).  Cockroaches that reached lengths of 10 cm crept about among the rotting vegetation."

2. Dunbar, C.O., and K.M. Waage. 1969. Historical Geology. Third edition. John
Wiley and Sons. p. 283.

     "The insects were many and varied but nearly all belonged to primitive,  extinct orders.  Among the most common and the most familiar kinds were primitive cockroaches, most of which were larger than their living descendants.  One species attained a length of about 4 inches.  Close relatives of the modern dragonflies were also common and exceptionally large.  One species found in the Coal Measures of Belgium had a wingspan of about 29 inches.  The insects generally were large.  Out of some 400 known species more than a score exceeded 6 inches and three exceeded a foot in length.  No other period has produced
insects so large."

Most creationists believe that a great ice age followed Noah's flood because the oceans were warm and the landmasses were getting cold because of the water vapor canopy that collapsed during the early days of the flood and the water from the fountains of the great deep that would have been heated by the inside of the Earth.  This would take water out of the oceans and put it on the continents making it possible for people and animals to walk across the Indonesian bridge to Australia and the Aleutian bridge to North America and to move south to South America.  There has been a major research book written by Michael J. Oard called; "An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood".  He works as a meteorologist with the National Weather Service.  He received his masters in atmospheric science from the University of Washington.  The book contains over 230 pages and itemizes all the aspects of the Ice Age.

Recommended Resources:

 

 

Books:
In the Days of Noah
Studies in Flood Geology
Puzzle of Ancient Man

 

The world before the Fall had no death, disease, or suffering, as God proclaimed the finished creation “very good” Genesis 1:31). Consistent with this, God gave plants to the animals to eat (Genesis 1:29-30).

Nowadays, many creatures have equipment that seems designed for attacking, hurting, trapping, killing , or eating others, or defending themselves against such things - for example, the poison-injecting fangs of snakes, the great meat-eating cats, and the spider's web, to name just a few. So, when and how did these things come to be?

There is no single position that would be agreed upon by all creationists in answer to this, so we will briefly look at the merits of a number of possibilities.

First, we need to look at the clear teachings of Scripture which bear on this question, remembering that the Bible gives us true information. We may then, using what we know about the living world. The Bible teaches the following.

• People and Animals alike were given plants to eat in the beginning (Genesis 1:29-30). There was no meat eating before the Fall, whether by man or by animal. The carnivorous part of the present “food chain” did not exist. And God appropriately described His creation as “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

• The Bible makes a clear distinction between the status of plants and animals. People and animals are described in Genesis as having, or being, nephesh (Hebrew) — see Genesis 1:20-21, 24 where nephesh chayyah is translated “living creatures,” and Genesis 2:7 where Adam became a “living soul” (nephesh chayyah). Nephesh conveys the basic idea of a “breathing creature.” It is also used widely in the Old Testament, in combination with other words, to convey ideas of emotions, feelings, etc. Perhaps nephesh refers to life with a certain level of consciousness. Plants do not have such nephesh, and so Adam eating a carrot did not involve death in the biblical sense.

• The world will one day be restored (Acts 3:21) to a state in which, once again, there will be no violence and death involving animals. Whether Isaiah 11:6-9 is taken to refer to a millennial kingdom or a new earth, the point is the same. Lambs, wolves, leopards, children, bears, calves, and snakes will all dwell together peacefully. Lions will once again be plant-eaters. Clearly, this vision of future bliss reflects the former paradise lost through sin.

 

watch  God's Story

• Clearly, there was no disease, suffering, or death of animals (nephesh creatures) before the Fall. This raises the question of just what is a nephesh animal. Do one-celled organisms like bacteria and yeast, or invertebrates like worms, insects , and prawns have nephesh life? Scripture gives us some clues. It tells us that “the life (nephesh) of the flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11; also see Genesis 9:4). If we use this to classify organisms into those with or without such “nephesh life,” it is helpful up to a point — this would exclude microorganisms from having nephesh-life. But there are still some difficulties as to what counts as blood. For example, insects and crustaceans have a form of blood, although it is somewhat different from the blood of animals with backbones. The presence of hemoglobin cannot be definitive, as it is found even in some plants.

• Adam's naming of the land animals in Genesis 2 may give us further clues. Adam named “each living creature (nephesh chayyah)” (Genesis 2:19). What did he name? “Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field” (Genesis 2:20). It may be significant at this point that the remes, the “creeping things” of Genesis 1:24, were not included, as Leupold, the respected theologian, noted. If “creeping things” included insects and worms, for example, then maybe they are not nephesh life. However, Scripture is not clear on this, so we should not be dogmatic.

  It can be safely said, however, that there was no violent death, especially that involving bloodshed. In other words, creatures we would normally call “animals” in everyday speech, were not fighting, killing, shedding the blood of others, and eating one another, as many do today.

• Man was permitted to eat meat only after the Flood (Genesis 9:3). This may have been due to the extinction in the flood of many plant species that formerly were able to provide all the protein and vitamin requirements for humans. To be well nourished by a totally vegetarian diet today is difficult, though not impossible. Of course, people may have eaten animals, anyway, even before God gave permission. If that did happen, then it was probably not widespread, because Scripture implies that the animals had minimal fear of man before the flood (Genesis 9:2).

Animals today have certain biological equipment, which they use either to attack others, or to defend themselves. Let's group these together and call them “defense-attack structures” (DAS). The first question is, “Are these created structures designed to do harm, for instance?”

The next, related, question is, “When did they come about?” DAS would seem to have been quite out of place in a pre-Fall world.

The following are some of the possible answers, along with a discussion of some of the difficulties.

