Facebook Debate: Was Noah's Flood "Local" or "Global"?
One of my favorite pastimes is civilized and productive debate with people who say "interesting" (I'm trying to be gracious here) things about issues I care about. About half of the time, I agree with the ultimate position or belief that the other person holds, but I engage him because he's using a bad argument, faulty reasoning, or is being rude (which hurts "the team").
The other half of the time, my interlocutor and I disagree on an issue and I want to see if he can defend his position biblically. I rather enjoy the experience of interacting with those who can disagree respectfully. Not only do I sometimes learn something new and have my own bad arguments exposed, but I also hope that it proves to be edifying for onlookers as they watch someone strenuously disagree without being disagreeable.
My goal in sharing this debate with you here on my blog is not to humiliate anyone (I've removed the name of the man I was interacting with), but rather to demonstrate how to guide a conversation with questions, and to show you that an argument doesn't have to turn into a bloody fistfight that generates more heat than light.
In this conversation, I'll use the following formatting:
My interlocutor's comments will look like this.
My commentary and notes to you will look like this
Finally, my response will look like this.
Ready? Fight!
Science certainly doesn't disprove the Bible, although it does overthrow the YEC interpretation of Scripture.
Note that he has not offered any support for his assertion. Note also that I did not make a counter argument at this point--I ask a question. Why? Because I've read Greg Koukl's book Tactics, in which I learned two things:
- He who makes statements is responsible for explaining them. He is, as Koukl puts it, "in the hot seat." I want to keep him there.
- He who asks the questions controls the direction of the conversation.
Aside from this, I also ask a question because while I think I know where he's coming from and where he's going to go, I want to make sure I'm not setting up a strawman.
Would you be willing to offer an example for us to discuss?
The article talks about the fossils/strata being deposited by a global flood. Now take a close look at the stratification of the rocks, for example, the K-T Boundary. Do such orderly strata, each with characteristic fossils, really look like they were deposited by a single chaotic global flood? Look carefully and honestly. Writing off the evidence as "historical science" just will not do.
Please don't try to answer with reference to the specific gravity of different creatures, different ecological zone, the migration of animals trying to escape the flood or local catastrophic phenomena. Such "explanations" don't come close to explaining the actual strata.
This is quite a technical answer and it can be very intimidating to one such has myself who has not done a ton of study in geology. After reading up on the K-T boundary, it dawned on me that my interlocutor was throwing out a red herring. He wants to focus on physical evidences that support his position, but the problem with that is that we all have the same physical evidences, and one's worldview is going to determine how they are interpreted. In short, it's not a wise strategy to argue about physical evidences because it almost always turns into another type of playground argument--the kind that starts with, "My dad can beat up your dad any day!" I've engaged enough people to know that this is not really the issue...so again, I avoid making statements, and instead I ask a question to guide the conversation to where I think the issue lies. Spoiler alert: my hunch turned out to be correct!
I wonder, then, what you do with Genesis 7 - 9? What do you see Scripture describing in those chapters?
I understand Gen. 7-9 to be a vivid description of a worldwide flood (terms like "local" and "global" are anachronistic, seeing things from our perspective). I like the way Peter describes the creation and subsequent destruction of "the earth", but only says the flood destroyed "the world of that time" (2 Peter 3). That's the way I see it.
Never take for granted that you and your interlocutor pour the same meaning into words. I've seen "worldwide" used in less-than-obvious ways in the past, so I ask about it...
Thanks for your response.
If you could explain what you mean by "worldwide" and how you came to that definition as it applies to the Genesis flood, that would be very helpful.
I define it as meaning "the whole world" as understood by the author. Not dissimilar to the way Luke wrote of the whole world being taxed or Paul spoke of the gospel bearing fruit in the whole world.
Do you see what I see? I didn't really get an answer to the question. Note that he said "as understood by the author" but he didn't offer his own take on that--it's a non-answer to my question. So, I ask again, this time taking a guess at what he means to help lead him to make a definitive answer. Also note that he didn't answer the second of my two-part question. In general, people don't read very thoroughly and questions get missed--don't let them fall through the cracks or get purposely ignored. Politely bring it back up and request an answer.
