A Global Flood - Who Cares?

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, July 16, 2015 9 comments


by Steve Risner

The Flood. It’s a pretty amazing event. It’s beyond our comprehension, I feel, to even imagine what it was like during the Flood and shortly after. The world’s landscape was completely annihilated. Nothing from the pre-Flood world remained unchanged. I believe the Flood can easily give us many of the geological features we see today. It can also tell us why the earth is filled with dead organisms that all seemed to have died in water, were buried in sediment very quickly, and did so in extremely large amounts. But some Christians, who will hold hands with atheists and secularists, suggest the Flood written about in Genesis is either a myth or it was a local flood—meaning it was only a flood of the Middle East or a portion of the Middle East.

What reasons are there for believing such a thing? Those who believe this who are Christians are generally either old earth creationists or theistic evolutionists. Why do they not take the Word of God as it’s written? Their ideas are clearly not from a Biblical stance. There is nothing—literally—in Scripture to indicate the Flood was anything but what it’s been described as by Bible believers—a global catastrophe that destroyed the entire population of man save 8 and all land-dwelling, air-breathing animals.

There are about 30 references to the global nature of the Flood in Genesis 6-9. I have never encountered a rational argument from a believer who claims they believe the Flood was local. In fact, there is no way to read the story in Genesis and all other references to it in Scripture and logically conclude anything but a global catastrophe that destroyed the surface of the earth, all of mankind, and almost anything that was alive. Again, to make an argument against the global nature of the Flood is not based on any Scripture whatsoever but is based on humanistic interpretations of the world around us. These people essentially want it both ways, which dilutes much of the Bible’s teaching. It's a slippery slope.

Why does this matter? It’s simple, really. Although many old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists (those who claim to be followers of Christ but do not accept the creation and Flood accounts as written in God’s Word) claim they hold Scripture to a very high level of respect, they feel it’s possible and acceptable to toss out passages of Scripture (they will claim they don't do this) that are not congruent with their preconceived ideas about the universe. In other words, they accept currently popular beliefs and philosophies of science and culture based nearly exclusively on humanism or atheism, and they need to find a way to meld their naturalistic religious beliefs with their desire to be Christians.

This is exactly backwards. One can easily review the evidence and see how it fits with the Christian worldview. The choice, then, is to change God’s Word to meet with the currently popular belief of men who do not have anywhere near all the information they need OR interpret the scientific evidence so it’s in line with the clear teaching of the Bible. I have chosen God’s Word over man’s. What about you? I’ve heard it time and again that they hold Scripture very highly and respect His Word. But that doesn’t line up at all with what they teach. The integrity of Scripture is in the balance here. If we can decide arbitrarily that certain sections of Scripture are allegory or myth simply because they don’t line up with what we believe, the entire Bible is worthless to us. There is no indication from Scripture that these parts are myth or allegory or anything else. There is no reason from the Bible to believe these passages of Scripture are to be taken as anything but historical.

So what’s the basis for believing the Flood of Noah’s day was global? Let’s review God’s Word: Genesis 7:19-20 indicates that all the mountains were covered by nearly 20 feet of water. They also remained there for nearly half a year. How could this be if it was a local flood? I’m forced to conclude by this statement alone that the Flood was global. Verse 21 goes on to say, “Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.” It doesn’t say every living thing in the area or all mankind in the area died. It says ALL. I don’t believe all of mankind lived in the Middle East, so I’m forced to conclude, by this statement alone, that the Flood was global. Genesis 9:1 and 16 both indicate all life on earth was involved. Genesis 6:13, as God speaks with Noah, tells us God would destroy all mankind and the earth. Simply by reading these passages alone, I am forced to conclude the Flood was global. Isaiah confirms the Flood was global saying that God remembered His promise to never destroy the entire earth again with water. Peter recalls for us the global catastrophe as well in 2 Peter 3:5-7. If the Flood was a local event, could the Bible have been more misleading? It clearly states repeatedly the Flood was a catastrophe that involved the entire world. There is no rational way to say otherwise.

