Finding that the Genesis Flood was not global

 

“And so to another question: where did the dove find a thriving olive tree if

“every hill” was covered? If the flood was local, the olive trees on the slopes

of Ararat may have been left undrowned. But if it were global,

would that have been possible?”.

 

Retired Baptist minister and Cambridge scholar, Rev Dr David Instone-Brewer, tells of his awakening to the likelihood that the Genesis Flood could not have been a global phenomenon:

Why Noah's flood may not have been global | Regular Columnists | Premier Christianity

 

Why Noah's flood may not have been global

By Rev Dr David Instone-Brewer 26 November 2021 ….

 

Was it a global flood, or local flood?

David Instone-Brewer explains why he (reluctantly) changed his mind

 

I’ve been getting a lot of heat online for saying something that I used to dismiss as heresy. Years ago, I rejected theories questioning a global flood, and then I became less certain. Lately, as I’ve looked much closer at the text, I can’t escape the evidence for a local flood. And it’s a problem. The worldwide flood in Genesis is so much part of our Church tradition that it’s hard to accept that the Bible may actually say something different.

_____

AMBIGUOUS

 

Some of the difficulty is due to ambiguities in the original Hebrew, which mean you can translate the text either way. But the recent surprise, for me, was discovering that it’s really very difficult to read the details of the text as a narrative about a worldwide flood.

 

Old Testament Hebrew has a vocabulary of only 8,000 words – far fewer than the English language – so words tend to have a wide range of meanings. In Genesis 6, where the story of the flood is told, the word eretz could mean ‘planet’ or ‘earth’, but more often means ‘land’ or ‘country’ – such as the “land of Havilah” near Eden in Genesis 2:11. Similarly, the word for ‘mountain’ (har) is also used for ‘hill’ – such as the hill that David stood on to address his men in 1 Samuel 26:13. So the text is ambiguous: it says either that the waters covered all the mountains of the planet or earth, or all the hills of the land or country.

 

If the flood was local, the ‘land’ would be Mesopotamia, which covered 140,000 square miles of the Tigris and Euphrates delta up to the Ararat mountains in the north.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: The great Flood, though local, was far more extensive than just the ‘land of Mesopotamia’. See e.g. my article:

 

Genesis, Flood, Ark Mountain

 

(2) Genesis, Flood, Ark Mountain

 

Rev Dr David Instone-Brewer continues:

 

If this low-lying land had a flood 45ft higher than all of its hills (as described in Genesis), it would kill the entire civilisation. And there is evidence for this happening. Ancient Assyrian histories list their earliest kings as reigning “before the flood”, and archaeologists in the 1930s unearthed evidence of flooding in this region dated to about 3,000 BC, though detailed studies remain to be done.

 

Alternatively, the flood could have been worldwide. After all, in Genesis 7:19, it is described as covering all the land “under the entire heavens”. However, this same phrase is also used to describe how far the news of Israel’s invasion spread in Deuteronomy 2:25. Since that news certainly didn’t reach Australia, it must mean something like “beyond the horizon”.

________

FINDING ANSWERS

 

So far, in the narrative alone, we’re left without a definitive answer. But at Genesis 8:9, the ambiguities disappear. It says again that the waters were “over all the surface of the eretz”. But here, the context becomes key: this description is given four months after Noah saw the mountains of Ararat (v5), when the flood waters had been receding for over six months (vv3-6). This means that eretz, here, at least, cannot mean every mountain on the planet was submerged, because Noah had already seen Ararat. Therefore, it must mean “the land”, which stretched for thousands of square miles south of these mountains.

 

Another ambiguity in the Hebrew is whether the ark came to rest ‘among’ the mountains of Ararat or ‘on’ them (Genesis 8:4). However, we can again determine which it is from the details in the text. On its first flight, the dove couldn’t find anywhere to land (unlike the carrion-eating raven who’d have happily perched on a floating corpse).

 

At this point, the water had been receding for months and the ark had either stopped ‘among’ or ‘on’ the mountains (vv4-6). If it had stopped ‘on’ one of the mountains, it would now have been surrounded by dry land. But the dove was unable to reach land, so the ark must have stopped in the surrounding water ‘among’ the mountain range. It had been blown north by the strong wind (v1) and, a week later, it had drifted closer. The dove reached land and came back with a fresh olive leaf.

 

And so to another question: where did the dove find a thriving olive tree if “every hill” was covered? If the flood was local, the olive trees on the slopes of Ararat may have been left undrowned. But if it were global, would that have been possible?

 

________

ADDITONAL MIRACLES REQUIRES

 

The ancient rabbis believed in a worldwide flood, and they knew the Hebrew text. As olive growers, they knew these trees wouldn’t immediately revive after eleven months under water. But they reasoned that God had protected Israel – including the Mount of Olives. It doesn’t appear to have worried them that additional miracles would then have been necessary: a seawall as tall as Everest around Israel and a 2,000-mile flight by the dove. (Doves can fly up to 500 miles with training!) However, their assumptions are the only way I’ve found to successfully interpret the actual Hebrew text as a global flood.

