That our earth has never been completely covered with water since land masses first arose from its primordial global sea has been firmly established by modern science in more ways than I can possibly here begin to mention. For a discussion of this subject matter see Problems with a Global Flood at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html .
A conservative Christian's typical response to such information is to say that they choose to believe the Word of God over the findings of scientists. This certainly sounds quite noble. And I suppose I would commend them for their stance if such a stance was called for by the Bible itself. But it is not. For a careful study of the flood account in Genesis reveals that the Bible does not tell us that the flood of Noah's day was global. And an examination of the scientific "evidence" presented by Christian fundamentalists in support of a global flood, sea shells on mountain tops and the like, quickly reveals that the presenters of this so-called evidence have a very poor understanding of science. ( By the way, sea shells on mountain tops are the result of earth's plate tectonics causing land masses to slowly rise from the sea over many millions of years. This process is an ongoing occurrence and can be proven by comparing the measured heights of various mountain peaks today to their measured heights just a few years ago.)
That the Bible itself does not actually say that a global flood occurred in Noah's day can be seen from a careful examination of the text. To begin with we do well to keep in mind that the word widely translated as "earth" in the flood narrative, giving the impression that our entire planet was flooded, is often translated elsewhere in the Old Testament as "land." ( In acknowledging this fact, the translators of The New American Standard Bible chose to translate the same Hebrew word as both "land" and "earth" throughout the flood narrative.) We can certainly understand that without our modern means of global communication and global travel ancient peoples must have had a much more limited view of their world than we do today. These things being so, it makes sense for us to consider the possibility that the flood account recorded in Genesis tells us of a time when the whole "land" of Noah was flooded, not of a time when the whole "earth" was flooded.
But doesn't the Bible's story of the flood say that all the high "mountains" were covered with water? And if that was true, since water seeks its own level, wouldn't that mean the whole earth had to have been flooded if the Genesis flood account is true? For answers to such questions we again have to look at the ancient Hebrew language. The ancient Hebrew word which has been widely translated as "mountains" in the flood narrative is translated elsewhere in the Old Testament simply as "hills." You see, the ancient Hebrews had only one word to describe what may have been either a small mound of earth or a Himalayan peak. That being the case, the flood narrative can certainly be understood as telling us that "all the high hills in the land of Noah were covered with water to a depth of about twenty feet." (see Gen. 7:20, 21)
But what about the unmistakably "universal" language used in the account? Doesn't the Bible tell us that God destroyed "all life under the heavens" (Gen. 6:17) during the flood? Yes, it does. But it also tells us that "all nations under heaven" lived in fear because of Joshua's conquest of Canaan. (Deut. 2:25) We are also told that during a famine that occurred at the time of Joseph, "The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph." (Gen. 41:57) And it tells us that at the time of Paul the good news of Jesus Christ had been "proclaimed to every creature under heaven." (Col. 1:23) Are we to believe such statements were meant to include the nations of people who then lived in North America, South America, China and Australia? Of course not.
We must remember that the world of the Bible writers was a much smaller world than our world today. Their part of the earth was then for them "the whole world." We should also accept the possibility that Bible writers may, at times, have used larger than life expressions, just as we often do today. We often use figures of speech such as, "This book weighs a ton," or "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." This common form of speech is called hyperbole. It is certainly possible that it may, at times, also have been used by Bible writers. When we use such exaggerated figures of speech for dramatic impact we are being neither inaccurate nor dishonest. The same can be said for the writers of Scripture.
But why would God have had Noah construct such a large ark if it was intended to carry only Noah, his family, and a collection of animals from his own land? Could it be that Noah was instructed to build an ark big enough to hold every person in the land that was about to be flooded! An ark with room enough for all those who might repent but didn't? The Bible tells us that Noah was "a preacher of righteousness." The message preachers of righteousness have always preached is, "Repent and be saved." How could Noah be telling a land full of people to repent and get on the ark if that ark had no room for them? God's plan of salvation today has room for everyone on earth, does it not? Should we believe that God's plan of salvation in Noah's day did not?
Another question that is sometimes asked is, "If the flood was confined to the land of Noah, why would God not have simply told Noah to take his family and pairs of animals and flee to higher ground?" Many who believe that the flood of Noah's day, as described in Genesis, was confined to the land of Noah say that the answer to this question can be found in 1 Peter 3:20,21. There we are told that Noah and his family, "were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism." So, they say that by choosing to save the lives of Noah and his family as they passed through the waters of the flood, God was symbolically pointing to a time when his people (Christians) would find salvation as they passed through the waters of baptism. There may also be other reasons. As a "preacher of righteousness" Noah may very well have continued urging the residents of his land to repent and accept God's provision for their salvation right up to the day it began to rain. (Gen. 7:11-13) If Noah had relocated away from the area that was to be flooded he would have been unable to offer his neighbors a way to escape God's coming judgment right up until the time God brought His judgment upon the land of Noah.
Some have also asked, "Wouldn't a 150 day flood require an enclosed area?"
First, we should keep in mind that Mesopotamia has often been described as a "trough" by geologists because it is "enclosed" by areas of higher elevation on its north, east and west sides. If part of central Mesopotamia suddenly lost elevation due to a meteor impact, which some scientists have recently said may have caused Noah's flood, and tidal waves from the Persian Gulf brought on by that same meteor impact, or another one accompanying it, drowned the land of Noah, as some now understand the epic of Gilgamesh to say, then that three sided "trough" may have temporarily turned into a four sided trough, that is until the land of Noah recovered its previous elevation, and while doing so drained its flood waters back into the Persian Gulf from which they mainly came. Remember, the Bible does not say that it was just the 40 days of rain that was responsible for the flood. It tells us that it was also caused by "waters of the great deep" which "burst forth." (Gen. 7:11)
This is, of course, speculation. If Noah's flood was a large local flood, as many now understand it to have been, no one can now say exactly when, where and how it occurred. However, by understanding that the Bible itself does not really say that the flood of Noah's day was a global flood, we are not forced to choose whether we are going to believe science or the scriptures. When it comes to the Bible's story of the flood of Noah's day, we can believe both.
The Global Flood
by coldfish 290 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
a Christian
-
coldfish
Wow there certainly is a lot of info on the net when you look. I've looked at the links you've all suggested.
I now have proved to myself that the flood wasn't global or that it happened as a lot of religions say. I still believe that it happened, in a much smaller sense that still greatly affected people living in Noah's part of the earth. Well I want to believe it happened, because deep down I still want to believe in God and Jesus etc. I feel that if we don't read too much into the bible or take it too literally that it still has a lot to offer us.
-
XQsThaiPoes
That is a nice insight AC, but the problem is that it is unimpressive. You are basically saying that the story of noah was an exageration of a historical event. THe problem is there is nothing supernatural about that.
You also are mistaken about noah preachin to people. God says that only the great 8 will survive regardless of if it is local or global. So that means even if people wanted to be saved they would still be killed. Remember the sentance was that people were so evil that go issued the land a death sentance man and beast. As you know God does feel guilty every now and again for slaying scores of people so maybe he would have "cut short" his wrath if he thought to many innocent people were dying, but your explaination eliminates the need for God because it was just a flood covering the hills. That is quite routine geologically. We have them today.
anouther thing is that God tell noah to take every thing that is eaten into the ark. THe tree of Good/Bad and the Tree of life were supernaturally gaurded so Noah could not done so. The Noah account does not even acknolowelge the rest of the genesis account nor the rest of the bible.
So basically the biblical flood never happend even if it did happen. It is sorta like joan of arc. Yeah it really happend, but really it did not. -
garybuss
Let's get the storybook in context:-)
-
googlemagoogle
garybuss, where did you get that from? it resembles pretty much the sumerian/akkadian and even a bit the egyptian idea of what the universe looks like.
-
seedy3
Did they breed like rabbits,
Yeah, that ol Noah raised some real horney Kids, in like 5 generation there were already the Philistine, egyption, and assyrian Kindoms according to the bible.
-
melmac
The story of the flood is basically what eroded my faith in the bible. Biology and Geology have proven the bible wrong. I can't imagine a geologist REALLY believing that BS.
-
AlmostAtheist
Same here, the Bible really fell apart in my hands over the Noah story. (And praying for others, and Balaam deciding to try to reason with his suddenly talking donkey [rather than recoiling in horror]) I could just reject Noah and keep the rest, except for the fact that Noah appears in the lineage of Jesus, and Jesus himself referred to the Noah story as fact. Once one dominoe falls, the whole house of cards comes down. Checkmate.
-
XQsThaiPoes
Yeah it is a monotheistic clone of the egyptian cosmos with the names of the dieties removed.
-
AlanF
I have little doubt that one or more good-sized floods occurred in Mesopotamia sometime before the 2nd millennium B.C., but whatever happened certainly didn't affect more than the local population. The Egyptian calendar, for example, goes back to at least 4850 B.C., which shows continuity in that civilization since at least that far back. Recent discoveries about the ancient city of Caral in Peru show that there was an active civilization there before 2600 B.C. I don't remember the exact dates, but Chinese civilization goes back to at least 3000 B.C., I believe. The discovery of the "Ice Man" frozen in an Alpine glacier since around 3000 B.C. shows that civilization in Europe is a good deal older than that. Native Americans have continuously populated the Americas for a minimum of 10,500 years, according to archaeological findings. Plenty of other evidence indicates that people lived all over the world long before 3500 B.C. Therefore, even if a massive number of Mesopotamian inhabitants were killed in a flood around 3500 B.C., the Bible's claim that all humans except eight were killed at that time is wrong. Once a basic Bible teaching like this is proved wrong, there's not much point in trying to reconcile other geological facts with it. After awhile, the reasoning becomes nothing more than a series excuses to believe something one would not, if presented with the facts first, and then the belief. But the will to believe in the Bible can be strong, and quite resistant to facts.
AlanF