So what are some of the issues with a local flood aside from the glaring issues presented in the Word? A local flood would not have required an ark at all, let alone an ark filled with representatives of every “kind” of air-breathing, land-dwelling animal. It took over 100 years from the command to build the ark until its completion. Why not just tell Noah to leave in that time if it was a local flood? Why were the animals to be saved if all the animals from the rest of the world were going to be fine? Why were Noah and his family on the ark for nearly a year? It seems like they’d hit dry ground before that, doesn't it? It also seems like a local flood would rise and fall much faster than that. Why was the rainbow a promise to all living things that God would never again destroy the earth in this manner? Most of the planet would have no idea there was a flood if it was local. And if the flood was local, He’s broken that promise repeatedly. Why was the ark so large if it didn’t need to hold 8 humans and representatives of every “kind” of animal on the earth? Why are the Hebrew and Greek words used to describe this Flood not the same words used to describe a regular flood? Why are they reserved for this cataclysmic event? Finally, if Peter tells us that the earth is waiting for God’s judgment—to be destroyed by fire—is he meaning that only the Middle East will be destroyed with fire? He talks of the creation of the world, the destruction of the earth by water and the coming destruction by fire. How can you make sense of this if the flood was a local event?

I have investigated many sources and interacted with several people who assure me the flood was local. They have no Biblical basis for this at all. They have the currently popular belief of science and they are trying to force the unchanging Word of God to fit this ever-shifting foundation. It cannot be stressed enough that the Bible is not their source for Truth in this matter (or likely many others). The Bible is our filter to view the world. Humanistic philosophies are far from the right source for Truth, especially when we’re looking for spiritual truth. Stay focused!

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.

9 comments:

Charlie said...

The only thing I would add to this is that all the Old Earth models MUST reject a Global Flood option because all their ideas and models for how the earth IS old is wiped out by a Global Flood. They cannot have a Global Flood and retain their old earth model. Which shows that their model comes first and foremost, not Scripture or even science.

ashleyhr said...

Steve
The reason these Christians (like everyone else apart from certain fundamentalist Christians like you) dismiss a 'recent' global flood, even though the Bible implies such, is because scientists and historians, and the scientific method, have clearly demonstrated that such a thing never happened (and could not happen barring something 'magical'). Not because - in the case of the Christians - they are trying to undermine the Bible or refusing to pay sufficient heed to 'God's Word' or even 'attacking' fundamentalists.

Charlie
"their ideas and models for how the earth IS old is wiped out by a Global Flood". That is a MADE UP claim. Which you would NOT state if the evidence DID point to a 'young' Earth and recent global hill-covering flood wiping out all but eight humans.

Charlie said...

Ashley, before you make a comment about old earth models and a Global Flood, you need to learn what they are and demonstrated you understand them. You don't. The evidence for a global flood is more overwhelming then that for Evolution. Evolutionary models CANNOT account for fossils. Just making them, let alone whatever "order" there is. By the scientific observed processes for fossilization, you need quick and sudden burial BEFORE scavengers can get the body. That won't happen over the millions of years model. The order of fossils according to Evolution is like the Geologic column, only found in the textbooks. Please show in the REAL WORLD where that order is found. No textbook ever points to such a place. No museum display points to such a place. No Evolution presentation I have heard points to such a place. Where is this order found? What we do find is the fossils show habitat and mobility order.

Now, I mention this because all the old earth models have there roots on the Geologic column and the fossil record. You won't get their deep time analysis and have a global flood at the same time. If Noah's Flood occurred as written, all those rock layers and fossils would not reflect the time frame Evolution must have. We have soft tissue found in numerous dino bones. No biologist worth his pay would suggest any biological tissue could survive for longer than 10,000 years. Yes, Schweitzer seemed to demonstrate that "iron" could preserve it longer, but the conditions she put it in do not exist in the real world, not to mention she did not observe it long enough to make any real quality claim about it. ALL of the deep time dating methods do not allow for catastrophe, nor have they made sufficient observation to see if they hold at those rates for long enough. Noah's Flood creates many problems for each of them. This is not hard to find out. You like Googling. Do some research.

And one last thing: //"their ideas and models for how the earth IS old is wiped out by a Global Flood". That is a MADE UP claim. Which you would NOT state if the evidence DID point to a 'young' Earth and recent global hill-covering flood wiping out all but eight humans.//

You would not make this claim if you actually understood our position...or your own.

Steve said...

Ashley, unfortunately, said, "fundamentalist Christians like you"--you need to do a bit of research on the term "fundamentalist." You will find your application here is in error and makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
You also said, "recent" in reference to the Flood. That's not true in my belief at all. I think the Flood was 4400 years ago. I think the war in Vietnam was sort of recent, but that was still long before I was born.
"scientists and historians, and the scientific method, have clearly demonstrated that such a thing never happened (and could not happen barring something 'magical'). "--what a weird thing to say. First of all, scientists and the scientific method can't tell us the Flood didn't happen. In fact, they do seem to suggest they did happen, but we can't get in our DeLorean and head back to see. Historians can easily support the idea. There are countless stories from around the globe that indicate the Flood and the Tower of Babel occurred. It's pretty straight forward. There are exceptionally old texts that tell us about a great flood. The Bible stands up to criticisms on this quite well. As far as "barring magic" that's a witless attempt at irreverence for the power God has. Of course it was as supernatural event. Thinking otherwise would be insane.
The evidence for a global Flood is so obvious and so abundant ALL OVER the world that it actually makes me chuckle a little when I hear (or read) someone say there is no evidence for it. The facts are overwhelming. Hand waving them away is all you can do.

David J. said...

"No biologist worth his pay would suggest any biological tissue could survive for longer than 10,000 years."

Charlie, please point me to a single statement written or spoken by any biologist, including creationists, that claims that biological tissue could not survive for longer than 10,000 years. Obviously no YEC biologist believes that biological tissue has survived that long, because they don't believe the earth is that old, but I've never heard one say that biological tissue couldn't survive longer than 10,000 years old.

And I still want to hear your story about the "Inuits" who can't make a living off the stars because of an earthquake in Japan.

Charlie said...

David,

I got that from a friend of mine who has 4 degrees in Biology and related sciences. It's common knowledge as far as I'm concerned. But I'm open to more than 10K. One thing is for certain, millions of years is out of the picture. You need millions of years. Plus a little mathematical analysis myself. DNA has a half-life of 521 years. It also had 204 billion atoms. Do the math. It will break down into individual atoms within 19,000 years, long after it could be recognized as DNA. If you choose to disagree, please provide the scientific experiment that provides REAL WORLD conditions and shows it would last. Schweitzer provided non-existent conditions, not to mention she did not observe it long enough to know if sustained in such conditions they would hold at that rate. Many chemical reactions take a while to get started then accelerate rather suddenly. Her "rescuing device" which literally saved her career because she WAS going to get fired based on the backlash she received for her find appeased the "consensus" which has no interest in the truth, only their imaginary theory, is really weak to a healthy skeptic. If you've never heard one say that biological tissue could not last more than 10K years, it means you've heard from very few biologists or you only have heard the Evolutionary indoctrinated ones who believe it with no evidence. Again, you want to challenge the claim, show me the science that it can last longer. No hypotheticals. Actual observation of the tissue's decay in real world conditions.

As far as the Inuits are concerned. I already answered that one and provided the link. I'm not going to repeat it here. To my memory, you rejected it. That's not my problem.

David J. said...

I'm don't want to challenge your claim that no biological tissue can last longer than 10,000 years.* I just want you to show me one biologist making that claim... something I can look up online, not just something your friend said. I don't even care if it is from a creationist.

*I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about the scientific evidence for anything, when you believe the scientific process is fundamentally incapable of telling us about the past if humans weren't there to witness it, or God didn't tell us about it.


