I was thinking this morning about whether or not the flood mentioned in Noah’s time was a local or a global flood.

In re-reading the story I reflected on how God said never again will he destroy the earth by flood. Yet we still do have floods, and they can be very destructive. Could it be that because there are times of local floods, this is an indication that the story of Noah meant that the flood was a global flood and that God means that never again will he destroy the whole earth through a global flood?

Craig, it was global.

The object of the flood was to destroy all human life (apart from Noah and family).

I am pretty sure that the Genesis narrative describes the flood as global and it is a global flood that God says he will not have happen again.

From the viewpoint of the author of Genesis it is a global flood and there is nothing in the text that implies local.

If someone wants to make an arguement that in fact the flood was local ... then I think they must attempt to do so by reconciling how the Genesis idea of a global flood can be reconciled to a supposed local flood in history. But I think it is flawed to claim that the author of Genesis was thinking local rather than global.

I think it was a global flood but I’m not entirely comfortable with the Creation Science approach to Genesis.  So long winded way of saying to Criag I would think that the ‘never again’ promise is consistent with the Genesis global view.

Adam

Adam Olive - 11 February 2008 02:26 PM

I think it was a global flood but I’m not entirely comfortable with the Creation Science approach to Genesis.

Adam, would you care to describe the areas of discomfort for you?  In my view accepting a global flood is a major chunk of common ground!

Re. David’s post - does the intention to wipe out all mankind necessitate a global flood?  Some (e.g. Hugh Ross) have argued that it could still have been local and achieved this purpose if the human race hadn’t yet spread out that far.

I’d be interested to hear from supporters of that view.  In fact in view of the great interest aroused by several creation-related threads elsewhere, I’m surprised this one hasn’t similarly taken off.  Perhaps that can now change....

Dan,

Although I agree with a global flood being the intention of the author of Genesis (and think this was the case), I have major or significant problems with some aspects of Creation Science. The three main ones are:

1. That if God didn’t create in 6 literal days then the whole Christian faith unravels. I think this is true of the resurrection but it seems foolish when I hear people say “I couldn’t be a Christian if a literal approach to Genesis isn’t right”.

2. The constant references I have heard where Creation Science people have stated or implied that those who do not take Genesis 1-9 literally do not believe the Bible. I think you might choose to say they are misinterpreting the Bible and are wrong but that is different to saying that they do not believe the Bible?!?!

3. The emphasis Creation Science places on a scientific reading of the text often seems to overwhelm or fail to appreciate the theological perspectives of the text. I find The Genesis Record by Henry Morris an example of this. This commentary comes from a scientific perspective but loses some more significant theological insights. At the end of the day Genesis is not about science - it is about theology and the special interest of Creation Science can in fact skew the intention of the text.

Adam

Also Dan, I think there is a general weariness among those who do not take ‘a scientifically literal’ interpretation of the text.

The discussions over the years have been long and sometimes heated. I think for a lot of people this subject has been done and done and done.

A more respectful manner from both sides would possibly lead to a better discussion. But I think points 2 and 3 have wearied many.

Personally I would like to see a theological discussion take place where theological insights rather than scientific debate was the focus. Then both sides could assist in understanding the intentions of the text.

e.g. why is a snake and not some other animal described in Genesis 3 - what is the intention? e.g. what does the geography and topography of Eden tell us about God’s presence and rule? e.g are their any images used in the Flood that reoccur later in the canon like the waters rising and increasing greatly? how does Genesis utilize and attack ancient mythology for the purposes of teaching Israel about Yahweh?

Adam

This topic has been dealt with not so long ago. Creationists will start popping out of the woodwork - real soon, I predict. It sure got tedious back there.

By saying global flood, my question is ‘how much of the globe was known in those times?’. Was America or Australia part of the equation, when ancient people wrote the story to impress the Nations in the area.

And most theologians seem to agree that the story of Noah is a ‘ One True God’ perspective on a story that had floated (excuse the pun) in the region - eg ‘The epic of Gilgamesh’.

I will butt out of any more contributions, though, knowing on past experience what will happen, most probably, when Creationists get wind of this topic.

Ken Austin - 16 July 2008 10:19 PM

This topic has been dealt with not so long ago. Creationists will start popping out of the woodwork - real soon, I predict. It sure got tedious back there.

By saying global flood, my question is ‘how much of the globe was known in those times?’. Was America or Australia part of the equation, when ancient people wrote the story to impress the Nations in the area.

And most theologians seem to agree that the story of Noah is a ‘ One True God’ perspective on a story that had floated (excuse the pun) in the region - eg ‘The epic of Gilgamesh’.

