In Defense of the Genesis Flood

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

A careful study of biblical history reveals that God always has provided man with the information required for both his physical and spiritual well-being. In every age, God ensured that men possessed the rules, regulations, guidelines, and injunctions necessary for happiness and success in their earthly pilgrimage. At the same time, however, He endowed mankind with a precious gift. Men were not created as robots to serve God slavishly without any personal volition. Rather, they were created as free moral agents who possessed the ability to choose the path they would follow, and the eternity they would inhabit.

Throughout the ages, human responses to God’s gift of personal volition have been many and varied. Some—humbly desiring to comply with God’s directives—have accommodated their lives to His wishes, and have done their best to live as He had instructed. Others—thumbing their nose at their Creator—have ignored His commands, and have lived in stubborn rebellion to divine law.

Sadly, mankind has not been content merely to disobey God. Along the way, the tenets of God’s law systems (Patriarchal, Mosaical, and Christian) not only were indifferently ignored, but vigorously ridiculed as well. The precepts that composed those law systems have been denigrated, vilified, and attacked. No divine concept escaped unscathed. Great spiritual truths such as God’s infinite nature, His workings in His creation, the inspiration of His written Word, His mercy and grace as extended through the virgin-born, crucified, and resurrected second member of the Godhead, and many more, were broadsided by infidelity. None was immune to man’s desecration and disobedience. Humankind, so it seems, resolved with a vengeance to set its face against God.

MANKIND’S RESPONSE TO THE GENESIS FLOOD

One example of man’s determination to oppose that which God has decreed can be seen in the variety of responses pertaining to the Great Flood of Genesis 6-8. It would be difficult to find an account from any period of biblical history that has been ridiculed more frequently, or with greater derisiveness, than the story of the Flood. Such a response from those who do not believe in God hardly is surprising, since by all accounts the concept of a recent global Flood is incompatible with the naturalistic system of origins espoused by unbelievers. For more than a hundred years the Flood has been under accelerated attack by infidels within the scientific community who have chosen to support such concepts as uniformitarianism and organic evolution. In fact, atheistic writers have admitted that one of the main forces behind the rise of uniformitarianism was the desire to eliminate God as Creator, and as Initiator of the Great Flood (see Gould, 1965, 1987).

In the case of the Flood, however, it is not just unbelievers who fervently have opposed the biblical account. Some who claim to profess a belief in God likewise have attacked—in a similarly vitriolic fashion—the concept of a universal Flood. Harold W. Clark has observed:

The period from the Reformation to the middle of the 19th century has been called the “Golden Age of Creationism.” Many fundamental discoveries in science were made, and there was a genuine spirit of recognition of the validity of the Genesis story of creation and the Flood as a background for science. However, as geological knowledge grew rapidly in the 18th century, theologians found it increasingly difficult to adjust the new knowledge to the short chronology of Genesis. With increasing favor they began to turn to notions that were being propounded by scientists, not all of whom were sympathetic toward the Scriptural account of the past (1968, pp. 17-18).

Religionists of both the past and the present have compromised, or attacked, the global nature of the Flood. Among those of the past, several prominent writers spring to mind. In the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary (1870), Robert Jamieson presented a lengthy defense of the local Flood theory. John Pye Smith, in his work, The Relation Between the Holy Scriptures and Some Parts of Geological Science (1854), strongly advocated a limited, local Flood. Edward Hitchcock, in his text, The Religion of Geology and Its Connected Sciences(1852), and Hugh Miller in his work, The Testimony of the Rocks (1875), also defended the local Flood theory, asserting that the biblical account of a global Flood simply was not acceptable.

Within the past several decades, a number of prominent religionists also have opposed a global Flood. In the 1950s, evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm championed the view of a local Flood in his book, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954), as did anthropologist Arthur C. Custance in The Extent of the Flood: Doorway Papers No. 41 (1958; see also Custance’s 1979 book, The Flood: Local or Global?).

In the late 1960s, John N. Clayton of South Bend, Indiana, a frequent lecturer on Christian evidences, made his views known regarding the unlikely possibility of a universal Flood when he said:

There is no way geologically of supporting the idea that there was a worldwide flood…. On the North American continent, for example, there is no place, no real conclusive evidence that there has ever been a flood over this continent…. You cannot go to geology and find evidence to support the idea of the worldwide flood…. The Bible does not maintain positively that this was a worldwide flood…. It seems to me plausible that possibly the flood was confined to the known earth at that time (1969).

In the 1970s, John Warwick Montgomery defended a local Flood in his book, The Quest for Noah’s Ark (1972). That same decade, Davis A. Young (who at the time was serving as a professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington) authored Creation and the Flood, in which he espoused the view that “arguments can be adduced to suggest that the flood was a gigantic local deluge…. The flood was fundamentally a judgment of God and not a major geological event, certainly not an event which reshaped the globe” (1977, p. 212). Later, as a professor of geology at Calvin College, Young would reiterate and expand his views on a local Flood in a 1995 volume, The Biblical Flood (pp. 309-310).

In the early 1980s, Neal D. Buffaloe, a biology professor at the University of Central Arkansas, and N. Patrick Murray, an Episcopalian minister, authored Creationism and Evolution, in which they wrote: “By contrast [to the literal, historical view of Genesis—BT], the mainstream of Biblical scholarship rejects the literal historicity of the Genesis stories prior to Chapter 12, and finds the literature of parable and symbol in the early chapters of Genesis.” Later, in referring to the events of these chapters, including the Flood, the authors stated that “these things never were…” (1981, pp. 5,8).

In the 1990s, perhaps the most outspoken defender of a local Flood is progressive creationist Hugh Ross, who has commented regarding Genesis 6-8:

I kind of read through the text and it seemed obvious to me that it had to be a local flood, not a global flood, and I was shocked to discover that there are all these Christians, and even Christian scholars, that held to a global flood. And I wanted to figure out, you know, how did this happen? You know, how did people get off track like this? (1990).

Ross repeated these sentiments regarding his belief that the Genesis Flood was local, rather than universal, in his 1994 book, Creation and Time.

