Was Noah's Flood Global?

Introduction

Henry Morris, who revitalized young-earth Creationism (YEC) in 1961, wrote, “When confronted with the consistent Biblical testimony to a universal Flood, the believer must certainly accept it as unquestionably true” (The Genesis Flood, 118). For many believers, this quotation embraces the traditional attitude toward the global extent of the Genesis Flood. After all, Moses wrote, “The flood came upon the earth,” and “All the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered” (Gen 7:17, 19, NASB). What, then, gives scientists grounds for rejecting a worldwide Flood? Is the Earth’s history at odds with its appearance? Are alternative views contradictory to Scripture? This blog presents geological evidence that Noah’s Flood was localized rather than global. This evidence counters key arguments of “flood geologists” (Flood geologists are young-earth creationists who use science to defend a recent global deluge), supports critical examination of Scripture, and provides insight into creation.

Sedimentation & Fossils

When debating the possibility of a worldwide Flood, many geologists refer to findings at the Grand Canyon to support their conclusions. Morris argues that all theories, except for his, are “incapable of providing a satisfactory solution” to explain the sediment layers found in places like the Grand Canyon, adding, “It seems much more likely that the sediments all were deposited . . . by a single great regional uplift” (The Genesis Flood, 153). Such a statement certainly boasts of having no serious alternatives but is not accurate. First, flood geologists’ explanations are inconsistent. On one hand, geologist Marcus Ross stated that the Flood issued “water moving generally from West to East, cutting across the continent” (“The Genesis Deluge - Global or Local?”). On the other hand, geologist Andrew Snelling explains that the Coconino Sandstone’s pure quartz sand traveled far south during the Flood to its present location at the Grand Canyon while grains of the mineral zircon were swept westward from the Appalachians. Yet, in the same argument he writes, “The evidence is overwhelming that the water was flowing in one direction” (“What Are Some of the Best Flood Evidences?”). Flood geologists offer three directions of water flow across North America while claiming there was only one direction possible. In addition to this contradiction, is the select use of scientific dating. Snelling encourages readers to accept the origin of zircon based on the findings of the “uranium-lead (U-Pb) radioactive [dating] method.” Absent from his article, however, is the use of U-Pb by scientists to date the Hakatai Shale of the Grand Canyon between 1.1 – 1.3 billion years old and the Earth at an age of 4.47 billion years.

Accusations fly from both flood geologists and the majority of geologists that the opposition twists the interpretation of the geological evidence. Although both Christian and secular geologists often present identical geological evidence, the implications of any scientific view opposing a recent worldwide flood are adamantly dismissed by Morris as “highly speculative,” constituting “unwarranted assumptions” and “doubtful presuppositions” (The Genesis Flood, 43, 450, 489). Ironically, these descriptions may be apt in describing flood geologists’ theory when observing geological formations within the Grand Canyon’s strata. Physicist Alan Hayward explains that the mere presence of sedimentary rocks layered for thousands of feet “is evidence that they were laid down slowly, one at a time, and not all at once by one great Flood” (Creation and Evolution, 123). He then offers three specific examples of why a global flood is inconsistent with the strata:

1. Each layer would have to gently come to rest and then harden every five minutes 80,000 times.

2. Fossil limpets and barnacles would have to form on each stratum within each five-minute interval.

3. Shale, which takes a long time to settle in calm water and does not settle at all in turbulent streams, would have to form on “more than 30,000 alternating [emphasis his] layers of shale and sandstone.”

Were the Grand Canyon created by the Flood, where is the biblical mentioning of earthquakes, shifting continents, tsunamis, and rising mountains to which the sediments attests? Furthermore, why have no dinosaur or bird fossils been discovered in the lower layers? Land-organism fossils exist but are distinctly located on upper layers while marine fossils are only found on lower layers. This segregation confirms natural long-term processes at work. Paleontologist David Elliott disagrees with flood geologists’ conclusion, explaining, “the presence of raindrop impressions, desiccation cracks, and well-sorted frosted sand grains, along with the angle of slope in cross-beds, the absence or scarcity of body fossils, and the preservations of footprints, are all clear indicators of a sand desert” (The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth, 159, 205). There are innumerable geological inconsistencies in maintaining that a global Flood is responsible for all of the major geological features of the Grand Canyon.

