There are many critics of the Genesis Flood account, who try to tell us that the text cannot mean a global flood, but, instead, describes a local flood. In fact, local flood advocates use Psalm 104:1-9 to support their argument that once God set a boundary upon the waters (verse-9), they couldn’t overflow the whole dry land area. Indeed, Psalm 104:9 points to God bringing up the land out of the water in Genesis 1:9, and the verses in Psalm 104 seem to follow the same sequence as Genesis 1. However, the Psalm concerns the waters never again breaking the boundary God set for them (Proverbs 8:29). It has absolutely nothing to do with tying the hands of God, if and when he desired to judge the world.
He didn’t promise anything in Genesis 1 concerning the waters never flooding the earth, but he does in Genesis 9:11-17. There he says he will never again flood the whole earth to destroy mankind and the world in which man lives. This covenant makes no sense at all, if it concerned a local flood. In fact, such an interpretation would make a mockery out of the word of God, because the world has had many local floods, since Noah’s day, and thousands, even tens of thousands have perished in them.
The Lord told Noah (Genesis 6:13) that he was about to bring a great global flood upon the earth that would destroy both mankind and every beast that drew breath (Genesis 6:17; cp. verse-3). It would be a global judgment, wherein God would begin anew with Noah and his family (Genesis 6:18).
Now, Noah was a preacher of righteousness (2Peter 2:5), and through him the Lord preached to those spirits, who in Peter’s day were yet held in the prison of death (cp. 1Peter 3:19-20). Therefore, in the context of Genesis 6:3, Noah prepared the ark, which took over a century to build, and, while he did so, he preached to the dying world around him, that they would be destroyed in the judgment of God, if they didn’t repent of their wicked ways. Nevertheless, they refused to change their violent ways; so, when judgment finally came, the only souls that were saved out of all humanity were the eight members of Noah’s family (Genesis 6:18; cp. 1Peter 3:20; 2Peter 2:5).
Therefore, the Lord established his covenant with Noah (Genesis 6:18; cp. 8:20-22; 9:1-17), and commanded him and his family to enter the ark, when it was finished (Genesis 6:18). Moreover, he was to take with him tokens of all the cattle of the earth, and of every beast of the field, and tokens every kind of bird and all those that creep upon the earth, taking them by pairs, the male and the female, so that they would also be saved alive (Genesis 6:19-20). Finally, Noah was to take with him enough food for himself and the animals to preserve their lives, until they could leave the ark (Genesis 6:21). Thus, Noah did all that the Lord commanded him to do (Genesis 6:22), and the ark was ready.
Smoodock's Blog 
12 responses to “I Will Bring a Flood of Waters!”
“The Lord told Noah (Genesis 6:13) that he was about to bring a great global flood upon the earth that would destroy both mankind and every beast that drew breath (Genesis 6:17; cp. verse-3). It would be a global judgment, wherein God would begin anew with Noah and his family (Genesis 6:18).”
There are some assumptions here that you would normally point out in your other studies that seem added or overlooked because they align with presuppositions. We’re all guilty of it.
Erets used for Earth here CAN but definitely does not mean the entire globe. It is translated as land far more frequently than Earth.
G1093 (γῆ, ge): Earth, land, ground-G3625 (οἰκουμένη, οίκoumenë): The inhabited earth, worldUsage: The Hebrew word ‘erets’ Is a versatile term used extensively throughout the Old Testament. It primarily denotes the physical earth or land, encompassing everything from the entire planet to specific regions or territories. It can refer to the ground or soil, a country or nation, and even the people inhabiting a land. The term is often used in contrast to “shamayim’ (heavens), highlighting the distinction between the earthly and the divine realms.
A moderately deeper study of this word combined with historical records show that the global view of the flood is a relatively modern idea. Josephus writes his agreement of a localized, regional flood…as do so many more.
Further, an excellent example of the predominantly local usage of erets in Genesis appears just a few chapters after the flood account:
The Lord said to Abram, Leave your country [erets] and go to the land [erets] I will show you.’ (Gen. 12:1)
Translators have smoothed this passage for English readers. In the Hebrew it literally reads, Leave your [erets)… and go to the [erets] I will show you. Clearly, we shouldn’t believe Abraham was to leave planet Earth and go to another planet. This passage only shows how land, country, and earth are all interchangeable translations for the Hebrew term erets.
Note the equivalence in these verses:
the rain was not poured out on the earth [erets] (Ex. 9:33)
And the rain fell on the earth [erets] for forty days and forty nights. (Gen. 7:12)
Erets is in both texts, so “earth’ in the flood account cannot prove a global flood. A casual reading of the flood account is substantially changed for the modern English reader by replacing ‘earth” with “land”, ‘country, or even ‘ground’ which are just as appropriate for translation into English as “earth.”There are also many places in the Hebrew Scriptures where the language of the entire earth is included or all men are included in things which we know were not global. The examples could be multiplied, but consider these as representative:
This is what Cyrus king of Persia says, “The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth [erets]…” (Ezra 1:2)
I [God] am raising up the Babylonians, that ruthless and impetuous people, who sweep across the whole earth [erets] to seize dwelling places not their own. (Hab. 1:6)
Are we to suspect that the kingdom of Cyrus was global? No, the term “earth’ is used in a regional way. The consistent ‘literalist” has a real problem with Habakkuk 1:6. Archaeology also teaches Babylon was a regional power. Babylon’s conquest did not cover the entire globe, even though the Bible speaks “globally” of the empire. Jeremiah uses seemingly global terms to describe local events in this passage:
See how the waters are rising in the north; they will become an overflowing torrent. They will overflow the land [erets] and everything in it, the towns and those who live in them. The people will cry out; all who dwell in the land [erets] will wail. (Jer. 47:2)
The Hebrew is identical to the language of Genesis 7. It could also be rendered, “They will overflow the earth and everything in it… all who dwell in the earth will wail.” The prophet is referring to the regional destruction of the Philistines using flood imagery. It has nothing to do with the earth as a globe. Likewise, the term “earth” in Genesis 7 should not be read automatically as the entire planet Earth.
