A recent article on a liberal Adventist website disputes on scientific grounds a literal reading of the Genesis Flood story, and urges the church to make room in its ranks for those who read the story differently [1].
Though I am not a trained scientist, and would thus not presume to offer a scientific critique of the article’s claims, the purpose of this response is to examine the article in question on grounds far more substantial for the Christian—the testimony of Holy Scripture. The God of Scripture is not subject to the logic and assumptions of human science, but is in fact the Lord of science and of the natural world science seeks to understand.
The article in question states:
Throughout our history Adventists have steadfastly defended a purely literal reading of Genesis. But as more and more geological and paleontological data have accumulated, it has become harder and harder to use science to defend a worldwide flood. Many aspects of the story are not scientifically feasible, and the geological record is especially problematic [2].
But neither alleged scientific evidence nor the consensus of trained scientists can hold veto power over God’s written Word. The Biblical injunction still stands: “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20). To dispute the historicity of the Genesis Flood story because of scientific objections is little different from the reasoning of scholars in Noah’s day, who insisted that Noah’s prophecy was untenable because it supposedly was scientifically impossible [3]. The words of the wise man are best kept in mind:
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun (Eccl. 1:9).
A Biblical, Historical Reality
First we’re going to consider whether the Genesis Flood story is viewed by the collective testimony of Scripture as a historical fact, as distinct from an allegory or parable. Then we’re going to look at the question of whether the theory of a local flood, suggested by certain ones, is consistent with the Biblical message.
Unfortunately for the case of those who seek to challenge the literal reality of the Genesis Flood narrative on the basis of the claim that the early chapters of the Bible’s first book constitute something other than historical or scientific fact, the Biblical consensus assumes just the opposite. One of the clearest evidences of this consensus regarding the Flood story is the following passage from the book of Isaiah:
In a little wrath I hid My face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.
For this is as the waters of Noah unto Me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah shall no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I will not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee (Isa. 54:8-10).
Stop and think about it. Would God base the assurance of His mercy and kindness to His people on an event that never happened? Quite obviously, the Lord who speaks in the above passage through Isaiah to Israel is comparing the reliability of His covenant, His mercy, and His love to the reliability of His promise in Genesis not to send another flood (Gen. 9:8-17). The story of Noah’s Flood in Genesis is clearly assumed by Isaiah to be historical fact, a reality on which God’s people can anchor their certainty of their Redeemer’s compassion and merciful care.
The article in question states: “The story of Noah’s flood has long been a favorite children’s story because of its apparent simplicity of message” [4], and goes on to say:
In Seventh-day Adventist theology the Noachian flood story has been drafted for two additional purposes: 1) to stand as an apocalyptic warning of last day conditions on earth, where mankind becomes ever more sinful and degraded, and 2) to support a short-term age of the earth by using the flood to explain the fossil record [5].
One is fascinated by the total absence from the article of any mention of Jesus’ references to the Genesis Flood story as a warning of conditions that will prevail just prior to His second coming (Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27). Jesus certainly doesn’t appear to be using the Flood narrative as a mere “children’s story,” and the article’s claim that this story has been “drafted” by “Seventh-day Adventist theology” as an “apocalyptic warning of last day conditions on earth” is obviously due to the use of this story by the Savior Himself.
Moreover, Jesus is not using the Flood story allegorically or symbolically, but comparatively. Those who refused to repent and get on Noah’s ark were destroyed for their sins, and those who reject the call to repentance that will precede His second coming will suffer a similar fate. As with the passage in Isaiah considered earlier, it would make no sense for Jesus to warn His followers of the ultimate, very real fate of the finally impenitent based on something that didn’t actually occur.
The apostle Peter likewise takes for granted the historical reality of the Genesis Flood, speaking at one point of how “the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water” (I Peter 3:20), and at another of how God “spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly” (II Peter 2:5). This latter reference occurs in the context of the fall of Satan and his rebellious angels (verse 4) and the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, “making them an ensample unto them that after should live ungodly” (verse 6).
All the events here described—the casting of Satan and his angels from heaven (verse 4), the destruction of the earth by a Flood and the salvation of Noah from said destruction (verse 5), and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire (verse 6)—are listed here as warnings to dissuade the ungodly from continuing in their sins. It makes no sense to warn people of coming doom based on fictive tales and fabricated “children’s stories.”
Finally, in Hebrews chapter 11, the apostle Paul uses the faith of Noah in building the ark, warning the world of the coming Flood, and saving his family from the same (Heb. 11:7), alongside the faith of a host of other ancient worthies as a means of bolstering the faith of the Hebrew Christians of his time. This chapter presents the faith demonstrated by Abel, Enoch, and Noah (verses 4,5,7) as every bit the historical reality as the faith demonstrated by such figures from the Israelite past as Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, and David (verses 8-39).