Dividing Christians further between believing in a global flood versus a local flood is the presence of oceanic fossils atop Earth’s highest peaks. All agree this bears evidence that the sediments in which fossils are found were, at some point, underwater. Flood geologists cite this as the result of the Flood covering every high mountain around the globe (Gen. 7:19). This theory would be possible if waters had indeed covered those mountains for an extended period during the timeframe that flood geologists claim the Flood occurred: this being between 3000-2350 BC. For then, the mountains would have still been relatively high. However, Hugh Ross explains, “Some people see these as evidence of the global Flood. Geophysicists see them as evidence of plate tectonics” (The Genesis Question, 158). Earth’s crust shifts from tectonic plate movements resulting in collisions that produce mountain ranges, such as the Himalayas, rising at an average of fifteen millimeters per year. The tectonic shift of the Flood would have increased the sea level over 3,500 feet. This hardly accounts for the submersion of the 30,000 feet above sea level climax of the Himalayas. Since geophysicists conclude that such mountains as the Himalayas have been growing for 15 million years, marine fossils would have been present before the rising. Such geological evidence is not limited to mountains. Ross explains that the North American prairies contain “huge limestone and fossil-fuel deposits” that evidence its submersion for “tens of millions of years under a huge shallow sea” (The Genesis Question, 159).

If the Genesis Flood were global, geologists would expect to find modern animals fossilized in the various layers of sediment. Such evidence is absent from the strata forming the Grand Canyon. David Montgomery’s own observations corroborate other geologists’ conclusion that “the vast majority of fossils are extinct species” (The Rocks Don't Lie, 27). Geologists would expect to find fossils of modern animals among those with extinct species if a global Flood was responsible for their deaths. Moreover, the marine limestone formations consist of the skeletons and shells of certain organisms who compress into carbonate rock over long periods of time. These organisms would not have existed in the turbid waters of a violent flood. Again, the same evidence used by flood geologists for a global flood supports, instead, the existence of an ancient submerged system whose waters gradually receded.

Geological Dating

Some flood geologists are biased in dating geological evidence because they believe in either YEC or old-earth creationism (OEC). Their presuppositions can affect their conclusions of the evidence because they are logically trying to fit the new information within the framework of what they believe to be a sound understanding of Earth’s history. One major difference between the two groups is significant. Those who ascribe to YEC have rejected the possibility of accepting ancient geological events, whereas believers in OEC have the freedom to follow geological evidence toward relatively recent or ancient dates. This difference attributes greater theological risk toward the YEC party since they must abandon reasonable interpretation of the evidence to uphold their views on creation.

The majority agreement by geologists for an old Earth is overwhelming. Just 24 years ago, Hayward knew of no eminent geologist who rejected an Ancient earth (Creation and Evolution, 204). But in 2016, Grand Canyon geology expert Carol Hill and Geoarchaeologist Stephen Moshier write, “Nearly all modern geologists – including Christian geologists – find no physical support for [flood geology] interpretation of the Grand Canyon geology” (The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth, 21). Geophysicist Walter Pitman and geologist William Ryan add that since 1840, “Geologists abandoned the flood” and, “By the 1850’s, Christian men of science overwhelmingly believed Earth was extremely old” (Noah's Flood, 35, 140). On this point, even Morris agreed, writing, “Many thousands of trained geologists, most of them sincere and honest in their conviction of the correctness of their interpretation of the geological data, present an almost unanimous verdict against the Biblical accounts of creation and the Flood” (The Genesis Flood, 117-8). It must be noted that Morris identifies “the Biblical accounts” as consistent with views of YEC.

