The Creation Controversy, Part Seventeen: The Flood of Noah

Also in this series:

Introduction

Part One: Biblical Authority

Part Two: Authority from Tradition – the Jewish Sages and the Early Church Fathers

Part Three: The Weight of Traditional Views

Part Four: Man’s Fallible Opinions

Part Five: Clues in the Text

Part Six: More Clues in the Text

Part Seven: What are the Days of Genesis?

Part Eight: Misconceptions of Paradise

Part Nine: Life and Death in the Pre-Fall Animal World, I

Part Ten: Life and Death in the Pre-Fall Animal World, II

Part Eleven: The Other Realm and the Other Fall

Part Twelve: Tracing the Advent of Man, I

Part Thirteen: Tracing the Advent of Man, II

Part Fourteen: Tracing the Advent of Man, III

Part Fifteen: Tracing the Advent of Man, IV

Part Sixteen: Was Jesus a Young-Earth Creationist?

The flood of Noah is one of the more contentious issues within the overall context of the creation controversy. Because young-earth creationists link all death and turmoil in nature to the Fall of Man, they must have some mechanism by which to explain the fossil record and the various evidences of geological upheaval in earth’s primordial past. A global flood in which all humans and land animals died apart from those on the ark, and during which the surface of the earth was extensively resurfaced and various geologic layers were laid down, is the only explanatory mechanism readily available to them.

For this reason, the global flood model has become a sort of lint trap for young-earth teachers, a catch-all by which they’ve attempted to explain everything from the fossil record, to radioactive decay rates, to the breakup of the continents, to craters on the moon. The scope of what the flood is thought to account for from the young-earth perspective is truly staggering.[1]

For the most part, old-earth believers affirm the historicity of the flood while arguing that it was local or regional in scope rather than global, and had nothing to do with laying down the fossil record or forming the continents. Yet, even within old-earth circles there are differences of opinion on the matter. Some old-earthers do affirm a global deluge but do not attribute the fossil record to its influence. Still others argue that the flood story is an example of mytho-history in the biblical text, primarily designed to teach theological truths rather than to convey actual history. There is also some disagreement amongst old-earthers as to when the flood took place. Some argue that it was around 35,000 years ago, coinciding with the end of the last ice age, whereas others place it only a couple thousand years before Abraham. In short, there is no default old-earth view of the flood.

As I’ve been doing all along in this book, I will point out what I believe to be plausible interpretations of the biblical text where the flood is concerned, and with an emphasis on answering the standard young-earth interpretation of the event. Entire books have been written on the flood—with even a number of secular researchers weighing in on the matter—and it would be easy to drift far afield of the biblical text in an effort to address all of the possible points of interest connected with it. As my goal remains to prompt believers to consider the biblical text in different ways, however, I will resist the temptation to wander from it, although I do encourage interested readers to research the wide variety of materials that are available on the subject.

The Standard Global Flood Interpretation

The story of the flood spans Genesis chapters 6-9, which I cannot quote in their entirety here. Instead, I will quote the most prominent passages young-earth teachers use to make the case for their global flood model, all but one of which are taken from those chapters. Afterward, I will break down some of the elements found in these passages and offer a few observations I consider illuminating.

 

Then God said to Noah, ‘The end of all flesh is before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold I am about to destroy them with the earth.” – Genesis 6:13

 

“Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.” – Genesis 6:18

 

“For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.” – Genesis 7:4

 

Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. – Genesis 7:17-23

 

Then he [Noah] sent out a dove, to see if the water was low on the surface of the land; but the dove found no resting place for the sole of its foot, so it returned to him in the ark, for the water was on the surface of all the earth. – Genesis 8:9

 

And [God] did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly. – II Peter 2:5

At first glance, it’s easy to see why so many Christians accept the global flood model and marvel at anyone who doesn’t. The language employed in these passages seems all-inclusive: the whole earth is said to have been covered with water, including the high mountains, and every living thing on the land is said to have died. I will examine these elements of the flood narrative shortly.

For the moment, however, please note that there are a number of other common global flood model elements that do not appear in Genesis 6-9. There is no description of landmasses breaking up. We don’t see giant tsunamis washing over the face of the earth, blasting out canyons and otherwise resurfacing the landscape. We don’t see volcanoes erupting. No subsequent ice age is described. All of these common elaborations on the flood account are pure conjecture. They may seem reasonable in light of assumptions often made concerning the severity of a truly global flood, but they are extra-biblical.

Those who want to argue for these things cannot legitimately do so from the Genesis text because none of these things appear in the text or are necessitated by what appears in the text. We are simply told that the heavens opened up, the fountains of the deep were broken up, rain fell for forty days and forty nights, and the water level steadily rose, carrying the ark along until it finally ran aground on “the mountains of Ararat.” As for the remaining elements of the story: water covering the whole earth under heaven, and every living thing on the earth dying, there is more than one way of understanding these statements.

