Evidence for God from Science

then make the Bible sound ridiculous

people laughed at noah as they thought he looked ridiculous also. the Bible doesn't worry about what it looks like, it has a message for all to respond to, a message far more important than looks.

believers need to follow God and keep His word, if they don't how can they expect others to do so and then-- who will?

as a p.s.-- in Gen. 1:28 God commanded man to fill the earth so the flood was a global one, not a local one.

plus if you read the next two verses, you will see that before the flood the animals were as man--vegetarians and no special diets. the food problem is solved.

archaeologist wrote: it is right in the flood story itself and throughout the Bible. the term used in the new international versions says-- '...the face of the earth...' that is not an indicator of a local flood. the whole Bible refers to a global deluge and if you look at research then you will see evidence has been found worldwide throughout the decades. Hapgood, Rehwenkel, Ryan & Pittman, the article on the north sea, The discoveries on the Indian coast, the discoveries in argentina and other north american sites as well.

When you read an English translation of the biblical account of the flood, you will undoubtedly notice many words and verses that seem to suggest that the waters covered the all of planet earth.2 However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible usually refers to local geography. You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God. The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."3 We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets.

The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)
Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area, instead of our entire planet.4
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.php

all those who say that the account isn't true.

Can you quote when Gman said the account was not true? Maybe not true to your interpretation of the account.

don't need to for if he is a non-christian then he is wrong. God is the one you need to look to not the reasonings of those who do not believe..


there is one thing you need to remember, it is a new testament verse which sums it all up:

with God all things are possible --- so if the world disagrees that is because they do not believe and we are not to follow such people.

Uhhhh Right
Do you believe you are the only christian on this site or something?? Why is your Interpretation the correct one? Rich Deem is the Author and the Founder of this Site. Take a look at the Article I linked above. It may help to understand where we are coming from Scripturally.

God can do all things and All things are possible through him. I believe everyone will agree with that. It however does not mean that God does not use the Natural Laws that he created to make it a supernatural event.

i could care less that he created this web site it is only a web site nor could i care less what richard deem says as keil & delitzsch state:

By the blessing in v. 28, God not only
confers upon man the power to multiply and fill the earth, as upon the
beasts in v. 22, but also gives him dominion over the earth and every beast.

the people filled the earth making it a NON-LOCAl flood.

Verses 17-24 contain a description of the flood: how the water increased
more and more, till it was 15 cubits above all the lofty mountains of the
earth, and how, on the one hand, it raised the ark above the earth and
above the mountains, and, on the other, destroyed every living being upon
the dry land, from man to cattle, creeping things, and birds. “The
description is simple and majestic; the almighty judgment of God, and the
love manifest in the midst of the wrath, hold the historian fast. The
tautologies depict the fearful monotony of the immeasurable expanse of
water: omnia pontus erant et deerant litera ponto.” The words of v. 17,
“and the flood was (came) upon the earth for forty days,” relate to the 40
days' rain combined with the bursting forth of the foundations beneath the
earth. By these the water was eventually raised to the height given, at
which it remained 150 days (v. 24).
But if the water covered “all the high hills under the whole heaven,” this
clearly indicates the universality of the flood

{bold mine}

i am sure if i had the time i could find other real scholars who agree with the Bible.

do i think i am the only christian here--no but i do think those that call God a liar need to repent

Verse 1-2. relates to the increase of men generally (μd;a;, without any
restriction),

all indication is that early man was not limited to a geographical area. it was not a local flood.

why else would we find evidence throughout the world. if it was a local flood then we would have found all the bones of all the people and animals in one area, which w do not and construction over the generations has proved that out.

It however does not mean that God does not use the Natural Laws that he created to make it a supernatural event.

you will have to elaborate here as your meaning is not clear.

i should also point out that translating is very subjective. i debated a guy once who knew ancient hebrew and did his own translating. many people omplimented him on his accuracy to an extent.

what he didn't say inititially was that he was a non-christian and tranlated according to his beliefs. it didn't take much research to see where the guy erred.

also, by some of those comments in the article deem is actually saying the old scholars didn't know what they were doing which would be news to the niv translators.

I remain firmly in the middle of this issue (local/global flood). I want to believe is was a global flood because then I would be in complete agreement with religious scholars who have looked at the text for thousands of years and never thought it was a local flood. There are many secondary references which support the idea of a global flood and there are many myths from around the world. But apart from the Bible, there is little physical proof and this is disturbing. So either the proof does not exist, we have not found the proof, or we don't understand the real science of the flood event.

But apart from the Bible, there is little physical proof and this is disturbing.

is there really? how do you know that the evidence subscribe to local floods are for local floods?

Taken from ISBE Vol. D pg. 155


Owing to the comparatively brief duration of the Noachian Deluge proper,
we cannot expect to find many positive indications of its occurrence.
Nevertheless, Professor Prestwich (than whom there has been no higher
geological authority in England during the last century) adduces an array of
facts relating to Western Europe and the Mediterranean basin which cannot
be ignored (see Phil. Trans. of the Royal Soc. of London, CXXIV (1893),
903-84; Wright, Scientific Confirmation of the Old Testament History,
238-82). Among these evidences one of the most convincing is to be found
in the cave of San Ciro at the base of the mountains surrounding the plain
of Palermo in Sicily. In this cave there was found an immense mass of the
bones of hippopotami of all ages down to the fetus, mingled with a few of
the deer, ox and elephant. These were so fresh when discovered that they
were cut into ornaments and polished and still retained a considerable
amount of their nitrogenous matter. Twenty tons of these bones were
shipped for commercial purposes in the first six months after their
discovery. Evidently the animals furnishing these bones had taken refuge in
this cave to escape the rising water which had driven them in from the
surrounding plains and cooped them up in the amphitheater of mountains
during a gradual depression of the land. Similar collections of bones are
found in various ossiferous fissures, in England and Western Europe,
notably in the Rock of Gibraltar and at Santenay, a few miles South of
Chalons in central France, where there is an accumulation of bones in
fissures 1,000 ft. above the sea, similar in many respects to that in the cave
described at San Ciro, though the bones of hippopotami did not appear in
these places; but the bones of wolves, bears, horses and oxen, none of
which had been gnawed by carnivora, were indiscriminately commingled as
though swept in by all-pervading currents of water. Still further evidence is
155
adduced in the deposits connected with what is called the rubble drift on
both sides of the English Channel and on the Jersey Islands. Here in
various localities, notably at Brighton, England, and near Calais, France,
elephant bones and human implements occur beneath deep deposits of
unassorted drift, which is not glacial nor the product of limited and local
streams of water, but can be accounted for only by general waves of
translation produced when the land was being reelevated from beneath the
water by a series of such sudden earthquake shocks as cause the tidal
waves which are often so destructive.
Thus, while we cannot appeal to geology for direct proof of the Noachian
Deluge, recent geological discoveries do show that such a catastrophe is
perfectly credible from a scientific point of view; and the supposition that
there was a universal destruction of the human race, in the northern
hemisphere at least, in connection with the floods accompanying the
melting off of the glacial ice is supported by a great amount of evidence.

{bold mine}

then we have other researchers who find things that can only be explained by a global flood. Charles Hapgood is one, Rehwinkel is another , andso on. all of which points to evidence which cannot be explained by local disasters,

the evidence is there, it just depends on who and what you want to believe.

the other part of the equation that needs to be addressed is--- faith. God is not going to provide evidence that will destroy what he requires. He willprovide enough to strengthen faith but never destroy it.

then if anyone actually finds the ark--who will believe it is truly THE ark. carbon 14 may be no good as the contamination would throw off the date, there would be no written record or blueprints to verify that it was the ark, any animal evidence would be long gone and if any were found, it would still ot prove that it was THE ark.

in all cases you are left with the one part of the equation you want little to do with---faith.

When you read an English translation of the biblical account of the flood, you will undoubtedly notice many words and verses that seem to suggest that the waters covered the all of planet earth

this statement bothers me. are you implying that the scholars who worked on the king james, the new international and other versions did not know the original languages and pulled words out of their keister just for the heck of it?

are you saying that God's promise to keep His word intact only meant that He would keep it that way in the original languages and everyone must learn themto get the true idea of what was said?

that is an old r.c.c. idea which they enforced for a long time.

then are you saying that all those scholars who worked together and could catch mistakes from other scholars along with suggest and put in different words were actually working in a conspiracy to alter the text?

And God would allow that to take place? Or He is only capable of protecting the original languages?

such thinking above demonstrates a naivity that scholars working centuries apart would be able to conspire to keep the same mistakes alive sopeople won't find the truth. It also demosntrates a desire to prove one's personal theory true while ignoring the truth.

archaeologist wrote:where did this fog come from. as far as we know, there was no fog.

You don't believe fog existed in the OT times?

archaeologist wrote:no, correct for a global flood. i don't know why they do it, i find that if God gave the instructions and said which materials to use then both are sufficient for the task. if we disagree then we say God doesn't know what He is doing and then demote Him from being God.

man is not the final authority on what was sufficient.

If man is not the final authority then why are you defending what you believed to be true? And if you believe what you say is true, then where is your scientific merit? Do you believe that God used real water to cause the flood and real wood to create the ark?

archaeologist wrote:it is right in the flood story itself and throughout the Bible. the term used in the new international versions says-- '...the face of the earth...' that is not an indicator of a local flood. the whole Bible refers to a global deluge and if you look at research then you will see evidence has been found worldwide throughout the decades. Hapgood, Rehwenkel, Ryan & Pittman, the article on the north sea, The discoveries on the Indian coast, the discoveries in argentina and other north american sites as well.

That is very fine.. Again where is your proof for this global flood? Are you familiar with scripture? What is God's objective for the flood?

archaeologist wrote:no it doesn't, even if it was a baby it would travel with its mate or future mate. there is no contradiction. by the way that is not an indicator solely for sexual maturity.

No... Gen. 7:2 says "a male and its mate" are you suggesting that baby animals can have sex and produce offspring?

archaeologist wrote:you forget that the evil one deceives many, many, many, many, many people why do you think they attribute it wrongly? when people talk about an ice age, or a few of them, they fail to realize that there was only one possibility for such to take place, that was when God initially created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void.

if you look closely at the research and then closely at the act of creation you will see that secularists may have found evidence for the act of creation and not an ice age. do a comparison sometime.

secularist have no desire to prove the Bible so why should they give credit where credit is due?

Now you are starting to sound like a secularist..

archaeologist... Since you are not addressing Rich's article I thought I would post it for you so that you could read it..

Introduction

Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth. If you read our English Bibles, you will probably come to this conclusion if you don't read the text too closely and if you fail to consider the rest of your Bible. Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis. If you read the sidebar, you will discover that Psalms 104 directly eliminates any possibility of the flood being global (see Psalms 104-9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?). In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalms 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible. If you like to solve mysteries on your own, you might want to read the flood account first and find the biblical basis for a local flood.

Give me a break! The Bible says that the water covered the whole earth... Really?

When you read an English translation of the biblical account of the flood, you will undoubtedly notice many words and verses that seem to suggest that the waters covered the all of planet earth.2 However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible usually refers to local geography. You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God. The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."3 We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets.

* The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
* And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)

Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area, instead of our entire planet.4

The "whole earth" often refers to the people not geography

However, there are many more examples of where kol erets is used without reference to any specific land, although the context clearly indicates a local area. For example, in Genesis 11 (the Tower of Babel) the text says, "the whole [kol] earth [erets] used the same language."5 We know that this reference is not really to the earth at all (and certainly not to the "whole earth"), but to the people of the earth, who all lived in one geographic location. It wasn't until later that God scattered the people over the face of the earth.6 There are many other examples of where kol erets actually refers to people rather than the geography of the "whole earth":

* Shall not the Judge of all [kol] the earth [erets] deal justly?" (Genesis 18:25) (God judges the people of the earth, not the earth itself)
* Now behold, today I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets], and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the LORD your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. (Joshua 23:14) (Joshua was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)
* And all [kol] the people of the land [erets] entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground. (1 Samuel 14:25) (The words "the people of" are added to the English, since they are not found in the Hebrew. The actual translation would be "all the land entered the forest," obviously referring to the people and not to the land itself moving into the forest.)
* While all [kol] the country [erets] was weeping with a loud voice, all the people passed over. (2 Samuel 15:23) (Obviously, the earth cannot weep with a loud voice.)
* "I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets]. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. (1 Kings 2:2) (David was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)
* He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (1 Chronicles 16:14) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)
* Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day. (1 Chronicles 16:23) (The people sing, not the planet)
* Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30) (This does not refer to earthquakes!)
* Let all [kol] the earth [erets] fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. (Psalms 33:8 ) (People, not planets, fear the Lord)
* For the choir director. A Song. A Psalm.) Shout joyfully to God, all the earth; (Psalms 66:1) (People shout, not the earth)
* "All the earth will worship Thee, And will sing praises to Thee; They will sing praises to Thy name." Selah. (Psalms 66:4) (People worship, not the earth)
* Sing to the LORD a new song; Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalms 96:1) (People sing, not the earth)
* Worship the LORD in holy attire; Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalms 96:9) (People worship, not the earth)
* Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Break forth and sing for joy and sing praises. (Psalms 98:4) (People shout, not the earth)
* (A Psalm for Thanksgiving.) Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalms 100:1) (People shout, not the earth)
* He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalms 105:7) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)
* "The whole [kol] earth [erets] is at rest and is quiet; They break forth into shouts of joy. (Isaiah 14:7) (People shout, not the earth)

The "whole earth" usually refers to local geography

Examples of where kol erets refers to a local area include the following verses:

