Open Bible Data Home About News OET Key
OET OET-RV OET-LV ULT UST BSB BLB AICNT OEB WEB WMB NET LSV FBV TCNT T4T LEB BBE MOF JPS ASV DRA YLT DBY RV WBS KJB BB GNV CB TNT WYC SR-GNT UHB Related Parallel Interlinear Reference Dictionary Search
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W XY Z
FLOOD, The
Rising and overflowing of water to cover the land, specifically the flood of Noah.
Biblical Account
The narrative of Noah’s flood, found in Genesis 6–9, is referred to frequently elsewhere in the Bible, in each case being mentioned as a historical event (Gn 10:1, 32; 11:10; Mt 24:38-39; Lk 17:27; 2 Pt 2:5). According to the biblical account, God brought about the Flood because of human society’s increasing deterioration, which finally reached a point where “the wickedness of man was great in the earth” (Gn 6:5, rsv). God determined to destroy the race and to begin again with a new people who would obey him (cf. Gn 1:26-28). Of all the people on earth, only Noah, his sons, and their wives remained faithful to the Lord. They became God’s means of repopulating the earth following its watery destruction. After a period of 120 years’ preparation, during which Noah built a great ship and preached God’s coming judgment (Gn 6:3; cf. Heb 11:7; 1 Pt 3:20; 2 Pt 2:5), the Flood came in the form of heavy rain, giving rise to subterranean waters (Gn 7:11). Only the selected pairs of land animals brought aboard the vessel were saved from the onslaught. For more than a year the waters prevailed, until finally the waters receded and the earth was dry and habitable again (Gn 7:6-12, 24; 8:3-6, 10-14). When Noah and his family left the ark, they offered sacrifices to God in thanksgiving. God then promised that he would never again destroy the earth by a flood.
Extent of the Flood
Scholars who view the flood account as history are divided as to its geographical extent. An objective reading of the story would seem to indicate that the whole earth was flooded, even to the height of the highest mountains (Gn 7:17-20; 8:4). Some have argued that waters high enough to cover “all the high mountains under the whole heaven” (7:19, rsv) would extend over the entire earth. Some advocates of a local flood respond that the narrative uses the language of appearance (that is, to Noah it appeared that all the earth was flooded). Thus a universal flood was unnecessary, for God wished to destroy only the human race, which at that time may have lived only in Mesopotamia. Others point out translation difficulties in the use of the word “earth.” In Genesis 1:1, it is part of an ancient idiomatic expression denoting totality (“heaven and earth” means “cosmos”). Sometimes “earth” describes a person’s country (Gn 47:13), the soil itself (23:15), and so on. Thus, one should not necessarily assume that the use of the word in the Genesis flood story implies the complete inundation of the world.
Some advocates of a universal flood use the presence of marine fossils on the tops of the world’s highest mountains in support of their arguments. But others disagree, saying that since all the mountains originally emerged from the seas, they would be expected to preserve traces of their marine ancestry on their summits. One’s view on the matter must be determined in the final analysis on theological considerations as well as interpretive factors. See “Scientific Evidence for the Flood?”.
See also Gilgamesh Epic; Noah #1.
Scientific Evidence for the Flood?
With the beginning of modern archaeology in Mesopotamia, it became popular to associate evidence of flood destruction in sites such as Kish, Ur, and Shuruppak with the biblical Flood. Those places, however, were destroyed by different floods at different times. Their floods were also much too limited in scope to suit any interpretation of the Genesis account. More recently a “catastrophism” movement has developed within conservative circles, interpreting the world’s great geologic upheavals as chaotic remnants of the destruction caused by Noah’s Flood. That view suggests, among other things, that such geological formations may have taken shape in a short time (during the Flood) and in a relatively recent era (the time of Noah). Though that theory satisfies many, its opponents point out that some means of dating show the formations to be much earlier than the time of Noah.
Geologists exploring the Mt Ararat region have discovered on the mountain what is called “pillow lava,” volcanic rock formed under water. Such lava structures have been located up to the mountain’s ice cap at 13,500 feet (4,114.6 meters), so water evidently reached that height at one period. That phenomenon has been taken by some as a confirmation of worldwide scope for the Genesis Flood, but it does not prove that the lava was formed on Mt Ararat in the time of Noah. All it really indicates is that the structures originated under water, just as all land masses did.
The presence of “conglomerates” on Mt Ararat is cited as yet another proof of a universal deluge. Such rocks, varying in size from pebbles to boulders, resulted from a process of fusion in which eruptions of lava interacted with a violent disturbance of water. But again, the presence of such material at the 13,000-foot (3,962.2 meter) level merely indicates that Mt Ararat was born in precisely the same manner as modern islands and that the highest levels involved an eruption of volcanic rock in the ocean. Nor can such geological structures be used to imply that Mt Ararat was in the process of growth even while the Flood occurred. The Genesis account says nothing about the mountain erupting during Noah’s deluge. In any event, the material deposit would have been silt, not lava.
Interest in the nature of the Genesis Flood has been stimulated periodically since 1856, for some 200 persons have claimed to have seen Noah’s ark on Mt Ararat in 23 separate sightings. At least one report was a hoax, but many of them agree on the general nature of the object that has been sighted. Despite such apparent evidence, all concerned must admit that no conclusive proof exists that Noah’s ark is located on Mt Ararat. From a crevasse near the top of the mountain, Fernand Navarra in 1955 recovered a five-foot (1.5 meter) piece of wood, which was hand-tooled and originated at some distance from the mountain. Carbon-14 dating techniques, however, produced widely differing dates for the artifact. It has so far been impossible to locate what many have thought to be remains of the ark, despite the use of sophisticated photographic techniques.
The nature of the Genesis Flood will continue to be a matter of debate among interested parties, but it seems unlikely that the issue will be resolved unless some new archaeological or compelling scientific evidence is forthcoming. That there was a flood of enormous proportions is hardly to be doubted in the light of the Genesis account and other ancient traditions. However, the precise nature and extent of the biblical deluge must remain a matter of interpretation and speculation until incontrovertible evidence settles the issue.