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!”
Okay, I apologize for misinterpreting what you claimed, but your “Just ask the question and allow one to answer” reminds me of a supervisor I had when I was still working for a living. If I did something wrong on the job, he would say, “if you have a question, ask!” Well, I didn’t have a question, because I assumed or believed I was doing the job correctly. Your “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…” was misleading. It seemed to me that you were implying God didn’t **literally** create anything that Genesis 1 says he did. Anyway, I apologize and I’ll try to think “question” rather than assuming.
Josephus does get it wrong from time to time, as some scholars will tell you. However, assuming his interpretation of the flood represents a “common” understanding, I would ask: “common to whom?” Josephus was a member of the elite upper class, and, as it is today, so (I believe) it, probably, was in the first century AD. That is, the upper class took a more “believable” approach to religion, certainly not the “common” view that might be held by the working class (2Peter 3:5-6;; 1Peter 3:20). I don’t believe it matters whether you want to define “world” as a place or a system of things. If God intended to and successfully did destroy the whole world (system or place), it was a global act. The waters had to extend far enough to destroy ALL. Nothing left but eight souls. I know of no “local” flood to have ever done that. While many have died in floods, many more escaped. The Genesis Flood is presented to the reader as a universal event; that would be the common understanding of the reader. Everyone dies but eight souls. If the waters extended that far, to destroy ALL, even if humanity populated only what we call Mesopotamia, the flood had to be global, because water seeks its own level, and it rose upward above the mountains by at least 20 feet. I don’t see how one can localize that.
My perception of your reasoning is that you are saying: a literal understanding of Genesis 1 is scientific — it is not. I don’t see how you could imply that. Skeptics tell me that Genesis 1 is myth. I don’t see how you can say a literal understanding of Genesis 1 is scientific. Perhaps you can clarify. I realize you don’t believe Genesis 1 is **concerned** with providing a scientific analysis, but you seem to try to support your claim by saying it needs to be ‘spiritually’ understood, as opposed to a literal understanding, which you at least imply is a scientific effort.
Just as the return of Christ in 70 AD was a known localized event that Jesus (Matt 24 and Luke 21) compared allegorically to the flood of Noah using the same universal and global language to describe what was a clear judgement upon a localized apostate Israel, so too was the flood – a localized event using the same type of known world language to emphasize all that a people could know in which travel was done on foot and at the most by horse….to say it was very limited. I believe you agree that what Jesus speaks of, though it sounds universal and global, was most certainly directed at a specific people in a specific region which could be escaped by fleeing to the hills of Judea. His reference to Noah’s flood is intentional.
Historical writings reveal the ridiculousness of their understanding of science and even the shape of the earth only because we now know so much more through quantifiable science.
The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. (Gen. 7:20 NKJV) —
It is impossible to know the exact length of a biblical cubit, but no one suggests that 15 cubits could be more than 20 to 30 feet. Does it seem natural that a flood of only 20 or 30 feet could be a global event?
This question about the depth of the flood is relevant because the word for “mountains” in Hebrew is har. It is often translated merely as “hills.” It has no inherent connotation of snow-covered peaks. Author David Snoke explains the problem that Genesis 7:20 presents for a global flood view:
“The passage says that the water rose only twenty feet, not six miles. For no reason other than to make sure there would be enough water for a global flood, this verse is frequently altered to “the water rose to twenty feet higher than the highest mountains.” This latter reading is not the “literal” reading; it is interpolated, that is, read in to the text. Genesis 7:20 is a local indicator. Anyone who takes it literally must logically argue for a global flood that measured only 20 or 30 feet deep. Starting in 1969, several new English translations mark a shift in translation of this passage which brings Genesis 7:20 in line with global-flood doctrine.
For example, the NIV says, The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. (Gen. 7:20 NIV) Which it follows with the note: Or rose more than twenty feet, and the mountains were covered. (NIV note on Gen. 7:20)
There’s much more to say, especially regarding the language in Daniel which Jesus quotes, Sodom & Gomorrah, and the synoptic Olivet Discourse. Jesus’ comparison of those 3 events all involved physical events of a limited scope, yet all use the same erets, global, universal type of language….yet we know they were not…we are just quick to not apply the same logic to Noah’s flood for some reason (myself included for most of my life).
On the contrary, what occurred in AD 70 was a global event! Jerusalem was the global center of the Mosaic Covenant. Jews from all over the world journeyed there to celebrate the annual Festivals: Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Three times a year the opportunity was there for Jews to travel to Jerusalem and the Temple to worship at their covenant center. With the Temple destroyed, however, the Jews had no place to meet their God, and the Old Covenant ended. The whole world of gentiles, who stood afar off, if they knew about God at all, they knew of him only through the Jews. There was no other people or place to go to, if a person, a gentile, wished to find and come to know God. In AD 70 the Lord established the Church as the one and only sphere, where God could be known and approached. AD 70 wasn’t simply the destruction of the Jewish nation, it was the destruction of the whole system of order—the manner in which men approached God was destroyed, and God began again with mankind through the Church, just as he did with Noah and his family after the Flood.
I believe you are missing the point of Jesus’ statement. The only ones who could escape were the Jews at the beginning of the war, when the Roman legions surrounded and then retreated from Jerusalem. The zealots chased after them to slay whom they could, but once they returned, no escape was possible. Noah was a preacher of righteousness, if anyone had repented at his preaching, I’m sure he would have been brought onto the ark, for why preach, if the repentant couldn’t be saved. The Jews who escaped Jerusalem at the beginning of the war were the Jews who still believed Jesus’ words. They escaped having no faith in the walls of the city to save them from their enemy.
