Upload
andre-reis
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/28/2019 The Flood, A Local Event?
1/3
Theres no question that the biblical author intended to describe the Flood as a global cataclysm.by An dr Rei s_____________________________________________________________________________________
he acceptance of a worldwide flood has been thelinchpin ofYoung
Earth Creationism
because it lies at the
heart of the reliability of biblical
historiography. But critics of the
flood story, even within the
Adventist ranks, regard it as a
fruit of primitive ignorance about
how the world functions.
Interpretations of the biblical text
have been put forth which
question whether it deals with auniversal or a local flood.
It has been frequently
suggested that in order to align
the ancient wisdom of Genesis
with current scientific
knowledge, we need to free the
text from its original moorings, i.e., authorial intent. In other
words, Genesis needs to be seen as a draft to be completed with
modern scientific knowledge. Modern geological theory has
been juxtaposed onto the biblical account to prove that a
universal flood is highly implausible. Critics would have us
abandon authorial intent in order to create our own story of theflood, a modern dayEpic of Gilgamesh so to speak. But once the
text and its intricacies are rendered irrelevant, the exegete is free
to come to any conclusions he wants, the authors words are
second guessed, details in the account are dismissed, key
information not taken seriously.
Below we analyze some of the literary devices used by the
author of Genesis which militate against the notion of a local
flood.1 Despite our own personal opinions of what occurred in
the misty past, this article will demonstrate that the biblical
author intended to describe nothing but a flood of global
proportions. A reading of the text in context with an eye to the
features of the original language will guide us in this process.
Mabbl, a global cataclysm
The Hebrew language has a very clear marker for narratives,
which involve historical account of sequential events; those arthe wayyiqtolverbs. A cursory
check of the flood narrative
reveals several wayyiqtolverbs
Gen 7 starts with wayyo}mer yh
and the Lord spoke; 7:12 read
wayh haggesem, the rains fel
7:18: wayyigbru hammayim a
the waters increased greatly.
This important verbal mark
poses a problem for the theory
that Noahs flood was not mean
by the author to be a real event
Critics usually accept that some
flood did occur. But the wayyiq
verbs also imply that everythin
in his account is to be taken
seriouslyas a sequential histori
account, including the floods universali
This the critics do not accept.
Several other important Hebrew terms are present in the
biblical account to express the extent of the flood:
Mabbl, a Hebrew terminus technicus for Noahs floowhich appears twelve times in Genesis and only once in Ps
29:10, also a clear allusion to Noahs flood. Regular, local flo
are described in Hebrew using mostly mayim, waters (cf. Ex
15:8),sipeah-mayim, mass of waters (Job 22:11; 38:34),
tehomt, naharand nahart, rivers (e.g., Ps 93:3; 98:8).
This distinction between the mayim waters, or inundatio
and a mabblof water, a cataclysmic, global flood, which
kills all flesh on the planet is unmistakable in Gen 9:15 whe
God says that the waters [mayim] shall never again become a
flood [mabbl] to destroy all flesh.
Lets also take a closer look at Psalm 29. This Psalm deal
with Gods power over all nature and v. 10 says: The Lord sienthroned over the flood [mabbl]. It parallels Isa 40:22: It
he who sits above the circle of the earth [ha}ares]. Compare
this with Ex 19:5 where God says, the whole earth [kol-
ha}ares] is mine. Just as God is seated over the whole earth, h
was also seated over the mabblin Noahs time, a unique eve
which covered the whole earth. Noahs flood then becomes
misnomer, the flood was actually Gods flood orYahweh
mabbl.
T
Andr Reis has a BA in Theology from the Adventist University of So Paulo, aMasters in Music from Longy School of Music and is currently finishing a PhD inNew Testament at Avondale University. Email: [email protected].
7/28/2019 The Flood, A Local Event?
2/3
- 2 - Copyright 2013
Mankind (}adam). The wicked }adam in Gen 6 are the
same }adam that God created in his image in Gen 1:26. They are
inseparable from the }adam, people in Gen 5 where the
genealogies of all mankind, from Adam to Noah are laid out.
This leads into the flood account proper of Gen 7 where kol
ha}adam,all human beings perish (v. 21).
Conversely, the promise in Gen 8:20 is made to ha}adam,
all mankind even as the rainbow is a sign for the whole earth
}eres(9:13) and all flesh that is on the earth (kol-basar }ser{al-ha}ares, 9:17).
But if mankind in Gen 6 refers to a local tribe as local
flood advocates imply, it follows that }adam in the creation
account in Gen 1 and 2 also refers to a local tribe since theres
no indication that the terms apply to a different entity. And if
these chapters do not deal with all mankind, one wonders how
much of the whole earth was engulfed in wickedness (Gen
6:5). Just parts of it? Which ones? Were there pockets of idyllic
peace and civility on earth, maybe even sinless perfection?