I will butt out of any more contributions, though, knowing on past experience what will happen, most probably, when Creationists get wind of this topic.

Ken, I’d be interested in further explanation of the bit I’ve bolded!

I think it’s fair to say that even though the ancients didn’t know the geography of the whole globe, if they describe a flood that covered all the mountain ranges they knew of, the implication is inevitable that it was indeed worldwide.

The funny thing is that creationists haven’t actually yet picked up this ball and run with it.  This surprised me, which is why I thought I’d try to resuscitate it ;)

Hi Ken
Maybe I’m being a bit ‘precious’ but I think most Christians are ‘creationists’ ie most Christians hold to the teaching that God is their creator. Of course the ‘devil’ is in the details :) ...

rgds

Adam Olive - 16 July 2008 10:04 PM

Dan,

Although I agree with a global flood being the intention of the author of Genesis (and think this was the case), I have major or significant problems with some aspects of Creation Science. The three main ones are:

1. That if God didn’t create in 6 literal days then the whole Christian faith unravels. I think this is true of the resurrection but it seems foolish when I hear people say “I couldn’t be a Christian if a literal approach to Genesis isn’t right”.

2. The constant references I have heard where Creation Science people have stated or implied that those who do not take Genesis 1-9 literally do not believe the Bible. I think you might choose to say they are misinterpreting the Bible and are wrong but that is different to saying that they do not believe the Bible?!?!

3. The emphasis Creation Science places on a scientific reading of the text often seems to overwhelm or fail to appreciate the theological perspectives of the text. I find The Genesis Record by Henry Morris an example of this. This commentary comes from a scientific perspective but loses some more significant theological insights. At the end of the day Genesis is not about science - it is about theology and the special interest of Creation Science can in fact skew the intention of the text.

Adam

I know what you mean, Adam, with all these points.  Re. (3), I’d agree about Morris’ commentary, which a missionary friend years ago described to me as mediocre on Gen. 12-50.

(1) and (2) are broadly similar, and I can understand some people exaggerating the significance of the issue over against others who claim that it matters not a hoot.  Plus there’s the important distinction between things that logically hold together in Christianity and the happy inconsistencies with which many individual Christians live ;)

And the accusation of not believing the Bible if you hold a different interpretation is of course far from being confined to this issue; e.g. people of different eschatologies are notoriously prone to talk like that, as may Calvinists/Arminians, and so on.  Indeed, to take a current hot topic, the pro-homosexuals in the Communion argue that they, too, are just other-interpretation believers in Scripture!

Adam Olive - 16 July 2008 10:15 PM

Also Dan, I think there is a general weariness among those who do not take ‘a scientifically literal’ interpretation of the text.

The discussions over the years have been long and sometimes heated. I think for a lot of people this subject has been done and done and done.

A more respectful manner from both sides would possibly lead to a better discussion. But I think points 2 and 3 have wearied many.

Personally I would like to see a theological discussion take place where theological insights rather than scientific debate was the focus. Then both sides could assist in understanding the intentions of the text.

e.g. why is a snake and not some other animal described in Genesis 3 - what is the intention? e.g. what does the geography and topography of Eden tell us about God’s presence and rule? e.g are their any images used in the Flood that reoccur later in the canon like the waters rising and increasing greatly? how does Genesis utilize and attack ancient mythology for the purposes of teaching Israel about Yahweh?

Adam

Yes, it would be good to get more theology in; although even apart from that I’m far from convinced all that could be said has now been said.

Just wondering what you meant by your final question.  If Gen. 1-11 consist of four or five toledoth written up well before there ever was a nation of Israel, how could “teaching Israel” have been one of their “purposes”, even if later compilers hoped to use them that way?

The geography of Eden, with two rivers known today alongside two now unknown, does in fact lend weight to belief in a global flood which radically reshaped the earth’s surface.

The Flood appears to be referred to a few times in the Psalms; in particular the ref. in Ps. 104 to mountains rising and valleys sinking is suggestive of the subsequent isostatic adjustment of the crust.  But hey, too scientific, huh?

Dan Baynes - 16 July 2008 10:44 PM

Just wondering what you meant by your final question.  If Gen. 1-11 consist of four or five toledoth written up well before there ever was a nation of Israel, how could “teaching Israel” have been one of their “purposes”, even if later compilers hoped to use them that way?

Who said they were written up this way before Moses? It is possible but is there any evidence for that?

Could it not have been that these things were transmitted verbally (even though people could write verbal transmission in some cultures is the way things are handed down - it is a western assumption that written things are transmitted better than verbal things)? Receiving the verbal tradition handed down Moses wrote the toledoth’s in such a way as they were particularly relevant for teaching Israel?

