So let me try putting some of this together before I move on. The key question for me is not whether the flood was local or global, but in light of current scientific evidence against a global flood, is a local flood at least a possible legitimate reading of the text? If it is then I can leave it to others to invest time and effort into establishing which it is and move on to the real meat of these few vivid and profound chapters. I will therefore comment on the arguments for a global flood to see if there is any wiggle room.
First the words used: Although the English translations clearly describe a global flood, my limited understanding of Hebrew words used does seem to allow for the possibility of a local flood. "All the earth" can refer to "all people or a local region", "high mountains" can be "foot hills", and "cover" and be "fall upon".
As for the size of the ark, it would have needed to be big enough not just to carry the animals but to carry their food supply. Noah would have needed an 18-21 month food supply for the humans and animals before his first crops were ready to eat. Noah is instructed to take food for everyone Gen 6:21 and there is no hint of hibernation or of animals not needing food. Quite the opposite in fact, he is told to take food. That would take a lot of space and would limit the amount of animals that could be kept alive.
Why didn't Noah just move? Well, God could have told Noah to move to higher ground but the building of an ark was not just practical it was prophetic. While life goes on around him as normal, Noah warns people over many years of God's coming judgment. As he does so he builds his life around a promise of God for salvation. (Heb 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20). The story happened for us to learn from and understand our current situation. Life goes on around us as normal while we live very differently. In an atmosphere ranging from bemused interest to outright ridicule and persecution, we are proclaiming the gospel and building the church.
God did promise never to judge the earth again, but that could have been a flood that destroyed most people, or one that specifically was of his making (if we make every natural disaster an "act of God" in judgment I think we will seriously misrepresent him - Luke 13:4).
How could a local flood last for several months? I don't know.
Finally, a local flood also helps minimise the number of miracles needed (is that a good hermeneutic?) ie no water canopy or creation and destruction of huge amounts of water, no sustaining of the earth under the massive forces unleashed in a global flood, no animal hibernation in the ark, no rapid evolution of animal kinds into all the species we have today, no need to preserve all the fresh water fish, water animals and land vegetation etc.
One last tricky thing. In Gen 6:4 the Nephalim are mentioned. Everyone apart from Noah and his family is destroyed but the Nephalim turn up again in Numbers 13:33. Perhaps that's to obscure to pin too much on, but what about this? Gen 4:20-22 talking about the descendents of Cain says "Adah bore Jabal was the father of those who dwell (current tense ie at time of writing Genesis) in tents and have livestock". Similarly for the others: "Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron." (ESV). But Noah was a descendent of Seth, so how come Cain's descendents are around after the flood living in tents, playing music and forging bronze and iron. Maybe "the father of all who" just means "the first ones to". Anyway, time to beach this boat and get to more profitable matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment