Was Noah's Flood Local or Global?

[traveller]

I certainly repsect those that take a literal supernatural view of the "Great Flood." Its a wonderful and exciting story of faith and redemption...and whether you believe it was global or not those terms don't necessarily have to diminish. I believe in a more localized flood. The problem with the term "localized" is most people immediately define it as a small area. In reality, those who think the flood may have been localized believe it covered hundreds of miles, maybe even thousands. Either way, it was a significant event.

The problem with a localized flood is that it makes God a liar. God said that He would never send another flood to destroy all flesh on the earth in Genesis 9:

11And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

12And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations:

13I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

16And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that [is] upon the earth.

17And God said unto Noah, This [is] the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that [is] upon the earth.

The entire wording is global, not local. God did not send the flood to only cover a portion of the land. The flood covered all dry land and destroyed all flesh.

God promised that there would not be another flood like that one. If that flood was local, that promise has been broken many time.

Furthermore, God's anger in Genesis six is the sin of all flesh. When God looks at the earth, he sees that ALL of humanity is in rebellion. He is not looking at just a portion of humanity in a local area. The wording of Genesis states that God says in His heart that He will destroy man from the face of the earth, not from a local area. In v. 6:12, it says that ALL flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. In v. 13, God speaks to Noah and says, that the end of ALL flesh had come before him. God is not speaking in

[sheya joie]

Ok, neb, here we go.

What got me thinking about how the Flood came about, was reading this passage a few years back:

Gen 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

And I thought, fifteen cubits and the mountains were covered? A cubit is roughly half a yard, so fifteen cubits is just 7.5 yards or 22.5 feet - not very high at all. And then I thought, fifteen cubits upward from where? From ground level? The verse just previous says all the high hills were covered. Fifteen cubits upwards from that point? Must not have been very tall mountains!

(Not to even get into the question of who measured? I suppose Noah could have taken soundings with a long rope...)

Anyway...

In this passage,

2Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Peter seems (to me, at least) to be saying that the antediluvian world (don't you love that word antediluvian?) was very different from the world we see now - in that he says that those who scoff, saying everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation are willingly ignorant of how the heavens and the earth were of old, before the Flood.

Now, this is one way the world of old was different:

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

I can remember when I was quite small wondering what was that? Waters above the firmament? 'Cause I knew that didn't exist now.

And another antediluvian difference:

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth

, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

So maybe, I thought, another difference was that the mountains in the original world weren't as tall as they are now?

Up until about a century or two ago, no one would have thought that the continents had been anywhere other than where they are now. But the theory of plate tectonics changed all that. You look at a simulation of the supercontinent of Pangaea and how it broke up and shifted around - wow! And India slamming into Asia - and up go the Himalayas! My youngest son, who loves science (he would spell it, 'Science!') likes to point out that many of the world's great mountains chains are on the spines of where plates crash together.

(Btw, ever notice this?

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons:

the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided

; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Could this be a reference to the breaking up of Pangaea? I think so.)

Ok, so this is how I think the scenario played out: All the land was one continent together. Something happened that triggered this:

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month,

the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Since the fountains under the earth broke up at the same time that the first rain occurred - and I believe that to be the collapse of the 'firmament' so that the water above it rained down - it seems likely to me that the trigger event was a great meteor punching through the water canopy above the firmament, causing it to precipitate - then slamming into the ocean, violently breaking open whatever is meant by the fountains of the great deep. This led not only to forty days of rain, but the beginning of the movement of the continental plates, leading to the configuration of the earth as we see it today. (As well as the loss of the waters above the firmament, allowing much more solar radiation through, leading to a vast shortening of life spans of both man and animals.)

Hope that wasn't too long!

As for the title question, this passage certainly sounds global to me:

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

[Guest man]

I have a desire to have the desire to know things like this, to want to study things like this. When I read scripture, I don't think of these things.

Why? Is it because I don't read the Word as much as I should?

I don't mean to make it about me but I long to go deeper and I don't understand why the desire is there. The desire to desire is there however if that makes sense.

Could you expand on this alittle.

[nebula]

Thank-you Sheay!

You are speaking my wavelengths!

[Axxman]

Ok......just for fun.....if the flood is localized as you and some others believe, there would be a wall of water 1500 ft high, just sitting there. How does that work? Everything below 1500 ft. would be flooded. The Mediterranean Sea would be 1500 ft. deeper. And since the Mediterranian is connected to the Atlantic and the Atlantic is connected to everything else.....

