Replies

Actually, according to the Hebrew it has to be a local flood. You're obviously one of those people the article talks about: Believing what you've been told for years and probably never really studied the subject.

For example:

1. Genesis 7:11-12 and Genesis 8 clearly state where the floodwaters came from (earthly sources including the atmosphere) and where they returned (into Earth). The water content on Earth today, even considering water vapor loss to space since the flood, is no where near the amount needed for a global flood.

2. In Genesis 7:19-20 we see that all “the high mountains...were covered.” The Hebrew for “high mountains” can be literally translated as hills or hill country. The words for “covered” can be translated as “falling upon,” “running over” or “residing upon.” Another possibility considers Noah’s perspective. Floating along on this massive flood, his line of sight would only be a few miles out. To him, everything could have seemed covered as was written. We should also make a note here about ancient Hebrew. Its vocabulary was much smaller than modern Hebrew or English. Many words had multiple meanings whereas we might have a separate word for each meaning. This is why context is often so important.

3. The flood account refers to “the earth” which may seem like it is referring to the entire planet. There is another usage in which “earth” or “world” can be literally translated to refer to a particular region. Ancient humanity was believed to be limited to Mesopotamia (we are going way back here), so a local flood would still be “universal” as far as the people alive at that time were concerned. Ancient mankind was not aware of the existence of most of the world, so what was known was considered the entire Earth. If we were to translate “earth” as being the entire planet, then perhaps Genesis 8:14 would indicate that the planet had become a desert when it states “…the earth was completely dry.” Peter clarifies this by writing in 2 Peter 3:5-6 that the flood effected the “…world at that time… [my emphasis]” There are numerous other examples of similar usage where “world” refers to humanity, not the globe, including Genesis 41:56-57, 1 Kings 10:24 and John 7:7, 12:19, 12:47, 14:31, 15:18, 17:21. Also consider that the Hebrew word that always refers to the entire world is not used in the flood account. Only words that can refer to particular regions or peoples are used.

4. The ark did not land on Mt. Ararat as many think. Genesis 8:4 states it landed in the mountains of Ararat. Therefore the ark could have landed anywhere in this region, including the foothills or bases of the larger mountains. Also consider this: Is it not odd that in a global flood that the ark landed only a few miles from where it started? And where did the dove find the olive branch? The dove could only fly so far and olive trees do not grow in high elevations. If the flood was a massive, globally destructive event, how were plants growing already?

5. A comparison of the pre-flood Genesis chapters to the post-flood chapters do not show the massive geological changes that a global flood would have caused. For example, the landscape has not changed at all. Noah did not seem lost. Rivers mentioned before the flood remained unchanged which would be kind of odd in a global flood that supposedly created geologic layers in only forty days.
of those materials even if there was a global flood.

6. All the species in the world could not have come from those on the ark without invoking rapid, macroevolution (defined in the next chapter). In fact, the only way young-earth creationists can account for all species being on the ark is by directly or implicitly requiring such a rapid evolution of animals that even naturalists do not subscribe to such a process. The fact is that the Hebrew is particular in the limited types of animals that were brought on the ark. This avoids the need to fit all of the animals of the world onto the ark. Also consider that the precedent set in the Bible concerning punishment always limits it to the intended people and their immediate surroundings. Thus a local flood would only require the destruction of animals closely related to man, i.e. the ones in the area where mankind lived.

7. In many ways, Psalm 104 parallels the creation account in Genesis 1 including how in early Earth’s history the entire globe was covered by water before the continents emerged. Verse 6 reveals this fact centuries before scientists had any knowledge of it. In verse 9 the statement is made that “never again will they [the waters] cover the earth.” From the context of the Psalm it would be hard to claim this verse is referring to Noah’s flood. Hence, verse 9 seems to be directly contrary to a global flood hypothesis.