Does
the Bible really say the flood of Noah covered the entire earth? Mount Everest,
the highest point on Earth, is about 8,850 meters (29,029 feet) in height. The
Bible seems to indicate the flood covered all mountains (Genesis 7:19) by 15
cubits – about 22 feet – or more (Genesis 7:20). If that is true, where did all
of the water come from? And, where did it go after the flood? Was the flood local, not global, as some
assert? There are good arguments on both sides of the issue, many of which are
described in this article. More importantly, couldn’t one of the people on the
ark swat those two mosquitoes?
All life destroyed?
The
Bible certainly seems to indicate the flood of Noah was global and destroyed
all life:
“Then God said to Noah, "The end
of all flesh has come before me; for the earth is filled with violence because
of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.” (Genesis 6:13)
“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.” (Genesis 6:17).
The
Hebrew word basar (Strong’s 1320) is
used in these verses – and many others - for “flesh”, defined as:
“…the soft tissue mass of any animal;
the whole body; particular parts of the body… humankind, living things…”[1]
Other
verses in Genesis which use this same word basar
(flesh) in reference to Noah’s flood include: 6:12, 6:19, 7:15, 7:16, 7:21, and 8:17. According
to Vine’s Expository Dictionary, this Hebrew word appears about 270 times,
normally indicating the skin and/or meaty part of a human or animal, sometimes
used to distinguish from the spirit, soul, or heart. In the Old Testament, the
term “all flesh” can mean “all mankind” or “all living creatures”[2], as in Genesis 6:17-19.
So, it seems apparent that all land-based life was destroyed by Noah’s flood.
That’s a long time.
The
Bible very specifically indicates the floodwaters remained for more than nine months
(compare Genesis 8:13 with Genesis 7:11) and the people remained on the ark for
one year and 10 days (see Genesis 8:14). If the flood was merely local, as some
have stated, it is difficult to imagine why the passengers of the ark would
need to remain on board for that length of time.
All the earth?
Upon
initial reading, it seems to be very apparent the Bible states the flood
covered the entire earth. It will be useful to examine the Hebrew words used in
the Bible to describe the entire earth. The Hebrew word translated into English
as “whole” is kol (Strong’s 3605),
used by Moses around 249 times, to indicate “all, everyone, everything … any …
whole … always”[3]
and words with similar meanings.
The
Hebrew word translated as “earth” is erets
(Strong’s 776), used about 250 times in the book of Genesis and more than
2,500 times in the Old Testament. According to Vine’s Complete Expository
Dictionary, this word “does not only denote the entire terrestrial planet, but
is also used of some of the earth’s component parts. English words like land, country, ground, and
soil transfer its meaning into our language.
Quite frequently, it refers to an area occupied by a nation or tribe.”[4] In fact, this word erets is used in many Bible verses to
describe concepts other than the physical surface of the globe. One example is
given in Genesis 11:1:
“Now the whole (kol) earth (erets) used
the same language and the same words.”
Obviously,
these words are not used to signify all 510 million square kilometers of the
globe’s surface area, but the people of the region. Even here, we can see that
humanity had not yet spread to the rest of the Earth. That happened a few
verses later:
“So
the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth (erets)”
(Genesis
11:8)
How
does one explain this verse in Genesis 41:57:
“The people of all the earth (erets) came to Egypt to buy grain from
Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth (erets).”
These
are the same Hebrew words used to describe Noah’s flood covering “all” the
“earth”, now describing a famine during the time of Joseph. Does this mean there
was a famine in Japan? And, people came from South America to buy grain in
Egypt? Even though the words used in these verses could potentially be
translated “all the earth”, they clearly indicate a regional phenomenon.
Other
Old Testament verses, written by the same author – Moses – are indicative of
local, not global, geography. For instance, in an area of Israel between Bethel
and Ai (Genesis 13:3), Abram said to Lot:
“"Is not the whole (kol) land (erets) before you? Please separate from me; if to the left, then I
will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left."
(Genesis 13:9)
As
these are the same Hebrew words that were used to describe Noah’s flood, should
we believe that Abram and Lot divided up the entire globe for their flocks and
herds? Or, is it more reasonable to believe they separated a section of Israel?
Did the wind dry up the water?
Genesis
8:1 states:
“God
remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the
ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided.”
This
is a difficult verse to explain if one believes water covered the entire globe.