 

The passage in 2 Peter 3:5-7 is often regarded as evidence of a global flood because it says this flood destroyed the ‘world’ (kosmos). But kosmos here cannot mean the whole earth because Peter contrasts it with the ‘earth’ (ge) which God created and will judge by fire. He is using kosmos in the New Testament sense of an evil world civilisation.

THE BIBLE MAKES IT PLAIN THAT THIS WAS A LOCAL FLOOD BUT IT SEEMS WRONG TO CHALLENGE WHAT THE CHURCH HAS TRADITIONALLY TAUGHT

 

So I’m left with a problem: the Bible text makes it plain that this was a local flood but, somehow, it seems wrong to challenge what the Church has traditionally taught simply because we now have more information. The Church has suffered so much incredulity and hostile ridicule about the global flood that backtracking now could leave us looking weak and cowardly.

 

And anyway, we’d have to remove the elephants and giraffes from the Noah’s ark under the Christmas tree! And who wants to do that?

 

Out of Africa theory debunked

 

“Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that, "The whole 'Out of Africa' myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the

'Out of Africa' thing but it's been completely disproved by genetics.

Mainstream still hold on to it".”

  

Debunked: 'Out of Africa thing completely disproved by genetics'

Atlanteangardens.blogspot.com.au
Sat, 03 May 2014 06:37 UTC

 

Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity's African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous - and dare we say it - deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.

 

Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that, "The whole 'Out of Africa' myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the 'Out of Africa' thing but it's been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it."

 

It did begin the early 90's. And the academics most responsible for cementing both the Out-of Africa theory and the complementary common ancestral African mother - given the name of "Eve" - in the public arena and nearly every curriculum, were Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann.

In their defense, the authors of this paper were fully aware that genealogy is not in any way linked to geography, and that their placement of Eve in Africa was an assumption, never an assertion.

 

A very recent paper on Y-chromosomes published in 2012, (Re-Examing the "Out of Africa" Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the denial of any African ancestry in non-Africans, and strongly supports the existence of a "common ancestor" who "would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa."

 

Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes.

 

So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that, "the finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from "African" haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI's M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262".

With the haplogroups not present in any African genes and an absence of dozens of African genetic markers, it is very difficult nigh on impossible to sustain any link to Africa. The researchers are adamant that their extensive study "offers evidence to re-examine the validity of the Out-of-Africa concept".

 

They see no genetic proof substantiating an African precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain that "a more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork".

 

We regard the claim of "a more plausible explanation" as a gross understatement, since there is absolutely nothing plausibly African turning up in any test tubes.

 

In fact, the researchers made note of their repeated absence stating "not one non-African participant out of more than 400 individuals in the Project tested positive to any of thirteen 'African' sub-clades of haplogroup A". The only remaining uncertainty relates to the identity of this "more ancient common ancestor". All that can be stated with confidence is that humanity's ancestor did not reside in Africa.

….

 

 

A few Noah and Jonah comparisons

 

 

“In the story of Noah, we see God tells him to bring the animals into the Ark.

The animals are saved, along with Noah and his family.

In a similar way, not only are the humans saved in the city of Nineveh

but also the animals”.

  

Alexander d’Albini wrote (Nov 04, 2022):

Jonah: And Noah - by Alexander d’Albini - Tower of Adam

 

Jonah: And Noah

One way to read the Bible is to think about how the original listeners interpreted what they heard. We can imagine what the Ancient Israelites may have thought about the story of Jonah. Maybe they would have linked it with the narrative of Noah.

 

Noah, Jonah and the Dove

 

Jonah’s name means the Dove. In the story of Noah, the dove brings the hope of renewed creation as it returns with a olive branch in its mouth. Like how Jonah’s message gives new hope to the city of Nineveh.

 

The Great Fish and the Ark

 

We see a parallel between the Ark and the Great Fish. The Ark with its inhabitants rise on the Flood waters, moving upwards to God.

 

The Great Fish with Jonah dives deep beneath the waves. Heading away and hiding from God.

 

Whereas Jonah calls out to God after being swallowed by the Fish, Noah says nothing and appears to quietly trust God.

 

The Animals are Saved

 

In the story of Noah, we see God tells him to bring the animals into the Ark. The animals are saved, along with Noah and his family.

 

In a similar way, not only are the humans saved in the city of Nineveh but also the animals.

 

A New Deluge

 

An interesting idea is that the evils of the Neo-Assyrian Empire were so great, it may have reminded hearers of the conditions in the pre-Flood World.

 

They may have worried that God may cause another flood to wipe humanity from the Earth.

 

But in the story we see God keeps His promise to never flood the Earth again, by instructing Jonah to preach to the Ninevites. As they repented, it meant there was no need for another Flood. ….

 

Plant and Vine

Finally, at the end of the stories of Noah and Jonah, a plant is featured. Noah grows a vine, gets drunk and his son Ham sees him naked. This results in Noah becoming upset and cursing Ham.

 

God allows a plant to grow over Jonah and hide him from the Sun’s heat. A worm eats through the stalk, the plant withers and Jonah is ‘naked’. So the Sun burns him. He becomes very upset by this.