The story of Noah’s Ark is one of the most important stories of the Old Testament, because it is one of the few miracles that would’ve left behind a literal “flood” of evidence for us to examine. But before we can begin exploring this evidence, we need to ask how we should be interpreting the story of Noah, because not all Christians seem to agree…
“Secularists deny the possibility of a worldwide Flood at all. If they would think from a biblical perspective, however, they would see the abundant evidence for the global Flood.”
AnswersInGenesis.com“There are no historical facts verifying this biblical account… So, it seems reasonable to read the story of Noah and the flood as an allegory…”
Christian-Bible.com“An integration of all flood and creation passages clearly indicates that the Genesis flood was local in geographic extent.”
GodAndScience.org
So… which is it? Global, local or allegorical?
Navigating Troubled Waters
Up until about the 18th century, most Christians simply accepted the story of Noah as historical fact. But new discoveries and a rising tide of evidence slowly began to erode confidence in the historicity of the flood narrative, leaving many Christians with a boatload of reasons to reject a literal interpretation.
Maintaining a literal stance meant having to potentially defend and explain…
- why most geologists and archaeologists are wrong;
- how four men managed to build a boat large enough to hold all the world’s animals in under 75 years, using nothing but primitive tools, wood and pitch;
- where the flood water came from and where it all went;
- how Noah collected and cared for the over 8 million species that exist today;
- how freshwater fish survived an influx of salt water;
- how Noah obtained animals from distant places;
- how animals became distributed after the flood;
- how Noah obtained food for special diets (e.g. bamboo for the pandas, eucalyptus leaves for the koala bears, etc.);
- how Noah stored a year’s supply of fresh water for all the animals;
- how Noah provided suitable environments for all desert, amphibious and arctic wildlife;
- how so many plants and trees survived the flood;
- what the animals ate after departing the ark;
- why all dinosaurs and many other animals still went extinct;
- how all races sprung up from one family;
- why ice cores don’t contain an obvious “flood lair;”
- why no one else was aboard a boat during the flood,
- and many other issues.
While those who take a literal view have gone to great lengths to provide us with complex explanations, this hasn’t been enough to satisfy the most ardent Christian skeptics. But rather than just rejecting the Bible altogether, many Christians have taken to interpreting the story as allegory or a local flood.
Was Noah’s flood a local flood?
The local flood view begins with God warning Noah that there is going to be a great flood, but He neglects to tell him it’s only going to be a local flood. AnswersInGenesis.org asks:
“If the Flood only affected the area of Mesopotamia, as some claim, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and escaped.”
For once, Answers in Genesis and I are on the same page. God didn’t need to order Noah to spend decades building a giant boat. God could’ve just said, “Hi Noah! I need you to take the family on a little vacation while I do some remodeling. Why don’t you visit those mountains over yonder, where all those animals are headed?”
Local flood advocates tell us that God was simply testing Noah… for 70 years… because apparently God likes to test people by making them do unnecessary things for an insanely long time, (probably so they can laugh about it later in Heaven. “Hey Noah, remember that time I asked you to spend 70 years building that humongous boat!? And then I only sent a local flood!? HA! Man, you were so pissed after that, you got drunk off your ass and passed out butt-naked in front of your sons! And then yelled at them for covering you up (Genesis 9:21-25)! Ha! But it’s funny now, right?”).
Our story continues…
So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
~ Genesis 6:7
Luckily for God, the entire human race lived in Mesopotamia at the time. Unfortunately, not all the animals did, so it’s a bit strange that God should put such emphasis on killing the animals, when He was actually only killing a very small fraction of them. In fact, why mention them at all? The only ones that would’ve gone extinct were those indigenous to Mesopotamia, and God doesn’t seem to have any reservations about letting animals go extinct. And certainly Noah didn’t need such a large boat for just the indigenous animals.
Next we move on to the problem of the waters covering the mountains…
…all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
~ Genesis 7:19
According to some local flood advocates, the word “mountains” is better translated “hills,” so this verse should probably read “…all the high hills under the entire heavens were covered.”
Here in California, we have a name for really high hills, we call them “mountains.” Noah never gives us any reason to believe that the mountains were not covered with water.
Genesis continues…
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
~ Genesis 7:23
According to local flood advocates, killing “every living thing on the face of the earth,” actually means killing “every living thing on the face of Mesopotamia.” We must also accept that the “entire heavens” only stretch out as far as Mesopotamia (which is quite a stretch).
God also mentions that “the birds were wiped from the earth.” Why? If this was a local flood, then were the local birds not smart enough to fly over the mountains to safety? Likewise, it wasn’t necessary for Noah to take two of “everything with wings” (Gen. 7:14).
If Noah’s flood was just a local flood, then there is no miracle here. No longer is this a story of a man left hopelessly adrift in an endless ocean, Noah is now just a man floating in a sea, surrounded by seashores. All this boat needs to do is drift ashore and everyone can disembark; it’s not necessary to spend an entire year on board, and Noah doesn’t need to wait for the water to recede. But alas, he does, and the ark comes to rest on… well… I guess we would have to call it the hills of Ararat (Genesis 8:4).
After the local flood, God creates the rainbow as a covenant to never kill all mankind with another flood, but leaves Himself a loophole that will still allow Him to kill millions of other people through floods.
In short, the local flood interpretation makes for a completely nonsensical story: there’s no need for a boat, or to rescue animals, or to remain at sea for a year, or to wait for the waters to recede, or for a rainbow covenant.
Was the story of Noah’s flood allegorical?
While the Bible does contain many parables and metaphors, I see little evidence that the story of Noah’s ark is intended as anything but a literal story.
Firstly, we have Noah who is listed in the genealogies of Genesis 5, 1 Chronicles 1, and Luke 3. Noah also had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. So unless Noah’s wife was impregnated by a particularly potent metaphor, we must accept that Noah was a literal person.
Second, if Noah was a real person, but the flood story was just an allegory, then someone was lying about what actually happened to Noah and his family.
Third, God Himself refers back to the flood in Isaiah:
“To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth.”
~ Isaiah 54:9
God seems to have forgotten that this was just a metaphor, and that He didn’t actually cover the earth with water.
Fourth, Jesus too seems to believe the flood was a literal event:
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. It was the same in the days of Lot.”
~Luke 17:26-28
Jesus could’ve cleared things up by saying, “Just as it was in the parable of Noah…” yet he chose to describe these times as literal days. There were literal days before the flood, and literal days afterward. Jesus also says “It was the same in the days of Lot” — should we also take the story of Lot allegorically?
Fifth, elsewhere in the New Testament, Noah’s flood is also understood as a literal event:
By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
~Hebrews 11:7
…to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water…
~1 Peter 3:20…he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others…
~2 Peter 2:5
The people of “the ancient world” who were “disobedient long ago” were not imaginary, nor was the ark that Noah was building, they were all as real as Noah was.
Lastly, once again, there is the matter of the rainbow. Why do rainbows exist? According to the Bible…
And God said, “I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth… Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.”
~ Genesis 9:12-15
Why would God create a literal rainbow as a promise to protect us from a metaphorical flood?
Noah’s story is even a difficult to turn into a meaningful allegory. Sure, if we only look at Noah we can compare it to God’s salvation plan. But what about everyone else? Why did God make so many people, and then regret making them? Why was God more interested in saving the animals than these men and their families? Is God’s salvation only intended for a very small number of men… and animals?
Conclusion
I think it’s pretty obvious what the motive is for wanting to turn away from a literal interpretation, but I believe it’s clear that the Bible intends for the story to be understood literally. I believe the majority of Americans are correct in holding firm to a literal interpretation, so when I address Noah’s Ark in future questions, I will apply a literal translation for all the aforementioned reasons.
If it turns out the flood narrative is bogus, I think we need to man-up and accept it as such, not retreat to alternative interpretations that attempt to salvage a religious tradition.
I’m a christian and interested in atheistic views. Ultimately I believe anything is possible with god thus nonmiraculous explinations are not necessary and we will never totaly understand all things but for your amusement I have give these responses to the 16 questions at the begining of the blog.
1. In the day of Columbus most geologist thought the world was flat. They were wrong.
Experts do give evidence of a global flood.
2. The Egyptians built boats in excess of 300ft that were capable of carying 1300 tons.
3. Several senarios of where the water came from, bible says fountains from the deep and
windows from heaven – 70% of what comes from volcanoes is water in the form of steam – some
say there was a water canopy others say an asteroid or comit hit the ocean.
4 Noah may have not needed every specie e.g. horses zebras donkies all came from one equine
species the same with dogs wolves coyotes and jackals from one canine species. Experts say
there my have only been 16000 animals that would have easily fit.