Perspective in the Context

Let’s begin with the issue of perspective. When we see the phrase “All flesh that moved on the earth perished,” this sounds to us as if the text is saying that every living thing on the planet died. This is because when we use the term “earth,” we almost invariably mean it as a synonym for “planet Earth,” meaning the whole globe, and we unconsciously read this understanding into scripture. But the Genesis flood account was not written by a modern English speaker with a global mindset informed by modern science. As I’ve demonstrated previously, the Hebrew word erets, which is translated as “earth” in the phrase, “All flesh that moved on the earth perished,” simply means “land,” and often refers to a particular land, such as “the land of Israel” or “the land of Egypt.” In order to make their case, global flood proponents need to prove that, at least within the context of this narrative, “land” really means the entire landmass of the planet.

“What reason is there to believe that it doesn’t?” Global flood theologians may interject here. “God clearly says that the flood will come upon the whole earth and all flesh will die. This is all-inclusive language that makes no sense if the flood didn’t really cover the whole world and kill everything that wasn’t on the ark.”

In a previous post, I pointed out language in scripture that may appear to be all-inclusive on the surface but cannot be read in such a woodenly literal manner without reducing to absurdity or outright contradiction. I encourage the reader to look back at the passages I cited there and then return here to consider the following:

In Zephaniah 1:1-3, the Lord makes a very interesting pronouncement in the days of Josiah, king of Judah:

 

“I will completely remove all things

From the face of the earth,” declares the Lord.

“I will remove human and animal life;

I will remove the birds of the sky

And the fish of the sea,

And the stumbling blocks along with the wicked;

And I will eliminate mankind from the

Face of the earth,” declares the Lord.

The phraseology used here immediately puts one in mind of the flood account. God is saying he will remove mankind from the earth and even kill the animals that inhabit it as well. But then consider what follows this decree:

 

“So I will stretch out My hand against Judah

And against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

And I will eliminate the remnant of Baal from this place.” – Zephaniah 1:4

The sweeping destruction God promises here is specifically directed against the land of Judah in retribution for its idolatry. The prophet Jeremiah also employs similar language in his descriptions of the judgment God was about to bring on Judah in those days:

 

I looked at the earth, and behold, it was

A formless and desolate emptiness;

And to the heavens, and they had no light.

I looked on the mountains, and behold,

They were quaking.

And all the hills jolted back and forth.

I looked, and behold, there was no human.

And all the birds of the sky had fled.

I looked, and behold, the fruitful land

Was a wilderness,

And its cities were pulled down

Before the Lord, before His fierce anger.

For this is what the Lord says:

“The whole land shall be a desolation

Yet I will not execute a complete destruction.” – Jeremiah 4:23-27

 

“I will take up a weeping and wailing for the mountains,

And for the pastures of the wilderness a song of mourning,

Because they are laid waste so that no one passes through,

And the sound of livestock is not heard;

Both the birds of the sky and

The animals have fled; they are gone.

I will make Jerusalem a heap of ruins;

A haunt of jackals. – Jeremiah 9:10-11a

The word translated “earth” in Zephaniah 1:2 and 3 is ‘adamah, which is the same word used in Genesis 7:4, where God says to Noah, “I will wipe out from the face of the land [‘adamah] every living thing I have made.” The word translated “earth” in Jeremiah 4:23, where Jeremiah says he looked upon the earth and found no man, and in 4:27 where God says “The whole land shall be a desolation,” is once again the by-now familiar word erets. Note how similar the sweeping language of these passages is to the language used in the flood account. At first glance, it seems that the text is telling us that God is going to kill everyone on the earth, even all the animals as well; but other verses demonstrate that the “earth” spoken is specifically the land of Judah—not the entire landmass of the planet. Notice also the use of hyperbole here: the mountains “quaking” and the hills “jolting back and forth.”

“So, if God meant for ‘adamah and erets to apply in a similar limited context in Genesis 6-9, why didn’t he specify this in some way, as he did in Zechariah and Jeremiah?” young-earthers may ask.

For one thing, if the “earth” as Noah knew it was limited to a given inhabited area, it would have been unnecessary for God to specify anything: the world as Noah knew it was about to perish. On another front, consider that God really speaks very little in the flood account compared to his speeches in the prophecies of Zechariah and Jeremiah. In fact, when you think about it, the entire flood account is really rather cursory. Noah spent years building the ark, and the flood itself lasted for nearly a year, yet all of this is summarized in less than four full chapters. Clearly, Genesis chapters 6-9 are conveying the highlights of the flood and the events that led up to it. God may very well have said much more to Noah than is recorded in the Genesis account.

Now, for an example from Genesis itself, consider Genesis 13:9, where Abraham, who was concerned about disputes arising between his herdsmen and those of his nephew, Lot, tells Lot that they should separate: “Is the entire land not before you? Please separate from me; if you choose the left, then I will go to the right; or if you choose the right, then I will go to the left.” In Hebrew, the phrase “the entire land” is kol erets, which is the same wording used in Genesis 8:9, where Noah’s dove returns to him because “the water was on the surface of the whole earth.” Do we really think Abraham had the far reaches of the globe in mind when he asked Lot to pick a place for grazing his flocks and herds? The idea seems absurd. Why then must the same words automatically mean the entire globe in Genesis 13:9?

For one last example, consider I Samuel 14:25, which tells of a time when Israel pursued the Philistines under King Saul: “All the people of the land entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground.” In Hebrew, the phrase “All the people of the land” is kol erets – literally “All the land.” The NASB’s translators chose to render the meaning of this particular passage rather than the author’s exact wording, as “All the land entered the forest” makes for rather awkward reading. Clearly, people are in view here, not a moving land mass. Yet, even the phrase “all the people” can refer only to the army of Israel. It certainly could not be extended to everyone in the world, nor even to everyone in Israel, unless we’re prepared to believe every man, woman, and child in Israel was part of Saul’s army, and that the cities of the land lay empty while everyone pursued the Philistines en mass.

So, again, I ask: Given this clearly limited usage of the same Hebrew terms, why must we automatically believe that kol erets in Genesis 13:9 refers to the entire globe?[2]

Dispersed Humanity?

Just as we must clarify what Luke meant when he referred to “the whole world” going to be taxed, we should ask what Noah would have thought of as “kol erets” when he was told that the flood was coming upon it. It strains credulity to believe that Noah had a modern understanding of the world, and certainly nothing in the text itself suggests this. When he heard the phrase, “the whole land,” Noah would not have conceived of a globe, as we do today. In all likelihood, he had no knowledge of anything beyond the Mesopotamian region. Furthermore, scripture does not tell us how far mankind had migrated by that time, but there are several reasons to believe that humans, or at least those of the Adamic race, had not spread across the entire landmass of the planet in Noah’s day.

Throughout history, human beings have gathered together in communities in order to share responsibilities and reap mutual benefits. Isolated persons and family groups are especially vulnerable to the hazards of life, and survival is much more difficult for them. This is true even today but was all the more so in ancient times. In those times, exile from one’s community often had the effect of being a death sentence. Our densely populated and conveniently ordered modern world is an anomaly in human experience. In the past, the average population of the earth was much lower, and vast portions of the planet were uninhabited or only sparsely inhabited. Even today, there are large regions of the earth where communities are few and far between, and life in such places is more exacting and hazardous. The idea of living off the land is a romantic notion that may occasionally appeal to disenchanted urbanites, but in reality it’s a very difficult lifestyle, suitable only for the hardiest and most determined among us.

In the pre-technological antediluvian world, the struggle for survival would have been difficult enough for man, but it was made even more difficult by the curse God had placed on the ground. In Genesis 5:29, Noah’s father, Lamech, prophesies that Noah “will give us comfort from our work and from the hard labor of our hands caused by the ground which the Lord has cursed.” The tone of this passage suggests that the curse did indeed have a strong stifling effect on man’s productivity and civilization.

Given this, the impetus to gather together in close communities would have been even stronger among mankind in those days. Striking out on one’s own would have been a threat to survival simply due to the difficulty of food cultivation, to say nothing of safety considerations, as Genesis 6:11 tells us that the earth was “filled with violence” at that time. Identity may also have been a factor here, if there were indeed two populations of humans on earth. As I discussed in chapter eight, Adamites would probably have clustered together rather than dispersing among other communities of human beings, whom they may have looked upon as their inferiors.

For these reasons, I’m doubtful that humans of Noah’s day had strayed far from the Tigris and Euphrates river region. Fresh water was abundant there, cultivation of crops would have been easier, fish were readily available from the rivers, the climate of the region was stable, and there would have been greater safety in numbers. Disagreement and divisions of faction would likely have resulted in numerous communities springing up between these rivers and along their courses, but it probably wouldn’t have provoked mass migrations. There would have been little incentive to wander far; the risks and burdens involved would simply have been too great.

In Genesis 11, which recounts the Tower of Babel story, we’re told that “all the earth” settled in the land of Shinar and had to be scattered to other regions by an act of God. While this reference only comments on the habits of post-flood culture, it at least suggests that the people of this time period tended to congregate rather than to spread out. This makes sense for many reasons, as I’ve explained already, and it has been exemplified throughout history as a consistent human tendency. There have always been nomads among us, but up until relatively recently, most people lived and died within a short distance of where they were born. Explorers have often been romanticized but they have never been the norm.

For one last thought here, consider that the apostle Peter tells us that Noah was “a preacher of righteousness.” Many a Sunday School teacher has favored his or her class with the story of Noah preaching to scoffing, unbelieving crowds during the many years he spent building the ark. It’s perfectly plausible to believe that the people of a limited region would have heard Noah’s preaching, or at least heard of it, but far less plausible to believe that he went on a preaching tour around the world to reach isolated pockets of humanity with his warning of the coming judgment. Those living in far-flung regions of the world would thus have had no warning, no opportunity for repentance, no chance to get on the ark—at least from what we can see in the biblical text. There were no mass media outlets in those days, and if Noah and his family alone were righteous, who else was preaching the message?

Noah’s World

All of these considerations bring us back to the question I originally posed: When God told Noah that the flood would come upon the whole earth and kill everything on it, what did Noah think that meant? What exactly was the “earth” to him? Was Noah’s “earth” the entire landmass of the globe, or was it more along the lines of Luke’s Roman “world”? Either definition could legitimately work here. If Noah knew nothing of the world beyond the Mesopotamian region—if that was in fact the inhabited world as he knew it—then, yes, the flood could come upon the whole world, the whole “earth,” the whole “land,” and yet not cover the whole globe. This is even suggested by the apostle Peter’s wording when he tells us that the flood was sent “upon the world of the ungodly” (II Peter 2:5). The language Peter uses here suggests a limited judgment, one that wiped out a certain rebellious people.

“But,” say the global flood theologians, “You forget that God himself said that the flood would come upon the whole earth and wipe out all life. Even if Noah had a limited perspective of what constituted the ‘earth,’ God knew the whole globe as it really was, and he inspired the Holy Spirit to convey that perspective in scripture.”

In response to this objection, yes, God did tell Noah that the flood would come upon the whole earth, but as I’ve taken pains to point out, God speaks to man on man’s level, according to man’s understanding. In communicating with us, he uses our language and our perspective. If Noah thought of “the earth” or “the world” only as the land and the people he was familiar with (as the Babylonians and Persians appear to have thought of it), there is no reason to believe God meant to convey anything else when he spoke to Noah. God knew perfectly well what Noah thought of as “the world,” and thus how Noah would understand it.

To prove the global flood interpretation, it is necessary to demonstrate that both God and Noah intended “kol erets” to mean the entire landmass of the planet. This would seem to be disproven by Genesis 8:8-9, where Noah sends out a dove. The dove ultimately returns to him because it “found no resting place for the sole of its foot…for the water was on the surface of all the earth.” Yet, if we read just few verses earlier, we find that this was 40 days after the waters had receded enough for the tops of the mountains to become visible. Clearly, the “earth” here is a reference to plains, low-lying country, not to all land everywhere.

Furthermore, as I discussed in chapter nine, it seems likely that Moses compiled Genesis from pre-existent records handed down through the generations from Adam. These records were written in the language of the ancients and necessarily from a human perspective. While I do accept that the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of scripture, I do not hold to what some have called the “dictation” theory of inspiration: that is, the idea that God effectively used the human authors of scripture as typewriters. The original author of the flood account (probably Noah or one of his sons) did not “channel” the Holy Spirit in the process of recording the event, nor did Moses when he compiled Genesis long afterward.

As someone has correctly said, scripture was written for us but not to us. It was written to an ancient, pre-scientific people, from a perspective, and in a language, they could understand. Consequently, it is not enough for global flood proponents to argue “This is God talking.” We must consider to whom God was talking, and what he meant for that person to understand. If Noah thought of “the earth” and “the world” as the region where his civilization lay, why would God mean anything else when using those terms in speaking to Noah? The burden of proof here is on global flood advocates to demonstrate that Noah’s concept of “the earth” and “the world” are what we think of as the globe.

“The High Mountains were Covered”

What then of these statements in Genesis 7:19-20?

 

The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. – Genesis 7:19-20

Global flood theorists have speculated that the mountains of Noah’s time might not have been as high as those of today, but no matter how high they were, if the flood covered all of them then it must have been a truly global deluge. At first glance, this seems like a definitive argument, or at least I thought so when I was a young-earth creationist listening to lectures and watching films like “The World that Perished.” When you look at the Hebrew, however, this apparent slam-dunk for the global flood theologians quickly evaporates.

The Hebrew word translated “mountains” is har, which can refer to mountains of considerable height, such as Mount Sinai, but is often rendered as “hill,” hills,” or “hill country.”[3] Thus, it does not have to mean mountains that are many hundreds or thousands of feet high. It could mean almost any area that is elevated above the surrounding land.

There are also matters of perspective to consider here as well. For instance, consider that “high” is a rather subjective term. For people living in the comparatively flat terrain of Mesopotamia, the idea of a “high” place might mean something completely different than it would to an inhabitant of Tibet. Furthermore, given that this account was passed down from those who were on the ark, it is reasonable to assume that they wrote from the perspective of what they personally witnessed. This means that the whole land, including the hill country, was covered with water as far as they could see from their vantage point.

