Does the Bible Say that Noah’s Flood was Global?

 One of the most common compromised positions is to claim that Noah’s Flood was just a local flood. Some try to connect it to events in the Black Sea, while others are ambiguous about it. So, what does the Bible really say about the extent of Noah’s Flood?

Genesis 7:11-24
11, In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12, And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
13, In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14, They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15, And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16, And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
17, And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18, And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19, And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20, Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21, And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22, All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23, And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24, And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

If you look closely at these verses, you will see the repeated use of universal terms such as every and all. It does not say all the animals in the area where Noah lived died, there is no qualification. Furthermore, it says that “all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered” and that the mountains were covered with 15 cubits (about 22 ft.) of water. There is no way that even local mountains could be covered by 22 feet of water, and it simply refers to a local flood. Everything in this description says that it was a global flood.

Genesis 8:1-5
1, And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
2, The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
3, And the waters returned from off the earth continually and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
4, And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
5, And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

The duration of the flood, and the fact that the ark landed in a mountainous area point to a global flood. If this had been some local flood even given 40 days worth of rain it would not have taken the better part of a year for the water to drain. Furthermore, the ark would have ended up in the lowlands, it probably would have been washed out to sea to eventually settle on a beach. Nothing in this description implies a local flood, but everything points to a global flood.

It is clear from reading the relevant passages, the Bible is intending to say that the Genesis Flood was global. In fact, as you read these verses it is clear that God is going out of his way to drive this point home. it is like He is saying, “Hey stupid it was a global flood.” There is really no other legitimate interpretation of what the Bible says. The only reason for claiming otherwise is that you think that atheists know more about the origin and history of the world than God does.

Many pieces of fossil evidence support this including the fact that 95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates despite being found dry land. This strongly suggests that at one time the continents were completely covered by water exactly what you would expect from a global flood.

References
The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings

Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries: How the Genesis Flood makes sense of dinosaur evidence—including tracks, nests, eggs, and scavenged bones

The Global Flood: A biblical and scientific look at the catastrophe that changed the earth

After the Flood

Help support these articles.

Make purchases on Amazon through this link:

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock

Warrior Press

Creationism versus Naturalism.

 Contrary to what you may think Creationism is not the alternative to evolution, but rather it is the alternative to Naturalism. This confusion has often been used to argue against the scientific nature of creation science. This distinction is very important to understand the difference between scientific theories and their philosophical underpinnings. This is known as philosophy of science.

When you are trying to understand the regular functioning of some aspect of the universe in the present, such that it can be tested or observed, then the differences in these philosophical presuppositions are insignificant since this is by definition what a natural phenomenon is. However, when you are looking at a past event that is either reported to be supernatural or for which there are other reasons for attributing the event to supernatural agency, then the differences between these two philosophical presuppositions will be significant. Furthermore, if an event was indeed supernatural in nature and you try to describe what happened based on absolute naturalism, you will not get the right answer. The problem with philosophical naturalism is that it makes it impossible to conclude that an event was supernatural regardless of the evidence.

Under philosophical naturalism, only natural processes are considered to exist. A supernatural agency such as God is excluded from consideration before any evidence is even looked at. Sadly, now methodological naturalism has been used as a way of pushing naturalism in practice when doing scientific research. Whether one’s naturalism is philosophical or just methodological the result is the same. They exclude God as a possible explanation for anything regardless of the evidence. This makes it impossible from mainstream science to see any evidence for the Genesis Flood, that is it is excluded as a possibility because it is not possible under naturalism.

What Creationism and Naturalism have in common, from a scientific perspective is that they are both philosophical starting points for the development of theories. Naturalism excludes supernatural agency by definition, while creationism allows for it and considers the possibility of supernatural explanations when the situation calls for it. Both are philosophical starting points that are then used to develop theories that can be tested.

To properly understand this discussion, it is important to realize that creationism is not an alternative to evolution but an alternative to naturalism. There is a difference. Once you understand that both creationism and naturalism are philosophical positions rather than scientific, but they are both used as a starting point for scientific theories then understanding the difference between the conclusions of creationists and evolutionists becomes a lot easier.