Was the Deluge of Noah's Day Local or Global?

Flood Controversy – World Wide or Local?

Was the deluge of Noah’s day a global cataclysmic event demanded by some or a localized flood event contained to the Mesopotamian Valley as demanded by others? Because no presently living human was there to witness the events described in Genesis chapters six through nine, one must rely on the Biblical account and scientific evidence. The global versus local flood question provides basis for controversy connecting many topics of scientific debate.

Scientists holding to a strict literal interpretation of scripture insist that all scientific evidence be filtered through clear scriptural teaching. Scientists believing the Bible teaches a global flood of cataclysmic proportions build hypotheses to account for observed evidence around that teaching. On the other hand, many scientists view the Bible as contradicting observable science and therefore insist the Bible be filtered through science. They build hypotheses then interpret scripture through their ideas. Dr. John D. Morris states the issue as follows: “All advocates of the view that the earth is old must insist that ‘proof’ of such age lies in the rocks and fossils of the earth’s crust. They claim these rocks record long ages of evolutionary development and were laid down by both slow, gradual processes and occasional rapid processes of local extent.”[i] Rock layering and fossils appear globally in the earth’s crust. This fact forces old earth adherents to hypothesize a wide variety of local geological events, including local floods along with long ages of sedimentary deposition to account for them.

Most scientists holding to the old earth viewpoint also hold to some form of a naturalistic evolutionary worldview. For the hope of macroevolution to have occurred (with natural selection as its mechanism), extraordinarily long periods of time are demanded by these scientists. This position requires at least a straining of a literal meaning (if not outright denial) of the Biblical account. On the other hand, many scientists holding to a strict literal interpretation of scripture suggest that a recent creation (young earth) and a global flood provide sufficient explanation for the geological record including fossils. However, both positions are “models” and thus incomplete. “A substantial amount of work is still needed to explain all the salient features of this planets rocks and fossils.”[ii]

There are many scientists, both secular and those who call themselves Biblical creationists, that insist the Flood of Noah was local in nature. One of the more common arguments against a global flood cosmology is the claim of insufficient water to cover the earth. The Bible clearly states the flood “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). By generally accepted measurement standards, fifteen cubits will translate into around twenty-three feet. Therefore we are to understand from the Biblical account that the highest land point on the earth was covered by this flood to a minimum depth of twenty-three feet. From where did all the water come (to cover the earth) and where did it go? The following excerpt outlines the general premise of the insufficient water argument:

“To understand this, we need only to analyze the story in terms of the number of inches of rain per minute to fall on the entire surface of the earth to produce the results described in Genesis. We know, for example, that Mount Everest is the highest mountain ‘under the whole heaven.’ It reaches 29,028 feet, which is 348,336 inches. For enough rain to fall in a period of forty days to reach the peak of this mountain, the cloud formations would have to drop 6708 inches of rain per day uniformly over the entire earth. This would amount to 363 inches per hour or six inches per minute. Can any reasonable person believe that it once rained continuously for forty days and nights at an average of six inches per minute? … To modern minds, the notion of such a prodigious outpouring of rain is absurd, because we understand the nature of the water cycle that takes water from the surface of the earth into the clouds and redistributes it as rain.”[iii]

While the math may hold up in the scenario given, young earth creationists and global flood advocates are quick to point out several problems with this argument. First of all, the Bible does say it rained for forty days and nights. However, Genesis 8:2 and 4 refer to the “fountains of the deep” contributing to the Flood and say the Flood peaked 150 days after it started.  Secondly, because Mount Everest is the highest mountain on earth today does not mean it was of the same height or even existed before the Flood. “There were, of course, mountains in the originally created world, but they were relatively low and of gentle slope, (the Bible refers to “high hills”) not the uninhabitable ridges of the present world. Once the antediluvian topography had been leveled by the devastating flood waters, the world completely inundated, then the great mountain uplifts began to take place.”[iv] Psalm 104:7-9 indicate the present day mountain ranges were formed during and following the Flood. Furthermore, Isaiah 54:9 indicate the earth’s topography was altered by the Flood.

In addition, young earth creationists and global flood advocates propose the pre-flood earth probably had greater land mass and relatively shallow oceans. Most of the water for the Flood could have been provided by subterranean supplies that surfaced as linear geysers as a result of the breaking up of the pre-flood ocean floor (Genesis 7:11) and displacement of existing ocean water. In any event “if the entire earth’s surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the oceans (present day) would cover the earth’s surface to a depth of 1.7 miles. We need to remember that about 70 percent of the earth’s surface is still covered by water.”[v] Clearly adequate water exists to cover the entire earth’s surface even with hills over one mile high.