Those things that are now used as DAS were not designed for this purpose, and had a different function, pre-Fall. They reached their present function by degeneration - for example, through mutations.

One can point to the fact that some creatures today have sharp teeth that look as if they would be used to rip meat, but we know they don't use them for that. The fruit bat is a prime example. Some species in the piranha group of fish use their jaws and teeth entirely for plants. So, the argument goes, could not the lion's teeth have been used to chew fruit before the Fall? Viruses that today inject harmful genes into their hosts may have had a useful pre-Fall role.

The giant panda has sharp teeth and claws, and yet uses them to rip off and eat mainly plant (bamboo) material. Occasionally they have been seen to eat small animals. If, by the time man first observed them, most pandas ate animals, we would find it hard to imagine that their teeth and claws originally were for the purpose of eating plants.

Immune systems basically distinguish “self” from “non-self,” which would be important for maintaining bodily integrity even in the pre-Fall world. Of course such systems became even more important in the post-Fall world, to protect against such disease-causing organisms.

Position 1 avoids the problem of a good God designing harmful structures. However, difficulties arise if this position is used to explain all occurrences of DAS. Virtually all creatures have some form of DAS, even if only a highly sensitive nervous system for warning of attack. They certainly give every indication of being designed to cope in a fallen world. Most of these DAS show great evidence of complex and specific design.

In fact, most, if not all, of the examples used by creationists to show design in living things involve DAS. If we say that DAS, or at least some aspects of their present function, arose by chance mutations, then we may have seriously undermined the main argument from design. It would mean saying that millions of different, complex and intricate patterns came about by chance (mutations and natural selection). Think of the sophisticated chemistry behind spider silk and the engineering marvels of spiders' webs, some of which are used to trap birds. All the complex machinery to make these webs is coupled with programmed instincts (programming which involves coded information) to tell the spiders where to build them for best hunting results, and when and how to move in for the kill of the trapped prey. In literally millions of examples, since we would maintain that complex, purposive design means intelligent, purposive creation, there is prima facie evidence of God having purposely designed the DAS as well.

The other problem with this argument is that in each case of an observed DAS, the true (pre-Fall) function was something different. It may be argued that our ignorance of the pre-Fall function does not mean that there wasn't one. This is true, of course, but if used for each and every one of the millions of DAS, it risks stretching credulity to the limit. One should also not overlook the full extent of what is involved in any particular defense-attack mechanism. For instance, discussions on the shape of teeth and claws may overlook the fact that the design features for meat-eating in the great cats are much more than just sharp teeth. A lion has finely programmed hunting instincts, and immense muscular power capable of breaking a wildebeest's neck with one blow. Its digestive system is attuned to a diet of fresh meat (though lions can cope with vegetables in a crisis and, since meat is easier to digest, degenerative changes could be responsible for dependence on meat). All this makes it overwhelmingly appear to be a highly designed hunting and killing machine.

Such qualities are very common. Before the Fall, what was the function of the cheetah's blinding speed? What did the bombardier beetle use its highly complex twin cannons for (useful now to blast attackers)? If we could think of a purpose, it would still leave open the question of how and when the programmed instincts to fire at beetle-eaters arose.

The idea that the snake's fangs may have been used to inject a fruit-softening substance pre-Fall has the same problem. That is, why, how and when (if not by direct creation) did snakes change not only their diet but their behavior, which appears to be programmed in their genetic code and not a matter of conscious choice? In any case, snake venom contains complex chemicals that appear to be designed for purposes far removed from fruit-eating. One of these chemicals is highly specific in its attack on the central nervous system to arrest breathing; another specifically blocks the clotting mechanism so that the prey bleeds to death internally.

Despite of the above problems, this may still be the correct explanation in at least some, if not many, instances. The female mosquito does draw blood, as it needs hemoglobin to reproduce. However, the male mosquito only sucks sap from plants. Perhaps both sexes drew sap from plants before the Fall, and with the eventual extinction of some plant species they could no longer get hemoglobin from plants as easily (as already mentioned, some living plants have hemoglobin).

This essentially looks at complex design as requiring the direct hand of the Designer, whether for DAS or not. There are different possibilities within this, however, as evidenced by the following.

• There were no creatures with DAS pre-Fall - these creatures were all created afterwards.

  This would mean that most creatures alive today would not have had a pre-Fall representative. The Bible makes no mention of such a new creation, and Exodus 20:11 directly contradicts the idea. Not surprisingly, this view is not widely held.

• The design information for DAS was already present before the Fall, perhaps in latent or masked form.

  This implies that the Fall was foreknown by God, which of course reflects His omniscience, and also is clearly stated in various Bible passages which speak of such things as God choosing us “in him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). This information was allowed to become expressed, either through direct unmasking at the Fall, or through the natural processes of recombination and selection. If the latter were the case, this would again involve the foreknowledge of God, this time that there would be only a short time between creation and the Fall. Otherwise, these DAS would have come to the fore in Eden eventually.

  However, it is not easy to imagine genetically how such self-activation could take place for such a vast number of creatures which must also interact ecologically (the appearance of a defense structure must take place very smartly after one's enemy has a new weapon).

• No new creatures were created, but many existing ones were “redesigned” after the Fall, with the addition of new design information into their DNA.

  This position has only indirect Scriptural support. The Curse placed upon the creation at the Fall involved biological changes to people — they would now die (Genesis 3:19) and pain in childbirth would increase (Genesis 3:16). The ground was also cursed such that thorns and thistles would spring forth (Genesis 3:18) — suggesting that biological changes occurred in plants. And the serpent, at least, appears to have been radically and permanently redesigned by God with the Curse (Genesis 3:14). So changes occurred in man, animals, plants, and the soil because of the Fall. The sense suggests that these things resulted from a sovereign directive as a result of Adam's sin; they did not result from something just being “let go.” This understanding agrees with Scriptures such as Romans 8 where the “whole creation” is described as subject to the Curse and awaiting redemption from the consequences of sin.

Scripture simply does not provide enough information for Christians to insist dogmatically that one or another of these possible explanations is totally right or wrong. Several of them may apply together.

As fallen creatures in a fallen world, we have difficulty imagining what a pre-Fall world was really like. We are also finite creatures lacking all the information. We therefore need to be particularly careful about arguing from the present to the past.

What is clear from God's Word is that the present “reign of tooth and claw,” of violent death, cruelty, and bloodshed, had no place in the world before Adam sinned, and will have no place in the restored creation.

We see in today's post-Fall world that death, and animals eating others, is a useful way of avoiding overcrowding of the earth by any one type. Some, therefore, ask how, if there had been no Fall, such overcrowding could have been avoided without death and bloodshed.

This may be a non-question, since Scripture indicates that Adam's rebellion (and thus the need for the shed blood of God's Lamb, Jesus Christ) was foreknown before creation. Even if this were not so, it is surely presumptuous to suggest that the all-powerful Creator would have been unable to devise other means of avoiding such a problem. God gave the command to reproduce to “fill the earth” (Genesis 1:22, 28), and once that was completed, the command would no longer apply and the filling would stop.

One natural mechanism already exists for limiting population growth, and is well-known. Some animals, when subjected to overcrowding, drastically reduce their reproductive rate, only to increase it again if the population density should drop once more.

1. For a discussion of what Adam named, see R. Grigg, “Naming the Animals: All in a Day's Work for Adam,” Creation, 1996, 18(4):46-49.

2. P. Weston, “Bats: Sophistication in Miniature,” Creation, 1998, 21(1):29-31.

3. Viruses, for instance, could have had a pre-Fall role in transferring genetic information to maintain/increase genetic diversity. It would not take any informational leap upwards in complexity to enable them to cause disease instead. Genes could have been acquired from hosts, even being modified by mutations to make enzymes less specific (note this is a loss of information due to mutation), thus enabling disease-causing actions. Many disease-causing organisms are even degenerate from their own point of view — they quickly kill their host, thus destroying themselves. Also, the host might have degenerated and lost resistance. See J. Bergman, “Did God Make Pathogenic Viruses?” CEN Technical Journal, 1999, 13(1):115-125.

4. This raises another problem: how much does an animal choose its way of life, as opposed to having programmed instinct? The only indirect scriptural support for this seems to be Genesis 6:7, 11-13, which has been understood by some to mean that violence in the animal kingdom was one reason for the eradication of the land animals outside the ark. However, this does not necessarily mean that God attributes any moral responsibility to the animals. Perhaps He was grieved because man's sin opened the door to the whole post-Fall reign of death and bloodshed.

5. This raises an old and interesting theological question: Would God, being omnipotent, be any less responsible for DAS by allowing them to happen “naturally” rather than by actively designing them? An analogy is a doctor who, knowing that he could save a patient with the oxygen in his possession, fails to administer it. Is he less responsible than if he had actively killed the patient with cyanide? Some have pointed out that God is frequently actively involved in judgment without there being any ethical/theological dilemma; for instance, the sending of the great flood that brought death and destruction to millions.

6. Perhaps it was created to reveal God's glory by running fast (just as an eagle soars at high altitude or a dolphin rides waves, apparently for “recreation”). Also, many of God's designs have inspired human inventions — e.g., the iris diaphragm in cameras and Velcro. This could be part of the providence of God.

7. Based on the premise that the pre-flood world had no desert or cold environments, some have queried the design features in many of these animals that are only useful in such conditions — e.g., the anti-dehydration equipment of a camel, or the special insulating features of a polar bear's fur. However, the Bible nowhere says that there were no deserts or cold areas before the flood. In any case, such adaptive design features could have been present in the genes of more generalized created kinds of these creatures. For example, polar bears, which have special adaptations for the cold and are almost exclusively carnivorous, hybridize with brown bears, which do not have special cold adaptation and are mainly vegetarian (75 percent), suggesting that both derived from an original created bear kind.

8. In the future restoration, to get meat-eating lions (ML) to become grass-eating lions (GL) would seem to require supernatural rearranging of the DNA so as to make the change permanent for all future generations. Since MLGL requires this, and since this is a “re”-storation (i.e., a reversal of the results of the Fall), perhaps this indicates that GLML happened by the same route (supernatural DNA reprogramming), only in reverse.

• SUFFERING - Why does God allow innocent people to suffer? Answer
• Does God feel our pain? Answer
• What kind of world would you create? Answer

• What was Adam, the first man, really like?
  

• What's the truth about Jesus Christ? Answer
• How did Jesus die? Answer
• Did Jesus really sweat drops of blood? Answer
• What is crucifixion? Answer
• Why should we pray and act for the suffering church? Answer

 

 

In scripture, the phrases "the earth" and "the world" pertaine to a locality, and not to the whole earth. Even when America was first discovered by Europeans, it was called "the new world." This phrase did not refer to a new planet, but just a locality on the same planet.

1. Most would say that the flood covered all the earth, but in Hebrew, the word for "earth" can mean locality as well:

a. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's daughters said "there's not a man in the earth (erets) to come in unto us" (Genesis 19:31) We know that not every man in the world was killed ... only those in the area of the destruction.

b. Exodus 9:33 "the rain was not poured upon the earth" #776 (erets)... Of course we understand it is just speaking about a certain area in Egypt.

c. In Jeremiah 34:1, "all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the peoples, fought against Jerusalem." There the phrase "of the earth" is limited to "his dominion," i.e., the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar.

d. In II Chronicles 36:23, Cyrus' empire is said to have encompassed "all the kingdoms of the earth." But there were kingdoms in the Far East which were surely not included.

e. Acts 11:28 speaks of a similar famine "throughout all the world," yet it is not likely it really meant over the whole globe including the New World.

f. Luke 2:1 refers to a decree which went out to tax "the whole world." But this only refers to the territories that the Romans controlled.

