NOAH PART 2 – THE FLOOD: WAS IT UNIVERSAL OR LOCAL? SOME MATHEMATICS HERE
This presentation contains some figures, mathematics and science. It is meant to set you on the road of enquiry, not to cause argument.
[1]. THE FIRST MATTER THAT OUGHT TO BE RESOLVED IS WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE EARTH” IN VERSE 11.
{{Genesis 6:11 “Now the EARTH was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.”}}
When understood in context, what is the context of this Genesis verse (the “earth” part)? I believe it to be as wide as it needs to be, and as narrow as it must be. The corruption of mankind as examined in Part 1 of Noah, was universal, but people were still living in the Tigris-Euphrates region and had not ventured out of that. That was the extent of their wickedness.
Trying to discover the time between Adam and Noah is most difficult. I have searched many sites to see what is written and it is not made clear how this span is done. Was it from Adam’s creation to the birth of Noah, or the flood, etc.” Most who give a date say 1056 years or 1650 years. They are measuring from Adam’s creation to the birth of Noah for the lesser time, or to the start of the flood for the longer time (because it happened in the 500th year of Noah).
The purpose of the flood was to destroy all human life so what was the extent of human habitation? I tend to think that it was not too far removed from the original centre, and hold to what I said earlier, “I believe it to be as wide as it needs to be, and as narrow as it must be.” I know that some have argued for an extended dating of the early chapters of Genesis that would extend the usual 6000 years from Adam to the present, even to as much as 10 000 years, even though I am most happy with the 6000 years and that is what I hold to.
THE WINDOW IN THE ARK
{{Genesis 6:16 “You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from the top.”}}
C H MACINTOSH has a most excellent volume on THE PENTETEUCH and it contains some wonderful thoughts. What CHM says about Noah not being permitted to look on the destruction of the earth as there was one window that only looked to heaven, is one more interesting point. Here are Macintosh’s words -
[[“There was both a window and a door to the ark. The Lord secured, with His own omnipotent hand, the door, and left Noah the window from which he might look upward to the place from whence all the judgement had emanated, and see that no judgement remained for him. The saved family could only look upward, because the window was "above" (Genesis 6:16) They could not see the waters of judgement, nor the death and desolation which those waters had caused. God's salvation - the "gopher wood," stood between them and all these things. They had only to gaze upward into a cloudless heaven, the eternal dwelling place of the One who had condemned the world, and saved them.”]]
Noah could not look out to see if the green tree had sprouted. He had to send a dove to find that out. His account seems to be that of an observer, yet he did not observe.
“Gopher wood” is unknown to us but it is suggested it was any of the trees of the resinous kind, such as pine, fir, or cypress, most probably cypress. Most translations just leave the term as “gopher wood).
ONE MORE PROBLEM
[2]. I FIND THIS A PROBLEM VERSE - GENESIS 7:11:-
{{Genesis 7:11 “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.”}}
All sorts of hypotheses have been advanced for “the fountains of the great deep”. Most seem to take it as the seas bursting forth but that would create all sorts of enormous water flows and tidal waves and therefore extreme violence and such a thing would cause huge destruction and chaos. There would be no alternative to this cataclysmic happening. The earth pulled from its axis would also do that and that reason is a suggestion by the Creation Research Institute (Answers in Genesis) (Creation Science) too. The flood also is how they explain all the geological formations and the oil and coal fields.
I have a lot of difficulty with the position of Creation Science. PLEASE NOTE – THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON THE ORGANISATION. I see it as utterly impossible that the oil basins – some more than 10 000 feet deep – and the thick solid coal seams, all the geological strata that are twisted due to folding, etc. and metamorphic rock forming from sedimentary rocks and deposits over a huge length of time and pressure, could possibly have been formed by violent water in turmoil, and anyone who has experienced a violent flood knows debris is all over the place, all dispersed and mixed up. All the trees could not be gathered and stacked for coal seams and all the animals gathered to be placed in oil basins some up to 10 000 feet deep. Oil comes from marine animals anyway.
Frankly I don’t know what is understood by this expression about the fountains of the deep, but if it means the way I have mentioned then it would have to be a worldwide flood. That of course assumes that oceans were existent so their contents could be spilled onto the land. That verse is used in support of a universal flood. If the ocean’s contents poured onto the land then it would have left a sea-flooded land of salt water and nothing would grow in the short term not even the tree leaf the dove brought back.
AND THE RAIN CAME DOWN!
{{Genesis 7:12 “And the rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.”}}
The verse above would hardly seem to make sense if there were great tidal waves, as rainfall would be insignificant, especially so in the light of this verse too:-
{{Genesis 7:17 “Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days; and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.”}}
That verse would suggest that it was the waters of the rainfall that were causing the rising. It was the rainfall that lifted up the ark not any rushing from tipped out ocean basins. How much rain would be needed to cover Everest??
Now to make sense of the two previous verses, IF there were tidal waves caused by an emptying of the ocean’s contents then the Ark would have been swept along at enormous speed, jolted and overturned in huge swirling waters, and could have been pushed many thousands of miles (if it was still upright, which it would not be). Such a tsunami flood would have swamped the ark.
NOW A GREATER PROBLEM
[3]. NOW WE ENTER EVEN MORE PROFOUND PROBLEMS. CONSIDER THIS VERSE:-
{{Genesis 7:19 “And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.”}}
How is this to be understood? - Universally or Locally? This is important for the discussion.
NOW FOR SOME MATHEMATICS
*** The surface area of the entire planet is 510.1 million square km.
*** If all the high mountains under heaven were covered them the water would have to be 8,849 metres deep because that is the height of Everest.
*** Therefore the volume of water on the earth to do that would have to be 510.1 million square km multiplied by 8.849 km.
*** That would be 510,100,000 square km multiplied by 8,849 km and the answer would be 4,513,874,900 cubic kilometres of water to cover the earth so all mountains are covered.
*** The entire volume of water in the oceans of the world is (1.332 billion cubic kilometers) =
1,332,000,000 cubic kilometres of sea water.
*** Therefore to cover Everest with water (over the whole earth) would be 4,513,874,900 cubic kilometres of water would be 3.38 times the volume in the oceans.
BUT remember if we emptied the ocean basins so they would have to be filled up to 8,849 metres above their present height to keep equilibrium, so an enormous lot more water is needed for that. You could be looking at 5 times or more the volume of water the ocean.
Now if it was just rainfall then you would need that same amount of rain - 4,513,874,900 cubic kilometres of water. Let us start to get real.
WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION? Well it is impossible for Noah’s flood to be a universal flood because there is not enough water by a loooooooong way! It seems certain that the flood was of natural causes, not a supernatural “appearing then disappearing” of water.
I am not sure how the CRI group answers this - “so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered”, in relation to the highest of mountains. I think some have devised a “fact” that AFTER the flood there was a great uplift of ranges around the world that gives the present heights. I think they hold to some rather flat earth before the flood with hills. Now there is no evidence for that speculation at all and it doesn’t hold water. (Sorry). Some speak of the ice caps as swallowing the excess water. Again fanciful.
THE PERCEPTION OF THE WRITER OF THE FLOOD (OR THE NARRATOR)
I wonder too about the perception of the writer of the flood account. (Just how did Moses receive it is another matter - was it by oral tradition or all by direct inspiration of God?). If you were giving me an account of a large flood in your area you could well say that the water was half way up the highest hill (which for your area may be only 100 feet high). I am saying that a local interpretation may have been used to speak of the spread of the flood (as in an eyewitness account, even though Noah could not see out, only up).
That being so, there are a few problems with that. (a). “Everywhere under the heavens” seems to indicate wider than just local perception. (b). Noah was not permitted to see from the high window so how did he know that fact apart from direct inspiration. There was certainly no account kept by the locals. The expression can easily have related to their local perception as this is the language of personal description.
[4]. THE CATEGORICAL STATEMENT – WHAT THE FLOOD DID
{{Genesis 7:23 “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.”}}
This verse can still be understood in a local sense but depends on the extent on any land based life. If a lengthy dating system is accepted then one would feasibly expect human life to have spread throughout the world, meaning a universal flood. BUT if the usual chronology is accepted and if there were confines somehow, then it would be more local in extent. Is it actually possible that all human life was destroyed and all other life WITHIN the human confines destroyed also? Note this verse:-
{{Genesis 7:21 And 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.”}}
Again what is understood by “upon the earth”? Is it within the perspective of mankind’s migratory limits with the flood being sufficient to destroy all life within the human limits?
