By James M. Rochford

With Darren Aronofsky’s new movie Noah ready to hit theatres in March, 2014, many people have begun to ask questions about the biblical flood. Should we believe in this event? Was Noah’s flood nothing more than a story generated by the ancient Israelites, or a modern Sunday school myth?

Did the flood destroy all people on Earth?

We feel that the answer to this question is a non-negotiable for believers in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible (see “The Inerrancy of Scripture”). It is important for Christians to affirm the historicity of the flood, because Jesus affirmed this event. He even went so far as to compare it to his second coming. He said,

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. ³⁸ 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, ³⁹ and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be (Mt. 24:37-39).

Jesus also said, “The flood came and destroyed them all” (Lk. 17:27; cf. 1 Pet. 3:20; Heb. 11:7). If we don’t believe that the flood destroyed everyone on Earth, then we are disagreeing with Jesus’ own view. We agree with Francis Schaeffer, when he writes, “That the flood was universal as far as man is concerned is made totally final in the Scripture.”[1] Likewise, Davis Young writes, “Relatively few conservatives are willing to accept the view that the flood was less than anthropologically universal.”[2] Thus we feel compelled to believe that the flood must have been massive enough to at least destroy all people on Earth.

Was the Flood Global?

Christian thinkers such as Francis Schaeffer,[3] Norman Geisler,^[4] Gleason Archer,^[5] John C. Whitcomb,^[6] and Merrill Unger[7] have all held to a global flood view. Under this view, God covered the entire globe with water.

Advocates of this view point out that many passages of Scripture seem to teach a global flood. For instance, God told Noah, “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” (Gen. 6:17; cf. 7:3; 8:9). Genesis 7:19-20 states, “The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. ²⁰ The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.” Genesis 8:5 states, “The water decreased steadily until the tenth month… the tops of the mountains became visible.” Advocates of this view note that the plain sense reading of these passages implies a universal or global flood—not a local one.

Global reports of a flood

Various cultures from all over the globe record a cataclysmic flood of this caliber. Regarding the legends of the Hindu, Chinese, Hawaiian, and Mexican legends, Gleason Archer writes,

All of these agree that all mankind was destroyed by a great flood (usually represented as worldwide) as a result of divine displeasure at human sin, and that a single man with his family or a very few friends survived the catastrophe by means of a ship or raft or large canoe of some sort.^[8]

In his 2009 book Flood Legends, Charles Martin notes how many distinct cultures from all over the world that make reference to a flood tradition. He writes,

Part of the appeal of the Flood account is its widespread popularity among ancient cultures. It is found on every continent (with the exception of Antarctica, of course), in many different countries, and across a variety of people groups.[9]

In the Fish Myth of the Mahabharata, Manu is instructed to take seven very specific people on board. While in many version the hero boards with his friends and family, Manu boards the vessel with seven relatively obscure people—the seven Rsis.[10]

Is it likely that three distinctly different people groups develop a story—whether by invention or misunderstanding—and put the exact same number of people on the vessel? It seems to ask for a greater stretch of the imagination to believe that hypothesis than it does to believe in an actual Deluge.[11]

In the Karina myth, the survivors are told to stock the Great Canoe with two of every animal and ‘a seed from every kind of plant.’[12]

The Hareskin tribe of North America tells of an old man who builds a raft and collects the drowning animals two by two as he floats past them.[13]

Ian Wilson comments, “Surely a real-life Flood must lie behind these stories. The collective memory, scattered over wide geographical distances, is too prevalent, too deep-seated for this not to have been the case.”[14]

Was there enough water to flood the Earth?

A global flood would require 4.5 times the amount of water currently on Earth.^[15] Some defenders of the Bible point to a local flood as the solution to this problem, but even a local flood would require a tremendous amount of water. Local flood theorist Hugh Ross writes,

The Genesis Flood must have been enormous by anyone’s interpretation of the biblical account. To float a ship 450 feet by 75 feet by 45 feet or larger takes a lot of water. The Genesis text says that the passengers aboard the ark could see no land from horizon to horizon. At least six billion acre-feet of water would be required, according to best estimates.^[16]

However, a solution might be found in the text of Genesis itself: Genesis states that the water came from the sky but also from under the Earth’s mantle (Gen. 7:11; cf. 8:2). In a 2014 article in Nature World News, James Foley writes,

Large amounts of ocean water could be transported through deep-sea fault zones in volumes much greater than previously believed… The research supports the theory that there could be vast amounts of water buried deep beneath the Earth’s mantle… Based on their research, University of Liverpool seismologists suggest that over the age of the Earth, the Japan subduction zone alone could transport as much as three and a half times the water contained in all of Earth’s oceans to the mantle. Some of this water gets cycled back out of the mantle, but some gets trapped deep within it.^[17]

Additionally, we need to remember that Genesis states that the flood was a miraculous intervention. If the all-powerful God of the Bible exists, miraculously filling the waters of the Earth would be no more difficult than miraculously filling the waters of a bath tub. Thus from a Christian worldview, we don’t see a problem with a lack of water.

Could all of the species on Earth fit into the Ark?

There are millions of species on planet Earth. Zoologists place the number anywhere from a half of a billion to a billion. How could all of these animals have fit within the Ark? Two responses are in order:

First, not every species would have needed to fit into the Ark—just the basic kinds. The book of Genesis never uses the language of “species,” so this would be anachronistic to impose a modern term back on the text. A “kind” could very well be different than a “species.” Thus we do not know how many animals were preserved.

Second, the dimensions of the Ark were sufficient to handle an enormous amount of animals and food. Archer writes, “On the basis of a cubit of twenty-four inches (although it may have been as much as four inches shorter) the ark would have been 600 feet long, 100 feet wide, and 60 feet deep. Assuming a boxlike construction (altogether probable in view of its peculiar purpose), its capacity would then have been 3,600,000 cubic feet, or room enough for 2000 cattle cars (each of which carries 18 to 20 cattle, or 60 to 80 hogs, or 80 to 100 sheep). At the present time there are only 290 main species of land animal larger than sheep in size; there are 757 more species ranging in size from sheep to rats, and there are 1,358 smaller than rats. Two of each of these species would fit very comfortably into the cubic capacity of the ark, and leave plenty of room for fodder.”^[18]

Why hasn’t the Ark ever been discovered?

An ark of this size made of nicely cut gopher wood would surely have been scraped by local peoples.^[19] Thus we shouldn’t expect to find it today.

Scientific difficulties with a global flood

While we are friendly to a global flood perspective, there are some scientific problems with this view that we find difficult to answer. For instance:

1. If saltwater covered the Earth, how can there still be freshwater lakes?

2. How would animals like the kangaroo have repopulated Australia, but not anywhere else?

3. How could fresh water fish have survived if a global flood occurred?

4. How could coral have survived, when they are highly sensitive to an absence of sunlight (which would have been affected by such a flood)?

5. Why have portions of the Earth (like the cones of loose scoria in Auvergne, France or ashes from ancient volcanoes) appear to have no signs of being disturbed by saltwater?^[20]

6. How could all animals have migrated when many cannot migrate effectively (e.g. penguins), many have special diets that could not be transported, and many need a special climate to survive (e.g. polar bears)?

7. What did the carnivores eat once they got off of the Ark? If they ate the other species, wouldn’t the prey go immediately extinct?

We feel comfortable believing that God could perform miracles for each of these events to occur. But why would the natural order not reflect any of these events? If such a worldwide event occurred, we would expect to observe it.

Was the Flood Local?