I could go on with the list but this would be suffice.

2. If the flood was global, how did it recede? Why didn't the oceans (Atlantic, Pacific, etc.) recede? This would be like dipping water out of one end of a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end. The level would be remain unchanged!

3. How did the plants, trees, etc. survive with the salt water that covered the whole earth. Remember that the flood took place over a year. That would be impossible.

4. How did the animals arrive in Australia? What about those Sloths (those animals that depend on the trees and live in South America. They cannot walk on the land). I could go on with a list of different animals from different environment, climate, etc.

5. If the whole planet was covered with water, how did it drain away or evaporate in 164 days? This could not have taken place in 100 years. I also found something about mathematics which supports a local flood which you will see shortly.

6. One cannot deny the existence of archeological evidence that many great civilizations existed in various parts of the world at the time of the Flood and continued through it.

7. "All" does not always mean all mankind. Did Christ die for "all" mankind?

8. If the flood covered the highest mountain (Mt. Everett), how would they survive in extremely cold and thin air for over a year?

9. Would people who lived in Europe, North and South America, Australia, etc. have heard Noah's message about God's judgment? Suppose Noah had gone on an evangelistic campaign: by what sign could he have convinced them? Merely to mention that his family at home was constructing an ark would hardly have carried much weight. In other words, the building of the ark was a testimony only to those who could actually see it or have first hand knowledge of it. People can hardly have been scattered to the ends of the earth if this was to be a testimony to them.

10. Even fish life would suffer in a universal catastrophe. The mingling of the salt and fresh water could be fatal to many of them.

11. What about in Genesis 6:4, "There were giants [nephilim] in the earth in those days; and also after that...the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Also in Numbers 13:33, "And there we saw the giants [nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants:" "Giants" is the same Hebrew word #5303. Why weren't they destroyed during the flood? I think this is a stumbling block for those who hold there was a global flood.

Let me add one more thing why I may be convinced it was a local flood: Sodom and Gomorrah, Egypt, and Jerusalem in AD 70 were destroyed locality. All futurists believe there will be worldwide destruction but they misinterpreted it. Seems to me that is why they think the same thing with the worldwide flood.

There are so many problems in such a view which have been overlooked.

You might ask about God's covenant in which he said he would never again destroy all mankind and animals with the flood. That is true, I could say that He would never again destroy ALL people and animals in THAT local flood.

Erets

We have been told in the biblical account that the flood would cover the "earth," that everything in the "earth" would die, and other statements about the "earth," all of which would teach the idea of a world-wide flood - EXCEPT for one thing: Hebrew word "erets", especially in the Book of Genesis.

Erets (#776 in Strong's), the Hebrew word that translated "earth" throughout the flood account and it does not require a world-wide meaning. This word translated "country" (140 times) and "land" (1,476 times!) in the Bible. Many of them are often of limited land areas.

We need to keep in mind that the people living at the time of Moses had no concept of a "global" planet ... to them the "earth" would be the extent of the geographical land area known to them. To apply this literal meaning throughout the Bible causes problems. (as does other LITERAL exegesis)

These false interpretations are assumed and encouraged so that we can continue to support "tradition" or orthodoxy - never mind what Scripture is really saying. In so doing, we allow these min-interpretations to contradict other verses where the same word is used! We end up making a mockery of Scripture by trying to get it to fit ill-conceived theology.

If we view the flood as global, then we must (if we are consistent) apply that same usage in other places were the same words and phrases are used.

For example, Cain was cursed by God and driven from the "face of the earth" (Genesis 4:14) We know Cain was not driven off the planet... but out of the land he knew as "home" ...

The word is used concerning Abraham. "Get thee out of thy country [erets]...unto a land [erets] that I will shew thee" (Genesis 12:1). Or another one, "Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country [erets], and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur" (Genesis 20:1).

Other references in Genesis also show that "erets" was used to show specific lands: "The whole land [erets] of Havilah," "the whole land [erets] of Ethiopia," "the land [erets] of Nod, on the east of Eden," Famine at the time of Joseph affected "all lands [erets]",etc.

Also during the plagues upon Egypt, at one point we read that "the rain was not poured upon the earth [erets]" (Ex. 9:33). Do the word study. Try put the word "land" instead of global "earth" and it may make more sense. I believe some Bible translations are misleading.

Here's a good one too: In Exodus 10:5-15 we read about a plague of locusts that "covered the face of the whole earth." It should be pretty evident that this locust plague covered only a limited LAND of Egypt... it is the same wording in both places. Yet we never assume these locusts covered the entire globe...

Genesis 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

Genesis 7:23 "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the *ground*, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark."

Genesis 8:9 "But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters [were] on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark."

But remember we let the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures about "the face of the earth [erets]":

Genesis 41:56 "And the famine has been over all the face of the land, and Joseph openeth all [places] which have [corn] in them, and selleth to the Egyptians; and the famine is severe in the land of Egypt," There is no evidence of a global famine at that time... the Bible states "all countries (erets) came to Egypt" to buy corn (Genesis 41:57) Surely it means the countries close to Egypt... Certainly not "all" countries -- unless we assume the Australians or the American Indians... were in Egypt buying corn.

If we take "erets" to mean the entire planet, then we also have to interpret that OTHER PLANETS came to Egypt to buy corn. All this, so we can maintain the false teaching of a universal flood.

Num. 11:31 "And a spirit hath journeyed from Jehovah, and cutteth off quails from the sea, and leaveth by the camp, as a day's journey here, and as a day's journey there, round about the camp, and about two cubits, on the face of the land."

1 Sam. 20:15 "but thou dost not cut off thy kindness from my house unto the age, nor in Jehovah's cutting off the enemies of David, each one from off the face of the ground."

2 Sam. 18:8 "and the battle is there scattered over the face of all the land, and the forest multiplieth to devour among the people more than those whom the sword hath devoured in that day."

Isa. 23:17 "And it hath come to pass, At the end of seventy years Jehovah inspecteth Tyre, And she hath repented of her gift, That she committed fornication With all kingdoms of the earth on the face of the ground."

Jer. 47:2 "Thus said Jehovah: Lo, waters are coming up from the north, And have been for an overflowing stream, And they overflow the land and its fulness, The city, and the inhabitants in it, And men have cried out, And howled hath every inhabitant of the land."

After the Israelites were delivered from Egypt and settled in Canaan, the scripture says they "covered the face of the earth" (Numbers 22:5,11) Not even fundamentalists would say that Israelites covered every square foot of the planet...This is simply a way of stating that they occupied the land in which they were dwelling.

Jeremiah said he was "...a man of contention to the whole earth!" (Jeremiah 15:10). Obviously, the whole planet did not know about Jeremiah.

Zechariah 5:3, "Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it." Only Israel knew of God's covenant. The Heathen nations did not know the details of God's Law.

There are many instances in the Bible where it speaks of "the earth" or the face of the earth... which clearly refers to a limited land, area, or country. We read about "all" the hills being covered... or "all" flesh destroyed. When God spoke of destroying "all flesh", He said he "will destroy them with the earth" (Genesis 6:13) The planet earth was not destroyed (of course not) neither was all the flesh on the planet -- only that flesh and land where Noah lived was destroyed.

Why, then, should any insist that the flood covering "the face of the whole earth [erets]" must mean a universal flood?

We know that after Joshua had led the Israelites into the promised land, we read: "So Joshua took the whole land [erets]...and the land [erets] rested from war" (Joshua 11:23). No one would think of reading "earth" into this passage! We know that the conquest of Canaan didn't include America, China, and Australia! So, I think the "land" in a limited area is more correct than the "earth" or global flood.

The following are all limited land areas that were destroyed:

Isaiah 13:5, "...to destroy the whole land [erets]" (speaking of Babylon).

Jeremiah 4:27, "...The whole land [erets] shall be desolate..." (speaking of Jerusalem).

Jeremiah 12:11, "...the whole land [erets] is made desolate..."

Jeremiah 25:11, "And this whole land [erets] shall be a desolation..."

Zephaniah 1:18, "...but the whole land [erets] shall be devoured by the fire..."

As I said before, the Hebrew word "erets" can be translated "land" or "country" which is more consistent than the word "earth". Also the "mountains" can be translated "hills" We must not forget that the waters were dried from the "earth." You may have seen the list of why the global flood may not be true.

Let me give you a few more points to ponder

1. Notice the order of events in Genesis 8:4, 5:

"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."

It was 74 days AFTER the ark rested that "the tops of mountains were seen." We believe these were some mountains right around the spot where the ark came to rest. If the writer meant all the mountains in the world, he should have said the tops of the mountains were seen and AFTER this the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat. This is self-evident, for there are MOUNTAINS ALL OVER THE WORLD THAT ARE HIGHER THAN ANY IN THAT LAND THAT WAS ANCIENTLY KNOWN AS ARARAT!"

2. After it stopped raining and the water began to go back down, the Bible implies the water receded at the rate of 15 cubits in 74 days (Genesis 7:20; 8:4, 5). A number of recognized commentators have mentioned this points. If we figure a cubit at about 18 inches, the water level would have dropped 270 inches during this time or, to round it off, 4 inches a day. If the flood depth was 29,050 feet (348,600 inches) and the water level dropped 4 inches a day, it would take 87,150 days to get back down to normal sea level. That would be almost 239 YEARS!

3. God told Noah to bring the creatures into the ark and sort the male and female creatures. If there were every creatures in the world, this would require more knowledge than distinguishing between a bull and a cow. What about snakes, ants, termites, snails, etc?

4. What more, how about feeding lions, leopards, tigers, cats, etc.? How much extra animals would be required for all the meat-eating animals? What about the elephants? One elephant can eat 44 lbs of grain, 66 lbs of hay, 20 to 70 lbs of turnips, carrots, cabbage or fruit. If an elephant eat 170 lbs of food each day, this would be 62,050 lbs during the year in ark. Don't forgot to double that pounds to 124,100 for two elephants! Even some animals like panda (Asia), koala (Australia), three-toed sloth (South America) require a specialized diet. Did Noah and his family gather some for them? What about the woodpeckers that peck the wood or termites that eat the wood! That would be much trouble! Were the dinosaurs also included as some have claimed? Poor Noah and his family. But, it is possible that all the animals were young, and not fully grown. This would mean a lot less feeding.

5. When the rain came, the rivers filled and ran into the seas which rose until the entire world was covered - according the universal flood view-point. All water became salty. Some fish can only live in fresh water and some require water of a certain temperature. I don't suppose Noah provided climate-controlled aquariums for fish!

