Since the rise of higher criticism in 18th century Europe, there has been a tendency for Christians to deny the universal nature of the flood recorded in Genesis 6-9. This has only accelerated since the publication of Darwin’s magnum opus, On the Origin of Species (1859).

Some Christians go as far as denying the historicity of Genesis 1-11, notably the liberal scholar and regular BioLogos contributor Peter Enns. These Christians argue that Genesis was never intended to be read as an historical account, but rather portrays a ‘mythical,’ primeval understanding of the world from the perspective of ancient Jews. Enns’ understanding, however, ought to be firmly rejected by Christians as a denial of the truthfulness of Scripture.

Others, including apologist Gavin Ortlund, argue that the Genesis flood was local in scope. They suggest that the primary issue concerns the historicity of the flood, not how great it was. While this perspective appears convincing, it has a number of problems.

Seven Arguments for a Global Flood

In Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of “Progressive Creationism, Jonathan Sarfati presents a robust case against the notion of a localised flood. He poses several questions to those who argue that the deluge was a local catastrophe:

  1. “Why did Noah have to build an ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and avoided it. After all, Lot and his family merely had to leave Sodom when it was under threat.
  2. Why did God send every kind of animal to the ark so they would escape extinction? There would have been other animals to reproduce each kind if these particular ones had died.
  3. Why was the ark big enough to hold all the kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the ark could have been much smaller.
  4. Why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged their way to a nearby mountain range.
  5. How could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 metres) above the mountains (Gen. 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It could not have risen to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched. Nor would a local flood take a whole year to subside.
  6. People who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not have been affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin. If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of “all” men in the days of Noah? (Matt. 24:37-39; see 2 Pet. 3:3-7) A partial judgment in Noah’s day would mean a partial judgment to come.
  7. God would have repeatedly broken His promise (Gen. 9:11-16) never to send such a flood again, because there have been many local floods since then.

While the global nature of the flood may seem like a peripheral theological issue, it cuts to the heart of the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. If the Bible records a historic, global flood, then to deny such an event is tantamount to denying the truthfulness of Scripture.

Like the historicity of Adam, the historicity of the flood narrative matters because it concerns whether the Bible is true or not. The historicity of recorded events in Scripture touches upon the very nature of the Bible as the Word of God.

Mocked by the World

As Christians, we should not be surprised when unbelieving scholars mock us for believing in a global flood. Indeed, to a strict materialist, there are far more ‘unbelievable’ things in the Bible, including a talking donkey (Numbers 22:21-39), a man swallowed by a giant fish who is vomited up three days later (Jonah 1:17), and the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Corinthians 15).

Such events will always be unbelievable to those who deny the authority of Scripture. Such miraculous events are simply incompatible with a naturalistic worldview, including belief in a closed universe. Such beliefs are the product of sinful desires rather than dispassionate reason.

As the Apostle Peter said:

“…scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.” (2 Peter 3:3-7)

The Bottom Line

As Christians, we believe in a sovereign God who miraculously intervenes in history to display his power and glory. The global flood is one such instance of God choosing to execute judgment, not merely on a localised people group, but on the entire world for its sin (Genesis 6-9). Far from being a mere hobby horse, this belief flows from our conviction that the Bible is the Word of God.

Just as God calls us not to be ashamed of the gospel (Romans 1:16), we must not be ashamed of those parts of Scripture that collide with the convictions of our intellectual elite. When we hold fast to the Bible as God’s Word from beginning to end, we testify to the unbelieving world that we have a God who is deeply concerned with truth, however absurd our beliefs may seem to those who are perishing.

Our God not only speaks the truth when presenting us with Christ as our Saviour and Lord. He also speaks the truth regarding events in the past, including a global flood in the days of Noah.

Further Reading

– James Jeffery

Posted on By James Jeffery Apologetics Posted in Apologetics Tagged #

James Jeffery