A literal interpretation of the Genesis flood narrative—as describing a global flood—appears to conflict with modern scientific findings. This has motivated a range of other interpretations to reconcile with scientific findings. This entry explores these interpretations and examine whether there is any scientific evidence of a global flood.
Is Genesis 6-9 meant to be a literal account?
This question should be addressed through biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, rather than by trying to align the text with findings from modern science.
While there could be theological interpretations and teachings that could be gleaned from Genesis 6-9, they could not dispute that Genesis 6-9 is intended to be a historically accurate account.
The following observations support the view that Genesis 6-9 to be historically accurate account, which is explored in detail by Professor Richard M. Davidson in this paper1Davidson, Richard M. “The Genesis flood narrative: Crucial issues in the current debate.” Andrews University Seminary Studies (2004): 49.:
- The use of the term “account” (Hebrew: toledot) in Genesis 6:9, which is consistently used in Genesis 1–11 to introduce historical records.
- the genealogical content (Genesis 6:9-10, 9:18-19) and the mention of the flood as part of the genealogical records of Noah (Genesis 9:28-29) and his son, Shem (Genesis 10:1)
Furthermore, the flood is referenced elsewhere in the Bible, that appears to treat it as history that did took place (including Jesus)
- Hebrews 11:7 mention of Noah’s faith as part of what the ancients were commended for (Hebrews 11:2)
- Luke 3:36 Noah as part of the listing of Jesus’ genealogy (Luke 3:23-38)
- 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:5, Isaiah 54:9, Luke 17:26-27, Matthew 24:37-38 spoke of Noah as though it did happened historically
Given these internal biblical clues/references, it is reasonable to conclude that Genesis 6-9 was intended by its author to be understood as an account of a real event.
Is the flood a local or global one?
Argument for a Local Flood Interpretation
Erets may not always mean the entire planet
Local flood theories argue that the Hebrew word erets, translated as “earth”, used in Genesis 6-9 do not generally refer to the entire planet2Bradley, Walter. “Why I believe the Bible is scientifically reliable.” Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe (2001): 161-81.. For example, in Genesis 12:1, Abraham is called to leave his erets, which clearly does not mean planet.
“Under the heavens” does not always mean entire planet
Local flood theorists point to Deuteronomy 2:25 to argue that Genesis 7:19 “under the heavens” as not necessarily intending to mean all of planet Earth. “All the nations under heaven” in Deuteronomy 2:25 is not likely to mean all nations worldwide, but rather those within the known region surrounding Israel.
Unfeasibility of global flood
Local flood theorists also argue that if the flood were global, there would be no place for the waters to recede to, as described in Genesis 8:1. Additionally, interpreting erets as the entire planet could bring one to conclude that the entire planet not having any water bodies after the flood (Genesis 8:13-14).
No strict need for a global flood
Furthermore, the purpose of the flood was to destroy all living things (Genesis 6:17), which may not have yet filled the whole of Earth given the short amount of time. A local flood would suffice to fulfill this purpose.
Argument for a Global Flood Interpretation
Natural reading and historical interpretation favor global flood
A natural reading of the text would lead most to interpret Genesis 6-9 as a global flood, and this has been the dominant interpretation held historically. Local flood interpretations only gained traction in the 19th century, likely in response to scientific discoveries.
Biblical context favors interpreting erets as entire planet
While the terms in Genesis 6-9 could be understood in a limited sense in terms of the words used, the narrative and context of the story speaks more likely of a worldwide destruction. This includes
- the repeated use of universal terms “every”, “all”, “everything”, “under the heaven”
- God’s declaration of all living things (except aquatic creatures) to be destroyed (Genesis 6:7)
- narrative told from God’s perspective, not man
- the need for an ark—Noah and his family could have migrated with the animals outside of the area designated to be flooded
- everything was submerged, with the highest mountain at least 20 feet away from the surface of the water (Genesis 7:20)—nothing could have contained the water within a localized area
Distribution of animals likely to be global rather than local
Genesis 1’s creation account of animals were likely to be global in nature rather than local. The flood narrative in Genesis 6-9 suggested that God wanted to eradicate all life, except those within Noah’s ark and aquatic creatures (Genesis 6:7, 6:17). Therefore, even if humans did not yet spread worldwide, for God to eradicate all animal life, the flood would have to be global.
Is there any evidence of a global flood?
Flood geology is the pseudoscientific attempt to reconcile the geological features of Earth with a literal interpretation of the flood narrative in Genesis 6-9. Most of the proposed “scientific” evidence and argument that a global flood occurred have been debunked and the scientific consensus is that there has not been a global flood on Earth.
The largest known flood, the Zanclean megaflood3Micallef, Aaron, Angelo Camerlenghi, Daniel Garcia-Castellanos, Daniel Cunarro Otero, Marc-André Gutscher, Giovanni Barreca, Daniele Spatola et al. “Evidence of the Zanclean megaflood in the eastern Mediterranean Basin.” Scientific Reports 8, no. 1 (2018): 1-8., affects only the Mediterranean area and not the whole world.