Why has the Flood become such a lightning rod for controversy? And why do those who profess to believe other areas of Scripture oppose so vehemently the concept of a global Flood? In short, the answer is this. Those who oppose a worldwide Flood (like the writers referenced above) have defended publicly the standard geologic timetable inherent in the evolutionary model of origins. They understand all too well that they cannot advocate an ancient Earth based upon that timetable, and consistently maintain a belief in a universal Flood. Prominent creationist Henry Morris addressed this point when he wrote:

The Biblical Flood in the days of Noah has become a great divide between two watersheds of belief. On the one hand there are those who say it is either a purely mythological event or else possibly a local or regional flood. This group includes practically all evolutionists, but it also includes the “old-earth creationists.”

These all accept the so-called geological ages as the approved record of Earth history, recognizing that a global hydraulic cataclysm would have destroyed any evidence for such geological ages. The geological ages concept and a worldwide devastating Flood logically cannot coexist.

On the other hand, “young-earth creationists” accept the Biblical record of the Flood as a literal record of a tremendous cataclysm involving not only a worldwide Flood, but also great tectonic upheavals and volcanic outpourings that completely changed the crust of the earth and its topography in the days of Noah.

Those of us who hold this view are commonly ridiculed as unscientific and worse, so it would be more comfortable and financially rewarding if we would just go along with the evolutionist establishment, downgrade the Flood, and accept the geological ages (1998, p. a, emp. added).

Dr. Morris is correct in his assessment. The simple truth of the matter is that the Genesis account of the Great Flood has been, and is being, attacked because it provides a formidable obstacle to a comfortable belief in the geologic timetable espoused by evolutionists and those sympathetic with them. Rehwinkel has remarked:

Every student of the Bible and of geology knows there exists today a seemingly irreconcilable conflict between Genesis and geology. This conflict dates back about 125 years and had its origin in the rise of evolutionary geology. Up to that time, theologians and scientists were generally in agreement with the Biblical teachings concerning creation and the Flood. But that is no longer the case…. Now and then there are still those who try to harmonize Genesis and the theories of geology by juggling language and extending the six days of creation into six periods of unlimited time, each measured by millions, or possibly billions, of years. Still others preserve an outward reverence for the Bible and speak of Genesis patronizingly as a beautiful but poetical conception of the origin of things (1951, pp. xvi, xvii).

Theodore Epp stated concerning the local Flood view: “This concept seems to have gotten its greatest support from Christians attempting to harmonize the Bible with science. For the most part, the result has been a compromise between the Bible and historical geology, which is based on evolutionary thinking” (1972, p. 138). In the final analysis, however, the central issue is not what current “evolutionary geology” decrees. It is not what “modern science” mandates. Nor is it what those intent on compromising the Bible “wish” God’s Word has to say. Rather, the issue is what the Bible actually says. As Edwin Jones has written:

…the account of the flood that we have does not contain all of the details necessary for a full understanding of how things were done. To judge a general account by rules governing a specific, detailed explanation is simply not fair. There is nothing that cannot be accounted for by plausible argumentation in defending the concept of a universal flood. The main concern, as always, should be what do the Scriptures teach? (1996, pp. 60-61, emp. added).

Since it is the biblical Flood that is under consideration, it is appropriate, in mounting a defense of the Flood, to consider first and foremost the Bible’s position on this topic.

IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD

Even its detractors admit (albeit begrudgingly) that the subject of the Flood is a prominent story in the Bible, with more attention being given to it than even Creation. Four of the first eleven chapters of Genesis are devoted to the record of the great Flood. In fact, next to Creation, the Flood of Noah’s day is the greatest single physical event in the history of our Earth; nothing comparable to it has happened since, nor will anything comparable happen again—until the final destruction of this Universe in the fiery judgment yet to come (2 Peter 3). There are repeated references to the Flood account in numerous books within the Old Testament. Further, Jesus and the writers of the New Testament often alluded to Noah and the Flood as if both were historical in nature (cf. Matthew 24:36-39; 1 Peter 3:18-22; Hebrews 11:7; 2 Peter 3:5-7). Alfred Rehwinkel wrote that:

The flood marks the end of a world of transcendent beauty, created by God as a perfect abode for man, and the beginning of a new world, a mere shadowy replica of its original glory. In all recorded history there is no other event except the Fall which has had such a revolutionary effect upon the topography and condition of this Earth and which has so profoundly affected human history and every phase of life as it now exists in its manifold forms in the world. No geologist, biologist, or student of history can afford to ignore this great catastrophe (1951, p. xv).

Truth be told, many of the great scientists of the past firmly believed in, and accepted as factual, the biblical account of a universal Flood. Oard has suggested: “More than 150 years ago, many scientists believed the rocks on the earth’s surface were laid down and fashioned by the Genesis Flood” (1990, p. 24). Robert L. Whitelaw has commented: “Long before anyone knew of the carbon 14 clock and up until Darwin’s day, the scientific world recognized the abundant evidence of a worldwide watery catastrophe such as the Genesis Flood” (1975, p. 41). Indeed, in previous centuries both scientists and theologians attributed many of the Earth’s features to the Flood of Noah, and generally were in agreement with the Bible’s teachings on Creation and the Flood. Now, however, that no longer is the case. In our day and age, young people often are subjected to what may well represent one of the greatest possible threats to their faith—the challenge of the conflict between evolutionary geology and the Word of God. The simple fact of the matter is that it is impossible to correlate the Bible with evolutionary geology (see Jackson, 1984, pp. 296-297; 1990), even though there have been those who have attempted such a compromise (Clayton, 1976; Ross, 1994; Young, 1982, 1995; see Jackson and Thompson, 1992, for documentation and refutation of this kind of compromise). As our youngsters study under those who delight in ridiculing the Flood account, or who attempt to effect a compromise of evolutionary thinking with the biblical record, this challenge to their faith will become all the more real. As Rehwinkel stated:

The shock received by the inexperienced young student is therefore overwhelming when he enters the classroom of such teachers and suddenly discovers to his great bewilderment that these men and women of acclaimed learning do not believe the views taught him in his early childhood days; and since the student sits at their feet day after day, it usually does not require a great deal of time until the foundation of his faith begins to crumble as stone upon stone is being removed from it by these unbelieving teachers. Only too often the results are disastrous. The young Christian becomes disturbed, confused, and bewildered. Social pressure and the weight of authority add to his difficulties. First he begins to doubt the infallibility of the Bible in matters of geology, but he will not stop there. Other difficulties arise, and before long skepticism and unbelief have taken the place of his childhood faith, and the saddest of all tragedies has happened. Once more a pious Christian youth has gained a glittering world of pseudo-learning but has lost his own immortal soul (1951, p. xvii).