In an article for old-earth creationist organization Reasons to Believe, Steve Sarigianis notes that, given the dimensions for the ark as described in scripture, Noah’s vantage point on top of the ark would have put him about 30 feet above the water level. This position would have given him a horizon of “about 8 miles” and prevented him from seeing land forms even as high as 1,000 feet unless they were relatively close.[4]

Once again, it might be argued that we should believe that all the mountains of the world were covered because God inspired the writing of the text, so Noah didn’t have to see it to know what had happened, but this is once again assuming that the terms erets and kol erets, as used in the flood story, refer to the entire landmass of the planet. If they do not, then there is no difficulty with the idea that Noah simply recorded what he saw from his limited vantage point. There is no reason to argue that inspiration somehow took the form of dictation here, using modern definitions. It could simply be that Noah was prompted to record his journey and did so from his perspective. How else would he have done it?

Where Did the Water Go?

In Genesis 8:1-3, we’re told that the windows of heaven and the fountains of the deep were closed and that God caused a wind to blow over the earth, with the result that the flood waters “receded steadily from the earth.” The Hebrew word translated “recede” in this passage is shuwb, which Strong’s defines as meaning “to turn back…generally to retreat.”[5] The question that must be asked then is: Where did the water recede to? With a regional/local flood event, this poses no problem, but with a global flood of any real depth it becomes a serious issue. If the entire planet were essentially one large ocean, where would all that water go?

Young-earth teachers typically argue that tectonic activity during the flood raised the mountain ranges and lowered the ocean basins, which caused the water of the flood to drain off of the land and into the oceans.[6] As previously mentioned, however, there is no indication of this in the biblical text, which seems odd, especially if you hold to the “dictation” view of inspiration and believe that the ancients had a modern understanding of the globe. This theory is also extremely problematic from a scientific standpoint, as such massive tectonic activity over so short a period of time would have resulted in mega-wave action that would have inundated the ark or smashed it to pieces.

Global flood theologians may respond here that God could have miraculously protected the ark from such turbulence, and that is certainly true, but there are two problems with their argument as viewed from the text. First, as noted previously, the text says nothing about giant tsunamis washing over the world—or even mildly rough sailing, for that matter. The text merely says that the water rose steadily and the ark floated on it. Second, the text actually hints that God did not supernaturally act to protect Noah during the flood. Why? Because it wasn’t necessary. He protected Noah from the flood by having him build a boat in which to ride it out, and this appears to have been entirely adequate by itself. Nothing in the description of the ark suggests that it was built to do anything more than stay afloat, and we should not infer that anything more was necessary for it to safeguard its cargo. Scripture does not give any indication whatsoever that the ark was built to survive the unimaginable turmoil of a planetary ocean stirred into a fury by the sudden reshaping of earth’s crust!

Unfortunately, the text doesn’t give us much to go on where the recession of the waters is concerned. It merely tells us that the windows (or floodgates) of heaven and the fountains of the deep were closed, and that God caused a wind to blow over the earth until the flood waters had gone down and the land was dry. So, all we can say for certain is that the closing of the floodgates and the fountains stopped the influx of water, while the heaven-sent wind caused the water to evaporate and/or drove it back. The text tells us that the waters of the flood “prevailed” on the earth for 150 days, after which they finally began to subside and the ark came to rest on the “mountains” of Ararat. The “tops of the mountains” (of Ararat, that is) then became visible 74 days later—almost two and a half months after the flood ceased. Another 96 days then passed before the text tells us that the earth was dry. Thus, the recession of the water took a total of 170 days (see Genesis 7:24, 8:5, 13).

If the global flood model is true, and the mountains rose and the sea beds lowered to where we find them today, thereby draining off the water of the flood, this alteration of the earth’s crust happened during the 170 days after the ark ran aground on the mountains of Ararat (because this is when the text says the waters started to recede). The ark was resting on the submerged earth by that time. Surely, those on the ark would have felt the earth moving beneath them, but if they did, nothing is said of it in the account. This seems extremely improbable. The text tells us that the water level went down, making the land visible; it does not say that the land rose up out of the water. Those are two entirely different things.

Further, as noted already, the text attributes the recession of the flood waters to the heaven-sent wind. If the mountains were rising and the sea beds lowering, the flood waters would have drained off the land due to the tendency of water to seek the lowest level. The divine wind would only have been needed to dry the land out after the waters had withdrawn—but the text attributes the withdrawal of the flood waters to the wind.

The Bible doesn’t tell us how deep the flood waters were. The closest it comes to this is Genesis 7:19-20, where it says: “The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.” Fifteen cubits is equivalent to approximately 23 feet. From the measurements described in Genesis, the ark stood approximately 50 feet high. Its draft—the distance from the ark’s bottom to its waterline—would have been around 20 to 25 feet, leaving around 30 feet above water. Given these dimensions, when the ark ran aground, it was most likely in 20 to 25 feet of water, which matches up well with Genesis 7:20. As mentioned previously, it then took 74 days for the waters to recede to the point that Noah could see the tops of the mountains the ark was resting on. This means that it took 74 days for the water to decrease by 20 to 25 feet. That’s a rate of about 4 inches per day, indicating not a precipitous decline but a steady retreat. The water then took another 96 days to retreat from the surrounding land—only about 22% longer.