Other believers in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible believe that Scripture can be understood to teach a local flood. Advocates of this view would include Ronald Youngblood,[21] Davis A. Young,[22] Hugh Ross,[23] R.K. Harrison,[24] John Walton,[25] Derek Kidner,[26] and Donald Boardman.[27] In defense of this view, a number of hermeneutical arguments can be made:

First, Psalm 104 denies a global flood. In reflecting on creation, the psalmist writes, “You set a boundary that they [the waters] may not pass over, so that they will not return to cover the earth” (Ps. 104:9). This passage states that God would never cover the Earth with water again after creation. This seems to preclude a global flood.

Second, if the flood was universal, then so was the drying up of the Earth. Genesis explains, “The water was dried up from the earth” (Gen. 8:7) and later we read, “The earth was dry” (Gen. 8:14). If the whole earth was flooded, then does this mean that the whole earth become a global desert as well?

Third, the expression “the whole earth” can be interpreted to refer to people or land—not the globe. Genesis 11:1 states, “The whole earth used the same language and the same words.” Obviously, the land cannot use language, only people can. Moreover, the expression “the whole earth” (Hebrew kol erets) is used of the local geography of Israel’s land (Gen. 4:14; 13:9; 41:46, 57; Lev. 25:9; 1 Sam. 13:3; 2 Sam. 18:8; 1 Chron. 14:17).

Fourth, the Bible often speaks of “all the nations” or the “entire world” in a perspectival (or hyperbolic) sense. For instance, Genesis states, “The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph” (Gen. 41:57). Deuteronomy 2:25 states, “This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the peoples everywhere under the heavens.” 1 Kings 18:10 states, “There is no nation or kingdom where my master has not sent to search for you.” 2 Chronicles 9:23 states, “All the kings of the earth were seeking the presence of Solomon.” In each of these statements, can we really imagine people from Australia, China, or North America travelling to Israel? Of course, this is perspectival language for the known area (cf. Acts 2:5; Col. 1:23). Thus, when the text says “world,” this refers to the known world.

Local flood view of Genesis 6-8

How do local flood theorists interpret Genesis 6-8? Let’s consider many of the more controversial passages here:

(Gen. 6:17) 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.

The Hebrew word for “world” is eres, which can be translated as “land.” Thus Genesis 6:17 would state: “Everything that is in the land shall die.”^[28] Under this view, the flood was universal to wherever humans were. That is, if humans hadn’t made it into Antarctica yet, then God wouldn’t have brought the flood that far.

(Gen. 6:19) And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.

Global flood theorists ask: If God was only destroying a small portion of the globe, then why was it necessary to pack up the animals? Local flood theorists maintain that this could have been for Noah to repopulate his personal herds, and it would jumpstart the local territory to have two of each animal for Noah and his family.

(Gen. 7:19) “The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.”

Local flood advocates argue that “covered” (Hebrew kasha) could refer to rained over—not necessarily submerged. Harris, Archer, and Waltke define kasha as “residing upon,” “running over,” or “falling upon.”^[29] Ross writes,

Kasha can be interpreted to mean that more than twenty feet of water stood, that is, remained, over the high hills or mountains; or it could mean that this quantity of water either ran over them as in a flash flood or fell upon them as rainfall… Any of the… scenarios would guarantee total destruction, no survivors.^[30]

OT scholar John Walton writes,

This verb is used for a wide variety of ‘covering’ possibilities. A people or weeds can be so vast that it covers the land (Num. 22:11; Prov. 24:31); a blanket or clothing covers someone (Ex. 28:42; 1 Kings 1:1). Something can be covered in the sense of being overshadowed (cherubim wings covering the ark, 2 Chron. 5:8; clouds covering the sky, Ps. 147:8)… Even today when someone walks in from a downpour we might say, ‘You’re covered with water!’ If Genesis 7:19 is taken the same way, it suggests that the mountains were drenched with water or coursing with flash floods, but it does not demand that they were totally submerged under water.[31]

Moreover, when the text says “everywhere under the heavens,” this could refer to the local region as well. At Pentecost, Luke records that “devout men from every nation under heaven” were present (Acts 2:5). Of course, when we read this, we do not believe that people from Canada or South America were present.

(Gen. 7:20 NASB) “The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.”

(Gen. 7:20 NIV) “The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.”

Local flood advocates argue that the Hebrew word milmala can also be translated “upward.” Thus this verse would be saying that fifteen feet of water came down from above. Walton writes,

The Hebrew text says, ‘Fifteen cubits from above [milmala] rose the waters, and the mountains were covered.’ It is therefore not at all clear that it is suggesting the waters rose fifteen cubits higher than the mountains… Its most common use is to delineate the position of one object relative to another.[32]

Moreover, the Hebrew word har for mountains can also be translated as “hill” or “mount.”[33] This would likewise change the way we would interpret this passage of Scripture in regards to a local or global flood.

(Gen. 8:1) “God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided.”

Advocates of the local flood point out that a wind would do nothing to remove water that was around the entire Earth. But it would do something for a local flood.

(Gen. 8:4) “The ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.”

Advocates of the local flood point out that the ark did not land on Mount Ararat itself. Instead, it landed on the mountains (plural) of Ararat. Therefore, it could have landed on one of the smaller mountains. These mountains cover a 100,000 square mile territory.^[34] Apologist Richard Deem writes, “If the ark had come to rest on the top of Mount Ararat, this would be at 17,000 foot elevation. Olive trees (and every other tree) do not grow at 17,000 feet. In fact, you will not find olive trees growing much above 5,000 feet.”[35] Furthermore, a bird would not be equipped to fly at altitudes like this either to fetch the olive branch.

(Gen. 8:5) “The water decreased steadily until the tenth month… the tops of the mountains became visible.”

Advocates of the local flood point out that this view is perspectival. Ross writes, “The text speaks only of the region visible to Noah, not of the peaks beyond his horizon.”^[36] Thus this passage says nothing of Mount Everest or any other mountain on Earth—just the geography around Noah.

(Gen. 8:11) “The dove came to him toward evening, and behold, in her beak was a freshly picked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the water was abated from the earth.”

Advocates of the local flood point out that if the entire world was destroyed, then obviously olive trees wouldn’t be around. These would need longer than a few months to regrow. This also fits with the notion that Noah immediately began to farm and plant a vineyard after exiting the Ark (Gen. 9:20).

Scientific Evidence for a Local Flood

There is some good evidence for a local flood. We are not sure if this evidence supports the biblical flood per se, but it surely supports that such an event is not out of the question for this region of the world at this time.

In his 2002 book Before the Flood, Ian Wilson surveyed the recent scientific evidence for a local flood, which occurred roughly 8,000 years ago.[37] Wilson is not an inerrantist. In fact, he holds to the JEDP theory,[38] and he also believes that the Noah flood “myth” was taken from the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh Epic.[39] And yet, he is convinced of a massive flood, agreeing with the theories advanced by Columbia University geologists Pitman and Ryan from their 1998 book Noah’s Flood.[40] He writes,

That such an event actually happened is now absolutely certain, accredited by scientists of international repute to the same degree of confidence with which, only a few years ago, the Noah story was being dismissed as nonsense.[41]

In 1988, Bob Karlin made a discovery of an underwater avalanche in the Black Sea, where the Bosporus meet the Black Sea. The Black Sea is currently salty, but it was originally composed of fresh water fish before the Flood. Wilson writes,

It was just as if an immensely powerful torrent of pent-up water from the Mediterranean, after scouring out the Bosporus canyon, hand surged northwards to break into the Black Sea at this point. But still it was unclear when and why such a breakthrough might have happened.[42]

A study of the Black Sea revealed that fresh water organisms were found at the bottom shelves. Wilson writes,

More sampling of mollusks revealed further understanding of this drowned former coastal region. Exactly as had earlier been indicated by Ross and Degens’ findings, any marine organisms that were found in the lower part of the cores were always of a freshwater variety. Then above these lay the rich muddy layer of the sapropel, whilst all marine organisms in the upper parts were always of a sea-water variety.[43]