An in-depth study of the Flood is essential if we wish to prepare our children, and ourselves, to deal with these conflicts. Generally, it is not a matter of if such conflicts will arise; it is only a matter of when.

THE REASON FOR THE FLOOD

According to the Bible, God created the Universe in six literal days of approximately 24 hours each. After that Creation (and the seventh-day rest), mankind was given three positive commands and one negative command. The three positive commands were: (1) be fruitful and multiply—fill the Earth (Genesis 1:28); (2) subdue the Earth and have dominion over it (Genesis 1:28); and (3) tend the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15). The one negative command was to avoid eating the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17). As every student of Bible history knows, however, Adam and Eve transgressed the law of God and ate the forbidden fruit. For this sin, they were evicted from their garden paradise, and a curse was placed upon them (Genesis 3:16-19; cf. Romans 8:20-22).

Outside the garden, Adam and Eve began their family. The first two sons they named Cain and Abel. Cain murdered Abel, and eventually went into exile, separating himself from the main family group (Genesis 4:16ff.). Like two distinct streams, the two family groups flowed side-by-side, and for somewhat more than a thousand years apparently remained separate. Eventually, however, the righteous began to commingle with the unrighteous. The Bible observes “that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose” (Genesis 6:2). Out of these intermarriages came a generation of men and women in almost total rebellion against God. Genesis 6:5-7 states:

And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them (emp. added).

That these unions resulted in such a shameful condition should not be all that surprising. Paul spoke of the evil consequences of such in 1 Corinthians 15:33 when he said, “Be not deceived: evil companionships corrupt good morals.”

At this point, it might be prudent to point out that the period from Creation to the Flood was not merely “a few short years.” In fact, the time span was approximately 1,656 years (see Rehwinkel, 1951, pp. 24-25). A millennium and a half represents a long span in human history. During that time, people (especially those who lived to the advanced ages of most of the patriarchs—see Thompson, 1992) would have proliferated, and spread to many areas around the globe. Man was endowed with far greater vitality of body and mind than he is now (a point that may be inferred from the great ages to which he lived), and inhabited a pristine world of almost unlimited, unspoiled natural resources. Living longer under such conditions, of course, also would mean that man was much more prolific than he now is. Yet even in our age, when life spans are shortened considerably, 1,656 years would be enough time to grow an enormous population. Between 1830 and 1930, for example, the world population doubled in number (i.e., it increased by about 850 million people within a single century). Imagine—given the proposed antediluvian setting of a mild climate worldwide, improved vitality, longer life spans, and impressive resources—the potential increase in global population that could occur, not in 100 years, but in 1,656 years.

The stage, then, was set for God’s wrath upon a sin-sick world. His decree was that He would destroy man, beast, and bird from the face of the Earth. There was, however, something that prevented God from carrying out that decree immediately. It was the fact that a man named Noah had remained faithful to God. Noah, the text makes clear, was an island of righteousness in a sea of iniquity. His character is described in Genesis 6:9 by three expressions. (1) “Noah was a just man” (i.e., honest—likely an unusual trait in day). (2) Noah was “perfect in his generations.” Edwin Jones has suggested that “Noah’s being perfect refers to his being blameless because of his wholehearted, complete loyalty to God. Noah did what was right because he had a complete, well-rounded relationship with God” (1996, p. 58). (3) Noah “walked with God” (cf. James 2:23, where this same phrase is applied to Abraham).

Because of Noah’s faithfulness, a “probationary period” of a maximum of 120 years was established by God (Genesis 6:3). During that time, Noah preached to the people of his generation (1 Peter 3:18-20), all the while carrying out the commands of God regarding the building of the ark (Genesis 6). After approximately 100 years, Noah’s work was completed (Genesis 5:32 indicates that Noah was 500 years old prior to the events of Genesis 6-8; Genesis 7:6 indicates that Noah was 600 years old when he entered the ark. It appears from a straightforward reading of the text that, of the probationary period of 120 years imposed by God, Noah used 100 years or less). However, for all his preaching Noah’s only “converts” were members of his own family group. People no doubt grew accustomed to the large hulk of the great ark, and at the same time grew apathetic to Noah’s message of salvation from impending doom. Sin continued as the probationary period drew to a close. The decree had been made; the grace of God had been extended; the time for action was at hand. Mankind’s sin now would result in God sending a worldwide Flood.

Was the Flood universal in scope, or was it merely a local, Mesopotamian inundation limited to the then-known world? Is the account in Genesis 6-9 of the Flood the record of an actual historical event, or is it simply an allegory, myth, or legend? The answers to these questions form an important part of the defense of the biblical record of the Flood.

The Extent and Duration of the Flood

Genesis 7:11 provides a clear indication of the devastating nature of the Genesis Flood when it states that “all the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” This was no gentle afternoon shower. Rather, it was the final judgment of an angry God on a sin-sick, destined-to-die world. Water came down (“the windows of heaven were opened”) and water rose up (“all the fountains of the great deep were broken up”), until finally Genesis 7:19-20 records: “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” In assessing these passages, Whitcomb and Morris have written: “One need not be a professional scientist to realize the tremendous implications of these Biblical statements. If only one (to say nothing of all) of the high mountains had been covered with water, the Flood would have been absolutely universal; for water must seek its own level—and must do so quickly!” (1961, pp. 1-2, emp. in orig.).

Critics, however, have argued that the phrase “all the high mountains” need not necessarily mean all high mountains, for the word “all” can be used in a relative or distributive sense. H.C. Leupold, however, has dealt a deathblow to that argument.

A measure of the waters is now made by comparison with the only available standard for such waters—the mountains. They are said to have been “covered.” Not merely a few but “all the high mountains under all the heavens.” One of these expressions alone would almost necessitate the impression that the author intends to convey the idea of the absolute universality of the Flood, e.g., “all the high mountains.” Yet since “all” is known to be used in a relative sense, the writer removes all possible ambiguity by adding the phrase “under all the heavens.” A double “all” (kol) cannot allow for so relative a sense. It almost constitutes a Hebrew superlative. So we believe that the text disposes of the question of the universality of the Flood (1942, p. 301).

How deep, then, was this water that covered “all the high mountains”? The text says it was “fifteen cubits upward” that the water “prevailed.” This phrase obviously cannot mean that the waters went only fifteen cubits (approximately 22½ feet) high, for the phrase is qualified by the one that immediately follows: “and the mountains were covered.” The true meaning of the phrase is to be found in comparing Genesis 7:19-20 with Genesis 6:15, where the statement is made that the ark was thirty cubits high. The phrase “fifteen cubits” must refer to the draught of the ark which, in a boat like the ark, generally is half the height (i.e., when fully loaded it sinks in the water to a depth equal to half its height). If the ark were thirty cubits high, and sank half of that, it would sink fifteen cubits. If the waters then prevailed upward “fifteen cubits,” such a depth would be adequate to protect the ark as it floated on the waters all over the Earth for a little more than a year. Therefore the ark would not hit any mountaintops during its journey. [Since Psalm 104:8 speaks of God “raising up new mountains” after the Flood, it is likely that the mountains of Noah’s day were not nearly as high as the mountains that exist today.] A careful reading of the Genesis text indicates that the Flood lasted approximately a year. By way of summary, Whitcomb and Morris have written:

The order of events as set forth in the first part of the eighth chapter of Genesis would seem, then, to be as follows; (1) After the waters had “prevailed upon the earth” 150 days, the waters began to assuage. (2) The Ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat the same day that the waters began to assuage, for the 17th day of the 7th month was exactly 150 days after the Flood began. (3) The waters continued to subside, so that by the 1st day of the 10th month (74 days later), the tops of various mountains could be seen. This would suggest a drop of perhaps fifteen or twenty feet a day, at least during the initial phase of this assuaging period. (4) The Flood level continued to fall for forty more days, so that Noah, no longer fearing that the Flood would return, sent forth a raven to investigate the conditions outside the Ark (1961, p. 7).

The Testimony of the Apostle Peter

One of the most important, and most convincing, passages relating to the magnitude and significance of the Genesis Flood is found in 2 Peter 3:3-7:

…knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they wilfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

In this stirring passage, Peter speaks of some who—because of a fatal adherence to uniformitarianism—did not take seriously Heaven’s promise of the Second Coming of Christ. Nor did they seem to understand that His return would be a cataclysmic, universal intervention by God in the affairs of men. These “mockers” lamented that all things were continuing as they had “from the beginning of the creation.” In response, Peter discussed two events that simply cannot be explained on the basis of uniformitarianism, and in so doing he destroyed forever infidelity’s arguments.

The first of these events was the creation of the world: “there were heavens from of old, and an earth…by the word of God.” The second of these events was the Great Flood of Noah: “The world (Greek, kosmos) that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” Peter used the account of the Noahic Flood to draw a comparison with Christ’s Second Coming and the subsequent destruction of the world. For, said Peter, as “the world that then was” perished by water, so the “heavens that now are, and the earth” have been “stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” From Peter’s straightforward language, it is impossible logically for men to suggest that Peter meant a coming destruction by fire of only part of the Earth. Peter’s terms—“the heavens that now are, and the earth”—obviously are universal in nature. Peter portrayed one event that brought about a transformation not just of the Earth, but also of the heavens as well. That event, according to the inspired apostle, was the Noahic Flood!

It was the Flood that constituted the line of demarcation between “the heavens from of old” and “the heavens that now are” in the thinking of the apostle Peter. It was the Flood that utilized the vast oceans of water out of which and amidst which the ancient Earth was “compacted,” unto the utter destruction of the kosmos “that then was.” It was the Flood to which Peter appealed as his final and incontrovertible answer to those who chose to remain in willful ignorance of the fact that God had at one time in the past demonstrated His holy wrath and omnipotence by subjecting “all things” to an overwhelming, cosmic catastrophe that was on an absolute par with the final day of judgment, in which God will yet consume the earth with fire and cause the very elements to dissolve with fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10) [Whitcomb, 1973, pp. 57-58].

British scholar Derek Kidner has observed that

…we should be careful to read the [Flood—BT] account wholeheartedly in its own terms, which depict a total judgment on the ungodly world already set before us in Genesis—not an event of debatable dimensions in a world we may try to reconstruct. The whole living scene is blotted out, and the New Testament makes us learn from it the greater judgment that awaits not only our entire globe but the universe itself (II Peter 3:5-7) [1967, p. 95].

If the New Testament “makes us learn” from the Noahic flood account that the coming judgment of which Peter spoke so eloquently will involve “not only our entire globe but the universe itself,” how can this lesson be learned from a Flood that was merely local in extent? There can be no doubt that Peter’s argument (that there is a coming universal destruction awaiting this world—an argument framed from the fact of the Flood of Noah) provides inspired testimony as to the universal destruction of the Genesis Flood.

THE NECESSITY OF CONSTRUCTING AN ARK

According to Genesis 6:5, God “…saw that the wickedness of man was great…,” and declared His intent to destroy the Earth by water as a result of man’s willful rebellion. Approximately a century before the Flood, God chose to reveal and explain to a single human being, Noah, His decision. God then instructed Noah to make the necessary preparations for the coming judgment by building an ark that would serve as the instrument of salvation not only for his own family, but also for the seed of all land-living, air-breathing creatures. Alfred Rehwinkel has observed: “The word ‘ark’ seems to be derived from the Egyptian language and signifies ‘chest’ or something to float. The word occurs only twice in the Bible, here for the ark of Noah and again in Ex. 2:3-5 for the ark of bulrushes in which the infant Moses was saved from the cruel decree of Pharaoh” (1951, p. 58).

A fundamental question that must be asked in the biblical context is this: If the Flood was merely a local inundation limited to the known Mesopotamian region of that day, why would God have instructed Noah to build such an ark in the first place? Whitcomb has suggested that:

…there would have been no need for an Ark at all if the flood was local in extent. The whole procedure of constructing such a vessel, involving over 100 years of planning and toiling, simply to escape a local flood can hardly be described as anything but utterly foolish and unnecessary! How much more sensible it would have been for God simply to have warned Noah of the coming destruction in plenty of time for him to move to an area that would not have been affected by the Flood, even as Lot was taken out of Sodom before the fire fell from heaven. Not only so, but also the great numbers of animals of all kinds, and certainly the birds, could easily have moved out of the danger zone also, without having to be stored in a barge for an entire year! The Biblical record simply cannot be harmonized with the concept of a flood that was confined to the Near East (1973, p. 47, emp. in orig.).

This is a point that almost all advocates of the local Flood theory either seem to have missed or ignored. Speaking as co-authors of the classic volume, The Genesis Flood, Whitcomb and Morris opined: “The writers have had a difficult time finding local-Flood advocates that are willing to face the implications of this particular argument” (1961, p. 11). It is easy to understand why.