The Lord said that he intended to destroy the earth AND its inhabitants (Genesis 6:17). I’m of the opinion that there was one huge continent, which later broke up into the seven we have today, with many of our islands. I also believe there was more land area and more usable land area in what was termed mountains. I’m not certain we had snow covered peaks before the Flood. Some mountains are still getting higher every year, and by the way, whether you define the Hebrew as hill or mountain, the ark rested on the “mountains” or “hills” of Ararat, at or near the top.
We aren’t speaking 6 miles here. We are speaking of what the world probably looked like prior to the Flood, before the continental plates broke up and began crashing into one another, pushing up mountains etc. It had fertile plains, high hills and mountains, which, according to Strongs Dictionary, were like a range of high hills, vis-à-vis the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). I don’t believe animals like horses, bison, elephants etc. could manage to descend mountains that were miles high. The mountains were probably like Mount Olivet, and they could be found all over the earth. The text says they were covered. We know of no other flood in the history of mankind, whose waters rose above a mountain like Mount Olivet. If that ever occurred, the Flood would have been universal, because water seeks its own level. We cannot get around that no matter how we define the Hebrew words.
So, how high do we want to make the water level? The text says “15 cubits.” – Let’s just say that the water was high enough that the ark could float over them, but when the water began to “return from off the earth…” and the ark rested on one of the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month, five months after Noah entered the ark (Genesis 7:11), it took another 3 months for the tops of the high mountains to become visible (Genesis 8:5), and four months after this it was safe for Noah to leave the ark. Call me simple, but I know of no local flood that took a year for the waters to dry up, so that the land was safe to walk on.
Nor do you know of an olive tree that could have produced an olive leaf in those conditions. Genesis 8:11. Olive trees are notoriously sensitive to wet climates, and would have been absolutely destroyed and dead. Most simply add to the scripture a miracle not mentioned, whereas that is unnecessary in my understanding.
Your own studies disagree with you. Instead of posting links to 10+ of them immediately found in your AD 70 Eschatology section, allow this to suffice –
With that said, I believe what you’re attempting to say is that the long lasting effects of His coming in judgment were global to which I would agree. Bringing the gentiles into His covenant was always His plan. However, just as you pointed out repeatedly in your own studies, this judgment and tribulation Jesus referred to were absolutely directed at and limited to a specific people in a very specific and limited region. I’m surprised to get disagreement here as your studies have helped me formulate this very understanding.
Perhaps, but either way it’s speculation. My belief system doesn’t make this necessary or even relevant. Debating specifics about water levels, land mass, are probably not going to be compelling enough for any lifelong presupposition. My car was “covered” with bird poop one time. This is not to say it was submerged in bird poop but simply to say it had alot of poop on it. Hills or mountains with water covering the base and partially up the slopes would be considered covered as well.
Blessings to you and thanks for the dialogue!
Concerning my pointing out how long it took for the flood waters to be removed from the earth, saying I knew of no local flood wherein it took so long for it to be safe to leave the protection of the ark…
I’m not certain that that would require a miracle. Are you? What I’ve read says an ideal climate for olive trees includes mild winters, hot and dry summers, and moderate humidity. I have found nothing that would say one wet season would kill the olive tree, and all olive trees. Have you? Do you base your entire argument on the existence of olive trees today? Although you add other arguments below. It seems like the existence of olive trees today is the Achilles’ heal of the global flood argument! It isn’t enough to persuade me, and I’m not suggesting a miracle.
I have to wonder, though, if you aren’t blowing a little smoke here. I mentioned how long it took for the flood waters to be removed from the earth, implying such a long time doesn’t describe a local flood. You don’t address that, but offer an olive leaf (tree), pun not intended.
Concerning my saying that AD 70 was a global event…
I reread that study; while that study does say it was national judgment upon the Jews, it doesn’t deny universal judgment upon the world. My argument there was to counter the abuse of the scriptures by today’s “end time” prophets. They use scripture intended to point to Israel and create a “beast” in the gentile nations, all to point to a future coming of Christ. I’m just a common man of average intelligence. I am unable to address every argument in a single study, nor am I able to foresee all the questions that might arise from one of my studies. To claim that this study denies global judgment is quite unfair in my opinion. If I have found I have erred in my studies, I either correct them or take them off the website, if they can’t be repaired. I don’t plan on either correcting this study, nor do I plan to remove it. As I have misinterpreted you, so you have me.
As I stated above, I am just a man of average intelligence, I’m not a scholar. My “question authority” under the title of my blog is for me as well, and I have mentioned this on my “about” page. I apologize for misleading you. Nevertheless, the judgment upon the Jews in AD 70 destroyed the whole world order of relating to God. God began again with the Church. The Old Covenant ended and the New Covenant was established as the **only** means in which men could relate to God. That’s a global event from day one.
What isn’t speculation is the fact that, according to the text, Noah took a lot of animals on the ark, which was not only unnecessary for a local flood, but it makes the word of God read like a funny book for children if, indeed, a local flood is the correct understanding. I don’t spend the hours I do in study of the Bible, if all it is, is a funny book for children—even in part.
Anyway, I’m glad you commented. Thanks for that. Lord bless.