This is hardly the case. Genesis 1, 2, 5 and 6, 7, 8 and 9 all
deal with the same }adam, all mankind.
Earth (}eres). This term can mean earth or land,
depending on the context. The word }eres is often used as a
synonym oftebelworld as in 1 Sam 2:8: For the pillars of the
earth [}eres] are the LORDs and on them he has set the world
[tebel] (e.g., Job 34:13; Ps 19:4; Isa 14:21; 1 Chron 16:29).
Compare this with Ex 20:11: For in six days the LORD made
heaven and earth[}eres]. It is also often found in apposition toheaven as the place where God resides (cf. 2 King 19:15; Isa
37:16; Jer 23:24; Hab 2:20) and to God as the Lord ofkol-
ha}ares all the earth (Zech 4:14; 6:5).
The Hebrew expression kol-ha}ares, the whole earth
occurs three times in the story of Noah (Gen 7:3; 8:9; 9:19). It
also occurs in other passages in the Old Testament not referring
to the whole earth but these usually carry a marker of
delimitation such as Deut 11:25: the LORD your God will put
the fear and dread of you on all the land [kol-ha}ares] on
which you set foot. These, along with other kol/kal
expressions need to be interpreted according to the context (cf.
Ex 10:15; 1 Sam 30:16; 2 Sam 18:7; Zech 14:10).
Some argue that }eres in the flood account could mean the
local land of Noah only. But this would require a genitive such
as the land of Nod (Gen 4:16) or other syntactical device to
help the reader to understand which land is in view. The land
of Noah would be an undeniable proof of a local flood, but this
is nowhere to be found. The forty-six occurrences of}eres in the
flood account do not delimit this }eres to a specific locale. In the
absence of a delimiting feature and considering other
universalistic expressions in the narrative, it follows that the
whole earth, the entire world, is in view in the flood account.
All, every(kal/kol). The term kal/koloccurs eight times in
the passage describing the extent and the effect of Noahs flood
in Gen 7:3, 19-23. Gen 7:19-20 states that The waters swelled
so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the
whole heaven were covered; the waters swelled above the
mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. Because of thi
all flesh died, all human beings and every living thing,
everything on dry land was wiped out (Gen 7:21-23). Schol
agree that the narrative reaches a climax in this passage to
contrast the absolute universality of the devastation with the f
that only Noah was left.2
Other important Hebrew expressions in the mabblaccou
which point to the mabbls extent are:m}od m}od, mightily (Gen 7:19); denotes utmost
intensity, an exceeding great number and even universality (c
Gen 17:2, 6);kol-hamayenot, all the fountains/waters (7:11);
kol-heharm, all the mountains (7:19-20);
kol-hassamayim, the whole heaven/sky (7:19);
kol-basar, all flesh (Gen 6:13, 17; 7:21; 9:17);
kol }ser nismat-ruh,all that has breath (7:22);
kol ha}adam, all human beings (7:21);kol-hayqum,every living thing (7:23)
kal-hahay, all living things (6:19);
pne-ha}dama, the face of the ground (Gen 7:4, 22; 8:8
13; cf. Ex 32:12), which is synonymous with al-pne kol-ha}a
on the face of the whole earth (Gen 7:3; 8:9; cf . Gen 1:29; 2
al-pne kol-ha}ares; kol-pne-ha}dama).
What is clear from these passages is that the Hebrew wor
kal (kol), all, every, entire, everything is the choice term to
describe the extent of the flood. Together with the technical te
mabbl, these kolexpressions contain the most forceful
statement that the flood was a unique, indisputable, universal
event.We also need to acknowledge that, while the biblical
author had many literary devices at his disposal to describa local flood, our author did not do so. We look in vain for
evidence of a localized event. Conversely, he did not have
any other way to express the floods universal extent in
Hebrew other than the way he did.
But despite the above evidence, opponents of the universa
flood want us to read all and every as not all, not the entire
not everything. This reading has been made false by the
Hebrew: theres no question for the biblical author that the flo
was a universal, planetary cataclysm.
It has also been suggested that because the ancient writer
could not know the earth was a globe, the flood could not be
global. But how can one be so certain he didnt know this?Moreover, this argument is a non sequitur, an anachronism,
which attempts to impose limits on ancient knowledge based
todays understanding of the world. The fact is that the biblica
author did not necessarily need to know that the earth was a
globe to understand that the flood engulfed the whole planet,
were it flat or round. The implications of knowing that the ear
is globe have little or no impact in the description of a univers
event.
7/28/2019 The Flood, A Local Event?
3/3
- 3 - Copyright 2013
The curious case of Noahs dove
Close to the end of the flood, Noah sent out the dove from
him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the
ground; but the dove found no place to set its foot, and it
returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of
the whole earth (Gen 8:8-9).