In attempting to support the concept of a local Flood, while simultaneously trying to provide a logical solution to why Noah would have been instructed by God to build an ark in the first place, Arthur C. Custance went so far as to suggest that the entire ark-building episode was merely an “object lesson” to the antediluvians. He wrote:

It would require real energy and faith to follow Noah’s example and build other Arks, but it would have required neither of these to pack up a few things and migrate. There is nothing Noah could have done to stop them except disappearing very secretly. Such a departure could hardly act as the kind of warning that the deliberate construction of the Ark could have done. And the inspiration for this undertaking was given to Noah by leaving him in ignorance of the exact limits of the Flood. He was assured that all mankind would be destroyed, and probably supposed that the Flood would therefore be universal. This supposition may have been quite essential for him (1958, p. 18).

Responding to this suggestion by Custance, Whitcomb and Morris asked:

But how can one read the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 with close attention and then arrive at the conclusion that the Ark was built merely to warn the ungodly, and not mainly to save the occupants of the Ark from death by drowning? And how can we exonerate God Himself from the charge of deception, if we say that He led Noah to believe that the Flood would be universal, in order to encourage him to work on the Ark, when He knew all the time that it would not be universal? (1961, p. 12, emp. in orig.).

In addressing this same point, Van Bebber and Taylor wrote that it would be strange indeed for God to require Noah to spend approximately 100 years of his life

…building a huge boat to save representative animals which really didn’t need to be saved. Most, if not all, of these animals were alive and well in other parts of the world. Dry land was just over the horizon all along. Despite the lack of necessity, God kept Noah trapped in this boat full of animals under these strange circumstances for over a year!… If only those animals in a specific geographic region died, it would have been unnecessary to protect pairs in the Ark for the express purpose of preventing their extinction. Surely there would be representatives of their kinds in other areas. If, on the other hand, there had been some unique kinds in the path of a local flood, then it would seem more logical to send representative pairs out of the area, rather than to the Ark, as God did. Certainly the birds could have flown to the safety of dry land. If the Flood had been local, God could also have simply sent Noah and family out of the area (1996, pp. 56-58).

Further, consider that Genesis 7:21-23 plainly states:

All flesh died that moved upon the earth, both birds, and cattle, and beasts, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was on the dry ground, died. And every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; and they were destroyed from the earth.

Once again, Whitcomb and Morris have sought to remind local Flood advocates:

These are exactly the same terms used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe the various kinds of land animals which God created…. The fact of the matter is that no clearer terms could have been employed by the author than those which he did employ to express the idea of the totality of air-breathing animals in the world. Once this point is conceded, all controversy as to the geographical extent of the Deluge must end; for no one would care to maintain that all land animals were confined to the Mesopotamian Valley in the days of Noah! (1961, p. 13, emp. in orig.).

One final point needs to be mentioned. Some today are fervent in their insistence that the ark has been found on top of the 17,000-foot-high Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Among that number is John Warwick Montgomery (1972). Dr. Montgomery, however, is an ardent proponent of the local Flood theory. How can a man claim to accept biblical and/or scientific evidence that he feels would point to the remains of Noah’s ark being on the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey, and then deny the biblical testimony to the global Flood that put it there? Does Montgomery understand what he is asking us to believe? To claim that the remains of the ark are on top of the 17,000-foot-high Mt. Ararat, while at the same time insisting that it was put there by a local flood, is to strain at the gnat and swallow the camel. [NOTE: I do not accept Montgomery’s claim that the ark can be proven to be on Ararat, but that is beyond the scope of this present discussion. See Major, 1994.]

THE CONSTRUCTION AND SIZE OF THE ARK

God told Noah to make “the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits” (Genesis 6:15). If we are to understand the size of the ark, we first must understand the length of the cubit. “The Babylonians had a ‘royal’ cubit of about 19.8 inches, the Egyptians had a longer and a shorter cubit of about 20.65 and 17.6 inches respectively, while the Hebrews apparently had a long cubit of 20.4 inches (Ezek. 40:5) and a common cubit of about 17.5 inches” (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 10). Rehwinkel has observed:

It is generally supposed that the cubit is the distance from the point of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Translated into our own standard of measurements, the common cubit is estimated at about 18 inches. But Petrie, a noted Egyptologist, is of the opinion that it measured 22½ inches. Whether or not Noah’s cubit was comparable to any one of the cubits now known to us, no one is able to determine…. But accepting the lower figures and placing the cubit at eighteen inches and then again at twenty-four inches, we get the following results: According to the lower standard, the ark would have measured 450 feet in length, seventy-five feet in width, and forty-five feet in height. According to the higher figure, the length would have been six hundred feet; the width, one hundred feet; the height, sixty feet…. The ships of the maritime nations of the world never approached the dimensions of the ark until about a half century ago (1951, pp. 59,60).

Using a conservative cubit of 17½ inches, the ark would have been 437.5 feet long, 72.92 feet wide, and 43.75 feet high. In its three decks (Genesis 6:16), it had a total deck area of approximately 95,700 square feet—the equivalent of slightly more than twenty basketball courts. Its total volume would have been 1,396,000 cubic feet. The gross tonnage (measurement of cubic space rather than weight, one ton being equivalent to 100 cubic feet of usable storage space) was about 13,960 tons (see Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 10).

Critics of the Flood account have argued that the ark simply was not large enough to handle its assigned cargo. Such critics, however, generally have not taken into consideration exactly how large the ark really was, or the cargo it had to carry. As Whitcomb has pointed out:

For the sake of realism, imagine waiting at a railroad crossing while ten freight trains, each pulling 52 boxcars, move slowly by, one after another. That is how much space was available in the Ark, for its capacity was equivalent to 520 modern railroad stock cars. A barge of such gigantic size, with its thousands of built-in compartments (Gen. 6:14) would have been sufficiently large to carry two of every species of air-breathing animal in the world today (and doubtless the tendency toward taxonomic splitting has produced more “species” than can be justified in terms of Genesis “kinds”) on only half of its available deck space. The remaining space would have been occupied by Noah’s family, five additional representatives of each of the comparatively few kinds of animals acceptable for sacrifice, two each of the kinds that have become extinct since the Flood, and food for them all (Gen. 6:21) [1973, p. 23, emp. in orig.].

