Probably the main reason some have introduced the idea of a local flood is in an effort to make the biblical account more palatable to skeptics and unbelievers. It is an effort to "rescue the Bible in the eyes of the world," so to speak. While such an effort may be based on a noble intent, the only thing the Bible needs to be rescued from is those who try to change it.

-- Genesis 7:17-23

This account in Genesis describes part of what has to be the greatest natural/supernatural disaster of all time - the Great Flood of the days of Noah.

As calamitous as it sounds though, last Lord's Day I showed you that some who claim to believe the Bible hold the conclusion that the Great Flood wasn't nearly that great. They say it was only a local occurrence - confined to a region in ancient Mesopotamia. Last Sunday I addressed this issue under the title, How Great was the Great Flood? While I won't repeat last Sunday's message here, let me quickly summarize what we covered because I want to continue along the same line of reasoning. I told you that my conclusion from the Bible has been and still is that the Great Flood of Noah's day was a worldwide affair. It did exactly what these verses in our English translations say it did. It inundated the whole earth with water and destroyed every living creature that breathed through its nostrils except those on board the ark. I showed you that the text of Genesis demands this interpretation. I showed you six problems that are created with the text when you conclude anything other than a worldwide flood.

Problem #1: If the flood was only local, why did Noah have to build an ark? God could have simply evacuated him and his family to higher ground.

Problem #2: If the flood was only local, why was Noah ordered to collect animals of every kind to board the ark? Aside from a few local varieties, there would be no danger to the majority of animals on the earth.

Problem #3: If the flood was only local, why was the ark so big? A much smaller boat could have saved Noah and some local animals.

Problem #4: If the flood was local, why did birds need to be aboard the ark? They could have simply flown out of the region.

Problem #5: If the flood was merely local, how could it be that the water rose to 22.5 feet above the mountains? Water does not stand in midair. It seeks out its own level. It would have run off into other areas before it reached the tops of the mountains.

Problem #6: If the flood was only local, how could it have lasted an entire year? Local floods dissipate much more quickly than that.

In this message I'll continue along this line of showing problems created when you try to fit a local flood into the Genesis account of the Great Flood.

But just before I pick up where we left off last time, may I suggest a very simple exercise that might help you understand this subject much better. Take a moment, the first opportunity you have to get alone with your Bible, and read through the brief few   chapters of Genesis that describe the flood. They are chapters 6-9. Read what God has said for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it. I believe what you will find with a simple such reading is that the evidence for a global flood is overwhelming.

OK. On we go with:

If the flood was only local, how do we account for the great volume of subterranean ocean water mentioned by the Bible at the beginning of the flood?

Genesis 7:11-12 says,

Note the two sources of water mentioned that caused the flood:

You might recall that on day two of the creation, God said, as recorded in Genesis 1:6,

So at creation there were two great storage places where water was present: the ocean (that would be the waters below what we call the atmosphere) and apparently a great volume of water aloft (perhaps a vaporous presence of waters in the upper atmosphere or beyond.) Both are mentioned in Genesis 7:11-12 as the source of the water of the flood: The "fountains of the great deep" and the "floodgates of heaven."

The waters aloft produced the great pouring of rain from above that came down for forty days and forty nights. The waters below produced great volumes of water that caused the oceans to overflow their limits when "all the fountains of the great deep burst open."

The introduction of this water from the ocean (perhaps great subterranean reservoirs beneath the ocean floor) certainly pushes the limit of the great volume of water that came upon the earth. What local flood ever included the introduction of such subterranean ocean water? In a local flood, water flows out to sea as it dissipates. Here is a case of water flowing in from the sea! This, along with "the floodgates of the sky" for forty days and nights would certainly produce much more water than could be accounted for in a localized flood.

Some have speculated that the opening of "the floodgates of the sky" may have been the collapse of a water vapor canapé that they theorize could have enveloped the earth before the flood - suggesting that there may have been much more moisture available in the atmosphere before the flood than would be available today. That atmospheric conditions on earth were different in times prior to the flood is seen in several passages. In Genesis 2:6 where we read about "a mist that used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground." In Genesis 2:5 where we learn that there was a time when "God had not yet sent rain upon the earth." Certainly neither of these is like our conditions today. What we read in Genesis 7:11-12 then, reveals that there was a lot more water flowing than could be contained by a local flood.