Thank you. To make sure I'm understanding you correctly, is it your view that the Genesis flood only covered the land of the planet that was occupied by mankind, or something else?
I think you may have missed the second question, though, which was "How did you come to that definition?" In other words, what do you see in the text that would lead you to your definition of "worldwide"?
To be honest, I have no idea about the actual extent of the flood, but I assume it must have swept away the corrupt civilisation of the time. As to how I arrive at that definition, I suppose it comes from a whole array of reasons, both biblical and scientific, but I always make it my aim to ask what the original author understood by what he wrote. A complicating factor is the principle of "accommodation", whereby God reveals his word in terms understandable to the original readers. I think it is invariably a mistake to read modern scientific concepts into the text that would have been unknown to the original author.
I appreciate his honesty in saying he doesn't know. I also like to point out where I agree so it doesn't seem like I'm just being combative. My goal here is to ground the argument in the Scriptures, because that's the ultimate authority. I don't ask about the "scientific" reasons he may have because those pale in importance to a proper understanding of the biblical account. Keep the main thing the main thing. Note that I still haven't made any statements--all I've done up to this point is ask questions! I'm still in fact-finding mode.
I commend you for your pursuit in trying to figure out what the original author meant--that's a good sign that you're on the right track to properly understanding Scripture. :-)
But, I must confess to being a bit confused (I'm blonde, as well as an ex-athlete, so it happens more frequently than I'd care to admit). You said your goal is to understand what the biblical author understood and meant by his writing, and that your conclusions about the flood are drawn, at least in part, for "biblical reasons" but yet you also say that you have no idea about the actual extent of the flood. What is it in Genesis 7-9 that you find unclear or that you think evidences accommodation?
"All the high mountains" and "every living thing" suggest a somewhat limited perspective. I suppose the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens would have to be understood in the context of ANE [Ancient Near East] cosmology ("accommodation"). I believe the flood was a real historical event, but it wasn't described with the strictly scientific accuracy and terminology that we might have liked.
At this point, I've got something to work with--very specific phrases from the biblical account. Now that I've asked a bunch of questions to make sure that I understand his position, I'm ready to make some statements of my own. Note, though, how I end it--with a question. Sometimes I'll say something like, "Does that make sense to you?" or even invite him to critique my response: "Where am I wrong?" Ending with a question or an invitation to critique promotes further dialogue and is a bit friendlier than a wall of text, which can feel like a "Put that in your pipe and smoke it" response.
You said “‘All the high mountains’ and ‘every living thing’ suggest a somewhat limited perspective.” But is that really true when these phrases are considered in context of the immediate words around them and in the context of the entire account?
“All the high mountains” appears in verse 19, but you appear to have stopped reading in the middle of the verse. Here it is in its entirety: “The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.” (NASB) Note carefully that the text says “everywhere under the heavens”—it does not say “all the world” (as in “the known world” which you mentioned from the gospel of Luke…also worth noting, Luke was written in a different language than Genesis, and to a different culture, so it’s not a fair comparison in the first place). There are three definitions of “heaven” that Scripture uses: 1) the atmosphere, 2) outer space, and 3) God’s throne room. Regardless of the precise definition chosen, each of these completely encompass the earth—there’s nowhere we can go on the face of this planet where we will not be under the heavens.
You’ll also need to account for the very next verse, which says “The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.” (Genesis 7:20) This means that however high the highest mountain was under the heavens, that mountain was covered to a depth of approximately 22 feet. Since water seeks its own level, the height of the mountain is irrelevant—more importantly, one would have to invoke a miraculous intervention of God to defy the laws of fluid dynamics to explain how water would run up the side of the highest mountain, “wall up” 22 feet over the peak, and not run down the other side. If this were the extent of the flood, then we’d also have to answer the question “Why wouldn’t the animals and humans of the day just escape to the other side of that highest mountain?”
Similarly, the phrase “every living thing” also has a context:
“…I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.” (Genesis 7:4)
“Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.” (Genesis 7:23)
“I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.” (Genesis 8:21)
There are also three references to “every living creation” in chapter 9 (Genesis 9:10, 12, 15, 16) that I’ll invite you to look up yourself.
This is very clear, unambiguous language that speaks of the totality of air-breathing creatures that affected every single creature, save those on the ark: “All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.” (7:21, 22) Have you noticed how many times Moses writes “all”? There is no room for exclusions or exceptions.
As for the springs of the deep, I see no reason to invoke cosmology here, ANE or otherwise—cosmology is the study of the universe, but this is a geological phenomenon that we see in places like Yellowstone National Park and in deep sea vents on the ocean floor.
A fundamental axiom of hermeneutics is “When the plain sense of the text makes sense, seek no other sense.” So, I’m still left wondering why you would seek some other sense other than the plain sense of the Genesis flood account that I’ve briefly illustrated above?
I fully accept that the author of Genesis regarded the flood as universal from his perspective, although I don't rule out the possibility of hyperbolic language. I really don't think the author had in mind Yellowstone or deep sea vents when he wrote about the springs of the deep. I judge that, seeing springs producing water apparently out of the earth, he deduced that there must be an underground reservoir of water, supplying the springs. I tend to read the Scripture rather literally and when we read of windows in the firmament, I think the author meant just that. Why do YECs avoid the plain sense so often? Why try to reinterpret words like "light", "subdue", "River Euphrates", "pitch" etc. to mean something other than their plain sense?
Giving up YECist presuppositions was one of the most liberating experiences I have had. For the first time I felt I could hear what God was actually saying, without constantly trying to force the Scripture to conform to my modern "scientific" understanding. For the first time I could accept what the rocks were saying through General Revelation and not try to force them, kicking and screaming, into conformity to Flood Geology. I can recommend the experience!
I actually didn't see his first paragraph when I formulated my response below, but it's probably for the better because it's rife with problems: 1) His comment about hyperbolic language ignores the principle of "when the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense", 2) He talks about tending to read rather literally, but then doesn't seem to apply that standard to the phrases in context that I exegeted for him, and 3) He commits another red herring fallacy (and arguably a strawman, with a side of hasty generalization, too) by bringing up words and phrases that I never used anywhere in my conversation with him.
His second paragraph told me all I needed to know--it exposed the very core of the issue that I suspected all along. His answer quite frankly grieves my spirit and almost brings me to the point of tears because of what it means. At this point, I knew the conversation was more or less over because by his own admission, he has abandoned the Bible as his ultimate standard in favor of the scientific concensus du jour.
Therein lies the problem, sir...that you feel that it is Scripture that must conform to the scientific whims of the day rather than submitting our thoughts to what Scripture says. I have just laid out for you a plain and simple exegesis from Scripture regarding two phrases you said you had a problem understanding, but you have chosen to completely ignore everything I have explained to you and offered a "woman at the well defense" (i.e., a dodge).
Sir, you commit the fallacy of reification when you speak of rocks speaking, kicking, and screaming. Likewise, you also commit a category error when you place special and general revelation on the same authoritative footing. Scripture is propositional truth directly communicated in human language, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is thus infallible, inerrant, and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. General revelation on the other hand must be interpreted in a much different way than human language is because it is not propositional. Nature does not make statements: rocks don't talk, and rocks don't have meaning...meaning must be inferred. Of course, there's also the problem that Jesus said that heaven and earth will pass away but His Word will never pass away, and that nature itself is cursed (God's Word is not).
Finally, it's eerie how similar your response is to countless atheists that I've talked to over the years. Nearly every single atheist I've ever talked to grew up in the church, and every single one of those gave me the same line: how liberating it was for them to shake off the fetters of the authority of God's word in their lives so that they could pursue their own interests.
I do not envy you sir when at last you must stand before Christ Jesus and account for subjugating His Word to the fallible opinions and impressions of men. We cannot rightfully call Him "Lord" if His Word is not the ultimate authority in our lives to govern our faith and practice.