[responsivevoice_button]

Chris Matthew:

Ambiguity is No Guide to Falsification

The first phase of the video [0:33 to 1:44] details how Scripture makes use of the words “earth” and “land” in a regional, not global, sense. I can’t help but notice that the examples cited are remarkably similar to the points advanced by Michael Heiser and, derivatively, Michael Jones (at InspiringPhilosophy) ─ Gen. 41:57, 2:11, and 9:19. Unfortunately, however, the semantic range of those Hebrew terms is just not a point of contention. I, for one, don’t disagree with the fact that biblical authors may use “earth”, “land”, and other synonyms in a distinctively regional manner (whether in Hebrew or in Greek). In fact, it would be a cop-out to think that the simple phrasing of Gen. 6-8 constitutes the main argument of global flood proponents. What does this mean for the debate? The range of possible meanings compels us to grapple with the text and identify textual indicators to cogently support either a local or global flood. In other words, terminological ambiguity tells us that both a global and local flood is possible; it does not falsify the former. As such, this particular point does not, and cannot, serve as “evidence for a local flood” (notwithstanding the title of the video).

Do we have, then, a compelling case from the text to support the idea that Gen. 6-8 refers to a global flood? I believe there are a number of key arguments, but it would do us good to look at one.

The Argument from the Noahic Covenant

Consider the post-deluge Noahic covenant (Genesis 9). In enumerating the details of this covenantal arrangement, God elucidates upon a significant promise in verse 11: “… that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” (cf. verse 15). Remember that we have two possible views at hand: a global flood and a local flood. But it’s not hard to see that a local flood is logically incompatible with both clauses of verse 11. To see this, consider the following local interpretation (LI) of v. 11c:

If, as local flood proponents suggest, the “earth” in Gen. 6-8 does not refer to the totality of the globe, but only a sizable region, then LI would hold. God pledges in the Noahic covenant, after all, to not repeat the immediately antecedent events of Gen. 6-8. Of course, the issue is that LI is evidently false. We know that, since Genesis 9, God has decreed countless floods to destroy individual regions.

Thus, in explaining the falsity of LI, the proponent of the local flood seems to be impaled on the horns of dilemma: either God broke His covenant promise (which was made with “every living creature… for all future generations”, v. 12); or the local flood was not the case. Given the impossibility of divine fickleness, we can formulate an argument in this way:

P1: If Genesis 6-8 refers to a local flood, there would be no destructive local flood after Noah (LI).
P2: There have been destructive local floods after Noah.
C1: Genesis 6-8 does not refer to a local flood.
P3: Genesis 6-8 refers either to a local or global flood.
C2: Genesis 6-8 refers to a global flood.

A similar argument can be advanced on the basis of verse 11b (that “never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood”), but I will leave the reader the task of constructing such an argument.

Psalms 104: Begging the Question?

Towards the end of the video [1:44 to 2:31], another argument was raised in support of the local flood. The relevant question would be: does the phrasing of Ps. 104:6-9 deliver a rebutting defeater to the global flood theory? I maintain that it does not, and for good reason. The contention advanced in the video is that God, during creation, “set a boundary that [the waters] may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth” (verse 9). If this is true, a global flood would be impossible subsequent to creation (including, therefore, Genesis 6-8) ─ since a global flood would naturally involve the waters covering the whole earth.
Notice that the argument rests quite crucially on the premise that Ps. 104, and particularly verses 6 to 9, is a creation account. But we have been offered no reason to accept this ─ despite being assured that, if only “we look at it closely and read the scholarship”, we too will see that it is “clearly a creation psalm.” To be sure, I submit that, due to the allusion of verse 9 to the rainbow promise of Gen. 9:11, Ps. 104:6-9 refers precisely to Noah’s flood and its aftermath.

Now, it can be readily acknowledged that two verses in the psalm (5, 19) refer to the creation account of Genesis 1. But most of the psalm speaks of creation as it appears to the psalmist at the time he is living and writing. This is conspicuous in the mentioning of Lebanon (16), ships (26), and wicked sinners (35) ─ none of which existed during the creation week. Consequently, insofar as we have not been presented with a rational case to support the idea that verses 6 to 9 refer to the creation account, the argument’s major premise is nothing more than a statement against the global flood view. Begging the question is not a virtuous way to argue.

Tyler Vela:

Chris, the simple answer may be that the local flood still may have been on a level unlike flooding normally is but not global. Maybe a regional flood. The other is that God could be promising not to flood as punishment for human depravity anymore. Not that no floods will ever happen.

Ethan:

Chris Matthew:

Ambiguity is No Guide to Falsification

You may be responding to some particular individuals. I’ll grant that possibility. My suggestion for future videos is to incorporate a greater level of commentary. You should highlight, for example, the fact that you want to begin by tackling incredulity. This would make your videos all the more better, albeit they would have to be (slightly) longer. Needless to say, my point stands: we must go beyond semantic ambiguity and identify textual indicators to cogently support either a local or global flood.

The Argument from the Noahic Covenant

I’m quite pleased to hear that this argument is still undefeated!

Ethan, I’m eager to read your “fully formulated argument”, which I hope will be written up soon. Meanwhile, let me respond to some of the initial thoughts.

Tyler Vela suggested, as one proposal, the idea that “the local flood still may have been on a level unlike flooding normally is but not global. Maybe a regional flood.” Unfortunately, this is a weak response. The textual tenor of Genesis 9:8-17 indicates a promised divine abstinence from a global flood. Note that the differentiating characteristic in verse 11 is not one of quality, but one of degree. God pledges that “never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth”, not that “never again shall there be an intensive/significant flood.” To reiterate, the pledge is incompatible with Genesis 6-8 describing any kind of local flood.

And aside from the lack of textual support, the suggested interpretation is implausible in light of historical events. It is frankly untrue to say that we have not seen any particularly intensive, significant, or sizably regional flood. See, for instance, the 1931 Chinese floods, which inundated approximately 180,000 km squared and killed 3.7 million to 4 million people.

The second (and arguably more refined) proposal is that “God could be promising not to flood as punishment for human depravity anymore.” Ethan tentatively agrees with this proposal, writing that his “first thought is that God will not use a flood for judgement but not that a large flood will never happen again.” But this response is faced with the same debilitating challenge as the above ─ i.e., lack of textual support. There is nothing in the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9, verses 8-17) that could possibly lend support to the idea that God was somehow limiting His promise to vindictive action. To the contrary, his covenantal promise with “every living creature …, for all future generations”, is that: (1) “never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth”; and (2) “the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.” The language is unmistakably categorical, strongly precluding any artificial limitation on the motivational cause behind such a flood.

Furthermore, this position appears to be stuck with another theological issue: what’s so unique about floods? Is God saying that He will no longer make use of floods for the purpose of covenantal judgement, but that other means (forest fires? hurricanes? coronaviruses?) are at His free disposal? Prima facie, that seems to be a distinction without a difference. (The remaining alternative, of course, is to assert that God does not judge people in history at all ─ but I hope we can all agree that’s not a biblical option.) So at the end of the day, it’s much more straightforward to say that God will not use a flood (or any other natural tool) to bring about the destruction of the whole world, judgmentally or otherwise.

And blimey, that’s just what the text says!

It’s fair to say that, with every assumption imported to preserve a certain reading of the text, the more untenable that exegesis becomes. Both of the above proposals are brilliant examples of reading into the text.