The Genesis Flood account has been a stumbling block for
both Christians and non-Christians. A common objection to even considering the
Christian faith has been, “I tried to read the Bible, but I just couldn’t get
past the first few chapters in Genesis.” Sadly, the controversy that has come
with these opening chapters of the Bible has kept countless people from ever
hearing the important parts that come later; the truth about Christ has been
hidden by misunderstandings about the Flood account. Misconceptions about
Genesis have also kept many Christians from studying science, creating a
mistrust of science in the Christian community (Please see previous blogs on
the Genesis Barrier here
and here).
When
interpreted correctly, Christian scripture and nature should be in harmony. God
created the universe and inspired the Bible, so both should agree. If we
read the Genesis Flood account correctly and interpret the facts of nature
correctly, Genesis doesn’t have to be a barrier to either science or
Christianity.
It is impossible with our current scientific understandings
to explain how a flood could cover the entire earth and how a single boat could
carry every species of animal. These are
the main stumbling blocks within the Flood account that keep many from pursing
Christianity further.
God’s purpose for the flood was to get rid of the evil on
the earth at the time. If humanity was
not spread over the entire earth, it would not have been necessary to flood the
entire earth. God could accomplish His
purpose by flooding only the populated areas and killing only those animals
that had been affected by the evil; it would not have been necessary to kill a
cougar in North America if it had not been affected by the evil of humans. This
logic by itself removes the two stumbling blocks: The Flood only had to be in the areas
occupied by humans at the time and the ark only had to carry the land animals
that existed in those locations.
In his book, Navigating
Genesis, Hugh Ross lays out both the scientific and the biblical evidence to
show that it is reasonable to believe that the Genesis Flood was not universal,
but instead was a local phenomenon.[1]
The Biblical Evidence (taken from Navigating Genesis):
1.
Six other “worldwide” events are mentioned in
scripture – that are obviously not referring to the entire world. Genesis 41:57 says that the entire world came
to Joseph because the famine was world-wide.
1 Kings 10:24 says the entire world sought audience with King Solomon.
Luke 2:1 says that all the world should be registered. Acts 2:5 states that Jews from every nation
under heaven were staying in Jerusalem. Paul writes several times that “Your
faith is being reported all over the world.” Each of these references to a “world-wide”
occurrence point to an area less than the Earth’s entire surface.
2.
The permanence of “dry land” and ocean
boundaries is affirmed in several passages elaborating on the creation days (Job 38, Psalm 33, Psalm
104, Proverbs 8).
3.
When Peter writes about the Genesis Flood, he
adds a qualifier that refers to the world at
that time, implying that the extent of the world at the time of the flood
is not the same as the extent of the world in Peter’s time.
Twice
in his second epistle, Peter addresses the extent of Noah’s flood. In both
cases, Peter qualifies the Greek word cosmos, translated as “world.” In 2 Peter
2:5 he writes that the “world of the ungodly” was flooded. Here, Peter implies
a distinction between the whole of planet Earth and that part of Earth
inhabited by ungodly human beings. He does this again in 2 Peter 3:6 where he
refers to the world that was deluged and destroyed as cosmos tote, which
literally means “the world at the time the event occurred.” By attaching the
adjective tote to cosmos, Peter implies that the world of Noah is not the same
as the world of the Roman Empire. The limitations that Peter imposes upon
Noah’s flood are consistent with a great many biblical texts that declare the
doctrine that God’s judgment wrath is always limited to the extent of human
reprobation. An obvious example is God’s refusal to wipe out the Amorites
living in the hills of Canaan at the time that God destroyed Sodom and
Gomorrah.[2]
4.
We can deduce from Genesis 1:28, Genesis 9:7,
and Genesis 11 that God’s command to multiply and “fill the earth” was being
ignored and that humanity had stayed in one geographical area.
5.
In Genesis 1-9 all the place names mentioned
belong to settlements in Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf Oasis.
6.
Genesis 7:22 uses the Hebrew word haraba in reference to the land that was
flooded. Unlike the Hebrew words eres
and adama, haraba’s definitions constrain it from ever applying to the
entirety of Earth’s surface.[3]
7.
The Hebrew word kasa that has been taken as meaning that the mountains were covered
with water could merely mean that the mountains were hidden from view by the
storm, as well as a few other translations that would not require mountains to
be covered by twenty feet of water.
If
the Ark were floating anywhere near the middle of the Persian Gulf or the vast
Mesopotamian plains on water as much as two or three hundred feet deep, no
hills or mountains would be visible from his position. From there Noah would
only see water. The high mountain ranges surrounding the Mesopotamian region
and the Persian Gulf would lie beyond Noah’s line of sight.[4]
8.
The Hebrew term for “all the high mountains” can
also be interpreted as a small hill.
9.
The Hebrew adjective gaboah applies to any elevation above the plains.
10. Genesis
8:4 reports that the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, not Mount Ararat. The entire Ararat range
extends all the way down to the Mesopotamian plain and contains elevations
ranging from hundreds to thousands of feet.
11. Genesis
8 also tells us how God removed the floodwater from the land: He sent a wind.
This drying technique perfectly suits what a flooded plain such as Mesopotamia
would require. This drying technique would prove of no use for removing the
waters of a global flood.
12. Genesis
7 and 8 reports where the water came from and where it returned. The quantity
of water in these subterranean reservoirs (aquifers), and in heavy rain clouds
measures vastly less than the quantity required for global inundation. The verbs used also suggest that the
floodwaters returned to the places from which they came, implying that God
moved water from one location on the Earth to another and then returned it.
The Scientific Evidence (taken from Navigating Genesis):
1.
Marine fossils found on high mountains are a
result of 15 million years of plate tectonics.
2.
Earth only contains about ¼ of the water
necessary to cover the entire globe.
3.
The energy required for rapid, aggressive tectonic
activity (needed to explain a worldwide flood causing all the features of the
earth we now see) exceeds what the laws of physics would permit and would destroy
the planet.
4.
The radical, temporary acceleration of
radioactive decay rates necessary to explain the rapid plate tectonic activity
is ruled out by scripture as well as scientific observations. Scripture tells us that the laws of heaven
and earth are “fixed,” unchanging from the moment God put them in place (Jeremiah
33:25, Ecclesiastes 1:1-11). Scripture also tells us that God does not deceive
and He often refers to nature to teach us about Himself.
5.
For all land animals on the earth today to have
descended from the pairs aboard the ark contradicts firmly established
biological limitations. Also, the idea that eight people could care for the
needs of the numbers of animals required defies reality.
God both inspired scripture and
created nature; they should not be in conflict!
By taking a strong view of scripture and a strong view of nature, we can
remove barriers to belief and show how unified the record of nature and the
Bible are; providing reasons why it is rational to trust the Bible and why it
is reasonable to be a Christian.
[1]
Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis, Reasons to Believe, 2014, pages 145-182
[2]
Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe, http://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2016/11/02/does-the-bible-say-noah-s-flood-was-global-or-universal
[3]
ibid
[4] Hugh
Ross, Navigating Genesis, Reasons to Believe, 2014, pages 150-151
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.