Whitcomb and Morris have given extensive investigation to the numbers of animals that would have been on the ark (using highest possible estimates, and taxonomic figures provided by evolutionists), and have shown that the biblical account can fit known scientific facts regarding these matters (1961, pp. 65-69). John Woodmorappe has expanded on their work and provided an extensive, well-researched feasibility study dealing specifically with the ark’s construction and contents (1996). Some, however, have stated that an examination of such facts amounts to nothing more than “mental gymnastics” (Clayton, 1980, p. 8). This we deny. It is not “mental gymnastics” to examine the physical structure and size of the ark given by the Bible itself, as compared to known scientific facts regarding the animal kingdom.

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST

It was not just inspired writers of the Bible who provided information on the extent, nature, and importance of the Genesis Flood. The Lord Himself addressed the topic of the Great Flood in Luke 17:26-30 (cf. Matthew 24:39) when He drew thefollowing parallel:

And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed (emp. added).

The Lord depicted an impending doom that was to befall the Jews of His day who would not heed the Word of God. For the purpose of this article, however, note the context in which Jesus discussed the Flood destruction of Genesis 6-8. He placed the Flood alongside the destruction of Sodom, and He also placed it alongside the destruction of the ungodly at His Second Coming. Whitcomb has remarked:

This fact is of tremendous significance in helping us to determine the sense in which the word “all” is used in reference to those who were destroyed by the Flood. Our argument proceeds in the following manner: the force of Christ’s warning to the ungodly concerning the doom which awaits them at the time of His Second Coming, by reminding them of the destruction of the Sodomites, would be immeasurably weakened if we knew that some of the Sodomites, after all, had escaped. This would allow hope for the ungodly that some of them might escape the wrath of God in that coming day of judgment. But we have, indeed, no reason for thinking that any Sodomite did escape destruction when the fire fell from heaven. In exactly the same man- ner, Christ’s warning to future generations, on the basis of what happened to the ungodly in the days of Noah, would have been pointless if part of the human race had escaped the judgment waters…. Therefore we are persuaded that Christ’s use of the word “all” in Luke 17:27 must be understood in the absolute sense; other- wise the analogies would collapse and the warnings would lose their force. A heavy burden of proof rests upon those who would maintain that only a part of the human race was destroyed in the Flood, in view of the clear statements of the Lord Jesus Christ (1973, pp. 21-22. emp. in orig.).

THE RAINBOW COVENANT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

A point that often is overlooked by local Flood advocates is the rainbow covenant that God gave (Genesis 9:11-15). Three times (Genesis 8:21; 9:11,15) God promised never again to allow “everything living” to be destroyed by a flood. He set a rainbow in the heavens as a sign of that promise. If the Flood of Genesis 6-8 was merely a local event, then it is obvious to even the casual observer that God has broken His covenant repeatedly, since there have been countless local floods upon the face of the Earth in which multiplied thousands of people have perished. If the Genesis Flood was local, but God promised never again to allow another (local) flood, then why have local floods continued?

Advocates of the local flood idea have invented a theory that places God in the untenable position of breaking His promise, in spite of plain statements of Scripture which state that God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). S.J. Schultz stated:

Had any part of the human race survived the flood outside of Noah and his family they would not have been included in the covenant God made here. The implication seems to be that all mankind descended from Noah so that the covenant with its bow in the cloud as a reminder would be for all mankind (1955, p. 52).

SUPERNATURALISM AND THE FLOOD

The account of the Great Flood in Genesis 6-8 entails the overruling power of an Almighty God in what undoubtedly were supernatural (i.e., miraculous) events. Critics of the account, however, have objected to the introduction of the miraculous. Byron Nelson, in his classic text, The Deluge Story in Stone, called attention to this fact when he wrote:

What is called “modern” geology has eclipsed Flood geology because of a dislike for those supernatural elements which are the backbone of Christianity. The Flood theory of geology has not been abandoned because it does not satisfy actual geological conditions. There is nothing known about the earth’s geological state today which makes the Deluge theory any less satisfactory an explanation of the fossiliferous strata than in the days when the leading scholars of the world accepted it. Rather the contrary—there are facts known now about the geological conditions of the earth remarkably supporting the Flood theory which Williams, Catcott, Harris and others never dreamed of. It is a disregard for God and the sacred record of his acts, and nothing else, which has caused the discard of the Flood theory to take place (1931, p. 137).

Theologian Bernard Ramm provides the perfect example of the “disregard for God and the sacred record of his acts” of which Nelson wrote. Ramm sneered: “If one wishes to retain a universal flood, it must be understood that a series of stupendous miracles is required. Further, one cannot beg off with pious statements that God can do anything” (1954, p. 165). Consistency, of course, is not the norm for those who defend error. The same Bernard Ramm who made the above statement militating against miracles also argued for miracles as an inherent part of the Bible when he said: “The miracles are not warts or growths that may be shaved or cut off, leaving the main body of the gospel record untouched” (1953, p. 174). So which is it? Is the miraculous to be accepted, or not? Apparently Ramm and his cohorts wish to answer in the affirmative in regard to certain portions of the Bible, but in the negative in regard to others—so long as they are are the ones allowed to pick and choose.

What does Dr. Ramm mean when he says that “one cannot beg off with pious statements that God can do anything”? God can do anything that is not inconsistent with His own nature. And He does not need Bernard Ramm, or others like him, to tell Him what He can or cannot do. God made it clear in these chapters that He was in complete control. From the bringing of the animals to Noah (Genesis 6:19-20), to the shutting of the door of the ark (Genesis 7:16), it was a miraculous situation from beginning to end. As Whitcomb and Morris have observed: “The simple fact of the matter is that one cannot have any kind of a Genesis Flood without acknowledging the presence of supernatural powers” (1961, p. 76). Furthermore, many of those who try to minimize the miraculous eventually end up returning to it anyway. Dr. Ramm, for example, was forced to admit that the animals coming to Noah were “prompted by divine instinct” [i.e., a miracle] (1954, p. 169).

God miraculously superintended the entire Flood process, and Bible believers should not be ashamed to admit it. Whitcomb has listed at least six areas in which supernaturalism is required in the context of the Genesis Flood: (1) divinely-revealed design of the ark; (2) gathering and care of the animals; (3) uplift of oceanic waters from beneath; (4) release of waters from above; (5) formation of our present ocean basins; and (6) formation of our present continents and mountain ranges (1973, p. 19). There may be other areas where the presence of supernaturalism is required, but the fact remains that certain aspects of the Flood record cannot be accounted for on the basis of purely natural processes.

Nevertheless, it is not necessary to appeal to an “endless supplying of miracles to make a universal flood feasible,” as Ramm has suggested somewhat satirically. Whitcomb noted: “Apart from the specific miracles mentioned in the Scripture which were necessary to begin and to terminate this period of global judgment, the flood accomplished its work of destruction by purely natural processes that are capable of being studied to a certain extent in hydraulic laboratories and in local flood situations today” (1973, p. 67). The fact of the matter is that both natural and supernatural phenomena worked side—by-side during the Flood. It did not require an “endless supplying of miracles.”

SCIENCE AND THE FLOOD

It has not been the main thrust of this article to present scientific evidence that supports the concept of a global Flood. As I said earlier, since it is the biblical Flood under discussion, the truthfulness of the Genesis record dealing with the Flood must be determined by an appeal to the Bible. However, there is ample scientific evidence available to indicate the presence of a global Flood in the distant past. In fact, entire volumes have been written documenting such evidence.

The classic volume The Genesis Flood, although now somewhat dated, is a good beginning point for such material. John Whitcomb’s two sequels, The World That Perished and The Early Earth, contain valuable additional material, and responses to critics. Harold Clark also has written a book dealing with such matters (Fossils, Flood and Fire). Similar books (The Flood, by Rehwinkel; Speak Through the Earthquake, Wind & Fire, by Fisher; Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, by Austin) are readily available, and speak to the fact of the cumulative amount of scientific evidence that supports the concept of the Genesis Flood.

However, I believe a word of caution is in order. In the past, extremes have been documented from those on both sides of the issue. Some have made indefensible statements like “…There is no way geologically of supporting the idea that there was a worldwide flood…” (Clayton, 1969). On the other hand, some have interpreted almost every shred of evidence as supporting a global Flood, even going so far as to identify a particular layer within the geologic column as the Flood layer—a posture that, in the end, proved extremely inadvisable (as well as embarrassing).

Both extremes should be avoided. Biblical evidence establishes the fact that there was a universal Flood. Knowing that, we then may be alert to evidence from science that possibly provides support for the Flood model. At the same time, however, we must realize that it is not always an easy task to interpret such evidence, for none among us has experienced or witnessed a global Flood. As Austin has warned: “The worldwide Flood recounted in Genesis has no parallel in today’s world” (1994, p. 192). Oard offered a further assessment when he wrote: “Small-scale local floods may not compare well with such a gigantic catastrophe as a worldwide Flood” (1997, p. 3). Therefore, whatever measurements we make must, by necessity, be made on a much smaller scale (e.g., using local flood information, etc.). This being the case, it behooves us to use great care, for we do not want to abuse, misuse, or overextrapolate the evidence from science.

Critics of what generally is referred to as “Flood geology” have been quick to point out what they view as flaws in the system that attempts to interpret Earth history in light of the global catastrophe of Genesis 6-8. Certainly, I know of none among us who would advocate that there are no difficulties with respect to the Flood theory of geology. Even those who are at the forefront in writing and speaking on these topics (e.g., Henry Morris, John Whitcomb, Steven Austin, John Woodmorappe, Walter Brown, John Morris, and others) are quick to admit that they do not have all the answers.

At the same time, however, neither should we be intimidated by, nor fall prey to, the false, unbiblical concept of evolutionary uniformitarianism. Truth be told, attempts to avoid any possible interpretation of Earth history via Flood geology, and to harmonize interpretations of Earth history via strictly natural processes, present more problems than they solve. As Cockburn stated the matter: “No man departs from the Flood theory upon pretense of avoiding any absurdity therein supposed, but that he ran himself upon the necessity of believing greater absurdities than any he pretended to avoid” (1750, p. 163).

While there may be some difficulty coming to a full and complete scientific, after-the-fact understanding of the geology associated with a global Flood, the arguments for a localflood (whether allegedly based on biblical exegesis or on modern science) are unconvincing—and more important, wrong. There are, however, overwhelming arguments in favor of a universal deluge. Henry Morris, for example, in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, has suggested 96 arguments (64 biblical, 32 non-biblical) that support the idea of a worldwide Flood (1972, pp. 96-100). While one may not agree with every single argument, it quickly will become apparent that it is impossible to dispose of each of the arguments in a nonchalant manner.

For example, vast animal graveyards and fossiliferous rubble shifts have been found worldwide. Evidence of a great, sudden, and recent watery cataclysm—followed by a deep freeze across the entire great north, accompanied by titanic hydraulic forces and crustal upheavals burying a host of elephants and other great beasts in a region that now is almost totally devoid of vegetation—has been documented. Vast numbers of fossil trees and plants, standing erect, oblique and even inverted while piercing through successive beds of water-laid stone (i.e., polystrate fossils) have been discovered.

Vast and numerous rifts, fissures, and lava beds have been discovered, scarring the world ocean floor and bespeaking some gigantic submarine upheaval of the Earth’s crust (as in the breaking up of the “fountains of the deep”). Geologic evidence suggests that most, if not all, of the world’s mountains have been under water at some point in the past—a conclusion demanded by the existence of sedimentary deposits and marine fossils at or near their summits. Much of the Earth’s crust is composed of sedimentary rocks (shales, limestones, sandstones, etc.) that generally are known to form under water.

Worldwide fossilization has occurred in vast quantities, including fossils of even many modern forms of life. These fossils are found in sedimentary strata, often at great depths and under great pressure. Yet as Morris has observed: “Fossils, however, normally require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidly—even catastrophically—and more and more present-day geologists are returning to this point of view” (1998, p. b). While it is not creationists’ intention to suggest that every instance of rapid burial and fossilization or mass destruction is attributable directly and specifically to the Great Flood, many may well be.

In addressing the well-known geologic column, Dr. Morris commented:

It is also significant that the types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in the rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately throughout the various “ages” supposedly represented in the column. To all outward appearances, therefore, they were formed in essentially the same brief time period (1998, pp. b-c).

Sedimentary fossil “graveyards” have been found worldwide in rocks of all “ages.” Various rock types (granite, shale, limestone, etc.) are found in all parts of the geologic column, and there exists a general disorder in the fossil record, which would be expected if a global Flood occurred.