Another common argument offered by local flood and old earth advocates is the structure of a “Geologic Column” and the arrangement of fossils therein. The general idea is that a geologic column represents a sort of “snapshot” of the earth’s evolutionary history. Global flood, young earth advocates claim this “column” and fossils were deposited during the Flood. On the other hand, those holding to a evolutionary, old earth cosmology, postulate that fossils appearing the lowest in a geologic column represent simple marine invertebrates (first life on earth) progressing up the column, layer by layer. From simple marine invertebrates to fishes, then amphibians, to reptiles, to birds on up to the highest layer of fossils, complex land vertebrates, the geologic column is used as supposed “proof” of long ages of sedimentary deposition. They argue that if all life had been created, being in existence prior to a global Flood, then fossils of all life forms should be present from the lowest geologic position to the highest.

G. R. Morton, a geophysicist, says, “The fossils are too well sorted. Conodonts are microscopic fossil teeth of an ancient animal. The shapes of these conodonts change with each succeeding geologic level and are unique. How could a global flood so perfectly sort these tiny particles into layers that only contain conodonts of certain shapes? The turbulence of the Flood was supposed to be so great, yet world-wide (emphasis mine), microscopic animals are sorted vertically through the various layers of the geologic column.”[vi] From this argument, we are to apparently presume that the change in tooth shapes “up the geologic column” equate to some form of “tooth evolution” of this microscopic animal over long geologic time periods. An equally interesting explanation for Mr. Morton to provide is how these conodonts he refers to are so equally deposited and fossilized “world-wide”? To the global Flood position, world-wide distribution implies a world-wide event. A reasonable explanation of the order of the fossil record is what Dr. Henry M. Morris refers to as “environmental associations of habitat elevation.”[vii] In a global Flood scenario, it is reasonable to assume the simplest of marine organisms living at the lowest elevations would be buried first (lowest) and so on.

In another section of the same article ⁽⁶⁾, Mr. Morton states without additional explanation that the second law of thermodynamics excludes the possibility of a global flood based on the arrangement of thick sediments on top of continental platforms. While it is a mystery how the second law of thermodynamics correctly applies to this “arrangement”, the rapid decay of dead, microscopic teeth before fossilization, over long geologic time frames does seem thermodynamically relevant. It is reasonable to conclude that these along with the billions of other fossils were deposited during a global, cataclysmic, aqueous event.

In addition, the geological column, so often referred to as “proof” of long ages and therefore demanding a local flood, exists only in textbooks. In reality, “out of the twelve major geological systems (i.e., Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Permian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, Quaternary), two-thirds of the world’s land surface has five or fewer systems represented and one-fifth of the world’s land surface has three or fewer systems represented. In many parts of the world, there is essentially no part of the geologic column, with the “basement rocks” right at the surface.”[viii] Why does this severe inconsistency exist world-wide? If the layers of the “geologic column” were not deposited by a global aqueous event but were instead deposited over long periods of time as suggested, shouldn’t a more uniform deposition be present world-wide? Rather than long ages of deposition, an equally satisfying explanation for the sedimentary rock layering to varying extents around the world is rapid deposition during the year long global Flood described in the Bible.

Another argument insisting on a local flood is that there are too many fossils. Young earth creationists and global flood advocates suggest the fossil record primarily consists of animals killed by and deposited during the year long Biblical Flood. Local flood advocates imply this is impossible due to the shear numbers of fossils. For example, the Karoo Formation in Africa is estimated to contain over 800 billion fossilized vertebrate animals. Paleontologists studying the Karoo Formation assert

“The animals fossilized there range from the size a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average size animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute’s work with a calculator shows that if these animals were resurrected there would be twenty-one of them for every land acre on earth. If the Karoo formation represents one percent of the vertebrate fossils on earth, when the Flood started there must have been around 2100 vertebrates per land acre ranging in size from tiny to immense. To the non-creationist mind, this seems a bit crowded.”[ix]

Further argument along these lines is the supposed impossibility of anywhere near the number of land animals represented in the fossil record coexisting in an ecologically stable pre-flood world. The assertion is that the earth would have had to support an unimaginable diversity of herbivores, far beyond the scope and magnitude of anything now observed. With this “evidence”, local flood advocates imply that the fossil record could not have been deposited all at once (by a global flood) therefore any flood described in the Bible must be local.

For young earth, global flood proponents, this is no problem at all. They assert the pre-flood world was very different than what is observable today. Two major differences allowing the possibility for support of such a large number of land vertebrates observed in the fossil record are a larger, relatively flat land mass, combined with a water or vapor canopy around the earth. Genesis 1:6 and 7 declare “And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.” Dr. Henry M. Morris asserts the “waters above the firmament” referred to in this passage imply a water vapor blanketing the post-creation pre-flood earth. “Since water vapor has the ability both to transmit incoming solar radiation and to retain and disperse much of the radiation reflected from the earth’s surface, a vapor canopy would serve as a global greenhouse, maintaining essentially the same temperature all over the world.”[x]

The earth’s surface is today observable to be unable to sustain plant life adequate to support the numbers of fossils observed if “resurrected.” If however a vapor canopy blanketing the earth produced a greenhouse effect, this would mean the entire earth’s land surface (probably much larger) could produce lush vegetation capable of sustaining animal populations far beyond the scope and magnitude of anything now observed. So the “too many fossils” argument used to support a local flood can be reasonably answered by global flood advocates.

There are, of course, many more geological arguments on both sides of the controversy. John D. Morris said, “The local flood concept can be shown to be both scientifically and theologically unsound…My testimony as a geologist is this: I know of no fact of geology or history that cannot be interpreted by the Biblical worldview in a way at least as satisfying (usually better than) the evolutionary, slow and gradual worldview.”[xi]

While interpretation of geologic evidence is important in determining advocacy of a local versus global flood, one’s Biblical interpretation is of equal or greater importance. It is the opinion of this student that anyone committed to the proposition that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that God is able to communicate in a clear manner should always attempt to reconcile “scientific” views with the scripture, not the other way around. Though it seems among many scientists, their position on the geologic evidence (i.e.: old earth, evolutionary worldview) skews interpretation of the Biblical record. Scientists who claim to be Bible believing creationists are under pressure to reconcile the scripture with current widely held “scientific” views.

Dr. Pattle P. T. Pun of Wheaton College describing himself as a “progressive creationist” acknowledges the tension between the two views.

”It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record, without regard to hermeneutical considerations suggested by good science, is that…all the fossils are the result of the catastrophic universal deluge which spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith …. However, this position has two serious flaws. First it denies the vast amount of evidence amassed to support the theory of natural selection and the antiquity of the earth. Secondly, the stipulation that the varieties of life we see today in the biological world were present in the initial creation implies the Creator is no longer involved in His creation in a dynamic way.”[xii]

In other words, literal interpretation of God’s word is in opposition to what man has hypothesized with “scientific evidence”, therefore Dr. Pun is eager to reconcile scripture to man’s opinion rather than resting upon “thus sayeth the Lord”.

            A well known Presbyterian minister and author, Rev. Dr. Rowland S.

Ward said in response to a recent article promoting a world-wide flood that he “would be aghast if orthodox Presbyterians were required to endorse the arguments in favor of a global flood.”[xiii] Dr. Ward goes on to imply numerous valid arguments against the global flood perspective from geology, zoology, geography, archeology, and the like. “Dr. Ward advocates a position held by certain compromising evangelicals in the reformed Presbyterian and Anglican circles, although such ideas weren’t ‘seen’ in scripture until certain people wanted to fit the Bible into long-age science.”[xiv] Sadly, there is no shortage of church leaders willing to compromise clear scriptural teaching to remain in favor with unbelieving secular scientists.

            Rich Deem (credentials indeterminate) has written an extensive article titled The Genesis Flood, Why the Bible Says It Must Be Local, posted to the godandscience.org web site. Mr. Deem’s “Biblical” argument favoring a local flood centers primarily on language and the interpretation of words used in the Old and New Testaments. For example, he claims the use of the phrases “whole earth” or “all the earth” in scripture usually refers to a geographical area. He claims the correct interpretation is that the “whole earth” would refer only to that part of the earth known to mankind at the time. Therefore he argues that when God told Noah that He was going to destroy the earth with water that God was referring only to that part of the world that Noah would have been aware of, presumably the Mesopotamian Valley. He also argues that “the whole earth” can be taken to refer to all people on the earth. Mr. Deem and others like him encourage readers to disregard the Bible as a literal document, often clouding the issue with unsubstantiated rhetoric. In other words, the Biblical account must be reconciled to man’s hypotheses, not the other way around!