It has been suggested that because the dove could not
possibly fly all over the earth, the whole earth can only mean a
local land. But nowhere does the text say that the dove flew
all over the earth, this is an incorrect inference. That the dovedid not find a place to rest is used by the author simply to
highlight the fact that the waters were still on the face of the
whole earth (kol-ha}ares). It does not necessarily mean that the
dove flew on the face of the whole earth. In fact implying that
the dove flew all over the earth would not make any sense for
the author since he already clearly stated, using the force of the
Hebrew that the whole earth means the entire planet.
But lets entertain the argument that because the dove could
not fly all over the earth, under the skymeans as far as the
dove could fly, or as far as one could see, the horizon.The
problem for this theory is that according to simple calculations3
the horizon for a 6ft person is only about 5 miles away. Anyobservers sky area is a mere 25 square miles!
Now lets assume Noah let out a mourning dove which fliesat the top speed of 55 mph. Assuming Noah let it out at sunrise,
the dove probably flew around the ark a couple of times to adjust
its internal GPS and then darted off in a straight line as
migratory often birds do, looking for its home back in
Mesopotamia, 500 miles away. It would have flown
approximately 330 miles one way (6 hours), and having found
no dry ground, it flew back to Noah, probably in the evening as
the other dove did. If this is a likely scenario, the total area of
this local flood could have easily reached 360,000 square
miles.
This is simply too large an area to be considered Noahs
land or what Noah could see under his sky.On the other hand,
a flood lasting one whole year covering all the high mountains in
360,000 square miles could well have all the hallmarks of a
universal event! And these calculations hinge on the flight of a
mourning dove; if our primitive species of pigeon flew faster
and at a much higher altitude (some birds reach 29,000 feet
during migration), the area of this local flood could increase to
over 1,000,000 square miles! This is well over the 168,000
square miles of the local, Black Sea flood theory proposed by
Ballard.4
Noahs dove poses absolutelyno problem for the idea of auniversal flood. In fact, rather than weakening the universality of
the flood, the doves flight may be strong evidence in its favor.
The local flood theory is further weakened if we consider
the possibility that the tallest mountains in the world at that time
could be in the region where the Ark was floating, the mountains
of Ararat. If that entire region was submerged, it obviously
follows that the whole world was also under water.
Limited Revelation?
Opponents of the universal flood insist that while the floo
story could be true, it shows signs of implausibility because
according to them, God gave a limited revelation. While we c
agree that Gods revelation about the natural world has not be
exhaustive or scientifically minded, it is not unreasonable to
assume that what is revealed can be understoodby the human
mind. The burden of proof is with those who argue that a glob
flood would be incomprehensible for those primitive minds. B
this is not what we find in the many primitive, universal floodlegends found around the world.
Finally, many details in the story simply do not add up to
localized flood; if this mabbl covered only Noahs horizon (2
square miles), why build a huge boat and gather animals if mo
of the earth outside Noahs land was dry and cozy? Even in
major local flood of thousands of square miles, couldnt Noah
simply get out of the way of the waters? He certainly could ha
migrated to the Caribbean or the Americas in the 120 years it
took him to build a boat!
Its hard to imagine that a straightforward reading of the
account would lead one to conclude that a local flood is in vie
unless one is being coaxed by strong philosophicalpresuppositions. Our authors intent is quite clear that this was
global event.
A further step from this essay would be to explore some o
the global features in the earths crust which seem to point to
global catastrophe, such as the uniform layer of fossils sudden
buried by water and observable in all continents of the globe.5
Conclusion
Our study has demonstrated that the biblical author used t
Hebrew language to describe nothing but a cataclysm of
universal proportions, Yahwehsmabbl.
Critics of Genesis are free to question the historicity of thFlood from the standpoint of naturalist philosophy, uniformism
and mainstream geological theory. But what they cannot do is
continue to give lip service to the ancient text of Genesis whil
undercutting it by questioning the clear intentions of the biblic
author.
____________________________References
1.For a complete analysis of the flood account from the perspective of
Hebrew, see Gerhard Hasels The Extent of the Biblical Flood, available h
http://www.grisda.org/origins/02077.pdf
2.See for example, Mathews, K. A., The New American Commentary
Vol. 1A, Genesis 1-11:26. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 199
3.See formula here:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/15/how-far-away
is-the-horizon/#.UVgx_6vwJOw].
4. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/
5. For further reading, I have pointed out elsewhere the inadequacies an
fallacies of attempting to make the Bibles catastrophism adapt to mainstream
geological theory. Ice Cores and the Flood
http://spectrummagazine.org/node/4832 and Drilling a little deeper: how lo
has snow fallen on
Greenland? http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/11/20/drilling-little-
deeper-how-long-has-snow-fallen-greenland?quicktabs_2=0 ].