* "Is not the whole [kol] land [erets] before you? Please separate from me: if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left." (Genesis 13:9) (The "whole land" was only the land of Canaan)
* And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth. (Genesis 41:57) (The people from the Americas did not go to Egypt)
* Then God said, "Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all [kol] the earth [erets], nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you. (Exodus 34:10) (There would be no need to add "nor among any of the nations" if "all the earth" referred to the entire planet.)
* 'You shall then sound a ram's horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets]. (Leviticus 25:9) (The Hebrews were not required to sound a horn throughout the entire earth)
* 'Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land. (Leviticus 25:24) (The law does not apply only to those who own the entire earth)
* behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken." (Judges 6:37, see also 6:39-40) (kol erets could not refer to the entire earth, since it would not be possible for Gideon to check the entire earth)
* And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, "Let the Hebrews hear." (1 Samuel 13:3) (Obviously, Saul could not have blown a trumpet loud enough to be heard throughout the entire earth)
* For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured. (2 Samuel 18:8 ) (No, the battle did not take place over the entire earth.)
* So when they had gone about through the whole [kol] land [erets], they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. (2 Samuel 24:8 ) (No they didn't go through the entire earth, just the lands of Palestine.)
* And all [kol] the earth [erets] was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. (1 Kings 10:24) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans went to see Solomon.)
* Then the fame of David went out into all [kol] the lands [erets]; and the LORD brought the fear of him on all the nations. (1 Chronicles 14:17) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans knew about David.)
* And David said, "My son Solomon is young and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for the LORD shall be exceedingly magnificent, famous and glorious throughout all [kol] lands [erets]. (1 Chronicles 22:5) (The temple was famous to all the lands in the Middle East, but was destroyed before the advent of globalism.)
* And they were bringing horses for Solomon from Egypt and from all [kol] countries [erets]. (2 Chronicles 9:28 ) (It is unlikely that the Chinese brought horses to Solomon)
* Many more examples7

As can be seen above, in the majority of instances kol erets does not refer to the entire planet earth. In fact, of the 205 instance of kol erets in the Old Testament, it might refer to the entire planet just 40 times,8 and even some of those are questionable. About half of those instance occur in the books of Psalms and Isaiah.
How could the text have more clearly indicated a global flood?

I am glad you asked! There is a Hebrew word that always refers to the entire earth or the entire inhabited earth. The word is tebel (Strong's H8398 ), which is found 37 times in the Old Testament. Curiously, this word is never used to describe the flood, although it is used extensively to describe the creation of the earth and the judgment of the peoples of the earth.

The Local Flood - from the Genesis text
Erets revisited

Let's look at the actual Genesis flood passage to determine if it can be interpreted from a local viewpoint. As we determined above, the word erets, often translated "earth" can also refer to the people of the earth. Is it used this way in the text in question?

* Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. (Genesis 6:11)
* And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. (Genesis 6:12)
* I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. (Genesis 9:13)

Genesis 6, verses 11 and 12 both tells us that the earth was corrupt, although we understand this verse to refer to the people of the earth. Likewise, in Genesis 9:13, the verse tells us that God made a covenant between Himself and the earth. However, later verses clarify that the covenant is between God and the creatures of the earth.9 The Genesis text clearly establishes (along with the New Testament10) that God's judgment of humans was universal (with the exception of Noah and his family).

Outside Genesis one (through Genesis 2:5), the entire Genesis account through the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) specifically refers to local geography. All the place names mentioned are in the Mesopotamian flood plain. Therefore, all the instances of the word erets can and should be translated "land," instead of "earth," since it all refers to local geography. There is no reason to think that the flood account is any different from the rest of the Genesis account through chapter 11.

When "all" does not mean "all"

The text uses many universal descriptions, which suggest global proportions. However, the universal text contradicts itself, if it is to be interpreted globally. For example, the Genesis text tells us that all flesh had become corrupted.11 However, the text also tells us that Noah was a "righteous man, blameless in his time."12 It is clear from the text that "all flesh" did not actually refer to all flesh, since there was at least one exception.

Local perspective of the flood

Does the Genesis text indicate that the flood was local? If you read it carefully, you can determine that the perspective is local. The key verses can be seen below:

* Gen 8:5 And the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
* Gen 8:6 Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made;
* Gen 8:7 and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth.
* Gen 8:8 Then he sent out a dove from him, to see if the water was abated from the face of the land;
* Gen 8:9 but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark; for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took her, and brought her into the ark to himself.

We see that in the tenth month, the mountains became visible to Noah (Genesis 8:5). Some 40+ days later (Genesis 8:6), Noah sent a dove out of the ark (Genesis 8:8 ). However, the dove was unable to land because of all the water (Genesis 8:9). Then, the text tells us that water was "on the surface of all the earth." This is obviously a bad translation of kol erets, since we know that the water had not covered the mountains for at least 40 days. The context makes it clear that kol erets must refer to local geography and should be translated as the "all the land" or "all the ground." In fact, all our major English translations (NASB, NIV, KJV, etc.) make this same error. It is no wonder that people who read the English translation of the Bible "literally" come to the conclusion that the flood must have been global. However, it is apparent that our English "translations" of the Genesis flood text are more than just "translations," but actually interpretations (and probably incorrect ones at that).

There is another indication in the text that the flood did not cover the highest mountains. Again, from Genesis 8:

So he waited yet another seven days; and again he sent out the dove from the ark. And the dove came to him toward evening; and behold, in her beak was a freshly picked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the water was abated from the earth. (Genesis 8:10-11)

If the ark had come to rest on the top of Mount Ararat, this would be at 17,000 foot elevation. Olive trees (and every other tree) do not grow at 17,000 feet. In fact, you will not find olive trees growing much above 5,000 feet. Therefore, we know from the Bible that the ark did not come to rest on or near the top of Mount Ararat, but probably somewhere on the foothills of the mountain.

The method by which the flood ended also tells us that the flood was local. According to Genesis, the water receded and was dried by the wind.13 If the flood were global, there would be no place for the waters to recede to. Likewise, a wind would not significantly affect a global flood, further suggesting that the Genesis flood was local in extent.

Planet Earth became a desert after the flood!

Another problem for the global flood interpretation is what happened to the "earth" after the flood. Read the following verses and see if you can see why the word "earth" does not refer to the entire planet:

* ...the earth was completely dryThen it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NASB)
After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NIV)
* Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NASB)
By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NIV)
* and in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. (Genesis 8:14, NASB)
By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry. (Genesis 8:14, NIV)

If one were to interpret these verses from a global perspective, one would have to conclude that the entire earth became a desert after the flood. Obviously this interpretation is false, so the translations must be bad. In these verses, the dryness of the earth is obviously referring to the local land area and not the entire planet earth.

New Testament perspective

What does the New Testament tell us about the flood? As mentioned previously, the New Testament tells us that the flood was universal in its judgment.10 Besides this, there is an interesting passage from 2 Peter that gives some insight into the nature of the flood:

For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the land was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. (2 Peter 3:5-6)

Peter, instead of just telling us that the entire planet was flooded, qualifies the verse by telling us that the "world at that time" was flooded with water. What was different about the world "at that time" compared to the world of today? At the time of the flood, all humans were in the same geographic location (the people of the world were not scattered over the earth until Genesis 11).6 Therefore, the "world at the time" was confined to the Mesopotamian plain. There would be no reason to qualify the verse if the flood were global in extent.

Common objections to a local flood

Why didn't God send Noah on a long trip?

If the Genesis flood were local, why didn't God just sent Noah and his family packing. Once they were out of the Mesopotamian flood plain, God could have judged the unrighteous without making Noah go to all the trouble of building a huge ark. It is true that God could have done this, although there are some good biblical reasons why He chose not to do so. Why did God make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down? Why did God make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness? Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness? Were any of these things actually required for God to do His work? No! God could have just wiped out all the evil people in the world, as He did later to the all the Egyptians' first-born. Maybe God had good reasons for Noah to build the ark? God has a purpose for each person of faith to join Him in preaching His message. God's plan will be accomplished regardless of our participation in it. However, God gives obedient humans the privilege of participating in God's plans. Likewise, God had a plan for Noah, part of which was for him and his sons to demonstrate their commitment and perseverance to the Lord.

One will notice in the judgments that God renders, He almost always gives a warning to those who are being judged. For example, God sent angels to Sodom before it was to be destroyed,14 sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them of the judgment to come,15 and will send two prophets to warn the people of the earth of the final judgment.16 The building of the ark was a great testimony of the coming judgment, since it was preached for 100 years during the building of the ark. The New Testament states this idea directly, since it says that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness":

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:4-5)

If God had told Noah to just migrate away from the flood area, the people would not have been warned of the impending judgment. Ultimately, they were without excuse in their rebellion against God, since the impending judgment was proclaimed to them for 100 years before it happened. Likewise, God will send two preachers for 1260 days prior to the ultimate judgment of God.16 Those who get on God's ark (Jesus Christ) will be saved from the judgment and pass from death to eternal life.

God promised no more floods like the Genesis flood

What about the Genesis 9:11 and 9:15. If the flood was local, did God lie, since floods have destroyed local areas since the Genesis flood.

"And I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:11)
and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:15)

The first part of the verse is a promise not to exercise universal judgment by means of a flood, "all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood." The flood, although local in extent, was global in judgment, since all humanity lived in the same locale. It wasn't until God confused the languages (Genesis 11) that people began to spread over the earth. So, God promised to never again execute universal judgment of humans by means of a flood. The second part, "never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth" can be explained by other verses found in the Genesis flood account.

Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

The passage in this instance refers to the people of the earth, since planet earth itself was not corrupt. Likewise, Genesis 9:11 is referring to the people of the earth rather than the planet itself. Ultimately, even if the flood were global, it did not "destroy the earth," but just the people on the earth. As stated above, "people" is often understood from the Hebrew word erets.

Why did God required Noah to take animals if the flood was local?

Some animals are indigenous only to that area. More importantly, it would have taken hundreds of years longer to replace the fauna if everything had been wiped out and had to migrate back in. In addition, Noah would have had a huge problem replacing his herds.

Why were birds on the ark?