In short, no mention of the Genesis Flood account in the New Testament gives the slightest evidence of regarding the story as merely figurative or in any sense non-factual, nor does any reference by the New Testament writers to the stories from the early chapters of Genesis treat these stories any less historically than their references to other, later Old Testament narratives. Any notion that the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be viewed as non-historical can claim no support whatever from the remaining portions of Holy Scripture.
A Global Catastrophe
The article in question asks:
What if Noah’s flood were to be considered a larger than normal flood, but geographically local rather than worldwide? What if the way the story is told in Genesis used intentional hyperbole, and the author of the story had no concern or even knowledge whether it was a worldwide event or not, but for the sake of the theological message made it a universal story? [6].
The first big problem with the above suggestions is the covenant God made with both people and animals following the Noachian catastrophe, the promise that He would never again destroy them with a flood:
And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
And I, behold, I establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth (Gen. 9:8-11).
Notice how this promise declares that “all flesh” will never again be destroyed by a flood (verse 11), just as “all flesh died that moved upon the earth” because of the Flood that had just occurred (Gen. 7:21). If the Flood of Noah had only been a local event, God has obviously broken His promise many times to both humans and animals, as untold thousands, even millions of humans and other creatures have died in countless floods across the ages.
What is more, if in fact the Flood had been merely local, why didn’t God simply tell Noah to move, along with his family and any others who might heed his warning? Why tell him to build an ark for the saving of the faithful when all they would have needed to do is go somewhere else? After all, when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, God didn’t instruct Lot to build some device within which he and others would be saved in the midst of the fire! The means whereby God instructed Noah to offer safety to the antediluvians makes it clear that no escape from the coming calamity was possible for any living creature except for getting on board the ark, for the obvious reason that the calamity to come was universal in nature
The article in question states that “the Hebrew version of the [Flood] story is just one of several worldwide flood stories shared by other ancient Near Eastern cultures” [7], and claims later that “it is possible science could provide evidence for a more localized flood that was the basis for the Near Eastern flood narratives, including Noah’s flood” [8]. The problem is that the “several worldwide flood stories shared by other ancient Near Eastern cultures” are but a minuscule percentage of the numerous global flood stories found in civilizations throughout the world [9]. Is it really plausible to assume that diverse cultures and societies in nearly every corner of the earth could have invented the same basic story?
Conclusion
The article in question states: “It is also time to ask how essential it is theologically that the Noachian flood account be considered literal and worldwide” [10]. The evidence we have considered from both Old and New Testaments should be clear that if the Bible is held as our supreme rule of faith and practice, both the literal and worldwide nature of the Genesis Flood are non-negotiable points.
If God was prepared to base the certainty of His love and mercy to His people on the certainty of His promise never to send another Flood like Noah’s (Isa. 54:8-10), we can safely assume this event to have been factual. If Jesus (Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:25-26) and the apostles Peter and Paul (I Peter 3:20; II Peter 2:5; Heb. 11:7) could use the Flood story as both a type of the coming destruction of the world at the end of time and an encouragement to faltering faith, any assumption that the story didn’t really happen becomes utterly implausible.
And on the basis of God’s covenant with “all flesh” that He wouldn’t send another flood (Gen. 9:8-11), it becomes equally clear from the Sacred Pages that the Noachian Flood story describes a universal event. Otherwise God has broken His covenant with both humanity and the animal creation myriads of times since Noah, and is consequently not worthy of trust.
In the words of William Jennings Bryan following the Scopes Trial of 1925: “Science is a magnificent material force, but it is not a teacher of morals” [11]. Neither does it hold veto power over the Word of God. It can only postulate decisions based on available data, whereas the God of Scripture is all-knowing. Thus Ellen White declares:
In God’s word only do we behold the power that laid the foundations of the earth, and that stretched out the heavens. Here only do we find an authentic account of the origin of nations. Here only is given a history of our race unsullied by human pride or prejudice [12].
REFERENCES
1. Bryan Ness, “Noah’s Flood vs. Science,” Adventist Today, Aug. 31, 2021 https://atoday.org/the-battle-between-science-and-a-literal-interpretation-of-noahs-flood/
2. Ibid.
3. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 96-97.
4. Ness, “Noah’s Flood vs. Science,” Adventist Today, Aug. 31, 2021 https://atoday.org/the-battle-between-science-and-a-literal-interpretation-of-noahs-flood/
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. See William H. Shea, “The Flood: Just a local catastrophe?” Dialogue, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 12, for a map of the worldwide distribution of Flood stories. https://christintheclassroom.org/vol_33/33cc_605-608.pdf
10. Ness, “Noah’s Flood vs. Science,” Adventist Today, Aug. 31, 2021 https://atoday.org/the-battle-between-science-and-a-literal-interpretation-of-noahs-flood/
11. Michael Kazin, A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), p. 295.
12. White, Messages to Young People, p. 263.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan