It's just a dramatized fictional story loosely based on ancient regional flooding events. These type of "campfire stories" taught moral lessons to the tribes... they were recycled generation after generation (oral traditions) and then as the story tellers figured out how to write things down it became what many call "scripture" today.
I suspect many of those OT stories developed this way.
I highly recommend the Ark Encounter for anyone remotely interested. It addresses all these things, and even if you do not agree with the literal interpretation, it is quite impressive.
Great article! Thanks for presenting multiple views of Noah's flood.
I definitely lean towards the theological polemic framework, that God used a cultural flood story everyone knew at the time (the audience of genesis and the surrounding cultures) to make a theological point for several reasons:
1. Virtually all geologists (including many Christians) agree that there was no global flood in the recent time during human history.
2. Noah's ark essentially landed at his backyard (Mt. Ararat), if there was a global flood, I'd expect it to go at least further...
3. The rivers depicted in Genesis 1 still look very much like we see today after "the flood", a global catastrophic flood would have erased or significantly altered the landscape (for those who claim the grand canyon was formed by it).
4. If it was a global flood and animals migrated out from the ark from the middle east, why don't we see traces of animal migrations from it? Like why don't we see traces of kangaroos going to Australia for example.
When I took a science and religion course, the professor told me Noah's flood will be the most controversial topic, even bigger than human origins. I didn't believe it until the lecture that day. I think it's because Noah's flood is probably THE most iconic story for children. The idea that Noah's flood wasn't global, maybe regional, or even Noah wasn't a real person at all, that shakes up many Christians...
If this is the line people are drawing their skepticism at, and not at stopping the sun in the sky and making it go backwards, then all I have to say is Time Lord technology. The Ark was bigger on the inside than the outside, because God wanted it to be. A being that can feed five thousand with a couple of loaves and fishes isn't going to be constrained by capacity limitations. And as absurd as that answer may sound anything else makes God subject to the very laws he created.
If the one Creator of the entire universe and everything in it has trouble with a few trivial "miracles" that would be a problem. Showing humans a few parlor tricks is an easy lift for such a Creator ;)
Putting all this trivia together is mind-boggling, but one thing sure, the word says ; that if we doubt , we shall receive nothing , so this sowing Doubts will bring a famine of blessings to those who wants to imitate Thomasoligy . Playing who wants to be a millionaire, is TV , what is teaching people to become believers of Doubt !? For it is written; blessed are those who did not see , but believes .
Approach 2 is highly implausible. It means the flood was relatively shallow. Can this be sustained for so long a period given the stated water sources? Consider also the currents which would have carried the boat away from its loading point. The rest of the world isn't experiencing a flood, so the flood waters will be flowing out, presumably toward Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Arabian Sea.
Another problem for Approach 2 is an evident contradiction of a passage in ch. 7: "Higher and higher on the earth the waters swelled, until ALL the highest mountains under the heavens were submerged. The waters swelled fifteen cubits higher than the submerged mountains." (NABRE). "all" means none excepted, and the heavens extend over the whole surface of the Earth, not just the ME. So, the implication is clear.
The arc of mountains surrounding the fertile crescent were submerged, as were all lands beyond. Even K2 and Everest far to the east were under water, which is strange if we start trusting the rabbis. Acc. to a tradition of theirs, "The land of Israel was not submerged by the deluge" (Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, p. 14).
The global logistics problem remains and, mind you, there are the two very significant problems of collecting and redistributing the animals all over the world. What part of the story leads us to believe that the animals migrated on their own to the loading place? Ot appears that expeditions were required to bring the animals to the ark. After the.flood, new expeditions were needed to distribute animals far and wide. Or we need another miracle to explain how, for instance, the ancestors of the North American bison crossed the Atlantic Ocean after the flood and moved to the grasslands.
So much for Approach 2. One of the other two, if these are the only possibilities, must be made water tight.
Thanks for your summaries of these theories. It’s so helpful to read your clear and concise writing. I’m too old to go to seminary, but I love reading your Substack articles!
A few years back we visited the Ark Encounter and I loved their baraminology visuals. While their obsession with the dinosaurs on the ark was a bit much, I still appreciated their practical workarounds to some things we may think would be issues on the ark. I don't remember exactly how, but they even had a solution for mosquitoes. It was fun to walk around and imagine.
Perhaps it's the simplest explanation.
It's just a dramatized fictional story loosely based on ancient regional flooding events. These type of "campfire stories" taught moral lessons to the tribes... they were recycled generation after generation (oral traditions) and then as the story tellers figured out how to write things down it became what many call "scripture" today.
I suspect many of those OT stories developed this way.
I highly recommend the Ark Encounter for anyone remotely interested. It addresses all these things, and even if you do not agree with the literal interpretation, it is quite impressive.
Genesis 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
add this to the top of my reading queue
Very interesting article, look forward to reading more of your content!
Thanks!
Great article! Thanks for presenting multiple views of Noah's flood.
I definitely lean towards the theological polemic framework, that God used a cultural flood story everyone knew at the time (the audience of genesis and the surrounding cultures) to make a theological point for several reasons:
1. Virtually all geologists (including many Christians) agree that there was no global flood in the recent time during human history.
2. Noah's ark essentially landed at his backyard (Mt. Ararat), if there was a global flood, I'd expect it to go at least further...
3. The rivers depicted in Genesis 1 still look very much like we see today after "the flood", a global catastrophic flood would have erased or significantly altered the landscape (for those who claim the grand canyon was formed by it).
4. If it was a global flood and animals migrated out from the ark from the middle east, why don't we see traces of animal migrations from it? Like why don't we see traces of kangaroos going to Australia for example.
When I took a science and religion course, the professor told me Noah's flood will be the most controversial topic, even bigger than human origins. I didn't believe it until the lecture that day. I think it's because Noah's flood is probably THE most iconic story for children. The idea that Noah's flood wasn't global, maybe regional, or even Noah wasn't a real person at all, that shakes up many Christians...
That’s fascinating that it was more controversial than human origins. I lean towards the regional flood framework.
Sweet!
If this is the line people are drawing their skepticism at, and not at stopping the sun in the sky and making it go backwards, then all I have to say is Time Lord technology. The Ark was bigger on the inside than the outside, because God wanted it to be. A being that can feed five thousand with a couple of loaves and fishes isn't going to be constrained by capacity limitations. And as absurd as that answer may sound anything else makes God subject to the very laws he created.
If the one Creator of the entire universe and everything in it has trouble with a few trivial "miracles" that would be a problem. Showing humans a few parlor tricks is an easy lift for such a Creator ;)
Cultivating more Nay Sayers !
Putting all this trivia together is mind-boggling, but one thing sure, the word says ; that if we doubt , we shall receive nothing , so this sowing Doubts will bring a famine of blessings to those who wants to imitate Thomasoligy . Playing who wants to be a millionaire, is TV , what is teaching people to become believers of Doubt !? For it is written; blessed are those who did not see , but believes .
Approach 2 is highly implausible. It means the flood was relatively shallow. Can this be sustained for so long a period given the stated water sources? Consider also the currents which would have carried the boat away from its loading point. The rest of the world isn't experiencing a flood, so the flood waters will be flowing out, presumably toward Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Arabian Sea.
Another problem for Approach 2 is an evident contradiction of a passage in ch. 7: "Higher and higher on the earth the waters swelled, until ALL the highest mountains under the heavens were submerged. The waters swelled fifteen cubits higher than the submerged mountains." (NABRE). "all" means none excepted, and the heavens extend over the whole surface of the Earth, not just the ME. So, the implication is clear.
The arc of mountains surrounding the fertile crescent were submerged, as were all lands beyond. Even K2 and Everest far to the east were under water, which is strange if we start trusting the rabbis. Acc. to a tradition of theirs, "The land of Israel was not submerged by the deluge" (Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, p. 14).
The global logistics problem remains and, mind you, there are the two very significant problems of collecting and redistributing the animals all over the world. What part of the story leads us to believe that the animals migrated on their own to the loading place? Ot appears that expeditions were required to bring the animals to the ark. After the.flood, new expeditions were needed to distribute animals far and wide. Or we need another miracle to explain how, for instance, the ancestors of the North American bison crossed the Atlantic Ocean after the flood and moved to the grasslands.
So much for Approach 2. One of the other two, if these are the only possibilities, must be made water tight.
Come on, take a stance. Only #1 fits.
By the way, Love the humour.
Thanks for your summaries of these theories. It’s so helpful to read your clear and concise writing. I’m too old to go to seminary, but I love reading your Substack articles!
A few years back we visited the Ark Encounter and I loved their baraminology visuals. While their obsession with the dinosaurs on the ark was a bit much, I still appreciated their practical workarounds to some things we may think would be issues on the ark. I don't remember exactly how, but they even had a solution for mosquitoes. It was fun to walk around and imagine.
I didn’t know they made an argument for the dinosaurs being on the ark. I don’t even know where that position would start 😆
Oh they go into detail. Great detail.
Jordan Vale , Doubt sowing sir . Making unbelievers more , and believers less .
Not quite sure what you mean.