7/28/2019 The Flood, A Local Event?

1/3

Theres no question that the biblical author intended to describe the Flood as a global cataclysm.by An dr Rei s_____________________________________________________________________________________

he acceptance of a worldwide flood has been thelinchpin ofYoung

Earth Creationism

because it lies at the

heart of the reliability of biblical

historiography. But critics of the

flood story, even within the

Adventist ranks, regard it as a

fruit of primitive ignorance about

how the world functions.

Interpretations of the biblical text

have been put forth which

question whether it deals with auniversal or a local flood.

It has been frequently

suggested that in order to align

the ancient wisdom of Genesis

with current scientific

knowledge, we need to free the

text from its original moorings, i.e., authorial intent. In other

words, Genesis needs to be seen as a draft to be completed with

modern scientific knowledge. Modern geological theory has

been juxtaposed onto the biblical account to prove that a

universal flood is highly implausible. Critics would have us

abandon authorial intent in order to create our own story of theflood, a modern dayEpic of Gilgamesh so to speak. But once the

text and its intricacies are rendered irrelevant, the exegete is free

to come to any conclusions he wants, the authors words are

second guessed, details in the account are dismissed, key

information not taken seriously.

Below we analyze some of the literary devices used by the

author of Genesis which militate against the notion of a local

flood.1 Despite our own personal opinions of what occurred in

the misty past, this article will demonstrate that the biblical

author intended to describe nothing but a flood of global

proportions. A reading of the text in context with an eye to the

features of the original language will guide us in this process.

Mabbl, a global cataclysm

The Hebrew language has a very clear marker for narratives,

which involve historical account of sequential events; those arthe wayyiqtolverbs. A cursory

check of the flood narrative

reveals several wayyiqtolverbs

Gen 7 starts with wayyo}mer yh

and the Lord spoke; 7:12 read

wayh haggesem, the rains fel

7:18: wayyigbru hammayim a

the waters increased greatly.

This important verbal mark

poses a problem for the theory

that Noahs flood was not mean

by the author to be a real event

Critics usually accept that some

flood did occur. But the wayyiq

verbs also imply that everythin

in his account is to be taken

seriouslyas a sequential histori

account, including the floods universali

This the critics do not accept.

Several other important Hebrew terms are present in the

biblical account to express the extent of the flood:

Mabbl, a Hebrew terminus technicus for Noahs floowhich appears twelve times in Genesis and only once in Ps

29:10, also a clear allusion to Noahs flood. Regular, local flo

are described in Hebrew using mostly mayim, waters (cf. Ex

15:8),sipeah-mayim, mass of waters (Job 22:11; 38:34),

tehomt, naharand nahart, rivers (e.g., Ps 93:3; 98:8).

This distinction between the mayim waters, or inundatio

and a mabblof water, a cataclysmic, global flood, which

kills all flesh on the planet is unmistakable in Gen 9:15 whe

God says that the waters [mayim] shall never again become a

flood [mabbl] to destroy all flesh.

Lets also take a closer look at Psalm 29. This Psalm deal

with Gods power over all nature and v. 10 says: The Lord sienthroned over the flood [mabbl]. It parallels Isa 40:22: It

he who sits above the circle of the earth [ha}ares]. Compare

this with Ex 19:5 where God says, the whole earth [kol-

ha}ares] is mine. Just as God is seated over the whole earth, h

was also seated over the mabblin Noahs time, a unique eve

which covered the whole earth. Noahs flood then becomes

misnomer, the flood was actually Gods flood orYahweh

mabbl.

T

Andr Reis has a BA in Theology from the Adventist University of So Paulo, aMasters in Music from Longy School of Music and is currently finishing a PhD inNew Testament at Avondale University. Email: andre@andrereis.com.

7/28/2019 The Flood, A Local Event?

2/3

- 2 - Copyright 2013

Mankind (}adam). The wicked }adam in Gen 6 are the

same }adam that God created in his image in Gen 1:26. They are

inseparable from the }adam, people in Gen 5 where the

genealogies of all mankind, from Adam to Noah are laid out.

This leads into the flood account proper of Gen 7 where kol

ha}adam,all human beings perish (v. 21).

Conversely, the promise in Gen 8:20 is made to ha}adam,

all mankind even as the rainbow is a sign for the whole earth

}eres(9:13) and all flesh that is on the earth (kol-basar }ser{al-ha}ares, 9:17).

But if mankind in Gen 6 refers to a local tribe as local

flood advocates imply, it follows that }adam in the creation

account in Gen 1 and 2 also refers to a local tribe since theres

no indication that the terms apply to a different entity. And if

these chapters do not deal with all mankind, one wonders how

much of the whole earth was engulfed in wickedness (Gen

6:5). Just parts of it? Which ones? Were there pockets of idyllic

peace and civility on earth, maybe even sinless perfection?

This is hardly the case. Genesis 1, 2, 5 and 6, 7, 8 and 9 all

deal with the same }adam, all mankind.

Earth (}eres). This term can mean earth or land,

depending on the context. The word }eres is often used as a

synonym oftebelworld as in 1 Sam 2:8: For the pillars of the

earth [}eres] are the LORDs and on them he has set the world

[tebel] (e.g., Job 34:13; Ps 19:4; Isa 14:21; 1 Chron 16:29).

Compare this with Ex 20:11: For in six days the LORD made

heaven and earth[}eres]. It is also often found in apposition toheaven as the place where God resides (cf. 2 King 19:15; Isa

37:16; Jer 23:24; Hab 2:20) and to God as the Lord ofkol-

ha}ares all the earth (Zech 4:14; 6:5).

The Hebrew expression kol-ha}ares, the whole earth

occurs three times in the story of Noah (Gen 7:3; 8:9; 9:19). It

also occurs in other passages in the Old Testament not referring

to the whole earth but these usually carry a marker of

delimitation such as Deut 11:25: the LORD your God will put

the fear and dread of you on all the land [kol-ha}ares] on

which you set foot. These, along with other kol/kal

expressions need to be interpreted according to the context (cf.

Ex 10:15; 1 Sam 30:16; 2 Sam 18:7; Zech 14:10).

Some argue that }eres in the flood account could mean the

local land of Noah only. But this would require a genitive such

as the land of Nod (Gen 4:16) or other syntactical device to

help the reader to understand which land is in view. The land

of Noah would be an undeniable proof of a local flood, but this

is nowhere to be found. The forty-six occurrences of}eres in the

flood account do not delimit this }eres to a specific locale. In the

absence of a delimiting feature and considering other

universalistic expressions in the narrative, it follows that the

whole earth, the entire world, is in view in the flood account.

All, every(kal/kol). The term kal/koloccurs eight times in

the passage describing the extent and the effect of Noahs flood

in Gen 7:3, 19-23. Gen 7:19-20 states that The waters swelled

so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the

whole heaven were covered; the waters swelled above the

mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. Because of thi

all flesh died, all human beings and every living thing,

everything on dry land was wiped out (Gen 7:21-23). Schol

agree that the narrative reaches a climax in this passage to

contrast the absolute universality of the devastation with the f

that only Noah was left.2

Other important Hebrew expressions in the mabblaccou

which point to the mabbls extent are:m}od m}od, mightily (Gen 7:19); denotes utmost

intensity, an exceeding great number and even universality (c

Gen 17:2, 6);kol-hamayenot, all the fountains/waters (7:11);

kol-heharm, all the mountains (7:19-20);

kol-hassamayim, the whole heaven/sky (7:19);

kol-basar, all flesh (Gen 6:13, 17; 7:21; 9:17);

kol }ser nismat-ruh,all that has breath (7:22);

kol ha}adam, all human beings (7:21);kol-hayqum,every living thing (7:23)

kal-hahay, all living things (6:19);

pne-ha}dama, the face of the ground (Gen 7:4, 22; 8:8

13; cf. Ex 32:12), which is synonymous with al-pne kol-ha}a

on the face of the whole earth (Gen 7:3; 8:9; cf . Gen 1:29; 2

al-pne kol-ha}ares; kol-pne-ha}dama).

What is clear from these passages is that the Hebrew wor

kal (kol), all, every, entire, everything is the choice term to

describe the extent of the flood. Together with the technical te

mabbl, these kolexpressions contain the most forceful

statement that the flood was a unique, indisputable, universal

event.We also need to acknowledge that, while the biblical

author had many literary devices at his disposal to describa local flood, our author did not do so. We look in vain for

evidence of a localized event. Conversely, he did not have

any other way to express the floods universal extent in

Hebrew other than the way he did.

But despite the above evidence, opponents of the universa

flood want us to read all and every as not all, not the entire

not everything. This reading has been made false by the

Hebrew: theres no question for the biblical author that the flo

was a universal, planetary cataclysm.

It has also been suggested that because the ancient writer

could not know the earth was a globe, the flood could not be

global. But how can one be so certain he didnt know this?Moreover, this argument is a non sequitur, an anachronism,

which attempts to impose limits on ancient knowledge based

todays understanding of the world. The fact is that the biblica

author did not necessarily need to know that the earth was a

globe to understand that the flood engulfed the whole planet,

were it flat or round. The implications of knowing that the ear

is globe have little or no impact in the description of a univers

event.

7/28/2019 The Flood, A Local Event?

3/3

- 3 - Copyright 2013

The curious case of Noahs dove

Close to the end of the flood, Noah sent out the dove from

him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the

ground; but the dove found no place to set its foot, and it

returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of

the whole earth (Gen 8:8-9).

It has been suggested that because the dove could not

possibly fly all over the earth, the whole earth can only mean a

local land. But nowhere does the text say that the dove flew

all over the earth, this is an incorrect inference. That the dovedid not find a place to rest is used by the author simply to

highlight the fact that the waters were still on the face of the

whole earth (kol-ha}ares). It does not necessarily mean that the

dove flew on the face of the whole earth. In fact implying that

the dove flew all over the earth would not make any sense for

the author since he already clearly stated, using the force of the

Hebrew that the whole earth means the entire planet.

But lets entertain the argument that because the dove could

not fly all over the earth, under the skymeans as far as the

dove could fly, or as far as one could see, the horizon.The

problem for this theory is that according to simple calculations3

the horizon for a 6ft person is only about 5 miles away. Anyobservers sky area is a mere 25 square miles!

Now lets assume Noah let out a mourning dove which fliesat the top speed of 55 mph. Assuming Noah let it out at sunrise,

the dove probably flew around the ark a couple of times to adjust

its internal GPS and then darted off in a straight line as

migratory often birds do, looking for its home back in

Mesopotamia, 500 miles away. It would have flown

approximately 330 miles one way (6 hours), and having found

no dry ground, it flew back to Noah, probably in the evening as

the other dove did. If this is a likely scenario, the total area of

this local flood could have easily reached 360,000 square

miles.

This is simply too large an area to be considered Noahs

land or what Noah could see under his sky.On the other hand,

a flood lasting one whole year covering all the high mountains in

360,000 square miles could well have all the hallmarks of a

universal event! And these calculations hinge on the flight of a

mourning dove; if our primitive species of pigeon flew faster

and at a much higher altitude (some birds reach 29,000 feet

during migration), the area of this local flood could increase to

over 1,000,000 square miles! This is well over the 168,000

square miles of the local, Black Sea flood theory proposed by

Ballard.4

Noahs dove poses absolutelyno problem for the idea of auniversal flood. In fact, rather than weakening the universality of

the flood, the doves flight may be strong evidence in its favor.

The local flood theory is further weakened if we consider

the possibility that the tallest mountains in the world at that time

could be in the region where the Ark was floating, the mountains

of Ararat. If that entire region was submerged, it obviously

follows that the whole world was also under water.

Limited Revelation?

Opponents of the universal flood insist that while the floo

story could be true, it shows signs of implausibility because

according to them, God gave a limited revelation. While we c

agree that Gods revelation about the natural world has not be

exhaustive or scientifically minded, it is not unreasonable to

assume that what is revealed can be understoodby the human

mind. The burden of proof is with those who argue that a glob

flood would be incomprehensible for those primitive minds. B

this is not what we find in the many primitive, universal floodlegends found around the world.

Finally, many details in the story simply do not add up to

localized flood; if this mabbl covered only Noahs horizon (2

square miles), why build a huge boat and gather animals if mo

of the earth outside Noahs land was dry and cozy? Even in

major local flood of thousands of square miles, couldnt Noah

simply get out of the way of the waters? He certainly could ha

migrated to the Caribbean or the Americas in the 120 years it

took him to build a boat!

Its hard to imagine that a straightforward reading of the

account would lead one to conclude that a local flood is in vie

unless one is being coaxed by strong philosophicalpresuppositions. Our authors intent is quite clear that this was

global event.

A further step from this essay would be to explore some o

the global features in the earths crust which seem to point to

global catastrophe, such as the uniform layer of fossils sudden

buried by water and observable in all continents of the globe.5

Conclusion

Our study has demonstrated that the biblical author used t

Hebrew language to describe nothing but a cataclysm of

universal proportions, Yahwehsmabbl.

Critics of Genesis are free to question the historicity of thFlood from the standpoint of naturalist philosophy, uniformism

and mainstream geological theory. But what they cannot do is

continue to give lip service to the ancient text of Genesis whil

undercutting it by questioning the clear intentions of the biblic

author.

____________________________References

1.For a complete analysis of the flood account from the perspective of

Hebrew, see Gerhard Hasels The Extent of the Biblical Flood, available h

http://www.grisda.org/origins/02077.pdf

2.See for example, Mathews, K. A., The New American Commentary

Vol. 1A, Genesis 1-11:26. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 199

3.See formula here:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/15/how-far-away

is-the-horizon/#.UVgx_6vwJOw].

4. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/

5. For further reading, I have pointed out elsewhere the inadequacies an

fallacies of attempting to make the Bibles catastrophism adapt to mainstream

geological theory. Ice Cores and the Flood

http://spectrummagazine.org/node/4832 and Drilling a little deeper: how lo

has snow fallen on

Greenland? http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/11/20/drilling-little-

deeper-how-long-has-snow-fallen-greenland?quicktabs_2=0 ].