Tag Archives: genesis

The Biblical Account of a Global Flood

The Biblical Account of a Global Flood

Introduction

The inquiry concerns the biblical account of the Noachian flood as recorded in the King James Version (KJV) of Holy Scripture. In conservative academic theological discussions, the scope of this flood—whether universal, covering the entire world, or localized to a specific region—has been a topic of serious exegetical debate. Supporters of a universal flood argue that the sacred text uses language of comprehensive judgment upon all creation, consistent with divine sovereignty and the covenantal promises. Those advocating for a localized flood often try to align with some modern scientific views, suggesting that the narrative uses phenomenological or hyperbolic language appropriate to the ancient Near Eastern context. This response will outline and explain key passages supporting the universal flood view, list those cited by localized flood proponents, provide rebuttals from a conservative theological perspective, and conclude with a summary of the main points.

Passages Supporting a Universal Flood

The Genesis narrative, augmented by apostolic affirmations in the New Testament, furnishes a robust textual foundation for interpreting the flood as a cataclysmic event of global proportions. The language employed underscores divine intent to eradicate all terrestrial life corrupted by sin, save for the righteous remnant preserved in the ark. Below are principal passages from the KJV, accompanied by exegetical commentary.

  1. Genesis 6:17 – “And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.” This verse articulates God’s sovereign decree, employing “all flesh” and “under heaven” to denote universality. The Hebrew term “erets” (earth), while occasionally contextually limited, here connotes the entirety of creation, as the flood’s purpose is the annihilation of all breathing entities, reflecting the comprehensive corruption described in verse 12.
  • Genesis 7:19-20 – “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” The repetition of “all” and the phrase “under the whole heaven” bespeaks a deluge submerging the highest elevations across the globe, not merely regional topography. The specification of fifteen cubits (approximately twenty-two feet) above the mountains precludes a mere flash flood, emphasizing hydrological totality.
  • Genesis 7:21-23 – “And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” The exhaustive enumeration of categories of life, coupled with thrice-repeated assertions of destruction, underscores the flood’s indiscriminate scope. This aligns with the divine judgment upon universal wickedness (Genesis 6:5-7), leaving no terrestrial survivors beyond the ark’s occupants.
  • Genesis 8:21-22 – “And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” Post-deluge, God’s internal resolve not to repeat such a smiting of “every thing living” implies the prior event’s global reach, as a localized calamity would not necessitate such a perpetual assurance of seasonal stability.
  • Genesis 9:11, 15 – “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… And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.” The rainbow covenant extends to “all flesh” and “the earth,” pledging against future global inundation. This universal language, reiterated for emphasis, militates against a parochial interpretation.
  • Isaiah 54:9 – “For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.” The prophet invokes the Noachian flood as a paradigm of divine forbearance, affirming its coverage of “the earth” in a manner suggestive of totality.
  • 2 Peter 2:5 – “And 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.” Apostolic testimony distinguishes the antediluvian “old world” from the post-flood era, portraying the deluge as a world-encompassing judgment upon the ungodly.
  • 2 Peter 3:5-7 – “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” Peter parallels the flood’s watery perdition of the former world with eschatological fire, implying a universal antecedent to match the global future judgment.

Passages Invoked by Localized Flood Advocates

Advocates of a localized flood, often within evangelical circles accommodating geological uniformitarianism, reinterpret select passages to suggest a regional event confined to Mesopotamia or the ancient Near East. They emphasize lexical flexibility and phenomenological language. Principal texts include:

  1. Genesis 6:5-7 – Emphasis on human wickedness “in the earth,” interpreted as localized to populated regions, not necessitating global destruction.
  • Genesis 7:19-20 – The covering of “all the high hills” and “mountains” under heaven, construed as hyperbolic for local eminences, with “fifteen cubits upward” denoting sufficient depth for regional submersion rather than global peaks.
  • Genesis 8:5, 9 – The gradual recession revealing mountain tops and the dove finding no rest, suggesting a contained basin rather than planetary coverage.

Rebuttals to Localized Flood Interpretations

From a conservative theological perspective, which prioritizes the perspicuity and inerrancy of Scripture, the localized view encounters formidable exegetical obstacles. Rebuttals, grounded in textual integrity and canonical harmony, include:

  1. Lexical Universality: Terms like “all flesh,” “under the whole heaven,” and “the earth” consistently denote global scope in Genesis, as corroborated by the covenant’s breadth (Genesis 9:11-17). A localized reading imposes anachronistic limitations, undermining the narrative’s emphasis on total judgment.
  • Necessity of the Ark: If regional, Noah could have migrated with his family and select fauna, rendering the century-long ark construction superfluous (Genesis 6:3, 14-16). The divine mandate for such preparation bespeaks inescapable global inundation.
  • Inclusion of All Fauna: The ark’s accommodation of “every living thing of all flesh” (Genesis 6:19) extends beyond regional species, as a local flood would permit avian and terrestrial migration. This comprehensive preservation aligns with universal extinction.
  • Duration and Hydrology: The flood’s persistence for over a year (Genesis 7:11; 8:14) exceeds plausible local containment, implying tectonic and atmospheric upheavals consistent with global cataclysm.
  • Covenantal Integrity: God’s pledge against another flood destroying “all flesh” (Genesis 9:11) would be falsified by subsequent regional deluges if localized, whereas a universal interpretation upholds divine fidelity, with the rainbow as perpetual token.
  • New Testament Corroboration: Apostolic writers treat the flood as paradigmatic of worldwide judgment (2 Peter 3:5-7), paralleling creation and eschaton—contexts inherently universal, not regional.