Wilson concludes, “So there can be absolutely no doubt that what Pitman and Ryan had discovered was a veritable Flood of Bible epic proportions.”[44] Of course, Wilson does not believe in a global flood, but he thinks this is good evidence for a catastrophic local flood. He continues:

They estimated that the roar of the rushing water would have been audible at 480 kilometres (300 miles) distance, the speed of the inflow would have been some 80 kilometres (50 miles) per hour, the rise in the level of the Black Sea would have been of the order of 15 centimetres (6 inches) per day, and all around the world the oceans would have been lowered by a foot in order to supply this huge new addition to their capacity. Ryan and Pitman envisaged a period of approximately two years of frantic filling during which some 97,000 kilometres (60,000 miles) of what had formerly been pleasant lakeside dunes and low-lying surrounding grassland became inundated.[45]

More recently, Robert Ballard did an underwater excavation of the Black Sea, only to discover an ancient shoreline underneath the water—400 feet below. In 2012, the Daily News reports:

Ballard and his team have uncovered an ancient shoreline 400 feet below the surface of the Black Sea. Underwater robot scouts have been mapping this landscape and have discovered remnants of houses made of mud and wood… They found ancient houses underwater, but the surprises didn’t end there. They also found tools made of polished stone and fragments of ceramic.[46]

Again, we do not know if this discovery is the same event described in the biblical flood. But it at least shows that such an event is plausible for the geological and archaeological record.

Conclusions

No matter which view we hold (global or local), we need to keep in mind that the flood was a miraculous event. If God does not exist, then miracles like the flood are impossible. However, if an all-powerful God does exist, then events like the flood are plausible. We believe that there are good arguments for Christian theism (see Evidence Unseen: Exposing the Myth of Blind Faith). If these arguments are strong, then this raises the credibility of the flood account in the Bible. We do not believe that we should use the flood as good evidence for the existence of God, but rather, the existence of God would make good evidence in favor of the plausibility of a flood.

Moreover, the local flood versus global flood debate is a negotiable issue among Bible believers. We agree with Francis Schaeffer, when he writes, “Christians who love the Scripture have discussed at length whether the flood was universal or not. I believe it was, but I do not think by any means that we should make it a ‘test of orthodoxy.’”[47] While we believe that the flood needed to be a universal judgment on the human race, this does not require a global deluge (as we argued earlier).

Further Reading

Global Flood Resources

Whitcomb, John Clement, and Henry M. Morris. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1974.

Martin, Charles. Flood Legends: Global Clues of a Common Event. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2009.

Martin is a Young-Earth creationist (pp.153-155). However, this is just his personal view, and his book is not a work of science. Instead, Martin is an expert in ancient languages—particularly sanscrit (p.39). In his book, he surveys multiple different flood accounts from multiple different civilizations.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999. See “Flood, Noah.”

Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998. 214-223.

Local Flood Resources

Ryan, William and W. C. Pitman III. Noah’s Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries about the Event that Changed History. Simon and Schuster. New York. 1998.

Wilson, Ian. Before the Flood: The Biblical Flood as a Real Event and How It Changed the Course of Civilization. New York: St. Martin’s, 2002.

Wilson is not a conservative Bible believer, articulating his belief in the JEDP theory (pp.14-26). He also believes that the Noah flood “myth” was taken from the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh Epic (p.57). He is apparently a convert to Roman Catholicism.

Ross, Hugh. The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1998.

Ross espouses a local flood view with a careful exegesis of Genesis 6-8, and in a careful appeal to scientific evidence.

Walton, John. Genesis: The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Walton claims to be agnostic to the local versus global debate. However, he offers a careful exegesis of the debated passages in view.

Rich Deem “The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must Be Local.” As the title of his article suggests, Deem is a Local Flood theorist.