How, then, do flood geologists accept recent dates for sedimentary layers and fossils that contradict the majority of eminent geologists’ views? First, although the Earth bears evidence of regional floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and meteorites, flood geologists often use the effects of these cataclysmic events as support for a global Flood. Second, evidence of any submerged land is used to conclude that the cause is the Flood. For instance, the boulders atop the cliffs near Marseille, France are attributed by flood geologists to a worldwide Flood. However, such claims do not stand up to geological scrutiny. Hayward explains, “These boulders are nearly always rounded, as if they had been rolled around on a river or sea bed for long periods” (Creation and Evolution, 121). Additionally, a slow process of water descension would account for their remaining presence, rather than a turbulent flood that had a year to sweep them to lower ground. In another instance, flood geologists claim that the Vishnu Schist of the Grand Canyon was created by the Flood. On the contrary, Montgomery explains that in order for certain mineral combinations to recrystallize, the schist “was approximately ten miles below the surface when it formed . . . more than a billion years ago” (The Rocks Don't Lie, 17).

Quantity and Violence of Water

Some Christians stop considering the possibility of a global flood upon their discovery that the quantity of water needed to flood the Earth was unavailable. According to Ross, this is a reasonable conclusion since, “The quantity of water on, in, and around our planet comes nowhere near the amount required for global inundation” (The Genesis Question, 151). Mesopotamia, on the other hand, has the geological properties that could bring sufficient amounts of water to the surface needed to flood the area.

The quantity of water required to submerge every mountaintop in the world would need a way of receding, allowing the ark to rest upon dry land. The cause of the water’s removal is vital evidence to the interpretation of a localized Flood: “God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided” (Gen 8:1, NASB). The waters “subsided . . . receded . . . [and] decreased” (8:1-5, NASB). This raises the questions: what effect would “a wind” have and where would the waters go? If the Flood were global, then wind would have not reduced the water at all. The wind would merely create greater swells. Morris countered this difficulty by suggesting untenable solutions. He suggested that the wind would help evaporate the water (The Genesis Flood, 266-7). However, were the world to be submerged, evaporation would not diminish the water to the extent needed for the mountains to become visible after only ten months. Morris also wrote, “Somehow new continental structures and mountains would have to rise up” (The Genesis Flood, 39). Foreseeing the inadequacy of these explanations, Morris also attributes the recession to the miraculous nature of the wind (The Genesis Flood, 77n). Morris believes that this is a reasonable conclusion, comparing it to the wind that divided the waters of the Red Sea (Exod 14:21). His comparison is inadequate because the waters of the Red Sea were relocated by the wind whereas Morris cannot account for the new location of the blown Flood waters. Paradoxically, Morris’ example is an adequate analogy for a regional Flood because wind can cause waters to recede to other locations. Ross explains that Genesis 8:1 describes “effective means for removing water from an expansive, low-lying plain” like Mesopotamia (The Genesis Question, 150-1). In words that might sound like conceding victory on the debate to Ross, Morris summarized his views on the recession of water by stating, “There is no way to account for this [recession of water]. . . . He [God] could do these things in just the way they are described. We are unable to say, of course, how it was accomplished” (The Genesis Flood, 232). Thus, a local Flood is the better explanation for this passage.

The violence flood geologists claim overcame the entire world, if true, would have destroyed all living beings. Answers in Genesis shows a video where enormous tsunamis consume the entire globe from one starting point in only eight hours (“Flood Initiation,” Dec. 2, 2011). First, the displacement of water at forces required to satisfy flood geologists would have shattered the ark. Second, photosynthesis would become impossible for many years, contradicting the dove’s finding and Noah’s agricultural abilities (Gen 8:11, 22; 9:3, 20). In other words, the ecological zonation would not sustain life. On the other hand, a Mesopotamian flood explains all the perspectives recorded in the Genesis narrative without incurring these geological obstacles. Furthermore, shifting tectonics and vulcanism would require heat from the decay of long-lived radiometric elements as its energy source, and the Earth’s rotation would cause erosion. Ross writes, “Neither could have been dramatically increased without scientists today being aware of such past increases” (The Genesis Question, 153-4). By contrast, a severe yearlong regional flood in the Middle East would not leave evidence today.

Scripture’s Influence on Geological Understanding

Some authors suggest that the Flood narrative uses hyperbole to convey spiritual truth, thereby rendering geological evidence for or against the Flood irrelevant. Such writers are content to believe in the message of the story while insisting that it does not represent literal events. This is not an acceptable understanding of the account. First, the palistrophic writing common to Jewish narrative is suited to present the story of a real-life history. Second, precise dates, lengths of times, and ages indicate a historical account (Gen 7:6, 12, 17, 24; 8:3-6, 8, 10, 12-14). Flood survivors would know and contradict the details if they were exaggerated, and the Jewish custom is renowned for preserving accurate genealogical records and dates. The term “On this very same day” is rarely used and only during historical events significant to the Hebrews (Gen 7:13; cf. 17:23-26; Exod 12:41, 51; Deut 31:22, NASB). Finally, this is the third of eleven Genesis stories, evidenced by the toledot formula (Gen 6:9). To question the historical nature of Noah’s family record casts doubt on the whole of Genesis. John Walton proposes another non-literal theory, that the Earth was never materially created, but functionally created. Therefore, he argues that God’s intent for the Flood survivors is not to re-create and populate the world but to re-create functionality of mankind (The Lost World of Genesis One, propositions 3 and 10). Were this the case, God’s words, “I will wipe out mankind whom I have created,” would have applied to destroying their functions rather than their physical lives (Gen 6:7, NASB). Most scholars disagree with both views, maintaining the position that God materially created man and expects Noah to fulfill a re-creation of populating and dominating the world (Gen 1:28).

There are several biblical aspects that align with geological findings that suggest Noah’s Flood was local rather than global. Morris uses Genesis 7:20 to support his view that the tops of the tallest mountains in the world were submerged, thereby causing geographic structures to be “totally different after the flood” (The Genesis Flood, 39). There are three problems with his assumption. First, when the mountains are “covered,” Morris assumes that this means they were submerged. This translation is in error. The word kasah means either “residing upon,” “running over,” or “falling upon.” The context is too vague to determine which of the three meanings was intended, but submerged is not an explicit translation. Second, the Hebrew word for “mountains” is also “hills.” This also applies to “all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens” (Gen 7:19, NASB). Finally, when claiming that the face of the Earth had changed completely as a result of a global flood, Morris omits any explanation of how the locations of the four rivers were known (Gen 2:10-14; Dan 10:4). By contrast, Ross writes, “If the ark were floating anywhere near the middle of the vast Mesopotamian plain on water as deep as two or three hundred feet, no hills or mountains would be visible from it” (The Genesis Question, 149-50).

Ross also interprets the dove’s return to the ark with an olive leaf as evidence of a local flood (Gen 8:9-11). Since “water was on the surface of all the earth” only seven days prior and olive trees cannot grow at high elevations, two reasonable conclusions can be made: (1) the “freshly picked olive leaf” came from a not-to-distant location unconsumed by the flood and, therefore, (2) “all the earth” is written from the perspective of those on the ark.

Essential to the worldwide Flood argument is the need for God to cause “the end of humanity” (Gen 6:13; cf. Gen 7:11, 21-23, NASB). God certainly is recorded as annihilating all living beings from the land who had "the breath of life” (Gen 6:17; 7:15; cf. 2:7, NASB). However, two considerations prevent a global Flood from being the only possibility. First, although recorded from the perspective of those aboard the ark, the presumption is that this is worldwide. Using the same reasoning, John Morris (son of Henry Morris and President Emeritus of Institute for Creation Research) assumes that the fountains and the floodgate refer to a global catastrophe (“The Global Flood of Noah’s Day”). As previously argued, the terms “earth” and “land” have alternative meanings than just “global.” Second, all those who had “the breath of life” may have been located in the Mesopotamian area. A geographically limited flood would still be considered universal, given the destruction of all people not protected on the ark. Such an explanation also permits animals like Australian marsupials and Emperor penguins to exist on other continents at this time. By contrast, flood geologists offer untenable theories of how such animals traveled to their current destinations without leaving evidence along the way or migrating anywhere else in the world.

Being “true to Scripture” means more to many Christians than just aligning the details of the narrative with scientific and historical facts. Believers often want to have confidence that their beliefs regarding Noah’s flood in no way undermine the authority of Scripture. Morris provided his own assurance that his interpretation of the Genesis Flood need not adhere to current scientific understanding because, “The evidences for full divine inspiration of Scripture are far weightier than the evidences for any fact of science.” For this reason, he claimed that the Earth’s geological features were “created with an ‘appearance’ of age! [italics his]” (The Genesis Flood, 79, 118, 233). However, the vast majority of “modern professional geologists today who embrace the inspiration and authority of the Bible . . . understand the earth to be billions of years old” (The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth, 10). Morris further justified his position by plainly stating that dissidents of this view are rebelling against the biblical creation account (The Genesis Flood, 234). This is a narrow viewpoint but shared by Snelling:

"Jesus Christ our Creator . . . spoke of these events as real, literal history, describing a global Flood [italics mine] that destroyed all land life not on the ark. Therefore, we must believe what He told us, rather than believe the ideas of fallible scientists who weren’t there to see what happened in the earth’s past. Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised when the geologic evidence in God’s world (rightly understood by asking the right questions) [italics mine] agrees exactly with God’s Word, affirmed by Jesus Christ” (“What Are Some of the Best Flood Evidences?”).

Unfortunately, Christ is only describing a global Flood from Snelling’s point of view. The Flood-context bears the same flexibility in language as that of Genesis. Snelling must also be asking the wrong questions if he proposes that the Earth’s geology agrees with his geological understanding of God’s Word. Only by believing that such a presupposition is, in fact, the precise meaning of the Genesis account of the Flood could believers rationalize the geological data they observe. Furthermore, since Snelling is a geologist, should not Christians trust Jesus rather than Snelling, himself a fallible scientist, who also was not present when the events occurred? Both Snelling and Morris insist on believing the Bible but do not distinguish between believing the Bible and believing their interpretations of the Bible. Their geological arguments would be more acceptable if they (1) would consider the cultural text of the Genesis account and (2) did not alienate other believers by spiritualizing their viewpoints as synonymous with Scripture itself.

But would God mislead readers by implying that the Flood was global? Assuming that God infers a global flood is a misperception. God made no explicit statement to this effect. First, this is a story written from the perspective of those on the ark and not by God. Second, the story traveled through millennia, languages, and cultures. While the copies appear to preserve the original account with accuracy, the difficulty in modern America’s ability to comprehend the event must be appreciated. Since the gospel came for all mankind and God desires that no one perish, it is reasonable that the Lord’s spirit can lead anyone who seeks him to obtain greater understanding (Prov 28:5; Matt 28:19-20; Acts 1:8; 2 Pet 3:9). Ross is convicted that God does not “fill the gap caused by mental laziness,” implying that Christians have a responsibility to take the journey needed to understand God’s ways (Creation and Time, 143).

Implications for Creation

The Edenic creation and the re-creation of Noah’s time bear striking parallels. Bruce Waltke highlights these similarities in his book, Genesis: A Commentary (pp. 127-8):

1. Watery chaos (Gen 1:2; 6:17)

2. Image of God (Gen 1:27; 9:6)

3. God walking (Gen 3:8; 6:9)

4. Authority over animals (Gen 2:19; 7:15)

5. Command to be fruitful, multiply, and rule (Gen 1:28-30; 9:1-7)

6. Farming (Gen 3:17-19; 9:20)

7. Sin through eating and drinking (Gen 3:6; 9:21)

8. Sin causes shameful nakedness (Gen 3:7; 9:21)

9. Three named sons (Gen 4:1-2, 25; 6:10)

10. Remote consequences from Adam’s sin upon all mankind; from Noah’s sin upon Canaan

11. Conflict between Cain and Abel; between Canaan’s line and Shem’s line

The language in some of the above passages are so similar that the emphasis on re-creation is apparent (especially the fifth comparison). Some scholars even refer to Noah as “the second Adam” since he served the same function. The Flood did not change God’s hope for mankind to draw near to him. The original creation was mostly destroyed, but its seasons would continue as God intended.

Much of the same geological evidence used to counter the proposal for a recent global flood also demonstrates that the Earth is older than what proponents of YEC believe. For instance, the fossil record dates back to 3.5 billion years while photosynthesis became possible as early as 4.1 billion years ago. Those who support OEC have views compatible with accepting a local Flood since both OEC and the local Flood view are consistent with the geological record. The impact of applying old-earth beliefs on creation changes the way Christians understand the entire universe’s origin. Instead of clinging to the belief that a series of instantaneous miracles worked contrary to the laws that govern the universe to form the heavens and Earth with an appearance of age, believers can embrace a more miraculous view that God achieved total creation through a single act that does not contradict significant geological and cosmological evidences, which independently corroborate the ages of the Earth and universe.

Conclusion

In the introduction, three questions were asked that are now answered. First, the views of geologists, geochemists, geoarchaeologists, anthropologists, physicists, planetary scientists, paleontologists, hydrologists, biologists, and botanists described in this blog reflect their respective grounds for rejecting a global Flood. Ross concludes, “No viable scientific evidence has ever been found for a recent global Flood” (The Genesis Question, 144). Second, Earth’s geology appears just as it should according to those supporting a local Genesis Flood. Third, alternative views to flood geology are not necessarily contradictory to Scripture; in fact, a local Flood still conforms to the account recorded by the survivors. Therefore, support for a localized Flood appears considerably greater than a universal Flood. The implications of this geological evidence yield support for OEC and should be considered when interpreting the creation account in Genesis. Other considerations that may guide Christians’ beliefs regarding the extent of the Flood include the ark’s capacity, animal migrations, nautical elements, reduction of lifespans, the 120 year judgment (Gen 6:3), extrabiblical accounts (e.g., Enoch, Josephus), Ancient Near East flood accounts, the mountains of Ararat, and cosmology. Read my next blog, "How Did God Create the Earth?," for more details regarding the debate between YEC versus OEC.

Sources

Answers in Genesis. “Flood Initiation” (video). December 2, 2011. Accessed August 8, 2019. https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/bible/flood-inititation/.

Hayward, Alan. Creation and Evolution. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.

Hill, Carol A. and Gregg Davidson. The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah's Flood Explain the Grand Canyon? Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2016.

Montgomery, David R. The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood. New York: Norton & Company, 2012.

Morris, Henry M. and John C. Whitcomb Jr. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961.

Morris, John D. “The Global Flood of Noah’s Day.” ICR. May 1, 1999. Accessed August 3, 2019, https://www.icr.org/article/global-flood-noahs-day/.

Ross, Hugh. Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994.

Ross, Hugh. The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. 2nd ed. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001.

Ross, Marcus. “The Genesis Deluge - Global or Local?” (video). Posted September 7, 2015. Accessed August 4, 2019. https://learn.liberty.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_513716_1&content_id=_32199735_1.

Ryan, William and Walter Pitman. Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998.

Snelling, Andrew. What Are Some of the Best Flood Evidences?” Answers in Genesis. February 13, 2015. Accessed August 3, 2019. https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/what-are-some-of-the-best-flood-evidences/.

Waltke, Bruce K. and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

14 August 2019