And by the way, to those who say that there just isn't enough water available in the system to cover the whole earth, go back and read the account of the creation in Genesis 1. You'll find that at a certain point in the past, the entire world was covered with water.

If the flood were merely local, how could it be said that it destroyed "all mankind" and "all flesh that moved on the earth"?

Genesis 7:21-22 says,

The Great Flood destroyed all animal life and all human life that was not aboard the ark. Could this have happened in a local flood? It hardly seems likely. God had issued the order to multiply and fill the earth before the flood, way back in Genesis 1:28 where we read:

There is no Biblical reason to believe that they did not obey this command. It wasn't until after the flood that they gathered in one place in violation of God's equivalent command in Genesis 9:1 ("Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth") to built the tower of Babel. There is no mention of any similar disobedience before the flood.

While the Bible never speaks of the world's population prior to the flood, studies have been done to show that it had a potential population far in excess of the population of Mesopotamia.(2)

But even if men were only living within a region of Mesopotamia, what about animals? They, too, were to be destroyed in the flood, according to Genesis 7. Surely they didn't stay bottled up in one area.

The text in Genesis 6:11 tells us that "the earth was filled with violence." That sounds like a worldwide statement to me.

Also to factor in is the statement in Genesis 9:18-19, made after the flood, which says:

If there were any human survivors on the earth besides Noah and his family, the Bible knows nothing about it. If you believe the Bible, then you believe that after the flood we all came from Noah's family. For a Bible believing Christian then, to conclude that the flood was just local would be to conclude that the world's present population descended from others who survived the flood (or didn't experience it) besides the sons of Noah, which would contradict this very clear verse of Scripture.

The Apostle Peter referred to the Great Flood also. He used it to remind his readers (and us) of the coming destruction of the world by fire.

In 2 Peter 3:3-4 he said,

Then as a rebuttal to these mockers he reminds his readers in verses 5-6 of the creation and the flood where the simple, spoken word of God brought monumentous results.

Then in verse 7 he tells them that just as the flood destroyed the ancient world, God will someday destroy the world again, except in this case by fire:

Proof of the coming fiery destruction of all "ungodly men" to Peter was the fact of the destruction of ungodly men in the flood. In essence Peter says, "You can be sure that if God completely destroyed the world and all the ungodly in it once, He won't fail to do it again.

But what if you interject the idea of a local flood into Peter's words? Then you reduce the force of his argument. If the great destruction of the flood was only local, then what might the destruction by fire in the future be? Will it be local, too?

But that's not what he had in mind. Look at verse 10:

This is no local destruction by fire. Neither was Peter referring to a local destruction by flood. The force of the one has to match the force of the other, or Peter's argument against the mockers ends up being next to meaningless. Peter saw the flood as a fearful, worldwide event, just like he anticipated the future destruction of the world by fire as a fearful, worldwide event.

To interject the idea of a local flood takes away the force of Peter's words.

Jesus said in Matthew 24:37-39:

First from this passage, note that Jesus, just like Peter, believed in the Great Flood of Noah's day. He spoke of it as a factual event. To believe that the flood was a myth or an allegory would be to acknowledge that the Son of God didn't know what He was talking about.

But note also from this passage that Jesus is going to return to this earth for judgment. According to His statement in verse 37, His coming return in judgment will be "just like the days of Noah."

With this correspondence that Jesus made in mind, was the flood of Noah's day a local event or was it worldwide? If it was only local, then according to Jesus, His return and subsequent judgment will be local, too. Jesus said it will be "just like the days of Noah."

Yet we know that Christ's return will not be just a local event. If you have read Revelation 1:7, you know that when He comes, "every eye shall see him." If that is the case, His coming would have to be seen and known worldwide. If His coming, which will be a worldwide event, is to be "just like the days of Noah," then we can conclude nothing else but that the flood was also a worldwide judgment. A local flood just doesn't fit without making Jesus' teaching meaningless.

When the flood was over, God entered into a covenant with Noah and his descendants. We can read about it in Genesis 9:8-11:

Notice carefully the two parts of God's promise.