6. If we figure a cubit at 18 inches, this works out to the ark being 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. Dividing the height of the ark by 3 (for the three levels) would allow a maximum of 15 feet per level. But we must remember that to support the tremendous weight that would be carried, large beams in floors and ceilings would be required, making actual clearance about 13 feet. The door would have been no higher than this. If huge animals such as African elephants and giraffes were involved - as world-wide flood would require - some would have had problems even getting in the door! Unless, of course, they were all young animals.

7. What I find very interesting is this, from the writings of Josephus, the noted 1st century Jewish historian. He quoted from Nicolaus of Damascus, "There is a great mountain in Armenia...upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in the ark came on shore upon the 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." (Antiquity of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 3)

Josephus goes on to say: "Now the sons of Noah were three...these first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and PERSUADED OTHERS WHO WERE GREATLY AFRAID OF THE LOWER GROUNDS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FLOOD, and so were very loath to come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples. Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called Shinar. God also commanded them to send colonies abroad..." (Antiquity of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 4)

8. Lastly, after the flood, the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth traveled and settled in various countries. "By these were the isles [coastlands] of Gentiles DIVIDED in their lands, every one after their tongues, after their families, in their nations...These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations in their nations: and by these were the nations DIVIDED in the earth after the flood" (Genesis 10:5, 32). Now, if the flood had drowned all but eight people, how can we explain the existence of these nations to which Noah's descendants migrated and which "divided" them? Therefore, the belief that all nations of the world that came from Noah's three sons is filled with difficulties.

Also, I am sure that we have been hearing that Noah was building the ark and preaching for 120 years. Others say that people will not live after 120 year old. Anyway, we read in Genesis 6:3, "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." Judgment was pronounced upon the people in that land but the Lord was willing to delay this for 120 years. This passage doesn't say anything about a flood, or about building an ark, or about HOW this judgment would be carried.

What I find interesting is at this time, 120 years before the flood, Noah would have been 480 years old (for he was 600 at the time of the flood - Genesis 7:11). Later when Noah was 500 years old, his sons were born (Genesis 5:32). And it was later still, AFTER these sons had grown and married, that Noah was told to build the ark. "Make an ark...I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth...and you shall come into the ark, you, AND YOUR SONS, and your wife, AND YOUR SONS' WIVES WITH YOU" (Genesis 6:14-18)."

Clearly, then, it did not take 120 years to build the ark. It is possible that the legend handed down in the book of JASHER - that it took five years (Jasher 5:34) - is correct, but the Bible itself does not say how many years it took.

Lastly, read Luke 17:

Luke 17:26-30, "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 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. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

You see, God destroyed ALL people in the DAY of Noah, in the DAY of Lot, and the DAY of the Son of Man (during the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70), which means locally only, not worldwide. I think this would be a closed case.

Did Noah's flood cover the whole planet?

To determine this, we might first look into the meaning of the word used for "earth" in the Genesis account of Noah's Flood.

The word is #776 'erets (eh'-rets); from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land) KJV translates it: common, country, earth, field, ground, land, nations, way, wilderness, world.

That, in itself, may not tell us very much. So we must look to the context of the surrounding scripture.

There is another word which is also translated "earth" in these same passages concerning Noah's flood... That word is : #127 'adamah (ad-aw-maw'); from 119; soil (from its general redness): KJV translates this -- country, earth, ground, husband [-man] (-ry), land.

This word relates to Strongs #120 ADAM

So the scripture reads:

Genesis 6:20, "Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth [#127 Adam's earth) after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."

Here is a case where the TWO Hebrew words are used in the same passage!

Genesis 7:4, " For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth (erets #776] forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth (Adam's earth #127]."

Would we be assuming too much to say that the usage of #127 "adamah" interdispersed with #776 "erets" would qualify that word? Would we be assuming too much to say that land affected was "Adam's" land, field, ground etc? (Opposed to Cain's or other tribes or nation's ground)

Noah's Floating Zoo

Those who claim a universal flood say every species on earth was brought into the ark. The Bible tells us every "clean" animal were brought by sevens and the unclean animals by twos. (Genesis 7:2) For the universal theory to be correct, Noah would have been required to bring a sample of each species now living (and many hundreds more, now extinct) onto the ark. Could this even be possible considering the number of animals and the size of the ark? (see Genesis 6)

A cubit is about 18 inches long ... so the ark would have been about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. The total volume would have been about 1.5 million cubic feet. (I have seen measurements which claim this ark was configured in relation to the temple...)

Anyway, a squirrel or rabbit would need about 3 cubic feet -- an elephant about 1400 cubic ft. A turkey 9 cubic feet, a lion 120 and a giraffe, 900 cubic feet. We could justly figure about 10 cubic feet per animal on average --- this does not count the insects or any space for stalls or cages or containers.

We also have to consider food for the animals which God told Noah to bring on the Ark (Genesis 6:21). Since the ark was "home" to everyone for over a year, there would have to be storage space for food for everyone. The average person eats about 1300 pounds of food a year (about 7 times his weight) An elephant eats about 60,000 lbs. of food a year which is 7 to 8 times its weight. An ox or cow (clean animals BTW) can consume about 24,000 lbs of hay a year. A wolf can eat a sheep a week or 52 per year - 20 times its weight and a lion 35 times its weight. (well, the list goes on... but you get the idea)

With only 1.2 million cubic feet available on the ark, it appears Noah would have needed at least 43 arks to accomplish the job of storing all the animals and their required food. AND we have not considered all the vegetation and water for drinking and bathing.

We must also consider the impossible task of Noah gathering every species of plant and animal on the planet and then somehow, redistributing them back to their original habitat. Many animals require specific climate and habitat in which to live. How would Noah have provided this on the ark? I'm also not going to put you through the considerations of the monumental task of just 8 people tending to keeping this many animals, clean, groomed and exercised! Nor will we consider what might have been done with the waste products of these animals.