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? They could simply have flown to a nearby mountain range. Most birds (other than a few migratory birds) have a very localized territory. They would have been killed in the local flood, since they are not designed to fly long distances. Certainly archaeopteryx was not a strong flyer. Hummingbirds would drop dead in 20 minutes or less. One thing that you will notice when there is a strong rain is that birds do not fly. Flying in heavy rain is not easy. They would have sat on their perches until the water drowned them.

How could the flood waters rise 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains in a local flood (Genesis 7:20)?

The Hebrew word "har" occurs 649 times in the Old Testament. In 212 instances, the word is translated "hill" or "hills" or "hill country". In Genesis, it is translated "hill" in 10 out of 19 occurrences. Of course, 4 out of 9 times that it is translated as "mountain" is in the flood passage (the translators were wearing their global glasses when they did that translation!). In every instance in Genesis, the text could be translated "hill". Since no specific mountain range is mentioned in this verse, it is likely that the word refers to the hills that Noah could see.

If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark to escape death?

Some animals are indigenous only to the Mesopotamian area. More importantly, it would have taken hundreds of years longer to replace the fauna if everything had been wiped out and had to migrate back in. In addition, Noah would have had a huge problem replacing his herds.

Conclusion

This paper has shown that the Bible declares the Genesis flood to be local in extent, though universal in its judgment of humans (with the exception of Noah and his family). The evidence presented here is purely biblical, although a strong case could also be given for extra-biblical reasons. A global interpretation of the Genesis flood requires that certain non-flood-related verses of the Bible contradict each other. In addition, a global interpretation of the Genesis flood would require the Genesis text to contradict itself. The lack of global references in the book of Genesis through chapter 11 (with the exception of Genesis 1), reveals that all the early events of Genesis occurred in a small geographic area. In addition, an examination of the original Hebrew text of the Genesis flood account demonstrates that the global wording of our English translations misrepresents the original intent of the passage. Your assignment at this point is to re-read the Genesis flood text with the words "land" or "people" (depending upon the context) substituted where for the word "earth." When you are finished, you will discover a remarkably different flood account than what you have read before.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.php

Interesting article, but I am intrigued most by Mr. Deem's attempts to discredit the work of hundreds of "english speaking" biblical scholars and interpreters through the centuries, in favor of his own "english" interpretation. I guess all along the english speaking world has misinterpreted, early hebrew writings. Well apparently, the hebrew interpreters did also, because many midrash commentaries of the torah and the torah interpretations also say "earth" not "land" and it was generally accepted that the flood was universal, global and wholly destructive.

archaeologist... Since you are not addressing Rich's article I thought I would post it for you so that you could read it..

well thank you but i wasn't going to address it but now i have to:

In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalms 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible.

WHY? where is his scholarly research to back him up?

However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective,

this doesn't make sense? even before hillary clinton declared the world a village, people thought globally.

You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God.

so everyone else is stupid but him? all those hebrew scholars who translated the Bible missed this except him? Does he know the language which he can speak so authoritatively on this matter? i think i dealt with this in a previous post, which wasn't answered.

Shall not the Judge of all [kol] the earth [erets] deal justly

but isn't he just translating the word to mean everyone all over the earth thus the word could still refer to a global deluge. this sounds like selctive translating to me.

The "whole earth" usually refers to local geography

that doesn't mean that the word is limited to that one mening all the time. this is just poor theology.

it might refer to the entire planet just 40 times

he just blew his argument right there. 40 times is more than enough to translate the words as global and not local. this is selective translating.

Genesis 6, verses 11 and 12 both tells us that the earth was corrupt, although we understand this verse to refer to the people of the earth.

this gets really bad as the author ignores the two other uses of the word earth in verse 13 and manipulates the passage to read the way he wants it to. here is verse 13:

"So God said to Noah, I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. Iam going to destroy both them and the earth."

that is a global not local reference.

Outside Genesis one (through Genesis 2:5), the entire Genesis account through the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) specifically refers to local geography

he has not proved this, nor has he quoted anyone with any real credibility to support this contention. are we to take his word for it? i don't think so.

besides, 2 peter 3:20 indicates a global flood not local.

However, the text also tells us that Noah was a "righteous man, blameless in his time."12 It is clear from the text that "all flesh" did not actually refer to all flesh, since there was at least one exception.

that is what the word 'but' is for in 6:9 all means all even here except for 8 people. the exception doesn't change the meaning of the word 'all'.

Does the Genesis text indicate that the flood was local

does God have to be redundant or talk on a 1st grade level to everyone? since we know it was global, it does not have to be repeated over and over till we are all braindead.

if you look at the passages, there is nothing to indicate that the birds stayed in a local region. then the words '...because there was water over all the surface of the earth..." doesn't indicate local at all but global.
this looks like selective interpretation, he does not provide one credible scholarly source to back his point.

We see that in the tenth month, the mountains became visible to Noah

does this indicate a local flood? NO. it only talks about the ones noah could see, it does not mean the rest of the world was not covered during the flood.

This is obviously a bad translation of kol erets, since we know that the water had not covered the mountains for at least 40 days.

why? where did he get this idea? is it a bad translation because it disproves his theory?

The context makes it clear that kol erets must refer to local geography and should be translated as the "all the land" or "all the ground

this ios not correct, in his interpretation this is the case but when you look at the rest of scriptures it is not supported.

There is another indication in the text that the flood did not cover the highest mountains

How does chapter 8 prove a local flood? when the bird finds an olive branch it meant that the waters had receeded enough to llow for vegetation to start growing, which needed to be done so the anmals would have food when they left the ark.

If the ark had come to rest on the top of Mount Ararat

the Bible doesn't say it came to rest at the top of the Mt Ararat. it says 'it came to rest onTHE MOUNTAINS of ararat" there is no indication that the ark is on top of ararat at all.

The method by which the flood ended also tells us that the flood was local. According to Genesis, the water receded and was dried by the wind.13 If the flood were global, there would be no place for the waters to recede to

excuse me????? if he remembered the beginning of the account, thenhe shuld have been aware of the fountains of the deep. there were plenty of places for the water to receede to plus he is not taking into account that all the water did not disappear. we know this as a fact from modern research.

Likewise, a wind would not significantly affect a global flood

where is his proof? how would he know? we know that the wind travels the globe thus it would affect a global flood, does this guy even look at modern day elements and their actions?

Planet Earth became a desert after the flood!

this defiantly demonstrates he does bad translating and has bad interpretation 1. the dove came back with an olive branch, the earth did not turn into a desert; 2. noah and the animals needed food, a desert doesn't provide food. how would they survive or noah be able to plant a vineyard if the earth was a desert? it is impossible.
3. the word dry here does not mean it became a desert , it means it dried out like after a rainstorm when the sun comes out.

If one were to interpret these verses from a global perspective, one would have to conclude that the entire earth became a desert after the flood

this is just stupid logic as the land would be reproducing vegetation once the waters receeded far enough.

At the time of the flood, all humans were in the same geographic location

that is not what it is saying. please provide some greek to back this up.

It is true that God could have done this

this is so bad i can't even thinkof the words i want to say.

since all humanity lived in the same locale

ditto on thispart except how does he know they lived in one locale? allindicators tell us that they didn't. he doesn't even deal with gen. 1 28 where God commands man to 'fill the earth and subdue it' this is not telling them to stay in one spot.
but i noticed he only deals with verses that quasily prove his point and ignores those which show he is wrong.

The passage in this instance refers to the people of the earth, since planet earth itself was not corrupt.

this is very poor exegetical work, there is nothing in his work or this article that supports his interpretation of the facts. the only source he has used is strong's concordance. sorry i will disagree with this.

Some animals are indigenous only to that area. More importantly, it would have taken hundreds of years longer to replace the fauna if everything had been wiped out and had to migrate back in

this just isn't true because olive trees were sprouting as the waters receeded, so much for the 100s of years. and again there is no scriptural support for this claim.

They could simply have flown to a nearby mountain range. Most birds (other than a few migratory birds) have a very localized territory

And God is helpless that he couldn't enable nd provide for the birds for that year in other areas? this is just getting ridiculous.

Of course, 4 out of 9 times that it is translated as "mountain" is in the flood passage (the translators were wearing their global glasses when they did that translation!). In every instance in Genesis, the text could be translated "hill".

so we are back to selective translating adn again i ask--where did he come up with this idea? why every time? so that it supports his theory?

This paper has shown that the Bible declares the Genesis flood to be local in extent

NO, this paper has shown what poor investigative work can do to the bible. it doesn't take much to find a few good scholars who would provide better argumentation than what was presented in this article. Kiel and delitzsch i quoted inanother post, matthew henry who says:

2. The ground dried (v. 14), so as to be a fit habitation for Noah.

there is no factual basis for the earth to become desert any where. there is little factual basis for this whole article which relies solely on a person interpretation and is designed to support a previously picked point of view.

even john wesley disagrees with the author of this article. but that is foranother time. the author of this article does not deal with any verse which obvious disagrees with is viewpoint. one i already emntioned, another one is 'he was called peleg because th eworld was divided in his time'.
which indicates that the geography of the pre-flood world was different than it is now. we do not know what happened at that time but something big took place.

the author also assumes that the wicked people were incapable of walking to safety as he pursues his point. he fails to even address this issue as he tries to prove what is not provable. this glaring omission undermines his whole thesis, leaving it with a hole he can not escape.

there is no other conclusion that can be made save that it was a global flood .

You don't believe fog existed in the OT times

no i am asking where did you, or any one who mentions it, find evidence that there was fog present at that time? didn't say it didn't exist,i am challenging its presence at the flood.

If man is not the final authority then why are you defending what you believed to be true

i am just sticking with the God and the Bible.

Again where is your proof for this global flood

i believe i posted that previously or in another thread but here is one:

Taken from ISBE Vol. D pg. 155


Owing to the comparatively brief duration of the Noachian Deluge proper,
we cannot expect to find many positive indications of its occurrence.
Nevertheless, Professor Prestwich (than whom there has been no higher
geological authority in England during the last century) adduces an array of
facts relating to Western Europe and the Mediterranean basin which cannot
be ignored (see Phil. Trans. of the Royal Soc. of London, CXXIV (1893),
903-84; Wright, Scientific Confirmation of the Old Testament History,
238-82). Among these evidences one of the most convincing is to be found
in the cave of San Ciro at the base of the mountains surrounding the plain
of Palermo in Sicily. In this cave there was found an immense mass of the
bones of hippopotami of all ages down to the fetus, mingled with a few of
the deer, ox and elephant. These were so fresh when discovered that they
were cut into ornaments and polished and still retained a considerable
amount of their nitrogenous matter. Twenty tons of these bones were
shipped for commercial purposes in the first six months after their
discovery. Evidently the animals furnishing these bones had taken refuge in
this cave to escape the rising water which had driven them in from the
surrounding plains and cooped them up in the amphitheater of mountains
during a gradual depression of the land. Similar collections of bones are
found in various ossiferous fissures, in England and Western Europe,
notably in the Rock of Gibraltar and at Santenay, a few miles South of
Chalons in central France, where there is an accumulation of bones in
fissures 1,000 ft. above the sea, similar in many respects to that in the cave
described at San Ciro, though the bones of hippopotami did not appear in
these places; but the bones of wolves, bears, horses and oxen, none of
which had been gnawed by carnivora, were indiscriminately commingled as
though swept in by all-pervading currents of water. Still further evidence is
155
adduced in the deposits connected with what is called the rubble drift on
both sides of the English Channel and on the Jersey Islands. Here in
various localities, notably at Brighton, England, and near Calais, France,
elephant bones and human implements occur beneath deep deposits of
unassorted drift, which is not glacial nor the product of limited and local
streams of water, but can be accounted for only by general waves of
translation produced when the land was being reelevated from beneath the
water by a series of such sudden earthquake shocks as cause the tidal
waves which are often so destructive.
Thus, while we cannot appeal to geology for direct proof of the Noachian
Deluge, recent geological discoveries do show that such a catastrophe is
perfectly credible from a scientific point of view; and the supposition that
there was a universal destruction of the human race, in the northern
hemisphere at least, in connection with the floods accompanying the
melting off of the glacial ice is supported by a great amount of evidence.
There was certainly an extensive destruction of animal species associated
with man during that period. In Europe the great Irish elk, the
machairodus, the cave lion, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus and the
elephant disappeared with prehistoric man, amid the floods at the close of
the Glacial epoch. In North America equally large felines, together with
horses, tapirs, llamas, great mastodons and elephants and the huge
megalonyx went to destruction in connection with the same floods that
destroyed so large a part of the human race during the dramatic closing
scenes of the period. It is, therefore, by no means difficult for an all-round
geologist to believe in a final catastrophe such as is described in Gen. If we
disbelieve in the Biblical Deluge it is not because we know too much
geology, but too little.
George Frederick Wright

are you suggesting that baby animals can have sex and produce offspring?

did you actually read the words you quoted?

Now you are starting to sound like a secularist

and why would that be?

archaeologist wrote:is there really? how do you know that the evidence subscribe to local floods are for local floods?

I suspect because we have not yet discovered a universal flood layer. Unless the flood happened at a much earlier time than commonly believed.

Taken from ISBE Vol. D pg. 155


Owing to the comparatively brief duration of the Noachian Deluge proper,
we cannot expect to find many positive indications of its occurrence.
Nevertheless, Professor Prestwich (than whom there has been no higher
geological authority in England during the last century) adduces an array of...

I appreciate the article. But I wonder? Why have they not found clusters of human bones in the mix as well?

I agree there is evidence. Dr. Baumgardner has his runaway subduction theory which has very strong science behind it (and some weakness as well). I can take the faith position, "God said and it must be so" but I have this nature that wants to understand how, not just why.

I suspect because we have not yet discovered a universal flood layer. Unless the flood happened at a much earlier time than commonly believed.

i don't think we will find a universal flood layer. given the amount of destruction over the millenia you would be hard pressed to find any consistancy.

you need to factor in: volcanoe eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornados, dust storms and so on. not to mention wars, bombs, construction.

then if the recent research by ryan & pittman, all with those who found something in the north sea and the indian coastline, the evidence is going to be found pretty deep and i don't think anyone has gone deep enough.

Why have they not found clusters of human bones in the mix as well?

i believe in south america, i would have to check though

I can take the faith position, "God said and it must be so" but I have this nature that wants to understand how, not just why

getting more details and information doesn't upset that position but can strengthen it .