Day 3: Genesis 8-11

So it turns out, Peter usually writes his blogs before me, which enables me to somewhat tailor my blogs to answer some of his questions.

Question: Where did the flood-waters go after Noah's Flood?

In order to answer this question, it first must be asked whether the flood covered the entirety of the planet, or a local (though undeniably vast) region.

This is the debate I have going on in my head.

Here are two main reasons for why I believe it might have been a LOCAL FLOOD:

1. The translation from Hebrew to English for the word "earth" isn't exact.
"Various passages tell us that life was to be destroyed from the face of the "earth" (Genesis 7:12), the waters were on the face of the whole "earth" (Genesis 8:9), etc.  When these passages were written it would be hard to believe they were made with the understanding of a global planet. We have to recall that it was not much more than 500 years ago that people believed the "earth" was flat. The word "earth" used in these passages of Genesis is the Hebrew word "erets" (Strong's O.T.#776). Erets does not actually carry any connotation of a global, spherical planet in its translation. While it has been translated as "earth" many times, it is also translated "country" 140 times, "land" 1,476 times, and "ground" 96 times in the Old Testament. In the various references to erets it can be shown it is most often used to infer a limited land area rather than the entire planet." (http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/noahsflood1.html)

2. There was no place for the water to go.
People argue that if there was water covering 100% of the earth, then how come today's earth is only 67% covered today? Where could the water have gone?

Here are three main reasons why I believe it might have been a GLOBAL FLOOD:

1. A flood could not have stayed local if it lasted for forty days and forty nights. Water covered mountains for many, many days, so it's not as if there was something stopping the water from moving on to the next region of the Earth.

2. Just because there was no place for the water to go after the flood doesn't mean it didn't go somewhere.  The first option is that, as said in Psalm 104, the topography changed--- there were deeper trenches for the water to flood and raised mountains/land for people to live upon.  The second option is that: God got rid of the water somehow.  He could have made it go POOF and had it disappear, for all we know --- but to accept this you need to have faith.

[At one point in my life, I talked with a mentor of mine about it's crazy and neat how a lot of things that Jesus did can be scientifically explained, and how it's only a matter of time before all things are cleared up by science.  For example, I liked how people were trying to use buoyancy to explain how Jesus walked on water.  But she made a very important comment to me, and it has stuck with me til now.  She said that if there is science behind everything that God/Jesus does, then there is no room for faith.  If there was hard evidence for everything, then there wouldn't be any difficulty in believing and following in God.  To trust in God is to accept hardship because life on earth is a test.  Why make humans go through a test of hardship?  Because the reward at the end is greater than what's on earth.  I think only someone who believes in God can accept this.  So for now, I'd rather believe that Jesus walked on water through a way beyond science.  I'm not stupid-- I just have faith.]

3. If it was a local flood, Noah could have just used the 120 years spent building an ark to walk to an area that was not flooded.  If the flood was local, and Noah chose to build the ark just because God told him to do so, then it shows that Noah was preaching of his faith in God by doing something apparently nonsensical to the people around him.  I admit to that.  At the same time, the purpose of the flood was to wipe the slate clean-- to start humanity over again and start with Noah's family (Genesis 6:7).  Therefore, it is more consistent with God's intended purpose for the flood to have been global than local.

I honestly don't know which one I believe.  I don't have seminary training, and I'll be the first to admit that I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!  However, I do know that I would like to ask a few of the pastors I trust about this topic.

-- Edit 2/7/13

The more I think about it, the more I seem to lean towards a global flood.  But it begs the question of when the different races came about.  Though... I do remember some people being cursed... I'll figure this out later. That's the cool part about writing all your questions down.

I also had a question about why Ham was cursed by Noah after seeing his father naked.  I know I'm missing some kind of context.  Any help?