Jesus 101- A Literal Global Flood
Many purported Christians allege that since the Bible is not a
science book, we can take the first 9 chapters of Genesis as non-literal
and accept modern scientific views of millions and billions of years and
likewise view the great flood of Noah's time as a local event. Earlier, I
explained why I believe in a literal six day creation. Here, I explain why I
believe there was a literal global flood. We must not submit matters of
salvation history to the sphere of science, which presupposes
methodological naturalism. Interpreting the Bible through the lens of
science is an error. If questions arise about the meaning of a text, we
should favor the interpretation of other Scriptures and remember that
we're not just looking at ancient literature, but that "Men spoke from God
as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

What did Jesus say? He said, "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so it
will be at the coming of the Son of Man." (Lk 17:26, Mt 24:37) Is the
return of Jesus going to be a local event, known only to those on a small
fraction of the earth? NO! See Rev 1:7, Mt 24:30, and Revelation 19.
The book of Hebrews lists Noah among the heroes of the faith, saying,
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. (Heb 11:7)
The New Testament further explains that Noah's faith in building the ark
to save his family is like believers accepting baptism into Jesus. Just as
God is waiting patiently now for Christ's return, God waited patiently for
decades for Noah to build the Ark. Both the Genesis account and
Peter's summary that only a few people, eight in all, were saved through
the ark. The Apostle Peter, writing as carried along by the Holy Spirit,
viewed Genesis as literal history.

The New Testament further agrees with the theological intent of the
flood, described in Genesis "YHWH saw how great the wickedness of
the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of
the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. YHWH
regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart
was deeply troubled. So YHWH said, “I will wipe from the face of the
earth the human race I have created..." (Ge 6:5-7)

Most proponents of the "local flood" hypothesis never explain how
their alleged local flood could have accomplished God's theological
purpose in wiping out all mankind and saving only Noah and his family
(eight in all) in the ark. If there were other paths to rescue from God's
wrath in Noah's time, such as leaving the local area, then why aren't
there other paths to rescue from God's wrath than being found in Jesus?
Since all mankind lives under the blessings of Genesis 1-2 to "be
fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it" it is likely some folks
originally in the hypothetical local flood area would have migrated out of
it while God waited patiently for the ark to be built. Further, why is it
necessary in a local event to include the animals as passengers on the
ark? Instead of bringing them two by two to the ark, God could have
simply brought them out of the local area while the ark was being built.

The New Testament authors understood the flood as a global event,
both because they were carried along by the Holy Spirit when
interpreting Genesis and because of their deep respect for Moses as
author of the original historical account in Genesis. They agreed with
God's theological intent to wipe out the whole human race as well as
with the details Moses recorded for us, "[The ark] rose greatly on the
earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were
covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of
more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished
—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the
earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life
in its nostrils died. 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."

The New Testament tells us that the things recorded by Moses were
"written down as examples for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages
has come." One's view of the global nature of the flood is not a
salvation issue. But if a low view of Scripture creates doubt in the death
and resurrection of Jesus, there is a big problem. If a low view of
Scripture creates doubt that God is angry enough about sin to destroy
the whole world, then there is a problem. Jesus is our ark to rescue us
from his coming wrath in response to sin. Noah was a preacher of
righteousness – his generation rejected his message. We ought not
ignore our opportunity in our generation.

I enjoyed reading that.

God gave man “science.” God created science, therefore operates outside of what he created and gave to us. Humans would do well to understand that concept. What we know and have, God allows.

If there is EVER any question or doubt in anything. God is right, man is wrong. Always.

The story of Noah and the ark, if taken literally, is so verifiably objectively false that it does massive damage to the Christian faith. The mental gymnastics required to believe this would make flat earthers look rational.

The problems with the story are so many you could write an entire book about it. Here are just a few:

1. The water: In order to cover the highest peak with water you would need 5 times as much water as exists on or in the earth. Using basic math one can prove this. To believe the story you have to believe God put extra water on the earth and then took it away.

2. The animals: There are 1 million + confirmed animal species. Some scientists think there could be as many as 8 million. There are 400,000 + species of beetles. The dimensions of the Ark are plainly stated. The is zero possible way they could have all fit. To believe this story you have to believe God shrunk all the animals to nearly microscopic size and put them all to sleep so they didn't need food, produce waste, or go about killing each other.

3. The fish: Was the water fresh or salt? If it was fresh, all the ocean fish would have died. If it was salt all the freshwater fish would have died. To believe the story you'd have to believe God kep t the water from mixing in various pockets all over the globe.

4. The plants: Don't even get me started here.

You said it, “you’d have to believe God.” Pretty much sums it up.

A God who can breathe life into a dirt body, can probably do what ever needs to be done for his word to be accurate.

You believe what man says is and what isn’t possible. Perfectly your right. Me. I will believe what my God says.

One example, man says you came from an ape. My God says he created me in his image.

Maybe you did pick correctly.

I have a PhD in Physics from MIT and I've authored over 100 scholarly scientific papers.

But I understand the boundaries and limitations of the scientific method.

Science presupposes what we call "methodological naturalism." This is the assumption that the laws of nature are constant in time and location.

Therefore, any purported "claim" that science has "disproven" a supernatural act (or miracle) is making an invalid circular argument.

Methodological naturalism assumes that miracles NEVER occur, as this is required by the presupposition of constant natural law.

Proving some special case of "this miracle did not occur" (the flood or the resurrection or the creation) is not within the realm of science, since science begins by assuming that "No miracles ever occur."

it all starts at Genesis 1:1... if you can't get past that, you'll never understand Jesus saying "with God all things are possible."... I know it happened just like the Bible says it did.

Do you believe in the virgin birth?

Ezekiel chapter 37 requires faith along in is God who he says he is if not Ezekiel is not believable from a science position. Science can't and doesn't explain God it's man's way of explaining why they don't need God. Science is useless for most all things relating to God,Jesus and the Bible. God build and made everything so he can build it or destroy it as he sees fit.

I had no idea, you surprised me. Bless your heart.

Yep. Thanks for the comment. Let's be sure to high five when we get to the other side.

I have a few degrees myself, although I admit my Purdue Engineering degree is not as impressive as a PhD from MITT. I did not know that about you, nice work Mathgeek!

Anyway.

If you say the Bible is infallible, and then you pick and choose certain parts and apply different standards to prove your case you dramatically weaken your position.

Example: The bible says, the walls of Jehrico fell outward, a city was later found in the same area with walls that fell outward. This is then offered up as a data point that the Bible is accurate.

Example 2: The Bible says the whole earth flooded and 2 of each kind of every kind of animal were stuffed into the ark. It's then demonstrated this is not possible, and so we immediately move to, doesn't matter, must have been a "miracle" still gotta believe it.

If we allow ourselves to fall into bucket number 2, then all religions become equally true. Anything that doesn't jive with reality can just be dismissed behind a cloak of the supernatural.

A third viewpoint is that the story is just that. A story. There was a local flood. Noah loaded some animals up in the ark, but the whole earth didn't flood, and millions of animals weren't involved.

Is my point coming across here? Either say the whole thing is factual and infallible and let's stack up the evidence and weigh it. Or say you know what, the evidence doesn't matter we just gotta believe on faith. You have to pick one or the other, otherwise, you are just a cherry-picker.

If Adam was found to have a belly button, would you take that as proof he was born rather than created from dust?

There are far fewer mental gymnastics involved with the belly button than with the flood story. I agree.

The virgin birth???