The fact that the waters took 74 days to recede just 20 to 25 feet—even when assisted by a divine wind—makes it improbable that the ark came to rest on what we would consider true alpine country. Many young-earth/global flood believers think the ark is located on Mount Ararat itself, somewhere above the 10,000-foot level. If the ark were really this high, however, should the waters not have drained rather quickly from the high mountain slopes as the ocean basins lowered? Also, remember the fact that, once the tops of the mountains became visible, the water took an additional 96 days to drain from the surrounding country. So, it took 74 days from the time that the ark ran aground for the tops of the mountains on which it rested to become visible, and then 96 more days until the rest of the surrounding land dried out—again, only about 22% longer.

Although we cannot know the rate of drainage—whether it was steady or changed over time—these statistics tend to support a flood that was perhaps no more than 100 feet deep, and the ark running aground at an altitude that was not much greater than the surrounding plain. The timeframes involved here are more consistent with a “gentle” rise and decrease of water rather than with anything precipitous, which I would expect if shallow ocean basins suddenly lowered to their present average depth of three miles. If the latter were true, the land should have drained rapidly. The fact that the waters retreated so slowly indicates to me that the ocean depths and mountain heights did not change appreciably during the flood.

For these reasons, a global flood seems extremely improbable. The account is much more consistent with a regional disaster that inundated the plains of Mesopotamia (perhaps a larger area) and swept the ark north, where it finally came to rest in the lower foothills of the Ararat range. A hilly area rising up about 100 feet would indeed seem mountainous to anyone who lived on the flat Mesopotamian plain. The Hebrew of the flood account allows for this interpretation, and the details of the account make it entirely plausible if not preferable.

Other Scriptural Evidences

The Confining of the Waters

Psalm 104 celebrates God’s creation of the world and his care for its creatures. In verses 5 through 9, the psalmist comments that when God originally created the land, he covered it with water and then caused the water to withdraw permanently behind a fixed boundary:

 

He established the earth upon its foundations

So that it will not move out of place forever and ever.

You covered it with the deep sea as with a garment;

The waters were standing above the mountains.

They fled from Your rebuke,

At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.

The mountains rose; the valleys sank down

To the place which You established for them.

You set a boundary so that they will not

pass over,

So that they will not return to cover the earth.

Young-earth/global flood theologians have tried to argue that Psalm 104:5-9 is describing the flood of Noah, but the context makes it quite clear that this is a reflection on creation. Note that verse 5 tells of the establishment of the earth, so that it will stand firmly in its place forever. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the flood account; it’s the psalmist’s way of describing God’s “molding” of the earth. The psalmist goes on to say that the deep sea was permanently confined, never again to cover the earth. As we’ve seen elsewhere, the reference to “earth” here probably indicates the Middle Eastern region, as this was the world of the ancient Hebrews. If you understand “the earth” here as being a reference to the entire landmass of the planet, you have a significant problem, as the psalmist wrote this text long after the flood.

The Persistent Nephilim

In chapter nine, I discussed a mysterious, violent race of people known as the Nephilim, and offered some speculation on who they may have been. One of the things I noted was that Genesis 6:1-5 tells us that Nephilim “were on the earth in those days,” which I take to be a reference to the pre-flood world, “and also afterward.” Indeed, the Israelite spies sent into Canaan by Moses complained of seeing Nephilim in the land (Numbers 33:13).

Global flood theologians have a potential problem here, given that, by their interpretation of Genesis 6-9, no one apart from Noah and his family survived the flood. It has been suggested that new Nephilim may have been spawned in the years after the flood, but this speculation is driven solely by the need to defend global flood theology. Nothing is said in the biblical text regarding new Nephilim being spawned after the Genesis 6 reference. In fact, as I demonstrated previously, we can’t be entirely certain what the Nephilim actually were. If they were the hybrid children of human beings and fallen angels, they could certainly have been spawned again during another such encounter. On the other hand, if they were non-Adamic humans, then the only option we have left is direct descent, which can only mean that not everyone was killed in the flood.

I do not offer this mention of the Nephilim as “proof” of a regional flood that targeted only a certain segment of humanity. The text is entirely too vague on the matter for us to draw such conclusions with any degree of certainty. I simply submit that it may be evidence of a regional event that killed some people and left others alive.

Why Didn’t Noah Just Move?

A question often asked of those who believe in a regional flood event is: Why didn’t God just have Noah move somewhere else and kill the inhabitants of the land after he was gone? This is a perfectly reasonable question, and I believe it has a perfectly reasonable answer.

The biblical record demonstrates that God usually delivers his people through circumstances rather than from them. In this way, he draws distinctions between his people and those around them and more clearly demonstrates his power to protect and judge. Perhaps the most notable instance of this tendency is his protection of the children of Israel from the plagues of Egypt while they were living in the land of Goshen. Note the words God gave Moses to speak to Pharaoh on that occasion:

 

For if you are not going to let My people go, behold, I will send swarms of flies on you and on your servants and on your people, and into your houses…But on that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, where My people are living, so that no swarms of flies will be there, in order that you may know that I, the Lord, am in the midst of the land. I will put a division between My people and your people. – Exodus 8:21-23

Another famous example is the story of the three Hebrews who were thrown into Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace after defying the king’s order to worship before his idol. God could have spared them this, but by delivering them through the situation, to the extent that their hair was not singed and they did not even smell of smoke when they emerged, Nebuchadnezzar and his top officials were witness to the power of the true God and gave glory to him (Daniel 3:24-30).

Among other examples we might also consider here are the miraculous victories God permitted Israel in her wars with the Canaanite tribes, David’s defeat of Goliath, and Christ’s deliverance of his disciples from a storm on the Sea of Galilee. In the same way God delivered his people through these situations, he also protected Noah and his family through the judgment that fell on the ungodly land in which they lived, thereby drawing a distinction between his people and the people of rebellion, and leaving an example for future generations.

“But then why did God have Noah take animals on the ark as well?” it may be asked. “Wouldn’t they have just migrated back into the area after the flood was over?”

In time, yes, they would have. This may have taken a great deal of time, however, especially for them to arrive in any real numbers. In the meantime, Noah and his family would have been left with little in the way of food and no beasts of burden to help them get life started again. It is also possible that certain species peculiar to the region would have been wiped out entirely had Noah not taken them on the ark.

The Flood and the Second Coming of Christ

It’s worth noting here that Christ compared the flood of Noah to the time of his own Second Coming:

 

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. – Matthew 24:37-39

The comparison Christ draws here is obviously intended to warn his audience against complacency in the last days, lest they be swept away by the judgment of God just as those of Noah’s day were. That said, however, there may be one other consideration for us to think on here as well.

Just as many Christians read the language of the Genesis flood and take the terms used there to mean that the whole world was flooded and everything that wasn’t on the ark died, so they also read various eschatological passages and assume that the events of the Great Tribulation will involve the entire world and no one apart from Christians and Godly Jews will survive the Second Coming.

For instance, Revelation 8:7 says that when the first angel sounded his trumpet, fire and hail mingled with blood were thrown down to the earth, with the effect that “a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and a third of the green grass was burned up.” At first glance, this really does sound like a third of the planet will be devastated by a fiery judgment, but the Greek word used here (ge) is similar to the Hebrew word erets in that it can simply refer to dry land or a particular region or nation.

An example of this is Matthew 2:21, where, following the death of Herod, Joseph takes Jesus and Mary and returns from Egypt to the “ge of Israel.” Thus, Revelation 8:7 may simply be a reference to a judgment that falls on one-third of the territory of the Antichrist rather than on the whole world.[7] Again, when we read terms like “earth” in scripture, we mustn’t automatically assume they refer to the entire planet.

Even more significant, however, are certain Old Testament passages clearly indicating that some people will in fact survive the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming apart from Christians and Jews. Zechariah 14 is one such passage. After describing the coming of the Lord to fight for Israel, and the plague that will strike the armies that attack Jerusalem at the time of Armageddon, the text goes on to say:

 

Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that came against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of armies, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of armies, there will be no rain on them. – Zechariah 14:16-17

Another passage indicating this is Isaiah 66:18-19. After describing his coming to execute judgment on humanity, the Lord says:

 

For I know their works and their thoughts; the time is coming to gather all the nations and tongues. And they shall come and see my glory. And I will put a sign among them and send survivors from them to the nations: Tarshish, Put, Lud, Meschech, Tubal, and Javan, to the distant coastlands that have neither heard of My fame nor seen My glory.

So, how is it possible that, following the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ, there could be survivors of the nations and even people groups who have never encountered the Lord at all? It is eminently possible if those events primarily impact only a particular region of the globe—the “Land of Promise” and the wider Middle East—and if some of the language used in describing the events is hyperbole similar to what we’ve seen in other passages.

I go into all of this here to suggest the following:

The descriptive language used in the flood account that has convinced so many Christians that the flood covered the whole world, and that no one apart from Noah and his family survived, is identical to the type of language used in eschatological passages that appear to teach that no one apart from Christians and godly Jews will survive the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming. Yet, as I have shown, there are passages that do indicate that some in far-off lands will in fact survive those events.

Given these similarities in language, and given that Christ himself drew a comparison between the flood and the events surrounding his return, it is at least possible that the judgment of the flood was also limited in scope and that people living outside of Noah’s land survived it. Remember the passages I quoted in chapter six that establish that there will be a distinction between the land of Israel and the rest of the world during the Kingdom Age.

Why Fossils on Mountain Tops?

Global flood advocates often ask why fossils of marine organisms have been found on mountains if the flood was not global in extent. This question is easily answered. Throughout the planet’s history, tectonic activity has raised and lowered topography all over the earth. Mountainous areas today where such fossils are found were once under water and were lifted upward over time to the heights they currently occupy.

But isn’t that exactly what global flood advocates believe?

No, global flood advocates believe that the fossil record was deposited in one event and that the mountains were elevated during a very brief period of time, less than a year in fact. On the other hand, mainstream scientists believe fossils were laid down in successive ages and that the mountains were elevated over long periods of time, given how slowly tectonic plates move in the crust of the earth. Again, I point out that there is no indication of earth changes in the Genesis flood narrative. In fact, the slow retreat of the waters and the depth at which the ark came to rest argue against it.

Further, if the flood of Noah were responsible for creating and depositing the entire fossil record, we would expect to find animals of every variety buried together in mass graves, along with humans. In point of fact, we do not find this. Dinosaur fossils, for instance, are found only beneath the K/T boundary layer, which represents what scientists call the Cretaceous-Palaegene extinction event boundary. What are the odds that a chaotic global flood event would selectively bury certain classes of organisms entirely separate from others and pile geologic strata on top of them in an orderly fashion?

Global Flood v Flooding Around the Globe

Whenever news comes out about the discovery of an ancient forest or animals that appear to have died off quickly, it’s not uncommon to see young-earth teachers proclaim “More evidence of a global flood!” In many instances, however, it’s not immediately clear what killed or buried the organisms in question. There have been numerous extinction events in earth’s history, including some that occurred quite suddenly—the most famous being the aforementioned Cretaceous-Palaegene extinction event, which ended the reign of the dinosaurs.

It is not enough by half for global flood advocates to demonstrate evidence of flooding around the globe in ancient times. They must somehow prove that the flooding and die-offs they offer into evidence all stem from one event that took place only a few thousand years ago. This is a tall order, and to date no one has managed it.

Conclusion

While the language of the Genesis flood account may seem on the surface to describe a deluge that inundated the entire world and killed every life form that wasn’t aboard the ark, this conclusion stems from approaching the text with a modern, scientific mindset in which the concept of “earth” is inseparable from the concept of the globe. When we look into the underlying Hebrew and compare the phraseology of the flood narrative to similar phraseology used elsewhere in scripture, however, the global flood interpretation suddenly seems far less compelling. Various clues in scripture, such as the limiting of the oceans in Psalm 104, and the continuance of the Nephilim, suggest a judgment that was limited in scope and did not kill everything or everyone on the planet.

Furthermore, the details of the flood account do not describe the sort of tectonic upheaval mandated by global flood theology. The ark runs aground on land that does not appear to be much higher in elevation than the surrounding territory, and the waters drain much more slowly than we would expect if there had been a dramatic change in the heights of the mountains or the depths of the ocean basins. The ark was not built to survive global tectonic wave action, and it is almost inconceivable that the passengers on the ark could have experienced the sort of earth changes theorized by global flood advocates and made no mention of them in the account, nor of a great ice age that began afterward. We are simply told that the flood waters rose, inundating the land, and later receded, uncovering the land. Nothing more, and nothing less.

In the final analysis, global flood theology is really driven by the need for young-earth teachers to account for scientific data that is contrary to their interpretations of scripture, particularly death before the Fall of Man. The text itself does not mandate a global flood. In fact, the regional flood interpretation makes much more sense in light of both the scriptural details and the scientific evidence.

 

Next in this series: Part Eighteen - Some Considerations from Science 

---

[1] For more on this, see chapter eleven: A Few Considerations from Science.

[2] For additional examples, see the usage of kol erets in II Samuel 15:23 and Isaiah 14:7.

[3] Strong’s # H2022.

[4] Steve Sarigianis, “Noah’s Flood: A Bird’s – Eye View.” Reasons to Believe. July 1, 2002.

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/facts-for-faith/read/facts-for-faith/2002/07/01/noah-s-flood-a-bird-s-eye-view

[5] Strong’s # H7725.

[6]See Avery Foley and Troy Lacey, “Feedback: Where Did All the Floodwater Go?” Answers in Genesis. April 18, 2018.

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/feedback-where-did-all-floodwater-go/

Also, see Mike Oard, “How did the waters of Noah’s Flood drain off the continents?” Creation Ministries International. July 30, 2015.

https://creation.com/how-did-the-waters-of-noahs-flood-drain

[7] Prophecy teachers often give the impression that Antichrist will rule the whole world, but this is extremely problematic given passages indicating that his power will be based on a confederation of ten nations and that he will make war with neighboring powers. If Antichrist rules the whole world, how is it that there are nations apparently outside of his power, with military forces of their own?