Notice especially the second part of God's promise. He will never again bring a flood to destroy the earth. If "the earth" here means only a local area as some have suggested, then He is promising never again to bring a local flood. Yet we know that there have been many local floods since the days of Noah that took the lives of people. In fact, there have been some regional floods since then that took the lives of people - even in Mesopotamia. Yet God promised no more floods like the one of Noah's day. Either He was lying and cannot be trusted or His promise has to do with a worldwide flood in Noah's day.

God does not lie. He will never again do what He did in the days of Noah, that is, He will never again flood the entire world with water so that all flesh dies. That is the only reasonable explanation. A local flood just doesn't fit.

Perhaps by now you have observed that what God says in His word carries much more weight with me than the latest socially acceptable and popular opinions on the things that touch the word of God. I am biased. I admitted that in last week's message when I held this book up before you and told you that I believe it. I admit it again here and now. I am biased toward the word of God. "Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar."(3) That is how I have chosen to live my life. What you are seeing is what I am. If this book is true, then I win all. If it is not, I lose all.

Am I stubborn on this issue of a global flood? Yes I am. Am I immovable on this issue? That depends. If you come to me with your Bible and convince me from it that I am wrong and that this book really does teach a local flood, then I will quickly change my views and tell everyone I was wrong. But on any other basis, I will not change. Some call that "blind faith." I call it "true faith."

Probably the main reason some have introduced the idea of a local flood is in an effort to make the biblical account more palatable to skeptics and unbelievers.(4) It is an effort to "rescue the Bible in the eyes of the world," so to speak. While such an effort may be based on a noble intent, the only thing the Bible needs to be rescued from is those who would try to change it. If "rescuing the Bible" means we must do violence to the Biblical text so as to change its meaning, or even impugn the words of God Himself in His promise never to do the same thing again that He did in Noah's day, it is wrong and will ultimately do much more harm than good. Even honorable intentions do not justify changing the meaning of the word of God. That is what is at stake in this issue. That is what introducing the concept of a local flood does to the text in Genesis and these other passages I have cited.

Far better that we struggle against unbelievers who will probably reject God's word anyway than that we change and distort the meaning of Scripture by trying to impose something on the text that isn't there. Once we begin doing that, it will not stop until the Scripture is totally meaningless.

Revelation 22:18-19 warns:

This warning about adding to or taking away from God's word is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, and Proverbs 30:6.

God destroyed the ancient world once in a massive, worldwide flood that enveloped the entire globe. He will one day destroy it again, not in a localized event but in a worldwide cataclysm of fire. Knowing this, as Peter said when he mentioned the flood in his writing, what sort of people ought we to be in holy conduct and godliness?(5)

Footnotes: Use your "back" button to return to your place.

1. The "great deep" here is undoubtedly a reference to the ocean. That is the way it is used in Genesis 1 and several other passages. The same is made clear, too, in passages like Isaiah 51:10 and Jonah 2:5.
2. John D. Morris, Ph.D., The Global Flood of Noah's Day, at http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-311.htm
3. Romans 3:4
4. In fact, one very popular local flood proponent acknowledges this to be a main purpose of his writing. Dr. Hugh Ross, an astronomer and author of the book, The Genesis Question, writes, "Behind this lengthy, though still incomplete, discussion of geological and other issues relating to the Flood lies a dual purpose: first, to offer a biblically consistent and scientifically plausible interpretation of the Flood account for any Bible reader; and second, to remove one major barrier, the "geophysically impossible" global Flood, on which many skeptics rest their rejection of the Bible's message." [The Genesis Question, 2^ND Edition, p. 160.] My concern, and reason for these messages, is that we do not in the process interject a "biblically impossible" local Flood.
5. 2 Peter 3:11

Dave Redick is Minister of the Hwy 20 Church of Christ in Sweet Home, Oregon and Editor of The Preacher's Study. He may be reached at pstudysupport@comcast.net.

Copyright © 1996-2008 by The Preacher's Study. Permission is granted to subscribers to use this document in total or in sermon preparation in the context of the local congregation only. Publishing it in a book, on the Internet, or anyplace beyond the local congregation is prohibited.

All Scripture quotations and references are from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise stated.

[Archive]    [Home]   [Comments]   [Search]