I still have a problem with the Australian component here. This country is full of marsupials found nowhere else. How did they get here? There is no record of their existence in Europe and Asia which would have to be the case if they migrated from the Ark. In fact they would still be living in Asia and Europe somewhere. What about all the Eucalypts? They grow nowhere else, as if Australia was left in a time capsule. I know all this is not directly related to the flood but there has to be some point of explanation somewhere. Did Australia not suffer from the flood because no human lived here and no marsupials were on the Ark because they certainly did not go from Australia to the ark, only to return again, and the FLOOD WAS LOCAL?
ANOTHER TRICKY VERSE
[5]. THIS VERSE IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND – THE TERMS USED:-
{{Genesis 7:20 “The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.”}}
This seems to be a very strange way to state the fact. What is meant by “fifteen cubits higher?” Twenty-two and a half feet higher and the mountains were covered. How significant, but strange, is this measure? It is of none whatever in a universal flood but could be in a local deluge. The writer seems to be saying that there was rising flood water but it went up another 23 feet and the mountains were covered! Just how is this to be understood? Such a small rise to see all the “mountains” covered? Rather small hills. Quite a local flood, but sufficient to wipe out all life in the human habitation area.
That verse is a very real problem for me.
ANOTHER PROBLEM I HAVE IS THE TIME OF THE WATER ON THE EARTH:-
{{Genesis 7:24 “And the water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.”}}
How is this to be understood? As the land generally is higher than the sea, flood waters move from the land fairly quickly. The Middle East is somewhat below sea level in parts but the Ark finished on a rise in Ararat. We don’t know the path of the Ark.
Just some thoughts here and I hope I do not give the impression of indecision. I have not felt comfortable with any position on the flood as you might detect, but a lot more inclined to a local flood. I am pretty certain it could only be local in the sense of achieving all it was meant to do. As I said before – “I believe it to be as wide as it needs to be, and as narrow as it must be.” In an attempt to answer one matter, others arise. I can’t accept what CRI says about a number of things such as fossil formations through the flood and the creation of all the fossil fuel reserves and all the geological strata to must sit in their logic to push the young earth idea.
The flood was a fact and all human life was destroyed. The extent of it I don’t know and can not be sure exactly what is meant by some of the expressions.
A few late jottings-
*** But is "the whole heaven" merely the perspective of one in the ark - and reading the facts from that perspective?
*** Do you think that the ark rested on the top of Ararat? There are many foothills attached to that range. I believe the ark could have been on quite low slopes of the Ararat range.
*** If all the high hills went under by 22 and a half feet (15 cubits) then so did Everest. At 29 000 feet would one ever conceive how much water that would have to be? That is nearly 6 miles of water over the whole face of the earth and up to 12 miles deep in the deepest ocean trench.
*** I note the terminology that the water steadily rose so it was a gradual rising of water. You either have to believe the whole world covered with such an astronomical amount of water, or an account that focused on the habitated area that may not have been wide in extent. Any way that is enough for now.
THE CONCLUSION TO ALL THIS
{{2Peter 2:5 “and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly.”}}
God brought the flood upon the world but it was upon the world of the ungodly, not upon the created planet. This is very important because the extent of the flood was sufficient to destroy the world of the ungodly. Civilization had not extended far. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate mankind had progressed very far from the original centre. Indeed Noah is building the ark in the very area of Adam’s descendants. The genealogy of Genesis chapter 5 indicates those people must have been in relatively close contact geographically.
I suppose there are problems with the account of the flood for whatever position one takes. There are so many problems, huge ones, for those who accept a universal flood. The BOTTOM LINE however, is that Genesis is not meant to be a book of science or geography, but of God’s dealings with human beings He created and loves. Once we try to get too scientific about what is in Genesis and try to fit everything in Genesis, into all science especially geology and astronomy, we can get off the track.
I will not stand on any soapbox in this regard. I want to address the spiritual matters, and only did this message because of the debates some people have with the science stuff. I respect the honest views different Christians have and we all know we never agree on everything, especially in areas where God has remained silent.
God bless everyone.
ronaldf@aapt.net.au