You mentioned the Inuit and linked to a NASA article about an earthquake shifting the earth's "figure axis" by 6.5 inches. I requested elaboration, and you never responded.

Charlie said...

Okay, David. I will give you this. You got me to think. I'm not joking nor being sarcastic. But you got me to think. The 10K year limit is a rough guide-line that is simply common knowledge if you know anything about the decay of biological tissue. Would any scientist say specifically 10,000 years? I don't know, but I don't NEED to know. I just need the ability to think. Logically and practically.

We've found skeletons in crime scenes that are a matter of decades old or younger. It is common forensic science that it is only a matter of days before a living creature that dies starts to disintegrate. The process takes a short time. Now, one can argue that these bodies were not in very good preservation conditions. I fully agree. But even in ideal conditions, they simply cannot last that long. In the Bible, at the Exodus the Israelites took the BONES of Joseph when they left. This was a couple hundred years after Joseph lived. Notice how they took the bones, not the body. Egyptians gave Joseph a royal pyramidal burial (we've found that tomb at the excavation site at Avaris, under the city of Ramses). So his body would have been under more ideal preservation conditions. So we are looking at centuries here, giving benefits of the doubt. So think, David. Think. This process, even under better than normal burial conditions do not survive more than a few centuries in general. Even the most ideal conditions, which do not happen continually in the natural world, you won't get many centuries let alone millenia. Your model requires millions of years and you will have a hard time making a reasonable claim it could last just 1000 years. The YEC model still gives a lot of grace there. We suggest 4400 years because of the Flood. 10K years is still over twice that. Now you tell me who is being realistic and who isn't.

The reason your models have a hard time grasping reality is because you keep asking the wrong questions. When you ask the wrong questions, you will always get the wrong answer. The wrong question your side is asking is "Wow! We have soft tissue, how could it be preserved this long?" The more natural, scientific-understanding, thinking question is: "Is this really millions of years old?" You don't need a PhD to tell you this. You just to use the brain God gave you to think and not be completely at the mercy of a few self-proclaimed experts that cannot back up their claim with any hard evidence. To quote Will Rogers, "Scientists get bigger and bigger reputations the more they talk about things ya can't check on." That is Evolution in a nutshell. I keep asking for scientific evidence for it, as in something I can carry the scientific method and check out myself (even at another lab). And the answer I get is mocking and ridicule or silence. Which translates to: NOTHING.

For the Inuits: last comment on this: http://www.naturalnews.com/048906_Inuit_Elders_NASA_earth_axis.html

David J. said...

//Would any scientist say specifically 10,000 years?//
I don't need that much specificity. I just want a source that could justify your statement that no biological tissue could last 10,000 years.

//I don't know, but I don't NEED to know. I just need the ability to think. Logically and practically. //
You need evidence to think about. Can you point me to some evidence, or is it just gleaned from your day to day life? My personal experience tells me that most biological tissue decays fairly rapidly, but I also know that my personal experiences only represent a thin slice of reality. Surely tissue decay speed depends on a large number of variables, and I only observe a subset of those variables.

//In the Bible, at the Exodus the Israelites took the BONES of Joseph when they left. This was a couple hundred years after Joseph lived. Notice how they took the bones, not the body. Egyptians gave Joseph a royal pyramidal burial (we've found that tomb at the excavation site at Avaris, under the city of Ramses). So his body would have been under more ideal preservation conditions. So we are looking at centuries here, giving benefits of the doubt.//

Uh, you do realize we have bodies of Egyptians from millennia ago that are much better preserved than just bones?
We have well-preserved woolly mammoths from tens of thousands of years ago. Even if you think they are only a couple thousand years old, I see no reason to think that all tissue would fully deteriorate within ten thousand years.

// The more natural, scientific-understanding, thinking question is: "Is this really millions of years old?" // I have heard of (secular) scientists asking if the tissue is really millions of years old.

// I keep asking for scientific evidence for it //
Why would you waste your time doing that that, when you believe the scientific process is fundamentally incapable of telling us about the past if humans weren't there to witness it?