In all fairness to those who believe in a global flood, in was not necessary for Noah to gather the animals, because God could have brought all of them to him. To fit all the animals on the boat, the animals could have been all small or new borns, and not necessarily full grown animals. This way, the amount of food necessary to feed them would have been a lot less. It is also possible that, if there was a global flood, God could have caused a deep sleep to fall on these animals (many animals do go into hybernation), which would have helped Noah and his family greatly in tending these animals.

Then too, there is the problem of the salt water and the fresh water mixing. This would kill off the various species of marine life. It would also wipe out all of the trees and seeds of other vegetation as well. If the tops of the highest mountains (about 29,000 feet) were covered, this means the water level would have been five miles above the present sea level. The water pressure would have been about 800 tons per square inch. Ten months of this pressure, along with the lack of light and mixture of salt water would have destroyed all plant life and seeds on the planet. The entire life cycle, which depends upon plants would have ended. Still, the animals released obviously found vegetation to eat.

If the whole planet was covered with water, how did it drain away or evaporate in 164 days? This could not have taken place in 100 years.

The Bible is regarded as infallible and the fundamentalists believe it must be read in a literal context. This is done out of a misguided reverence for the Bible. There are many types and shadows throughout the Bible which revolve around certain words. Water, ark, saved, world, fire, etc. Many of these symbolic words can be found in Genesis, Daniel, Revelation and many of the prophecies.

We must also remember what we have is not the original word of God... but copies, versions and translations of the original words from God. Translations and copies of the Bible by men are not infallible. The Bible does contain poor or even wrong translations, some were by accident while some were intentional. Can these mis-translations be read at "face value?" To do so may render an understanding which may be in conflict with science, history, or the Bible itself.

The Map of History

The Flood of Genesis was a true historical event. According to historians, and Bible scholars, the date was from November in the year 2345 to November 2344 BC. These dates fall smack in the middle of the period in history known as the BRONZE AGE. (3000 BC to 1200 BC) This was a significant period in history. The technology to forge bronze increased trade routes, necessitated the domestication of draft horses, the invention of bellows, ox carts, potters wheels, as well as the invention of the plow for cultivating the soil. These were great advances. If there had been a global flood, it would have set civilization back to the Stone Age and it would have taken centuries to recover what was lost.

Written records dating from this time are, of course, not too plentiful. But one cannot deny the existence of archeological evidence that many great civilizations existed in various parts of the world at the time of the Flood and continued through it. If Noah's flood had been universal, all civilizations would have been destroyed along with their inventions, language, art and whatever other advancement each unique civilization would have made. History does not reveal gaps or a large void in any of these cultures which would be the natural result of a catastrophic event such as a global flood.

Earliest written records of an advanced civilization are those of the Sumerians in Mesopotamia. Their King Lists date to about 3350 BC. This shows an ongoing civilization well through the period of the flood.

Egypt's history shows no record of a sudden, complete disruption by a great deluge. The pyramids and other monuments erected there before the time of the flood would surely have been destroyed (or at the very least) badly damaged by a universal flood.

China's civilization experienced a prosperous period during the Yao Dynasty (between 2400 - 2200) with no record of a cataclysmic interruption.

The Minoan civilization on the island of Crete entered a cycle of cultural advancement about 2500 BC. These people had already produced works of art, established cities, had an alphabet and made use of bronze prior to the date of the Flood. It continued to develop and was established as a center of trade until is was destroyed by a volcano in 1470 BC. Though this civilization was based on and island, there was no evidence of a flood in written or archeological evidence.

The civilization of the Indus Valley was a thriving state in 2500 BC. It boasted of two great cities harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. This civilization rivaled that of Egypt and Mesopotamia and continued to exist uninterrupted until 1500 BC.

More evidence is found in Phoenicia. This was a thriving trade center which existed before, during and after the flood.

These along with other groups, the Japanese, the American Indians, and the Negro tribes of Africa, all survived the period of the Flood. There is no evidence that any of these millions of people suddenly disappeared from history and then suddenly re-appeared all over the world carrying the same culture, art, language, writing and architectural designs -- unique to each civilization.

The real tragedy is, when fundamentalists try to make history conform to their false notions about the Bible, it makes both them and God's Word seem foolish and unrealistic.

This is the last part of what I had planned for proof of a local flood. There are other proofs in archeology and evidence of racial types progressing through this period without interruption.

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden to the East. Genesis 3:24, "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

This land East of Eden was to become Adam's new home. Since we learned in the first part of this study that the flood occurred in #127 Adamah, we can assume this land East of Eden was the general location of the flood.

It is a popular opinion that Eden was located near the Tigris-Euphrates river in a place now called Mesopotamia. However, at the time Moses would have written these words, this land (then called Shinar) was as well known and populated as the land of Egypt. He would have logically referred to it as the land of Shinar. Because this is how Moses referred to it in other places in the Bible i.e. (Genesis 10:10, 11:2, 14,1 14:9, and 24:10) This area was well known to Moses by it's familiar name.

According to L.A. Waddell, in his book "The Makers of Civilization, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia understood (even before the time of Moses) that Eden had been located East of their land.

Reading further in the Genesis account, we find other clues as to the exact location of Adam's land. There was a river with 4 heads. In Genesis 2:10, the account goes on to name the four rivers; Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Euphrates.

Frederick Haberman "Tracing Our Ancestors" considers the plateau of Pamir to be the original Eden. He believes this was the homeland of Adam's descendants up until the time of the Flood. Today this area is known as the Tarim Basin or Eastern Turkestan.