Not at all. As I mentioned, even in Turkey the mountain regions make a natural barrier to the water. If you look to eastern Turkey (towards Ararat) there are huge mountainous regions, and in the Southern Mediterrainian regions (towards the Mediterrainian Sea) there are Mountainous regions...with narrow valleys that run towards the Mediterrainian Sea. The entire Black Sea area towards Turkey is like a bowl. Floods by nature are localized. Any massive influx of water in an area can cause water to raise to unnatural heights in that area until the rain stops and a natural run-off occurs.

I should also clarify, I was only pointing out that the 1500ft measure was only to show that the water didn't have to rise to the top of Mt Ararat to flood the region, or cover the hills. If the waters rose only 150ft it would create a monumental flood and still bury much of Turkey. Everything Noah saw would be underwater all the way to the horizon. The Black Sea itself is 170,000 square miles, every foot of flood water beyond its borders would add to the area flood area indefinitely.

[Guest man]

Ok......just for fun.....if the flood is localized as you and some others believe, there would be a wall of water 1500 ft high, just sitting there. How does that work? Everything below 1500 ft. would be flooded. The Mediterranean Sea would be 1500 ft. deeper. And since the Mediterranian is connected to the Atlantic and the Atlantic is connected to everything else.....

Not at all. As I mentioned, even in Turkey the mountain regions make a natural barrier to the water. If you look to eastern Turkey (towards Ararat) there are huge mountainous regions, and in the Southern Mediterrainian regions (towards the Mediterrainian Sea) there are Mountainous regions...with narrow valleys that run towards the Mediterrainian Sea. The entire Black Sea area towards Turkey is like a bowl. Floods by nature are localized. Any massive influx of water in an area can cause water to raise to unnatural heights in that area until the rain stops and a natural run-off occurs.

I should also clarify, I was only pointing out that the 1500ft measure was only to show that the water didn't have to rise to the top of Mt Ararat to flood the region, or cover the hills. If the waters rose only 150ft it would create a monumental flood and still bury much of Turkey. Everything Noah saw would be underwater all the way to the horizon. The Black Sea itself is 170,000 square miles, every foot of flood water beyond its borders would add to the area flood area indefinitely.

How deep would the waters have to be to reach the Mediterranian?

[Axxman]

The problem with a localized flood is that it makes God a liar. God said that He would never send another flood to destroy all flesh on the earth in Genesis 9:

The entire wording is global, not local. God did not send the flood to only cover a portion of the land. The flood covered all dry land and destroyed all flesh.

Again, you have to remove the mindset that localized means a small area. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of miles of flood water. We are talking about a massive replanting of the human story. The waters rose to unheard of heights and caused unheard of devastation. This was a GOD event! We also have to get past the idea that "all" means "all." It simply doesn't. God did NOT destroy "all" flesh...anymore than he flooded "all" the world.

The entire wording is global only when you imagine that the context is global. Many people have narrowed the definition of a broadly defined word (erets) to mean one thing...and it simply isn't so.

God promised that there would not be another flood like that one. If that flood was local, that promise has been broken many time.

This again points to the fact that you keep trying to put the "localized flood" as a small time event that has happened many times over the course of human history. I promise you that is not true. This flood was a massive flood. It was a flood, the likes of which, will never again be seen on the face of the earth.

Furthermore, God's anger in Genesis six is the sin of all flesh. When God looks at the earth, he sees that ALL of humanity is in rebellion. He is not looking at just a portion of humanity in a local area. The wording of Genesis states that God says in His heart that He will destroy man from the face of the earth, not from a local area. In v. 6:12, it says that ALL flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. In v. 13, God speaks to Noah and says, that the end of ALL flesh had come before him. God is not speaking in

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (man @ Apr 29 2010, 06:31 PM)

Ok......just for fun.....if the flood is localized as you and some others believe, there would be a wall of water 1500 ft high, just sitting there. How does that work? Everything below 1500 ft. would be flooded. The Mediterranean Sea would be 1500 ft. deeper. And since the Mediterranian is connected to the Atlantic and the Atlantic is connected to everything else.....

A local flood that covered the mountains would pretty much produce an egg-shaped flood and create impossible hydraulic demands on water.

BTW, the word for "hills" in Hebrew includes mountains, not just hills in the text of Genesis 7. The Bible goes out of its way to tell us that the water covered the highest hills (mountains). That would not be necessary unless height was extremely significant.

Mt. Ararat is at least 17,000 feet high, so the ark would have floated above that.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Apr 30 2010, 08:12 AM)

The problem with a localized flood is that it makes God a liar. God said that He would never send another flood to destroy all flesh on the earth in Genesis 9:

The entire wording is global, not local. God did not send the flood to only cover a portion of the land. The flood covered all dry land and destroyed all flesh.

Again, you have to remove the mindset that localized means a small area. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of miles of flood water. We are talking about a massive replanting of the human story. The waters rose to unheard of heights and caused unheard of devastation. This was a GOD event! We also have to get past the idea that "all" means "all." It simply doesn't. God did NOT destroy "all" flesh...anymore than he flooded "all" the world.

The entire wording is global only when you imagine that the context is global. Many people have narrowed the definition of a broadly defined word (erets) to mean one thing...and it simply isn't so.

The wording is global because that is the plain sense of the text. Localized means limited area, and frankly, you have no clue what "local" means with respect to the text. The text does not indicate that God was displeased with a particular group of people in a limited area. He is displeased with "mankind" and states that he is going to wipe mankind from the face of the earth. There is nothing local about that verbiage, by any stretch of the imagination.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Apr 30 2010, 08:12 AM)

God promised that there would not be another flood like that one. If that flood was local, that promise has been broken many time.

This again points to the fact that you keep trying to put the "localized flood" as a small time event that has happened many times over the course of human history. I promise you that is not true. This flood was a massive flood. It was a flood, the likes of which, will never again be seen on the face of the earth.

The size of the flood is irrelevant. If the flood was localized and limited in scope to a particular location, God's promise has been broken every time any area of world is flooded and any people are killed.

Again..."all" doesn't mean "all." All of humanity was NOT in rebellion.

How do you know?? Were you there? The wording is all inclusive. The Bible refers to wiping all of mankind from the face of the earth. It takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to insist that such terms refer to a local group of people.

Noah was not the only Godly man in the world.

The Bible indicates that he was the only man walking with God. Not even his family found favor with God. The Bible takes the time to contrast Noah against the rest of humanity. Noah walked with God and was perfect in his generations.

Again, you see "earth" as global and it makes you jump to unrealistic places.

I see "earth" as referring to the entire area of dry land because that is how it is used in the text. I read Hebrew and it is far more precise than English.

There is simply no reason to believe that the violence and corruption that so offended the Lord was in canada, or Mexico, or Britain, or South Africa, or Russia...or any other place. God was angry at the civilization, the people, in Noah's part of the world...that locale is the target. Unless you are prepared to argue that contemporaries of Noah had already covered the entire globe...

The text says that God wiped out every living thing under the heavens from among man, animals and birds except those that were on the ark. A localized flood is logically fallacious.

Mankind hadn't even figured out how to move out of the region yet...let alone pick up and move everything, animals included, some 2000 miles away.

Yet, ancient humanity has built structures that mystify historians and scientists because they show far more intellectual, architectual and technilogical sophistication than it was supposed that the ancients possessed. Even by standards, ancient man was actually advanced relatively speaking.

Your problem is that you are assuming a local flood and reading the Bible to force to accomodate the assumption. Historians and archeologists never stop making discoveries about just how far ancient humanity had ventured out into the world. So I don't think you are the final word how much of the earth was populated by Noah's time.

It took Noah several months, in a boat, to reach safety...so it is pretty unlikely that Noah and his three sons could have escaped that region taking an entire zoo full of animals. God gave Noah and his family a way...build a boat. Nothing in the area of the flood survived...of that we can be sure. Especially since they didn't believe it was coming.

You really cannot see the holes in that logic???

[Guest man]

QUOTE (man @ Apr 29 2010, 06:31 PM)

Ok......just for fun.....if the flood is localized as you and some others believe, there would be a wall of water 1500 ft high, just sitting there. How does that work? Everything below 1500 ft. would be flooded. The Mediterranean Sea would be 1500 ft. deeper. And since the Mediterranian is connected to the Atlantic and the Atlantic is connected to everything else.....

A local flood that covered the mountains would pretty much produce an egg-shaped flood and create impossible hydraulic demands on water.

BTW, the word for "hills" in Hebrew includes mountains, not just hills in the text of Genesis 7. The Bible goes out of its way to tell us that the water covered the highest hills (mountains). That would not be necessary unless height was extremely significant.

Mt. Ararat is at least 17,000 feet high, so the ark would have floated above that.

I agree.