Steve wrote:1. The flood story is told from Noah's perspective. "All" was everything that he knew of.
This may be true. But it does not tell us that the flood was not global.
Correct. Had it been global, he would have worded it the same.
2. There is no geological evidence of a single global flood
I believe there is both fossil evidence as well as cultural evidence (flood legends) on several continents to suggest a flood that affected many different regions far removed from the Trgris-Euphrates valley.
I think the claim is that while there are effects of a flood to be found all over, there is no evidence that they all come from the same event. This claim is assisted by some of the things that flood-geologists offer as proof for their position that, in some cases, totally contridict their own position.
3. "Erets" in Genesis 6 is the word for "land". It is used for the "Land" of Israel, The Promised "Land", The United "States" of America. You plant your crops in it. You can conquer it.
This is true, and does provide one line of linguistic support for the possibility of a local flood—but it is not necessary to translate this way—and it does not address other phraseology, such as, "all the high mountains were covered."
Correct. If it was global, Moses/Noah could have used the same word.
4. Nephilim existed in the world both before and after the flood. They were not on the ark.
Whether the flood was global or local, I think, the implication of the passage is that the flood took out the Nephilim. If they were genetic giants (as I suppose), it is not impossible that new Nephilim (Numbers 13:33) may have arisen from Noah's descendants, just as the original Nephilim arose from Adam's descendants.
Again, you are correct. It is easy to point out the Numbers passage as a proof text and totally ignore Gen. 6 where it says "and afterwards".
5. Where did the food come from after the flood?
Some food was taken aboard the ark (Gen.6:21), and there may have been reserves left when the flood ended. In any case, before the animals exited the ark, we know there were some trees (e.g., an olive tree—Gen.8:11) growing, and, quite probably, grass and shrubbery as well.
It is the very existance of these outside food sources that many point to as evidence for a local flood or, at the very least, a global flood that was not everything that flood-geologists need it to be.
6. Young-earth flood-geology science does not stand up to scrutiny
This may be true, but I would need to see the results of such scrutiny before accepting this general statement.
I think there is a lot of evidence on both sides that need more scrutiny. As Proverbs says, the first to make his case seems right until another comes to examine him. Most evidences for both Genesis and Revelation are offered by "experts" and given from the pulpit to the choir. It is accepted without question. Call me a rebel, but I flunked choir a long time ago.
7. The water returned to where it came from after the flood. If the whole world was covered, where did it go?
The flood appears to have involved volcanic and other seismic geological upheavals (Gen.7:11). In my opinion, the earth's crust was considerably altered during the flood, resulting in deep valleys in the ocean beds, which were not there before, as well as higher mountains above the new, post-flood sea level. I cannot prove this, but it is not unreasonable, and would explain why the same quantity of water that once covered a more-flat, ante-diluvian surface of the earth would, after the flood, be confined to the new deeper ocean beds.
I've heard Hugh Ross really pound this point home. Reminds me of the cartoon of the note beside a preacher's sermon outline. "Weak point. Pound pulpit". LOL Who is to say that the earth has as much land mass now as it did then?
8. How did animals from other continents make it to the ark?
It is possible that there was only one continent before the flood, and for some time following (Gen.1:9/ 10:25). This would eliminate the problems of animal migration that would later accrue after the continents broke up (a result of a less-stable earth's crust after the flood).
Correct.
9. How do you explain the vast diversity in life today scattered across multiple continents if it only started with a limited number of animals 5000 years ago?
Reproduction and genetic diversification.
The point is that it is hard to hold to rapid genetic diversification on one hand and pound evolution with the other.
10. If the whole planet was covered over the top of the highest mountains, how did it all evaporate in 150 days or so?
As mentioned above (#7), not all the water would have to evaporate. Much of it could recede into the new ocean-bed valleys.
And much more of the land could be covered today than at the time of noah.
11. Archeological evidence of other cultures seems uninterrupted
If it is interpreted correctly. It might not be, given the afore-mentioned prejudices of the scientists.
This is another example where an "expert" can claim something to the lay folk that they will probably never go research on their own.
12. Genesis 4 refers to descendants of Lamech (not Noah) in present tense.
This is a good argument. However, if the record of Genesis 4 was passed down from Adam or Seth (a possibility, in view of Genesis 5:1), then the original document would have been written before the flood, and would have spoken of Lamech's descendants as people living at that time.
Correct. But it
sounds real good!
Like I said, I can take either position on this. I think there are strengths and weaknesses to both positions. I will have to admit though that the weaknesses that I see in the global flood interpretation are mostly found in geological claims of the flood-geology model. If you have a copy of the original "Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb and Morris, check out the history that they give on flood interpretations prior to that time. It was not settled dogma.
There are reasons that seem strong to me for believing in a global flood.
Just to show that the local-flood advocates have an answer, I'll respond to them. Some of these have multiple responses, but I'll stich with the first one that comes to mind.
First, the need for an ark seems to suggest that there was not going to be any dry ground anywhere to which Noah's family (and the animals) could have more-easily fled.
Local-flood advocates would argue that civilization was still very localized and there would have been no other towns to flee to. They take "formless and void" as meaning uninhabited wilderness...like what the Israelites wandered around in for forty years. Driving two of every kind of animal into that would have surely led to a bunch of them dying. Then again, according to what most people believe, God turned half the animals into carnivorous meat-eaters as soon as they got off the ark. If there was already a lot of vegetation around, why would He need to do that?
Second, the fact that "all the high mountains were covered" eliminates the possibility of containment of the flood to a local region.
Local-flood advocates would argue that "all" could just be from Noah's viewpoint, that "all" doesn't always mean every single one, and that "high mountains" can also be translated differently. In other words, had the passage been translated by someone with a local flood worldview, it would have ended up with a totally different English understanding of the event and still been a valid translation.
Third, the length of time that it took for the flood to recede after the rains had stopped suggests that there was no unaffected area into which the waters could drain off.
Many think of the ark coming to rest on the top of a mountain. The text does not say that. As the water receded, the ark would have followed it. The ark could have ended up in a valley in the Arrarat mountain range. It would have taken more time for the water to drain from a valley.
Fourth, it seems unlikely that Adam's descendants could have spread to the other side of the globe in the ten generations between creation and the flood, and we are specifically told that all the nations of the earth descended from Noah (Gen.10:32).
Correct. But if men didn't spread far, why flood the entire globe if a local flood could have wiped out all of mankind and any animals that they had contact with?
Also, the New Testament seems to presuppose that the flood was global and that it wiped out all human life, apart from the eight aboard the ark (1 Pet.3:20, and especially 2 Pet.3:6—where the word "world" is used, rather than "earth" or "land").
The passage mentions "the world that then was". The "world" being referenced here is left to the interpretation of the reader. "World" can reference the entire universe, or it can reference just the inhabitants, as in "God so loved the world". The "World" was made by Him, and the "World" knew Him not. Does this verse refer to just men, or does it take two different meanings in the same verse? Did "the world" perish, or just the inhabitants? If it was the planet that perished, it would seem to support the global flood position if you excluded the plants that somehow seemed to survive. One side tends to take a more constrained interpretation of "world" and "perish" as referring only to man. The other side tends to take a more global interpretation. Where you start with your worldview basically determines where you end up with your interpretation.
D.