5.As far as the fish there are many explinations. I kind of like the idea that mabey a species such
as the striped bass which can live in eather fresh water or salt water may have evolved into other
species such as the fresh water smallmouth and largemouth bass.
6. There again Noah may not have had to collect as many types of animals. – back to question 4
7. The geography of the earth is unknown at the time of Noah so some of the animals may have
crossed places such as the Bering shraight. In 1883 Krakatoa destroied the island but eventualy
was repopulated by animals obviously crossing the ocean.
8. Noah still had plenty of space for stored food. Pandas and koalas along with other species may
not have evolved yet to need bamboo ect.
9. Experts estimate that only 9.4% of the ark would have been used for drinking water minus
rain water that was collected.
10. This question can also be adressed by animals that have or have not evolved yet.
11. There are estimates that say that vegetation may have only been covered for 9 to 7 mounths or
shorter since it would have taken time for the water to cover high mountians.
12. Plants may not have been totaly killed off. Plants may have started new growth before the
animals exited the ark. e.g. Dove brings back the olive leaf.
13. There are many explanations of how the dinosaurs could have gone extinct. Some same the
environmental change after the flood or they were hunted to extinction.
14. There is realy only one race. DNA of any 2 people in the world only typically differs by 0.2 %
15. Ice core samples are bogus. That was proven when those WW2 planes were discoverd in 2007
under 260ft. of ice.
16. Not sure if I totaly understand the question but mabey there were others in boats that just didn’t
survive.
Ultamaty God gives us the free will to chose the path we decide to follow just like in the story of
Noah. We can follow his path by accepting Jesus Christ as our savior and repenting of our sins or
we can reject him. I will continue to pray for you.
sorry for all the grammer and spelling mistakes
Hi Anonymous, thanks for posting.
I don’t want to rush past the fact that you and I are basically in agreement on the conclusion of this question, which is that the flood narrative should be taken literally.
I do plan to give ample consideration to most of these questions in the future, but it would’ve taken far too long to address all of them here. My only purpose for listing them was to give an overview of the kinds of objections that led some Christians to doubt the flood hypothesis. But I do realize that apologists have rebuttals to these, and will cover them later in more detail.
Have a Merry Christmas!
Yes, I am taking it literally too. What about evidence? Of course, what about dinosaurs? This was why they all died out. It’s global.
Let me ask you one thing, tell me what had happened in this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monumentvalley.jpg
What caused the earth to drop evenly around every mount in the picture?
Beautiful place, I’d love to visit there sometime.
I’m no expert, but according to Answers.com: “Exposure to the atmosphere and weather has gradually, over millions of years, eroded much of the soft sandstone, leaving the slightly harder portions standing. The erosion is still ongoing but rather slow, so in a few more million years Monument Valley will be just a flat desert.”
It looks to me like answers.com is written by ordinary people with no knowledge but ignorance just like I’ve expected. You see, it says “ancient seabed” but there’s no water laying rock any where to be found and it can’t be too ancient because the bottom is clearly show by the steps below each mount. I don’t know what to tell ya if you can’t tell what has happened in a beautiful full of features picture. I wanted to bring an elephant along with me to show you but I am afraid you won’t know what an elephant is.
Daniela, so if water didn’t do it, what did? Your elephant?
Did I say it wasn’t water? A small mount like that would not last decades of water waves.
Okay, now I know why 500 Questions didn’t bother to waste his time.
http://i.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/6nf9pniglhbor-xmDCbdzZRxU-ifill_1024x768/Countries_of_the_World/Asia/Thailand/Phang_Nga_Bay_-_Thailand.jpg
You see these two pictures?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:African_Bush_Elephant.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giraffe_Mikumi_National_Park.jpg)
For you, they both are animal. That’s all you know.
You’re not making any sense. What do elephants and giraffes and knowing the difference between them have to do with anything in this post? Are you trying to be condescending? It’s not working.
I was using the animal to amplify his understanding of what he was talking about.
So, what do you know?
The hell?
Yeah, I don’t know either…
I look forward to it! =)
Just a historical nit: In the days of Columbus, most educated people (including geologists, I suppose) thought they world was round, because of the renaissance of learning of the knowledge that came down to us from the Greeks (who also knew it was round). Columbus just thought the Earth was smaller than most educated people believed, and thus could be circumnavigated to find a shorter route to Asia.
Spoilers: he was wrong. Good thing he found the Americas in his way, or things would’ve gone badly for him.
Yes, Columbus believing the Earth was flat was one of those factoids (facts which aren’t factual) we’re taught as children. Just like the myth of Noah’s Ark, which is nothing but a plagiarization of Greek stories and others. To me, arguing about whether Noah’s Ark was feasible is like arguing about whether Santa makes sense. Could he fit down a chimney? What about apartments? Could he visit all the houses in one night? No adult would argue about such silliness with another adult, so it’s just as absurd to argue about Noah’s Ark.
Hi JackJack,
No adult? I wish that were true, then we could all agree. But according to the Washington Times: “Sixty percent [of Americans] believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood.”
That’s why we fund and visit projects like this (watch the video, it’s quite inspiring!): http://arkencounter.com/
Seems fun actually. Wonder how much atheists could raise for a similar theme park?
Nice post 500Q, I did recently find a website and wasnt sure where it fitted so I posted it on the index page, but now I’ve found a relevant page, I’ll post it again
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html
Yes, it is biased but gives you a general idea of the killings that happened in the OT and NT, and the reasons people were killed. In my other post I mentioned that people do insist that the commandment “thou shalt not kill” is meant to be translated as “thou shalt not MURDER”, which apparently means it is ok as long as it is justified. But there are some very interesting reasons as to why people were ordered to be killed by God.
An interesting fact in relation to Noah’s Ark, rainbows were meant to be divine, because God sent it as a covenant (as you said). It was originally something miraculous and had nothing to do with white light, so… enter Isaac Newton who not only split white light into the spectrum, but turned it BACK into white light… and I think you get the idea.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Solid good post once again! Thank you. Some people argue, that there is no contradiction between religion and science and like you I beg to differ.
Either there is a world wide conspiracy of scientists trying to disprove all the different religions and ancient scriptures like the Bible. Or the Bible and other such ancient religious sources for “absolute truths” from beyond real time and space, are infact slowly but unawoidably reduced to ridiculous metaphorical level of gibberish and the god(s) just plain lied to the ancient people (and even some extremists today) who actually thought these stories not as metaphors at all, but descriptions of reality. Or these stories and scriptures are typical products of human cultures, in the sense of stories becoming myths, and myths becoming dogmas and no god(s) actually ever interfered in their creation.
I am definitely going to reveal my own personal point-of-reference here: Geocentric humanist!
The various ice ages this planet has experienced over several millennia, and this planet’s inhabitants — since being able to communicate orally & write — both give evidence of great flooding everywhere. Several ancient cultures and surviving manuscripts tell of a great flood(s), but the story is NOT exclusive to one culture, one belief system, located in one region (Judaea) of the world. To think or believe in (or “have faith”) or subjugate the latter, is a practice in elitism or perhaps bigotry. This is why I avoid at all costs discriminating religions.
With that said, the western bible(s) is indeed one source supporting great floods, that likely happened on Earth in the past and will likely happen again in the future. Perhaps the more important question for humanity should be “How are we ALL going to work together harmoniously & resourcefully to avoid our species from being extinguished when and if it happens in our lifetime, our children’s lifetime, or grandchildren’s?” Return to the seas? Become amphibious creatures? Become astronauts/cosmonauts in orbit? Become Martians?
I much prefer to spend time, effort, and resources creating pragmatic solutions than propagating a theocracy.
I totally agree with you Professor Taboo, that we should spend time in resolving how to save the planet rather than argue about religious dogma. The problem is, that saving the planet is not the only problem we have. Religious dogma is causing havoc among people even today.
I think the main issue about the flood story of the Abrahamic tradition is not about wether it is true or not. Rather the moral and social values it teaches people. The point of the story is depicted in the final image of the topic post. What is wrong with the people in the boat, that they do not help the people drowning outside? They are following the logic and morals given to them by an authority, that has just decided to destroy all life on earth exept what has been gathered into this ark.
What is wrong with a modern theist, who looks at the final picture of the topic post and comes to the conclusion, that it was just OK for those people to drown, because the people in the boat thought, that is what a god wanted. That there exist authority wich can order genosides, but still be called “benevolent”. And that there are people who are able to weild that authority by admission of their god.
It’s easy to say, “Well, God probably doesn’t exist, so let’s just move on to more important issues,” but for people who grew up with religion, there’s often a part of you that continues to doubt and says… “What if I’m wrong? I could spend an ETERNITY in torment! I’d better make damn well sure I’m right about this!” It’s those lingering doubts that keep asking questions.
If it turns out that God and hell do NOT exist, then this unfounded fear is just one example of the kind of mental damage that religion does to people. I could be out there doing something useful for mankind, instead of fretting over this ancient, made-up, religious nonsense. Unless it’s not nonsense…
But back to Noah: As a practical matter, I have to wonder if drowning all those people was worth any point God was trying to make. We STILL have ungodly people today, so it’s not as if killing them all solved that problem, it just set God back a few centuries. Or perhaps this was God’s way of delivering a very important message to mankind: “I’ll spare those who believe in me… and the hell with everyone else.”
Well, as I was born into an atheist family, I have no nagging questions at the back of my mind.
However, to me religious moralism is a similar phenomenon as racism. Both are cultural constructs, that have their own inner logic, wich does not hold water, if it is scientifically researched and both cause terrible harm in human conduct. Both are very much unethical.
The moderate religious person who does nothing evil as specified in the holy books is comparable to the person who does not own slaves, or attack people with different perplexion, but who neither condemns such acts and just simply obeys the rules and obidiently sits in the “whites only”, or “coloured only” buss seat. As such, that kind of person is not intentionally supporting a racistic system, but rather is the victim of one.
The moderate religious person who condemns the unethical deeds practices and beliefs of her/his own religious tradition is like a racistic person who thinks the other races are inferior, but does not accept, that this inequality justifies their abuse. I guess there is some form of morals there, somewhere, but it still constitutes a misunderstanding of reality.
If we can agree that racism is harmfull misunderstanding of reality, wich causes harm to humanity, then should we not evaluate the truth value of religions by the same scientific standards we use in evaluating racism? In that case the questions about religious dogma and beliefs are very important. Who can claim religions do not cause harm?
“We STILL have ungodly people today” after any world catastrophe; and that will undoubtedly be the case in all future catastrophes. The perceived purpose of the “Flood” is typically the debate from the Right. When the Aides virus erupted back in the 1980′s the Right used it as God’s wrath against homosexuality. Then when good religious people contracted the virus from blood transfusions, their clanking voices fell silent; suddenly their dogma wasn’t ‘favorably’ discriminatory against “sinful” people, ala Sodom & Gomorrah (if one believes in God’s wrath as such). World tragedies will continue to happen, but they do not belong in the debate of moral/immoral consequences.
From AthiestRepublic.com: “You don’t need religion to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion.”
What are you talking about? There isn’t going to be a worldwide flood we need to work together to survive.
For any upcoming catastrophic events, like the earthquake and tsunami of Japan two years ago, or the predicted eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera that if/when it blows will destroy much of middle America, or the very real reasons why NASA and other foreign space agencies are constantly monitoring Earth’s nearby space and our solar system for near-Earth or incoming large meteorites KNOWING the destruction they will cause for the entire world if they hit, or any other in Earth’s future (because all scientists agree unanimously that Earth and the Universe are constantly changing, sometimes violently), then it is indeed your choice to try and survive alone or with close family. But I would argue that your chances of survival are much much better if you’re organized with thousands, or millions of others working for a common goal of survival preparation; it’s much more efficient!
Unfortunately, as 500Q points out directly and indirectly with his lines of questions, one major obstacle for a nation or a planet of beings needing to survive probable extinction is religiously-grounded discrimination and elitism that isn’t conducive to efficient teamwork. Unless of course one is a proponent of Armageddon or God’s massive wipe-out of “sinners and non-believers” as say many militant Islamist seek to usher in immediately by suicide-bombings. Or for that matter, what many Christians want and pray for….a rapture during ‘the end times’ and not really interested in others who are not like-minded. In my mind, those types are essentially people with death-wishes; nothing more.
For me the choice(s) are simple and not rocket science. Are you an Earthling or are you an autonomous human being who only needs his/her “God/Savior”? The latter makes up no more than perhaps 1/3rd of the world population or less depending on which discriminatory pious group one subscribes. I prefer the title of human from planet Earth, period. Now, what can we all do together? Imagine and embrace that. I LIKE those chances much better!