The Genesis Flood is Local NOT Global. PART II

Good day ladies and gentlemen, as you await the next part after the first article about the genesis flood, my spirit hastly requested to climb the ladder of heaven to published the remaining part. With due diligence, it’s very important that our hearts are set apart to elements of Truth which can transcend to the uttermost place needed for transformation. I don’t care what denomination group you are afflicted with, murderer or idol worshiper, i’ll let your preacher and your neighbors handle that but i’ll say this, can you handle the truth? I must confess, the english translators and the translations are from the pit of hell. Do they think the readers are stupid or Mentally crippled! even in their wicked act, they left many clear shades of evident and proofs. They just drank their own piss. lol. Will you take my Advice? purchase the editions of the bible before 1611. It’s a challenge as you can comment below if any questions may arise; There are questions that lay traffic in my mind, Why are you afraid to question your preachers, voodooist doctors, elders, parents, why? Don’t you it’s one of the most healthiest medicine you can ever take? The constant search for answers; not just in the filthy school and political system but also the religious backward system. Rub shoulders with your pals but face the authorities and challenge their knowledge. Don’t you know the world is given to the hand of the Wicked. Who? Satan. Who are his direct representative on earth, the world leaders(Political and Religious). I won’t repeat myself again. Let’s look at the actual Genesis flood passage to determine if it can be interpreted from a local viewpoint. As we determined above, the word erets, often translated « earth » can also refer to the people of the earth. Is it used this way in the actual Genesis flood passage?

Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. (Genesis 6:11)
And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. (Genesis 6:12)
I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. (Genesis 9:13)
Genesis 6, verses 11 and 12 both tells us that the earth was corrupt, although we understand this verse to refer to the people of the earth. Likewise, in Genesis 9:13, the verse tells us that God made a covenant between Himself and the earth. However, later verses clarify that the covenant is between God and the creatures of the earth. 10 The Genesis text clearly establishes (along with the New Testament 11) that God’s judgment of humans was universal (with the exception of Noah and his family).

Outside Genesis one (through Genesis 2:5), the entire Genesis account through the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) specifically refers to local geography. All the place names mentioned are in the Mesopotamian flood plain, that’s it. You don’t need to borrow one’s brain to solve this. Therefore, all the instances of the word erets can and should be translated « land, » instead of « earth, » since it all refers to local geography. Again, show the to your preachers, Apostles, and those that lay spiritual restrictions over your life. There is no reason to think that the flood account is any different from the rest of the Genesis account through chapter II.

When « all » does not mean « all »

The flood passage uses many universal descriptions, which suggest global proportions. However, the universal text contradicts itself, if it is to be interpreted globally. For example, the Genesis text tells us that all flesh had become corrupted. 12 However, the same passage tells us that Noah was a « righteous man, blameless in his time. « 13 It is clear from the text that « all flesh » did not actually refer to all flesh, since there was at least one exception. Do you see the beauty of the Holy Scriptures. Smile.

Local perspective of the flood

Does the Genesis text indicate that the flood was local? If you read it carefully, you can determine that the perspective is local. For example, Genesis 7:20 is usually translated as:

The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. (Genesis 7:20)

In reality, the Hebrew word ma‛al, translated « higher » really means « upward » not « higher. » So, in essence, the text is saying that the flood was 15 cubits (20 feet) deep, in total, not 15 cubits above the mountains. In addition, the Hebrew word har really refers most often to hills rather than mountains. See below.

The translators of most English Bibles use the word « earth, » which to us means « planet earth. » However, their mistranslation can clearly be seen in the following passage:

Gen 8:5 And the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

Gen 8:6 Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made;
Gen 8:7 and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth.
Gen 8:8 Then he sent out a dove from him, to see if the water was abated from the face of the land;
Gen 8:9 but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark; for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took her, and brought her into the ark to himself.
We see that in the tenth month, the mountains became visible to Noah (Genesis 8:5). Some 40+ days later (Genesis 8:6), Noah sent a dove out of the ark (Genesis 8:8). However, the dove was unable to land because of all the water (Genesis 8:9). Then, the text tells us that water was « on the surface of all the earth. » This is obviously a bad translation of kol erets, since we know that the water had not covered the mountains for at least 40 days. The context makes it clear that kol erets must refer to local geography and should be translated as the « all the land » or « all the ground. » In fact, all our major English translations (NASB, NIV, KJV, etc.) make this same error. It is no wonder that people who read the English translation of the Bible « literally » come to the conclusion that the flood must have been global. However, it is apparent that our English « translations » of the Genesis flood text are more than just « translations, » but actually interpretations (and probably incorrect ones at that).

There is another indication in the text that the flood did not cover the highest mountains. Does it actually make sense for the waters to cover the mountain. what purpose will that serve when people can’t be more than 8 feet tall average. Again, from Genesis 8:

So he waited yet another seven days; and again he sent out the dove from the ark. And the dove came to him toward evening; and behold, in her beak was a freshly picked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the water was abated from the earth. (Genesis 8:10-11)

If the ark had come to rest on the top of Mount Ararat, this would be at 17,000 foot elevation. Olive trees (and every other tree) on this planet do not grow more than 500 feet not to talk of 17,000 feet. Look for crack in the fabric to keep your house a breathing atmosphere. In fact, you will not find olive trees growing much above 500 feet. Therefore, we know from the Bible that the ark did not come to rest on or near the top of Mount Ararat, but probably somewhere on the foothills of the mountain and that is the truth. Again, show your preachers these words of truth. Make them challenge their brainwashed brains of theirs.

The method by which the flood ended also tells us that the flood was local. According to Genesis, the water receded and was dried by the wind. 14 If the flood were global, there would be no place for the waters to recede to and that’s a fact or do you know a hidden place where the water can rush to. If you do, please, let me know so i can delete the articles. Likewise, a wind would not significantly affect a global flood, further suggesting that the Genesis flood was local in extent.

Planet Earth became a desert after the flood!

Another problem for the global flood interpretation is what happened to the « earth » after the flood. Read the following verses and see if you can see why the word « earth » does not refer to the entire planet:

The earth was completely dryThen it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NASB)
After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NIV)
Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a,
By the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NIV)
and in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. (Genesis 8:14, NASB)
By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry. (Genesis 8:14, NIV)
If one were to interpret these verses from a global perspective, one would have to conclude that the entire earth became a desert after the flood. Obviously this interpretation is false, so the translations must be bad. In these verses, the dryness of the earth is obviously referring to the local land area of the flood and not the entire planet earth.

New Testament perspective

What does the New Testament tell us about the flood? As mentioned previously, the New Testament tells us that the flood was universal in its judgment. Besides this, there is an interesting passage from 2 Peter that gives some insight into the nature of the flood:

For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the land was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. (2 Peter 3:5-6)

Peter, instead of just telling us that the entire planet was flooded, qualifies the verse by telling us that the « world at that time » was flooded with water. What was different about the world « at that time » compared to the world of today? At the time of the flood, all humans were in the same geographic location (the people of the world were not scattered over the earth until Genesis 11).7 Therefore, the « world at the time » was confined to the Mesopotamian plain. There would be no reason to qualify the verse if the flood were global in extent. I just hit the hammer on the nail. What else do you want? I you still not convinced then let’s keep ranting. The next one is for the Atheist that takes pride in their work and words but not the creator since they despise the bible.

Early Jewish interpretation

Many Christian believe that a local flood interpretation is a recent invention of those who are trying to reconcile science with the Bible. However, the first century Jewish writer, Josephus wrote about other writers who indicated that the flood was local and that some inhabitants survived by seeking higher ground

« Now all the writers of barbarian [Greek] histories make mention of this flood and of this ark: among whom is Berosus the Chaldean, Hieronymous the Egyptian, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them, where he speaks thus: ‘There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon 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’.

Common objections to a local flood

Why didn’t the Most High send Noah and his family to another place?

If the Genesis flood were local, why didn’t the Almighty just sent Noah and his family relocating? Once they were out of the Mesopotamian flood plain, The Most High could have judged the unrighteous without making Noah go to all the trouble of building a huge ark. It is true that the Almighty could have done this, although there are some good biblical reasons why He chose not to do so the same why he make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down. Why did the Almighty make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness rather than using the natural medicine of the earth? Why did the Messiah make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness? Were any of these things actually required for God to do His work? No! God could have just wiped out all the evil people in the world, as He did later to the all the Egyptians’ first-born. Maybe God had good reasons for Noah to build the ark? The Almighty has a purpose for each person of faith to join Him in preaching His message.