How would a wind cause the waters to subside? Where would the wind cause the
water to go? This method of evaporation does comport much better with a
regional flood.
Was the earth completely dry?
Genesis
8:13-14 states:
“By the first day of the first month
of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth.
Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the
ground was dry. By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was
completely dry.” (NIV)
Other
versions do not contain the word “completely” in verse 14. Nonetheless, using
the reasoning that the “earth” implies the entire globe, does anyone really
believe the earth was dry? Were the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans dry? If this is
interpreted regionally, it makes much more sense.
All the high mountains covered?
The
Bible, in Genesis 7:19-20, appears to clearly state all mountains on Earth were
covered:
“The water prevailed more and more upon the
earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were
covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were
covered.”
The
Hebrew word used here for “covered” the Hebrew word kasa (Strong’s 3680), which can mean “to cover, conceal; to
decorate; to overwhelm; … be shrouded … hide”.[5]
However,
the word kasa (or kasah) can be interpreted in this passage to mean, according to
Astronomer Hugh Ross, “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. The
context gives no clear indication which of the three meanings to choose.” And,
any “of the three scenarios would guarantee total destruction, no survivors.”[6] According to this
interpretation, the Himalayas may not have necessarily been covered completely,
but hills and mountains may have had large quantities of water running over
them. Another point Ross makes is that the understanding of the earth as a
large globe about 40,000 kilometers in circumference is a relatively recent
conception. People of Noah’s time understood the earth to be the land, implying
people and societies.[7] Whether Mount McKinley in
Alaska was flooded or Aconcagua in Argentina was covered would have been
irrelevant to Noah.
High mountains – globalist position:
How
do those who believe in a global flood account for the problem of the
incredible quantity of water needed to cover all of the high mountains? The
issue involving the tallest mountain peaks, as well as the deepest ocean
trenches is handled by asserting that the earth at the time of the flood was
much flatter. These mountains and trenches arose from tectonic activity within
the last 6,000 years, after the flood:
“Clearly,
what the Bible is telling us is that God acted to alter the earth's topography.
New continental landmasses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata
were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and
leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to
receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging
continents.”[8]
This
would answer the question of where the water came from. If all mountains were flattened
and ocean trenches were raised, there is sufficient water on the planet to
cover all land, making this a “water world”, similar to the (second-rate) movie
with Kevin Costner. Alfred Russel
Wallace wrote:
“According to the best recent
estimates, the land area of the globe is 0.28 of the whole surface, and the
water area 0.72. But the mean height of the land above the sea-level is found
to be 2250 feet, while the mean depth of the seas and oceans is 13,860 feet…
and if all the land surface and ocean floors were reduced to one level, that
is, if the solid mass of the globe were a true oblate spheroid, the whole would
be covered with water about two miles deep.”[9]
This
solves the problem of Noah’s family requiring oxygen masks to endure the
altitude of the Himalayas. However, global flood proponents also believe the
rise of mountains and even separation of continents occurred within about the
last 6,000 years.[10]
Currently, though, Everest is rising less than an inch per year. To rise to
over 29,000 feet would require an elevation increase of approximately 4.8 feet per
year – a change of 57 times more than the current rate. And, one would suppose
the Mariana Trench, at a depth of about 11,000 meters or 36,000 feet, developed
within the last 6,000 years.
What about the promise God made?
If
the flood was not worldwide, how does one explain the promise God made in
Genesis 9:11 and 15:
“I establish my covenant with you; and
all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall
there again be a flood to destroy the earth."
“and I will remember my covenant,
which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never
again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh.”
God
promised to Noah there would never be another flood to destroy the earth.
Certainly there have been many regional or localized floods since that time. If
Noah’s flood was regional, that would imply God has broken His promise many
times, including at New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.
On
the other hand, if one understands “all flesh” in these verses as a reference
to humans primarily in the Mesopotamian region, it is true that God has not destroyed
all people since Noah’s flood. This makes sense because there was no reason to
destroy all animal life. What would be the point of God destroying wallabies in
Australia for the sinfulness of humans in the Middle East?
What about the animals?
But,
doesn’t the Bible say that all animals on the earth died, not only humans? That
would be the reason take animals on the ark, right? God states in Genesis 6:17,
“I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the
heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.” And, in Genesis
7:21, “Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock,
wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.”
The Bible seems to be clear that not only humans, but also animals, were
destroyed in the flood.
Why did Noah take animals if the flood was local?
Global
flood proponents question why God directed Noah to take animals on the ark if
the flood was localized. After the flood, animals from surrounding areas could
easily migrate back to the flooded region, right? In response to this, Microbiologist
Rich Deem makes several points:
·
Some
animal species are indigenous to the Mesopotamian region.
·
Noah
would have spent considerable time replenishing his herds. Whether the flood
was global or regional, vegetables and fruit would not have been available for
some time, making meat the only food source for Noah and his family.
·
Animal
migration back into the entire region would have taken a considerable amount of
time.[11] Even if the flood was not
global, it was still geographically immense. Animals migrating back would have
had no food source – plant or animal – for a period of time following the
flood.
If local, why take birds?
Those
who believe in a global flood make a good point that it would be unnecessary to
take birds on the ark (Genesis 7:8 and Genesis 7:14); they could have simply
flown back after the flood was over, couldn’t they? Rich Deem notes that,
except for a few migratory species, most birds remain in a relatively small
territory. And, since most are not designed for long distance travel, they
would have drowned. Furthermore, it is difficult for birds to fly in heavy
rain, meaning they would have sat in trees until water covered the trees and
they had nowhere to go.[12]
Why didn’t God just send Noah on a trip?
If
the flood was regional, would it not have been much simpler for Noah and his
family to travel out of the region until the flood was over? One answer has
already been given as the same reason God wanted animals on the ark – to
replenish fauna in the region. A second reason, offered by Rich Deem, is that
God’s method of operation is to precede judgment with a warning and opportunity
to repent. For example, the Lord sent Jeremiah to warn the people of impending
judgment if they did not repent (Jeremiah 18:8). Also, God was rather insistent
that Jonah preach to the people of Nineveh who, by the way, did repent (Jonah
3:10). Whereas Jonah spent three days preaching to the Ninevites, Noah spent
100 years building the ark. Peter explained that Noah was “a preacher of
righteousness”. He went on to explain that, when they did not repent, God
“brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly” (2 Peter 2:5). Peter understood
the purpose of the flood: Notice he
mentioned ungodly persons were the target of the flood, not necessarily plants,
animals, or the earth itself.
So
what?
Noah
lived more than 4,000 years ago, so what difference does it make now whether
the flood was global? This is an important issue because, if the Bible states
there was a global flood, but geological and other evidence proves that is not
true, the Bible is discredited. As has been shown in this article, it is not an
absolute requirement for belief in the Bible to necessarily correspond with an
inflexible belief in a global flood. Believers may respectfully debate this
issue without malice. Whether someone believes the flood was global or local is
not relevant to his or her salvation.
Conclusion: The most important point
Whether
Noah’s flood was global or local is inconsequential if each of us is not on the
“ark” today. What is meant by that? As with some other historical accounts in
the Old Testament, the ark Noah built symbolizes salvation through Jesus
Christ.
“…in the days of Noah, during the
construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought
safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the
removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good
conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:20-21).
Noah
believed the ark would save him from judgment. Each of us needs to be certain
we are saved from judgment by belief in the “ark”, which is Christ.
[Biblical
quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise
noted.]
[1]James
Strong, John Kohlenberger, and James Swanson, The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2001), 1297.
[2]W.
E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White,
Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville,
TN: Thomas Nelson, 1996), 83-84.
[3]James
Strong et. al., 1515.
[5]James
Strong et. al., 1516.
[6]Hugh
Ross,
The Genesis Question (Colorado
Springs, CO: NavPress, 1998), 145.
[7]Hugh
Ross,
Reasons to Believe website,
“Exploring the Extent of the Flood: Part
One”, 25 Apr 2009,
<
http://www.reasons.org/exploring-extent-flood-part-one>
[8]Christiananswers.net
website, “Where did the floodwaters go?” 29 Apr 2009,
< http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html
[9]A.
R. Wallace,
Man’s Place in the Universe,
(New York, NY: McClure, Phillips &
Co., 1903), 225-226,
< http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S728-3.htm>.
[10]Ken
Ham and Tim Lovett, Answers in Genesis website, “Was There Really a Noah’s Ark
and Flood?”, published 11 Oct 2007, accessed 2 May 2009, <
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark#fnList_1_14>.
[11]Richard
L. Deem, God and Science website, “The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible says it
Must be Local”, 26 Apr 2009, <http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html>
