Introduction
Was Noah’s flood local or universal? As
this question is highly divisive between scientists and theologians, the answer
to be defended will be presented up front. Universal. From a theological point
of view, this must be the case. The questions then become, “Why must this be
the case?” and “Why do scientists always disagree with this idea?” After
answering these two questions, an attempt will be made to explain a moderately
satisfactory answer to scientists as to why the theological point of view does
not disagree with the most recent scientific investigation.
Why Must this Be the Case?
For Theologians who interpret the Bible
with a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic, who try to determine what
the original author meant when he wrote the book, it is undeniable that the
Noahic flood was universal, meaning that it covered the entire earth, not
merely a portion of it. Genesis is clear on this when it describes the flood’s
extent. Genesis 7:19-22 says:
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. All flesh that moved on the earth
perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon
the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose
nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
It is unavoidable hermeneutically to say that this account
means only “the area around Mesopotamia.” For every mountain under the heavens
to be covered with fifteen cubits of water you have to cover every mountain with fifteen cubits of
water. That means that Mt. Everest, the tallest mountain in the world, had twenty-two
and a half feet of water covering it. Explaining how this happened scientifically
is another story, but the Bible is very clear on the point that Noah’s flood,
rather God’s flood that Noah survived, was universal, not local. Period and
full stop.
Why Do Scientists Always Disagree With this Idea?
Christian scientists always disagree
with the idea of a universal flood for a few main reasons. One, their worldview
does not allow for the idea that the earth has ever operated in a different
manner than it currently operates. Put another way, they can’t accept the idea
that men used to live to eight and nine hundred, or that God, a supernatural
being, once audibly spoke and physically walked on the earth, or that a flood
of water was once so massive that it covered the entire earth because they
haven’t observed anything like that happen to them.
One author on the flood put it this
way when considering the amount of water described in the Bible. “As we
contemplate these facts with all their implications, the problems involved grow
to such proportions as to make it well-nigh impossible to believe that the
literal meaning of the words were intended, and hence that some other
interpretation must be sought.”[1] The question that then comes to mind is, “Why now?” His
worldview was so constrained by what science has deemed is possible in this day
and age that it could not conceive a world when these constraints did not
exist.
The nature and definition of science
is necessary to understand both why they can’t accept a universal flood, and
why they should. Webster’s definition of science, in the context of scientists,
is, “knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws as
obtained and tested through the scientific method.”[2] The scientific method is defined as, “[the pursuit of
knowledge through] the collection of data through observation and experiment,
and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”[3] Put more simply, science is done through guessing, then
testing, then repeating that test over and over again to see if the result is
always the same.
This basic fact about science is why
scientists shouldn’t hypothesize about things like creation, or the noahic
flood, because it is impossible to test, or more importantly repeat, their
hypothesis to come to an answer. Because they can’t test or repeat the actual
process, they test and repeat things about our natural world, assuming that
things have always been that way as far back as the world goes. This is where science as defined above stops being
science as defined above and starts being guesswork, or faith. What they refuse
to see is that science of this kind, historical science, requires as much faith
as belief in any other history, namely, the Universal Noahic flood.
The reason scientists can’t accept a universal flood is
because the things they have been testing and repeating in their laboratories
suggest that a universal flood could not naturally happen in our own time, so
they assume that it could not have happened thousands of years ago in Noah’s
time. What they ignore are the facts that (1) they don’t know what conditions
existed in Noah’s time or how similar they are to today’s conditions, (2) God
was directly involved in superseding natural
conditions making this a supernatural
event, something that science can never test or repeat, so even if they
could prove that the flood could not have naturally happened, (which we’ve
already established can’t be done) it would matter very little in terms of
disproving the Bible’s account of the flood. It is precisely because of these
two facts that they should embrace a universal Noahic flood, because the only
resource left for us to determine what “actually happened” is eye-witness
accounts, and the only eye-witness account that we have is the Bible: God’s eye
witness account.
A Moderately Satisfactory Answer to Scientists as to Why the Theological Point of View Does Not Disagree With the Most Recent Scientific Investigation
The above arguments aside, a
moderately satisfactory answer to a universal flood will now be presented in an
attempt to harmonize both modern day science and a belief in a universal flood.
It is of course unnecessary if one understands the reasoning above, but if this
theory helps to nudge some Christian scientists closer to the biblical
perspective it will be counted as useful nonetheless.
There is a theory, commonly referred
to as Canopy Theory, which has presented some middle ground on the subject. It
was originally put forth in the book The
Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris. Put loosely, the idea is
that a layer of vaporized water existed around the earth in the pre-flood
world. This is what the Bible means in Genesis 1:6-8 when it says that God
separated, “the waters above” from “the waters below." The theory also states
that this layer of dense water vapor would explain why men lived longer in
antiquity, because a more sophisticated filtration system of the sun’s rays
would have existed, as well as explain where the water came from that was
plentiful enough to actually cover the earth. [4]
While there are still questions to
be answered, this theory is scientifically plausible. There is a certain
distance away from the earth’s surface that a layer of water vapor could have
existed just as our gaseous atmosphere currently exists. It would also explain
a few of the problems that Christian scientists have with a Universal flood. It
does not explain all of the problems, but it explains some, thus it was worth
mention.
Conclusion
All in all, a universal Noahic Flood
is the most theologically accurate view to hold on the flood. While a local
flood is defended by well meaning Christians, their attempts to change the
Bible based on science is unnecessary and dangerous. If these Christians
understood the fallacy that they commit by extrapolating data to the extreme
and thus leave true science behind, they would, and should, adhere to the view
of a Universal Noahic flood.
Bibliography
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology: Revised and
Expanded. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2008.
Mish, Frederick
C. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary. United States: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1986.
Rehwinkle,
Alfred M. The Flood: In light of The
Bible, Geology, and Archaeology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing
House, 1951.
Whitcomb,
John C., Henry M. Morris. The Genesis
Flood. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1961.
Walvoord, John F
ed., Zuck, Roy B ed. The Bible Knowledge
Commentary: Old Testament. Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communications
Ministries, 2000.
[1]
Alfred M. Rehwinkle, The Flood: In light
of The Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia
Publishing House, 1951), 96.
[2]
Frederick C. Mish, Webster’s Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary (United States: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1986), 1053.
[3]
Mish, 1053.
[4] John C. Whitcomb, Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1961).
No comments:
Post a Comment