Blog

When we are told that the history in the Bible is true, many balk at the idea that Noah’s Flood in Genesis really happened.  We’ve all seen the cute little Sunday School illustrations with the bathtub shaped ark with the pair of giraffe’s heads sticking out the top, and so we are inclined to dismiss the story of Noah as a kid’s fairy tale.  Especially when we may have not heard of any evidence that supports a global flood, but instead have heard that the rock layers that cover so much of the earth were laid down gradually over millions of years by advancing and retreating shallow seas. But what does the geological evidence of the rocks really show?  And was the Flood global, or was it only a local flood?  In this series of articles we will examine the extent of the flood, look at some geological evidences that support the flood model, and respond to objections that Noah’s flood was real history.

In this first article, let’s examine the idea, put forth by many well-meaning Bible believers, that the flood of Noah was just a local event.

Local, or Global?

So according to the Bible, was Noah’s Flood local, or global in extent? Again, I want to emphasize that there are sincere Bible believers on both sides of this debate.  Many prominent Christian apologists who uphold the Bible as the Word of God, nevertheless take the position that the flood was local.  I think many times they do this because it seems like the more intellectually respectable position, given the mainstream views of modern science.  We will be addressing the scientific evidence in the remaining articles in this series.  For now, lets see if a straightforward reading of the Biblical account itself supports a global or local event.

The Language of the Flood passages:

First of all, the language used to describe the purpose and extent of the Flood is always in global, universal terms.  The primary purpose of the Flood was a judgement upon all of mankind, which had become evil and violent.  The earth was “filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11-13), not just one locality. According to all the biblical writers, only Noah and his family were spared.  The Lord Jesus Christ clearly states in Luke 17:26-30 that all men were destroyed by the Flood, and He compares this as a global event to His second coming.  If the Flood wasn’t a global event, then neither will His second coming be.

When all the passages regarding the extent of the Flood are taken together in their context, they clearly point to a global event.  Here are a few examples out of many:…”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” (Gen 6:7- not just domestic animals. And wouldn’t birds just be able to fly away from a local flood?) “To destroy all flesh…Wherein is the breath of life” (Gen 6:17), “…and the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high hills,that were under the whole heaven were covered.” (Gen 7:19), “the mountains were covered” (Gen 7:20), “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen 9:1).  I think we get the idea.  There is nothing in the language of the Bible that even hints at a local flood.  So what this means is that these prominent apologists who otherwise respect the text of the Scripture are not doing so here. Their efforts to say that “earth” had a local meaning are refuted by the sheer number and context of all the Flood passages.  For an extensive listing of these, see “The Global Flood of Noah’s Day” by John D. Morris, 1999. {1}  For another more technical linguistic analysis, see Geoscience Research Institute article “Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood” {2}

There are many other reasons why the Bible points to a global flood.

1. Why build an ark if it was a local flood?  God could have told Noah simply to move!  Birds and animals could also have migrated away.

2. The waters were said to have “prevailed upon the earth”, and covered “all the high mountains”  Given the water levels needed, this could not be a local flood.  (For critics assertion that there wouldn’t have been enough water to cover the earth at a level of Mount Everest, see the article in this series on Objections to the Flood, and also this article:” How did the waters of the Flood drain off the continents?” {3}.  (Also, critics need to address the fact that we find marine fossils on the top of Mount Everest, indicating that this area was once under water, and then pushed up and formed later.  This evidence will be addressed in the article on scientific evidence).

3. The duration  of one year could not be a local flood.

4. “All the fountains of the great deep broke up” (Gen 7:11) Not a local event.

5. God promised that there would never be such a flood again (Gen. 9:15).  If it was only a local flood, then all the local and regional floods that have occurred since would be a break of God’s promise.

6. Jesus Christ believed that the flood was global (Luke 17:27)  If we believe that He was mistaken, we have bigger spiritual problems than whether or not the Flood was local or global!

7. The apostle Peter compared his warning of a coming global judgement to the past global Flood of Noah, which he also believed happened (2 Peter 3:3-7).

8. The size and construction of the ark would be pointless if only a few animals were preserved in a local flood.

9. Flood stories from widely scattered cultures around the world indicate a common cause.  They are similar enough to be explained by the memory of a global event such as the Flood.  If the Flood happened as recorded in Genesis, we would expect memories of it to be carried around the world as people spread out over the globe, and that there would be some local differences but an overall similarity in the sequence of events described.  Also, if these flood stories did not exist, critics would ask why there are no recollections of such a monumental event as the Flood!  Also, these cannot be explained by missionary visits.  There are many of these flood accounts that pre-date any missionary contact, and why so many different emphases in the accounts?    Why are there no other universal stories of other Bible events such as the Red Sea crossing or other more regional events? Missionaries also would have most likely concentrated on preaching the gospel rather than just the Flood of Noah, so why aren’t  universal gospel stories found?  Also the vast majority of these flood stories were not gathered by missionaries, but by anthropologists with no biblical axe to grind.

Conclusion:  I realize that none of this discussion provides evidence for Noah’s Flood unless you believe the Bible.  That actually should be enough in itself, considering that none of us alive today were there in the time of the Flood, and because there are so many other reasons to believe that God has given us His Word in the Bible.  What I have attempted to show in this article is if one takes the Bible seriously and straightforwardly, they will be hard pressed to hold to any compromise such as a local flood theory.  Interestingly enough, from what I have heard and read of skeptic’s reviews of the local flood theory, they don’t find it intellectually respectable at all, since they can see that a plain reading of the Bible supports a global, not a local flood.

Finally, I want to finish this article with the point that belief in a global flood is not a salvation issue.  No one will be in hell because they did not believe in a global flood!  But it is an important issue as to how we read the Bible and look at it in the same way that Jesus did.

In the next article in this series we will examine the scientific evidence to see if it supports a worldwide watery catastrophe.

{1} See article:https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-311.pdf  retrieved 12/31/16

{2} See article: http://www.grisda.org/origins/22058.htm  retrieved 12/31/16

{3}  See article: http://creation.com/how-did-the-waters-of-noahs-flood-drain