Was Noah’s flood global or local?

Though many regard the biblical story of a great flood in the days of Noah to be an ancient legend, evangelical Christians affirm it as historical fact because Scripture presents it as such. However, a debate has arisen during the last two hundred years as to whether the flood was global or local.

Those who defend the traditional position that the flood was global argue that the language used in the Genesis narrative requires this interpretation. For example, the narrative says, “All the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered” with water (Gen. 7:19). When one considers the height of the Himalayas or Mount Everest, they argue, it is clear that the flood was global. The Bible even names the mountain the ark came to rest on (Mount Ararat), and it alone is high enough to require a global flood (Gen. 8:4).

Defenders of the traditional view also point out that if the flood were only local, it would have been unnecessary for Noah to build a gigantic ark and house all species of animals for a year (Gen. 7:2–4). Not only this, but Scripture says the flood was intended to destroy all humanity. A local flood could not have accomplished this (Gen. 6:7, 13). Besides, the New Testament cites the flood episode as an example of the judgment upon the whole earth that is yet to come (2 Pet. 2:5).

Not all are convinced by these arguments, however. Some evangelicals argue that the language of the flood narrative may be interpreted phenomenologically (in terms of appearance) and hyperbolically (exaggeration for emphasis) rather than literally. In this case, the “high mountains” (7:19) that were covered by the flood may be understood as the hills in Noah’s region—probably the low-lying hills of Shinar or Babylon (cf. 11:2)—not as the miles-high mountains of the Himalayas. Moreover, there is no evidence that the mountain presently named Mount Ararat is the mountain referred to in Genesis, since this mountain received its name in recent times. Defenders of a local flood also argue that the purpose for the ark need not have been that there was no other way to save a remnant of animals or humans. It may have served as a warning for and witness against the generation that was to undergo judgment.

The main driving force behind the local flood theory, however, are the problems some find with the global flood theory. Local flood defenders customarily point to six major problems with the idea of a global flood:

1) Water high enough to cover the Himalayas and Mount Everest would have nowhere to run off. Yet the Bible describes the flood as abating with wind over several hundred days (Gen. 8:1).

2) A global flood in the recent past (within the past 10,000 years) would have left easily discernible evidence. Local flood defenders argue that while there is indisputable evidence for a mass local flood in the Mesopotamian region, there is no evidence for a global flood.

3) The mingling of freshwater and saltwater produced by a global flood would have killed all freshwater life. Yet freshwater life, including freshwater fish, still exists.

4) A blanket of water thick enough to cover all mountains would have destroyed dry land vegetation. If this was the case, where did the dove find a “freshly plucked olive leaf” (8:11)?

5) There is no way a pair of every species of animal could have traveled around the globe to the ark.

6) As large as the ark was, there is no way that tens of thousands of different species of animals could have fit on it—along with food sufficient to feed them (Gen. 6:21). Nor could this variety of animals have survived in closed quarters without sunlight for a year, according to local flood advocates.

I don’t have any resolved conviction about this debate. And though the difficulties the global flood perspective creates incline me toward the local flood view, I readily acknowledge this is not the easiest way to interpret the text. Two good books on this topic are R. Youngblood, ed., The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood (Thomas Nelson, 1986) and D. Young, The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church’s Response to Extrabiblical Evidence (Eerdmans, 1995).

Category:
Tags: , ,
Topics:

Related Reading

Why Bart Ehrman Doesn’t Have to Ruin Your Christmas (Or Your Faith) Part 8

This is the eighth of several videos Greg put together to refute Bart Ehrman’s claims published in the article What Do We Really Know About Jesus? In this segment, Greg gets into the nitty gritty of why portions of the birth account are not the dumbest lie ever. If you missed the first seven installments you can…

How Does God Hear All Our Prayers?

Q: At any given moment there are millions of people praying to God. How is it possible for God to pay attention to my little, silent prayer amidst all the chatter? The reason you or I can only effectively listen to one person at a time is because we only have a limited amount of…

God’s Way of War

As Judah was facing impending doom, the Lord told Hosea that he would save them “not by bow, sword or battle, or by horses and horsemen, but by the LORD their God” (Hos 1:7). So too, through the Psalmist the Lord encourages his people by saying:                  …

Why do you have such a pessimistic view of government?

Question: I’m a Christian and serve as a servant in government and I find your book The Myth of a Christian Nation, as well as some of your sermons on Christians and politics, highly offensive. I find that while governments sometimes harm people, they also do a lot of good. The American government in particular…

The Centrality of Christ in Hebrews, Part 1

The intense Christocentricity that the New Testament writers embrace is nowhere more clearly and consistently illustrated than in the book of Hebrews. Throughout this work we find a repeated emphasis on the many ways the revelation given to us in Christ surpasses that of the Old Testament. The author begins by stressing how the revelation…

Topics:

Can Christians serve in the military?

Question: Jesus ministered to military people (e.g. a centurion) and didn’t tell them to leave their military post. So do you think Christians can serve in the military? I believe it’s a Christians duty is to serve their country, aid the wounded, defend the oppressed, protect our families, stand for truth and justice, and kill…