This region is surrounded by a ridge of very high mountains forming a gigantic basin in the midst of them. It measures 1,000 long and is about 350 miles wide. From the lakes of this plateau come four great rivers: the Indus, the Jaxartes, the Oxus, and the Tarim. The Oxus is still called by the natives the Digihun or Gihon; the Chitral branch of the Indus answers the description of the Pison; the Jxartes is the original Euphrates and the Tarim going toward the east is in all probability, the Hiddekl. It was a flood of gigantic proportions which brought judgment upon all that were in this land. It may have been "local" but it was my no means minimal.

Your Questions Answered

1. In Genesis 8:21; 9:11,15 and Isaiah 54:9, God promised no more floods like the one in Noah's time. However, local floods have ravaged the earth down through the ages, killing millions. So, if the flood of Noah was local, it would contradict God's promise. If the flood was worldwide, it would not contradict his promise.

   Answer: The difference between the flood of Noah and other local floods is that the purpose of the flood in Noah's time was sent as a punishment to destroy all flesh in that local area, and this is the kind of local flood that God promised not to do again:

   Genesis 9:15, "...and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

   The local floods that have happened throughout history were not sent as punishment by God to destroy all flesh in those local areas (and there are always survivors in local floods), therefore, this does not contradict God's promise.
   
   
   

2. God gave Noah 120 years to build the Ark (Genesis 6:3). If the flood was local, why go through the trouble of building a huge boat for 120 years? Migrating into the mountains, or to a different land, would have been far easier.

   Answer: Genesis 6:3 says nothing about God giving Noah 120 years to build the ark. This verse says God gave those men 120 years before they would die in the flood. God gave them space to prevent it by their repentance and reformation. But there is nothing in scripture that says it took 120 years to build the ark. The ark could have been built the last month of the 120 years, scripture does not say.

   And as to why God had Noah build an ark, instead of having them migrate to a different land, only God knows. But through history, God has used physical objects to demonstrate spiritual truths.

   For example, we know that, in Noah's day, the rainfall coming down from "heaven" had two different affects. Obviously, it was a destructive force as far as the lost were concerned. They were outside of the ark of safety, and therefore beyond any hope of survival. However, when the water hit the earth it raised the ark. Raising the ark heavenward symbolizes our being "lifted up to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:6). The same waters that destroyed the wicked also caused the people of God to be lifted up (thanks to the ark). God poured His judgments upon the ark. He knew it would stand fast. It was built to His plans and specifications. Why would God require the people to build an ark if He did not plan on sending the same judgments upon it as he sent upon the people who were not in it? The Ark was a God given escape route from judgments which fell upon them all. The forty days and nights of the flood are symbolic of God's judgments which fall primarily upon his people and the spiritual ark today. Even though the wicked drowned right away, God still had a purpose for the ark to go through the 40 day and night period in order to picture the spiritual type. The judgments of God had to fall upon even his true people, but He had provided a means which would save them from those judgments.

   Also, Noah’s ark rested in the seventh month (Genesis 8:4), it rested on the sabbath (Leviticus 23:24,27,34,39,41)! Which shows, spiritually, how we are to rest on the sabbath as well.
   
   
   

3. Psalms 104:6-9 seems to describe the flood of Noah. It says "the waters stood above the mountains." If this was a local flood, only the mountains in the area would be covered with water. But Genesis 7:19-20 says that all the mountains “that were under the whole heaven, were covered,” not just some of the mountains in a local area.

   Answer: First of all, Psalms 104 is about the Creation, not Noah's flood:

   Psalms 104:5-6, "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains."

   Secondly, when Genesis 7:19-20 says that all the mountains under heaven were covered, the term "heaven" refers to the sky. The Scripture mentions three heavens (2 Corinthians 12:2), not just one! The first heaven is earth's atmosphere where birds fly (Genesis 1:20, Jeremiah 4:25; 34:20, Lamentations 4:19, Zephaniah 1:3). One of the Hebrew words for ‘heaven’ is shamayim. This same word is translated as ‘sky’ in the Scripture, as can be seen by comparing Genesis 7:3, "fowls also of the air," with Genesis 7:23, "fowl of the heaven." The word ‘sky’ and ‘heaven’ are used interchangeably from the same Hebrew word (Psalm 8:8). So the first heaven is synonymous with ‘heights’ or ‘elevations.’

   Here are other examples to illustrate the first heaven. Exodus 19:20 says the Lord was on top of Mount Sinai when he called Moses up there, and God describes Mount Sinai as ‘heaven’ (Exodus 20:22, Deuteronomy 4:36). Here, everything above the ground is called ‘heaven’. Another example of the first heaven is in Amos 9:1-3, where God states that at the time of this judgment, nobody will be able to flee away (verse 1), even "though they climb up to heaven" (verse 2). This "heaven" is defined in the next verse, verse 3, as climbing to the top of Mount Carmel.

   Another example is where the Scripture speaks of the dew from heaven (Genesis 27:28,39, Deuteronomy 33:28, Daniel 4:15-33; 5:21). The first heaven, from which dew comes, means the atmosphere, where the clouds and the wind roam. Therefore, everything above the ground is called ‘heaven."

   Another Hebrew word for the first heaven is ‘shachaq.’ This same word for heaven (Psalm 89:6,37) is also translated as ‘sky’ or ‘skies’ (Deuteronomy 33:26; Job 37:18; Psalm 18:11), and as ‘clouds’ (Job 35:5; 36:28; Psalm 36:5; 68:34, Pro. 3:20; 8:28).

Final Thoughts

Jesus compared the end of the age with Sodom and Gomorrah and to the time of Noah's flood. 70 AD is spoken in global language, as it was in Noah's time, but it was local. And if the flood was local, it would give that much more evidence to the end of the age being local as well.