Summary

In summary, the KJV Scriptures, when interpreted within conservative theological frameworks, mainly support a universal Noachian flood as a divine act of complete judgment and renewal. While localized interpretations try to reconcile the text with extrabiblical data, they fall short against the narrative’s linguistic universality, covenantal implications, and canonical consistency. This discussion highlights the flood’s theological depth: a testament to God’s holiness, mercy, and sovereignty over all creation.

The above article was Groked under the direction of Jack Kettler and perfected using Grammarly AI.

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)

Mr. Kettler, an author who has published works in Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum, is an active RPCNA member in Westminster, CO, with 20 books defending the Reformed Faith available on Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Was God wrong to tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac in Genesis 22?

Was God wrong to tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac in Genesis 22?            By Jack Kettler

In Genesis 22, God commands Abraham to do something forbidden elsewhere, as in Jeremiah 7:31.

“And he said, take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.” (Genesis 22:2)

How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? The complexity of this theological puzzle is intriguing, inviting believers to delve deeper into the text.

In Genesis 22:2, God issues a profound command to Abraham, a command that seems to contradict the prohibition against child sacrifice found in Jeremiah 7:31. This command, however, is not a call to violence, but a test of Abraham’s faith, a test that carries immense weight and significance.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, a valuable resource, sheds light on the context of child sacrifice:

“(31) High places. — Not the same word as in Jeremiah 7:29, but bamoth, as in the “high places” of Baal, in Numbers 22:41; Numbers 23:3, the Bamoth-baal of Joshua 13:17. The word had become almost technical for the mounds, natural or (as in this passage) artificial, on which altars to Jehovah or to other gods were erected, and appears in 1 Samuel 9:12; 1 Kings 3:4; Ezekiel 20:29; Amos 7:9.”

“Tophet. — This appears to have been originally, not a local name, but a descriptive epithet. The word appears in Job 17:6 (“by-word” in the Authorised version) as a thing spat upon and loathed. Its use is probably therefore analogous to the scorn with which the prophets substituted bosheth, the “shameful thing,” for Baal (e.g., Jeremiah 3:24; Jeremiah 11:13). When the prediction is repeated in Jeremiah 19:5; Jeremiah 32:35, we have the “high places of Baal,” and “Tophet” here is obviously substituted for that name in indignant contempt. The word in Isaiah 30:33, though not identical in form (Tophteh, not Tophet), had probably the same meaning. Other etymologies give as the meaning of the word “a garden,” “a place of burning,” or “a place of drums,” i.e., a music grove, and so connect it more closely with the Molech ritual. Possibly the last was the original meaning of the name, for which, as said above, the prophets used the term of opprobrium.”

“The son of Hinnom. — Possibly the first recorded owner, or a local hero. The name is perpetuated in later Jewish language in Ge-henna = Ge-Hinnom = the vale of Hinnom. It was older than the Molech worship with which it became identified, and appears in the “Doomsday Book” of Israel (Joshua 15:8; Joshua 18:16).”

“To burn their sons and their daughters. — The words are important as determining the character of the act more vaguely described in Jeremiah 32:35, as “making to pass through the fire.” The children were, in some cases at least, actually burnt, though often, perhaps (see Ezekiel 16:21), slain first. Horrible as the practice seems to us, it was part of the Canaanite or Phœnician worship of Molech or Malcom (Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5), and had been practised by Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 28:3) and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chronicles 33:6).” (1)

To resolve this apparent contradiction, one can consider the following points:

  1. The context of the command: In Genesis 22:2, God never intended for Abraham to actually sacrifice Isaac. It was a test of Abraham’s faith and obedience. As soon as God saw that Abraham was willing to obey, He provided a ram for the sacrifice instead of Isaac.
  2. The purpose of the command: The command was not given to promote child sacrifice but rather to test Abraham’s faith and demonstrate his unwavering commitment to God. This event also foreshadows the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who willingly gave His life for the salvation of humanity.
  3. The difference in time and context: The command to Abraham in Genesis 22 took place in a different time and context than the prohibition against child sacrifice in Jeremiah 7:31. The latter was given to the Israelites during a time when child sacrifice was a common practice among the surrounding nations, and God wanted to make it clear that such practices were not acceptable.

“And Abraham said, ‘My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.’ So, the two of them went together.” (Genesis 22:8)

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary sheds more light on this apparent dilemma:

22:11-14 It was not God’s intention that Isaac should actually be sacrificed, yet nobler blood than that of animals, in due time, was to be shed for sin, even the blood of the only begotten Son of God. But in the mean while God would not in any case have human sacrifices used. Another sacrifice is provided. Reference must be had to the promised Messiah, the blessed Seed. Christ was sacrificed in our stead, as this ram instead of Isaac, and his death was our discharge. And observe, that the temple, the place of sacrifice, was afterwards built upon this same mount Moriah; and Calvary, where Christ was crucified, was near. A new name was given to that place, for the encouragement of all believers, to the end of the world, cheerfully to trust in God, and obey him. Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will provide; probably alluding to what Abraham had said, God will provide himself a lamb. The Lord will always have his eye upon his people, in their straits and distresses, that he may give them seasonable help. (2)

In conclusion, the apparent contradiction between Genesis 22:2 and Jeremiah 7:31 can be resolved by considering the context, purpose, and time of the commands. The key takeaway is that God never intended for Issac to be sacrificed, and the command to Abraham was a unique test of faith that ultimately pointed to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

  1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Jeremiah, Vol. 5, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 35.
  2. Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary, Genesis, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 275.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 18 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized