Richard M. Davidson
And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. Genesis 7:19, 20.
The traditional interpretation of Genesis 6-9 affirms the global extent of the Genesis Flood, but in recent times various limited-flood theories have been suggested that narrow its scope to a particular geographical location in Mesopotamia, the Black Sea, or elsewhere. Limited-flood theories rest primarily on scientific arguments that set forth seemingly difficult geological problems for a global flood. These arguments generally assume uniformity in the history of the earth’s geology. However, numerous recent scientific studies provide a growing body of evidence for diluvial catastrophism (catastrophic changes through a flood) instead of uniformitarianism.1
Uniformitarianism is the concept that geological processes occur by the action of natural laws that are always the same, and by processes that can be observed today.
Evidence for a global Flood – Only the traditional understanding of Genesis 6-9 as depicting a global Flood does full justice to all the biblical data. Many lines of biblical evidence converge in affirming the global extent of the Flood: (1) all the major themes in Genesis 1-11 (Creation, Fall, plan of redemption, spread of sin) are universal in scope and call for a matching universal judgment in the Flood; (2) the genealogical lines from both Adam (Gen 4:17-26; 5:1-31) and Noah (Gen 10:1-32; 11:1-9) are exclusive in nature, indicating that as Adam was the father of all pre-Flood humanity, so Noah was father of all post-Flood humanity, thus clearly implying that all humanity on the globe outside of the ark perished in the Flood; (3) the same inclusive divine blessing “Be fruitful and multiply” is given to both Adam and Noah (Gen 1:28; 9:1), indicating that Noah is a “new Adam,” re-populating the world as did the first Adam; (4) God’s covenant and rainbow sign (Gen 9:9-18) are linked with the extent of the Flood; if there had been only a local flood, then the covenant would be only a limited covenant; (5) the viability of God’s promise (Gen 9:15; cf. Isa 54:9) is at stake in the worldwide extent of the Flood; if only a local flood occurred, then God has broken His promise every time another local flood has happened; (6) the universality of the Flood is underscored by the enormous size of the ark (Gen 6:14, 15) and the stated necessity for saving all the species of animals and plants in the ark (Gen 6:16-21; 7:2, 3); a massive ark filled with representatives of humanity and all non-aquatic animal/plant species would be unnecessary if this were only a local flood; Noah and his family and the animals could have simply escaped to another region of the earth; (7) the covering of “all the high mountains” of the pre-Flood Earth (which were not as high as today’s post-Flood uplifted mountain ranges) by at least 15 cubits (Gen 7:19, 20) could not involve simply a local flood, since water seeks its own level across the surface of the globe; (8) the long duration of the Flood (Noah in the ark over a year, Gen 7:11-8:14) makes sense only with a global Flood; (9) the New Testament passages concerning the Flood all employ universal language (e.g., “swept them all away” [Matt 24:39]; “destroyed them all,” [Luke 17:27]; “he did not spare the ancient world… when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly” [2 Pet 2:5]; Noah “condemned the world” [Heb 11:7]); and (10) the New Testament Flood typology assumes and depends upon the global extent of the Flood to theologically argue for an imminent global judgment by fire (2 Pet 3:6-7).
If the Flood had been only a local flood, Noah and his family could have simply escaped to another region of the earth.
Flood terminology – Among the most important biblical evidences for a global Flood are numerous universal terms or expressions in Genesis 6-9, indicating the global scope of the Flood2: (1) the Hebrew word mabbul (“Flood/Deluge”), occurring twelve times in Genesis (Gen 6:17; 7:6, 7, 10, 17; 9:11 [2 times], 15, 28; 10:1, 32; 11:10) and once in Psalm 29:10, is in the Old Testament reserved exclusively for reference to the Genesis Flood, thus setting the Genesis Flood apart from all local floods and giving it a global context; (2) “the Earth” (Gen 6:12, 13, 17), without any limiting descriptor, harks back to the same expression in the global Creation (Gen 1:1, 2, 10); (3) “the face of all the Earth” (Gen 7:3; 8:9) echoes the same phrase in the global context of Creation (Gen 1:29); (4) “face of the ground” (7:4, 22, 23; 8:8), in parallel with “face of all the Earth” (8:9), links with its usage in the context of global Creation (Gen 2:6); (5) “all flesh” (13 times in Gen 6-9) is accompanied by additional phrases that recall the global Creation of animals and man (Gen 1:24, 30; 2:7): e.g., “in which is the breath of life” (Gen 6:17 and 7:15), “all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life” (Gen 7:21, 22); (6) “every living thing” of all flesh (Gen 6:19; 9:16) and the similar expression “all living things that I have made” (Gen 7:4), the latter specifically referring back to Creation; (7) “all existence [kol hayqum]“ (Gen 7:4, 23) is one of the most inclusive terms available to the Hebrew writer to express totality of life; (8) “all on the dry land” (Gen 7:22) indicates the global extent of the Flood, but clarifies that this world-wide destruction is limited to terrestrial creatures; (9) “under the whole heaven” (Gen 7:19) a phrase that is always universal elsewhere in Scripture (see e.g., Exod. 17:14; Deut 4:19), in contrast with the word “heaven” alone which can have a local meaning (e.g., 1 Kings 18:45); and (10) “all the fountains of the Great Deep [tehom]” (Gen 7:11; 8:2), harks back to the same expression “Deep” or world-ocean (tehom) in Gen 1:2.
The many links with the global creation in Genesis 1, 2 show that the Flood is an eschatological, step-by-step, global “uncreation,” followed by a step-by-step global “re-creation.” It is difficult to imagine how the biblical writer could have used any more forceful expressions than these to indicate the global extent of the Genesis Flood.
1 See especially the summaries of this evidence by Harold G. Coffin, Robert H. Brown, and L. James Gibson, Origin by Design, revised edition (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2005); Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1961); and Ariel Roth, Origins: Linking Science and Scripture (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1998).
2 See Richard M. Davidson, “The Genesis Flood Narrative: Crucial Issues in the Current Debate,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 42.1 (2004): 49-77.