One will notice before judgements upon any nation or race, He almost always gives a warning to those who are being judged. For example, the Almighty sent angels to Sodom before it was to be destroyed, 15 sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them of the judgment to come, 16 and will send two prophets to warn the people of the earth of the final judgment. 17 The building of the ark was a great testimony of the coming judgment, since it was preached for 100 years during the building of the ark. The New Testament states this idea directly, since it says that Noah was a « preacher of righteousness »:

If the Almighty had told Noah to just migrate away from the flood area, the people would not have been warned of the impending judgment. Ultimately, they were without excuse in their rebellion against the Most High, since the impending judgment was proclaimed to them for 100 years before it happened. Likewise, The Most High will send two preachers for 1260 days prior to the ultimate judgment of God.

promised no more floods like the Genesis flood

What about the Genesis 9:11 and 9:15. If the flood was local, did the Almighty lie, since floods have destroyed local areas since the Genesis flood?

« And I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth. » (Genesis 9:11)
and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:15)

The first part of the verse is a promise not to exercise universal judgment by means of a flood, « all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood. » The flood, although local in extent, was global in judgment, since all humanity lived in the same locale. It wasn’t until the Most High confused the languages (Genesis 11) that people began to spread over the earth. So, the Most High promised to never again execute universal judgment of humans by means of a flood. The second part, « never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth » can be explained by other verses found in the Genesis flood account.
Help yourselves and present this to your preacher, build the courage and share them to the world. All the evidence is here to proof without a shadow of a doubt that it was a local flood not global.

Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

The passage in this instance refers to the people of the earth, since planet earth itself was not corrupt. Likewise, Genesis 9:11 is referring to the people of the earth rather than the planet itself. Ultimately, even if the flood were global, it did not « destroy the earth, » but just the people on the earth. As stated above, « people » is often understood from the Hebrew word berets.

Why were birds on the ark?

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? They could simply have flown to a nearby mountain range. Most birds (other than a few migratory birds) have a very localized territory. They would have been killed in the local flood, since they are not designed to fly long distances. Certainly archaeopteryx was not a strong flyer. Hummingbirds would drop dead in 20 minutes or less. One thing that you will notice when there is a strong rain is that birds do not fly. Flying in heavy rain is not easy. They would have sat on their perches until the water drowned them. I will not stop, let’s keep ranting.

Why did God required Noah to take animals if the flood was local?

Some animals are indigenous only to the Mesopotamian area. More importantly, it would have taken hundreds of years longer to replace the fauna if everything had been wiped out and had to migrate back in. In addition, Noah would have had a huge problem replacing his herds.

How could the flood waters rise 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains in a local flood (Genesis 7:20)?

Didn’t the flood cover the highest mountains? The Hebrew word « har, » translated « mountains, » occurs 649 times in the Old Testament. In 212 instances, the word is translated « hill » or « hills » or « hill country ». In Genesis, it is translated « hill » in 10 out of 19 occurrences. Of course, 4 out of 9 times that it is translated as « mountain » is in the flood passage (the translators were wearing their global glasses when they did that translation!) What a joke. In every instance in Genesis, the text could be translated « hill ». Since no specific mountain range is mentioned in this verse, it is likely that the word refers to the hills that Noah could see.

Any questions, comment down below. it’s a room of growth and i totally accommodate it as we are all disciples of life and the Holy Scriptures. It is your rights to know and understand the things of heaven, if the preachers has failed, you take on that title and teach them. Enough is enough with lies. All you preachers of darkness, some do know the truth but cannot resist the money flow, fame, glory and power while some are ignorant but my message to you is there will be weeping and garnishing of teeth on the other side. The blind leading the blind: Preacher is blind, the congregation is blind to see it, the congregation too is also blind, some preachers recognizes it but zip it, while some are just blind as a bat. Won’t both fall into the ditch?

I REST MY CASE!!

Follow Trwth Radio on Social Media

• 
• 
•