CONCLUSION

The temptation undoubtedly exists, especially in today’s climate of extreme scientific prowess, to exalt science above Scripture. Such a stance, while obviously to be expected of those who do not profess a belief in either God or His Word, simply is not an option for the person who accepts the truthfulness and inspiration of the Bible. John Morris addressed this particular temptation, and what happens when Bible believers fall prey to it, when he wrote:

Unfortunately, many others now have begun to judge Scripture’s accuracy by its agreement with scientific dogma, and then to distort Scripture until the two seem to agree. In doing so, scientific opinions of some scientists are elevated to a level they don’t deserve, and Scripture suffers.

If such a method of interpreting Scripture is followed throughout, other doctrines will fall also. After all, miracles are “scientifically” impossible. Scientists know that virgins don’t give birth, men don’t walk on water, and bodies don’t rise from the dead. One may gain scientific credibility among the secularists by twisting Scripture to fit science, but it would be better to honor God by believing His word (1998, p. d).

Let us openly and fairly examine the biblical and scientific evidence that supports the Genesis Flood, and simultaneously urge others to do likewise. Let us be cautious as good students, but never willing to compromise inspired testimony. Indeed, “the main concern, as always, should be what do the Scriptures teach” (Jones, 1996, p. 61).

REFERENCES

Austin, Steven A. (1994), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).

Clark, Harold W. (1968), Fossils, Flood and Fire (Escondido, CA: Outdoor Pictures).

Clayton, John N. (1969), Questions and Answers: Number 1 [taped lecture], (South Bend, IN: Privately published by author).

Clayton, John N. (1980), “The Flood—Fact, Theory and Fiction,” Does God Exist?, 7[7]:2-9, July.

Cockburn, Patrick (1750), An Enquiry into the Truth and Certainty of the Mosaic Deluge, quoted by Byron C. Nelson (1968), The Deluge Story in Stone (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).

Custance, Arthur C. (1958), The Extent of the Flood: Doorway Papers No. 41 (Ottawa, Canada: Privately published by author). [NOTE: This material by Custance also was included in his 1979 book, The Flood: Local or Global? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).]

Fisher, Graham A. (1982), Speak Through the Earthquake, Wind & Fire (Merseyside, England: Countyvise, Ltd.).

Jones, Edwin S. (1996), Studies in Genesis (Abilene, TX: Quality).

Major, Trevor (1994), “Has Noah’s Ark Been Found?,” Reason & Revelation, 14:39, May.

Montgomery, John Warwick (1972), The Quest for Noah’s Ark (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship).

Morris, Henry M. (1972), The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research).

Morris, Henry M. (1998), “Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood,” Back to Genesis, (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), 116:a-c, August.

Morris, John (1998), “How Does ‘Old Earth’ Thinking Affect One’s View of Scripture’s Reliability?,” Back to Genesis, El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), 116:d, August.

Nelson, Byron (1931), The Deluge Story in Stone (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Oard, Michael J. (1997), Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landslides? (Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society).

Ramm, Bernard (1953), Protestant Christian Evidences (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Ramm, Bernard (1954), The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Rehwinkel, Alfred M. (1951), The Flood (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).

Schultz, S.J. (1955), “The Unity of the Race: Genesis 1-11.” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 7:52.

Van Bebber, Mark and Paul S. Taylor (1996), Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross (Gilbert, AZ: Eden Communications).

Whitcomb, John C. (1973), The World That Perished (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed).

Woodmorappe, John (1996), Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).

Buffaloe, Neal D. and N. Patrick Murray (1981), Creationism and Evolution (Little Rock, AR: The Bookmark).

Clark, Harold W. (1968), Fossils, Flood and Fire (Escondido, CA: Outdoor Pictures).

Clayton, John N. (1969), Questions and Answers: Number 1 http://lecture, (South Bend, IN: Privately published by author).

Clayton, John N. (1976), The Source (South Bend, IN: Privately published by author).

Custance, Arthur C. (1958), The Extent of the Flood: Doorway Papers No. 41 (Ottawa, Canada: Privately published by author). [NOTE: This material by Custance also was included in his 1979 book, The Flood: Local or Global? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).]

Custance, Arthur C. (1979), The Flood: Local or Global? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Epp, Theodore (1972), The God of Creation (Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible).

Gould, Stephen Jay (1965), “Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?,” American Journal of Science, 263:223-228.

Gould, Stephen Jay (1987), Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Hitchcock, Edward (1854), The Religion of Geology and Its Connected Sciences (Boston, MA: Phillips, Sampson).

Jackson, Wayne (1984), “Evolution and Creation: Are They Compatible?,” Christian Bible Teacher (Abilene, TX: Quality), 28:296-297, July.

Jackson, Wayne (1990), The Mythology of Modern Geology (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).

Jackson, Wayne and Bert Thompson (1992), In the Shadow of Darwin: A Review of the Teachings of John N. Clayton (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Jamieson, Robert (1948 reprint), Critical & Experimental Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Jones, Edwin S. (1996), Studies in Genesis (Abilene, TX: Quality).

Kidner, Derek (1967), Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago, IL: Inter-Varsity Press).

Leupold, Herbert C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis (Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press).

Miller, Hugh (1875), The Testimony of the Rocks (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers).

Montgomery, John Warwick (1972), The Quest for Noah’s Ark (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship).

Morris, Henry M. (1998), “Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood,” Back to Genesis (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), 116:a-c, August.

Oard, Michael J. (1990), An Ice Age Caused by the Flood (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).

Ramm, Bernard (1954), The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Rehwinkel, Alfred M. (1951), The Flood (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).

Ross, Hugh (1990), The Flood—Part II http://lecture, (Pasadena, CA: Reasons to Believe).

Ross, Hugh (1994), Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress).

Smith, John Pye (1854), The Relation between the Holy Scriptures and Some Parts of Geological Science (London: Henry G. Bohn).

Thompson, Bert (1992), “The Bible, Science, and the Ages of the Patriarchs,” Reason & Revelation, 12:17-20, May.

Whitcomb, John C. (1973), The World That Perished (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed).

Whitelaw, Robert L. (1975), “The Testimony of Radiocarbon to the Genesis Flood,” Symposium on Creation, ed. Donald W. Patten (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 5:39-50.

Young, Davis A. (1977), Creation and the Flood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Young, Davis A. (1982), Christianity and the Age of the Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Young, Davis A. (1995), The Biblical Flood (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Copyright © 1998 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Creation Vs. Evolution” section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

Apologetics Press

http://www.apologeticspress.org

“Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107

The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.