Unveiled Victory, greetings and thank you for reading and for the time it took for you to write out such a comment.
You are correct, of course, “erets” (H776) can mean anything from the land of Nod (Genesis 4:16; local) to the entire earth (Genesis 1:1; globe). Context is what defines its usage. So, why should we believe the Genesis Flood was local? If it was local, why would he need a boat to escape? If it was local, why did he need to take pairs of animals with him in order to preserve life? If it was local, what guarantee would God have that the wicked that he intended to destroy wouldn’t escape to another land? If it was local, why was it necessary for Noah to remain on the ark for over a year?
All of these things point to a global context, but even if you would have a plausible reply for all of these, what do you say about the ark rising 23 feet above the mountains?
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered (Genesis 7:19-20).
Water seeks its own level. If even one mountain anywhere upon the earth was covered, the flood was global. It makes no difference how one believes “erets” (H776) **should** be rendered, covering one mountain on the earth with water makes the flood global.
Lord bless you, my friend, and thanks again for your interest in my studies.
Great questions! I too could pose lots of challenging questions that would be very difficult to answer.
Not to stretch it too far but even your use of Genesis 1:1 as inherently global is from a literalist reading as a scientific account of creation. As your own studies have well documented, “heaven and earth” is covenantal language and we can be consistent with its spiritual nature even in Genesis 1. Most cannot consider that the Genesis creation account could be anything other than a literal account of a physical creation which sets the fundamental building blocks of our understanding of the Light of God’s Word into a house built on sand…ultimately leading to a futurist eschatology that has failed the people of the earth and turned many from our Messiah, the church becoming the very false prophet it decries (just like the physically minded first century Jews – Nicodemus for example).
Modern Christians in the Genesis debate tend to be chronocentric; they get stuck in their own time period and cultural mindset. What is taken as the common sense understanding about the essential nature and geography of our planet today was hardly common sense for Christians before AD 1500. What is thought of as the plain and obvious interpretation of a global flood with all of its implications for worldwide geology is only plain and obvious to the modern mindset. It is modern science and modern geology that has spawned the flood geology of young-earth creationism. The doctrine of a global flood is what is new in Church history. The local-flood view of Josephus predates it by millennia.
As for your questions, in my experience, the time it takes to answer these questions that have taken me years to unpack and understand will do no good in changing anyone’s mind though I’m not opposed to it. Likewise, presenting you with a set of presuppositional challenging questions won’t yield fruit to your readership.
Questions are keys and keys open doors. I’d ask that we let the HS commune with our spirits curiosity with an open heart – He is leading and guiding if we can but repent, that is to say – change our minds.
Our worldviews are what they are. A local flood may make sense to you, but a global flood makes sense to me, Josephus notwithstanding. He was, after all, an unbeliever. However, I think you would be hard-pressed to show a Christian worldview that included a local flood in the early centuries of our history.
Concerning Genesis 1:1, are you trying to say, without literally saying it, that God did not **literally** create us? If so, considering the temporary nature of matter, where did the universe come from, how and why? If your answer is the Big Bang or a reasonable facsimile, then the question of morals comes into play. What is good, and what is evil, and why, and just as importantly, who gets to say? Taking away GOD as the source of all things brings in a lot more questions than you might assume. I’m comfortable with God as my Creator and as my Judge. I’m not so comfortable with man or chance being my creator and judge.
I disagree. Modern science is the mother of the geological ages and an earth and universe that is billions and billions of years old. This concept didn’t exist prior to the age of evolutionary thought. Expunging God from our knowledge (science) demands a universe so aged that one is unable to prove or disprove its theories in a laboratory. By expelling the scientific method, one is able to change myth into science. “PRESTO!” It is done.
Many conclusions were drawn and expounded upon assumption here. “If your answer” – no, definitely not my answer…no expounding needed. Your version of a possibility of my answer led you down a whole several paragraphs of…unnecessary.
Just ask the question and allow one to answer. The expounding presents your readership with a juxtaposition of your own creation, unfairly…and I know you to be better than that.
To clarify – Josephus, regardless of his salvations status, articulated the common and undisputed belief of his day. He spent no time trying to prove his point because it was simply the understanding of his day. Will you also discount his historical testimony and account that mirrors and even proves Jesus’ words as correct? He literally proves Jesus’ words to emphatic detail…AS AN UNBELIEVER.
To clarify – no, I am NOT saying, suggesting, or insinuating that God did not *literally* create us. What I am saying is that the Genesis account is not concerned with providing a scientific account of creation whatsoever. God’s light (knowledge, awareness, and covenant) entering humanity and following those covenant people and dividing them from those in darkness is very much what the creation account is concerned with. Flesh understands flesh – not all who have eyes see, nor do all who have ears hear.