Same with the gospels - stories were told differently in the different gospels to make slightly different points or emphasis even though the same event is being referred to.

Theologically I think the Flood of Noah’s day is a sign pointing to a number of aspects of modern day faith.  In no particular order;
1) A global Day of Judgement is coming just like the Flood but not with water this time.  2 Peter 3:6-7.
2) There was only one way to be saved from God’s judgement and that was by going through the door of the Ark.  There is also only one way to enter into God’s Kingdom and that is through ‘The Door’ Jesus.  Luke 13:22-25, Luke 11:9, Matthew 7:8.
3) The door of the Ark was open for seven days with all on board to allow many to enter, but only the seven with Noah entered and then it was too late to enter because God had shut the door.  Genesis 7:4, 10, 16b.  Jesus has also opened the door for all to enter before the Day of Judgement, but he doesn’t force people on board.  The seven days are a bit like the life of a person, with the end of the seventh day being the end of the person’s earthly life.  Each of us are warned to get on board with Jesus in this life before we are judged, because after the seventh day judgement is upon us and it is too late to get on board as the door is shut.  Acts 17:30-31, Luke 13:25.
4) The Ark is not a boat but a box.  This demonstrated in the building instructions in that there is no rudder, no sail, no way to steer the vessel in any way.  The people on board had to totally rely on the Lord to guide them to safety.  This idea was repeated in the wilderness with the Lord leading the Hebrews by fire at night and by cloud in the day.  When we trust in Jesus we must let Him set the direction of our life relying totally on His word as Noah and Moses did.  Sometimes what Jesus tells us doesn’t make sense like the beatitudes seem to tell us to do the opposite of what ever comes naturally, but Jesus knows what is best because He made us.

5) There is also no life boats on the Ark, the Ark is the life boat.  We can’t get on board with Jesus and have a back up plan.  We can’t trust in Jesus and rely on eating the Mass, or praying to the saints, or any good deeds we can imagine.  Trusting in Jesus is the only way to salvation, if a person is still relying on those other things they are not on the Ark of salvation.

6) The forty days of rain is the first time God uses the number forty in setting up a new covenant.  The idea is repeated with Moses on Mount Sinai, and with Jesus temptation in the desert.

Also apart from the theological points which there are many more than I have listed, the Flood event is one of the few events people have to test if the Bible is historically accurate and not just a made up religion.  This is important if Peter is going to use the Flood event as proof of the coming judgement with fire as a reason to repent.

So if the Bible is accurate in what it says, that God will end all life on the surface of the Earth (Genesis 6:17) then there would be significant evidence for it on the earth, and the Devil will try to cover up the evidence.

In my biology degree I studied Palaeontology for two subjects.  This really reaffirmed my faith in the Scriptures.  For example the most common fossil in the world is the brachiopod.  Which is a bivalve a bit like a Mussel but on a pedicle, this creature lived all over the world in the benthenic regions (meaning just off the shore of many islands).  In a single event these creatures have reduced there number of species by 99%.  The reason they died is that they were rapidly covered in sediment globally.  Because Brachipods are on a pedicle (like the stork of a flower) and not free to move around they had no way to adjust to the rapid sedimentation, unlike some other bivalves that are free moving.  They are also relatively delicate unlike oysters that can withstand the rigors of thrashing with waves, brachipods die when there pedicle is broken because they can no longer feed.

Also in Palaeontology there is claimed to be five major extinction events, where between 95-99% of all life is destroyed in each event.  Evolution can not account for the repopulation of the Earth after each event, it does not have enough time.  However if it is only one extinction event as is claimed in the Bible then the evidence matches.

The Flood event is also the only logical explanation for the Ice Age, as a large amount of water vapour needs to enter the atmosphere combined with a cooling biosphere.  There is no event in Science history that sufficiently explains an Ice Age, however if the water for the Great Flood did come from the fountains of the great deep, then this implies large scale volcanic activity throwing dust into the air that reflects the Sun chilling the atmosphere, combined with the water vapour and glaciation on a large scale occurs.

Any how just some thoughts.
Thax <><

Hi Craig
Someone with a better knowledge of pre-history may be able to enlighten us, but I suspect your point 5 is an anachronism, i.e., for it to work we would need to know that boats of that period (assuming there were such) normally had lifeboats!
Bob

Hi Bob

There’s no such period as ‘pre-history’ if we assume, as the NT writers and Jesus did, that Adam was made at the beginning of creation. Written history in Genesis goes back to the very beginning.

Frank

The book of Genesis, and the story of Noah and the Flood, are said to have the authorship of Moses?

But I believe that a complete written version, by scribes, was not completed until after the return from exile in Babylon?

Is this true history?