In contrast, a growing number of young earth creation scientists advocating a global flood are more than willing to explain observable science in accordance with the scriptures. A number of in depth, scholarly works favoring global flood cosmology have been published over the last several decades. For example, Dr. Henry M. Morris lists 26 specific reasons why he believes the Bible is referring to a flood of global extent in The Genesis Record.[xv] One of the clear leaders in the field of creation science and advocating a global flood is the Institute for Creation Science (ICR). John D. Morris of ICR says “the misunderstood ‘evidence’ for old ages is actually strong evidence for the Flood. In reality, the global flood and recent creation doctrines are synonymous concepts forcing some scientists to twist scripture, making it say something it clearly does not. To document that the Bible specifically teaches the global flood should be sufficient to convince a true believer in the authority of the Bible.”[xvi]

One argument from scripture favoring a global flood is the depth and duration of the Flood. Genesis 7:19 says the flood waters prevailed above the highest hills or mountains and Genesis 8:4 says the flood peaked 150 days after it began. Assuming equal time to recede, it is difficult to imagine a flood of this duration, covering high hills and mountains as local in nature, which leads to the need for an Ark. Noah was warned by God well in advance of the flood event. If there was to be a localized flood, why give instructions to Noah for building the Ark? Couldn’t Noah and his family just as easily have migrated out of the area where the flood was to occur? If the flood was to be local, there was no need for an Ark. In addition, the Ark was clearly large enough in its construction to accommodate the animals God required Noah to house. If the coming flood was to be local, why wouldn’t God have the animals he wanted preserved to migrate out of the area along with Noah? Building such a huge vessel for a local flood with ample warning seems rather senseless. On the other hand, if the Bible is describing a global event as suggested, building an ark makes perfect sense.

God also told Noah that He was going to destroy “all flesh” and “the earth”. Genesis 6:13 “And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” It seems clear that God’s purpose in the Flood was primarily to destroy sinful mankind. Verses 11 and 12 say the “earth” was filled with violence implying the whole earth. An earth “filled with violence” necessitates an earth filled with mankind committing said violence. Not only were violent inhabitants of the earth to be destroyed, the earth itself was to be destroyed (6:13). Local flood advocates attempt to say that all living people of that time were within a confined area and were therefore destroyed in a local flood. This position is indefensible without twisting words to say other than they clearly say. If the inhabitants of earth were localized in the Mesopotamian Valley, for example, God would certainly be able to communicate that He was going to destroy them and that area of the earth rather than stating His intentions to destroy “all flesh” and “the earth.”

Another strong scriptural argument favoring a global flood is God’s promise to Noah in Genesis 9:15 that “waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.” If the Flood was local, God has since repeatedly broken His promise and His word means nothing. There have been innumerable local, even regional floods recorded in history, many in the Mesopotamian Valley where local flood advocates claim the “local” flood event occurred. Though logic is not always congruent in matters of faith, applied here logic asks that if God cannot be trusted to keep this promise, why should anyone trust Him to keep any other promise He has made in scripture? Local flood advocates interpret Genesis 9:15 to imply that the Flood, though local in nature, was universal in judgment. Therefore God has not since “destroyed all flesh” (9:15) with water in subsequent aqueous events. This sounds like a novel play on words to let God “off the hook”.

The controversy continues. Was the Flood of Noah’s day of global extent or merely one of innumerable other local floods? Good people on both sides of this controversy pose good scientific questions. Previously “unanswerable” questions are answered with both side’s models and theories. New questions from each side then arise and when answered, no doubt more questions will be posed. “That is the nature of science. All its conclusions are tentative and new discoveries mean old ideas must be changed. Science ultimately can’t prove or disprove the Bible. Faith is needed. It is not that facts contradict the Bible, but the interpretations applied to them. Since we will never know everything, we must start with the sure word of God in order to make sense of the world around us.[xvii]” The global versus local flood question provide basis for controversy connecting many topics of scientific debate. However, when observable science appears to contradict the Bible, scientists should look for reasonable hypotheses to model their findings in line with clear Biblical teaching. Understanding Noah’s Flood as a global cataclysmic event supplies a suitable framework within which to interpret earth science and history.