If there had definitely been a global flood, as depicted in the Bible, what form would the supporting scientific evidence take?

1. Building the Ark

2. Gathering the Animals

• Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
• Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
• Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
• Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.

3. Fitting the Animals Aboard

• For purposes of naming animals, the people who live among them distinguish between them (that is, give them different names) at roughly the species level. [Gould, 1980]
• The Biblical "kind," according to most interpretations, implies reproductive separateness. On the ark, the purpose of gathering different kinds was to preserve them by later reproduction. Species, by definition, is the level at which animals are reproductively distinct.
• The Flood, according to models, was fairly recent. There simply wouldn't have been time enough to accumulate the number of mutations necessary for the diversity of species we see within many genera today.

• The Bible says so. Gen. 7:8 puts on the ark all creatures that move along the ground, with no further qualifications. Lev. 11:42includes arthropods (creatures that "walk on many feet") in such a category.
• They couldn't survive outside. Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished. And indeed, not one insect species in a thousand could survive for half a year on the vegetation mats proposed by some creationists. Most other land arthropods, snails, slugs, earthworms, etc. would also have to be on the ark to survive.

• The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.
• Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.

• Collecting each species instead of each genus would increase the number of individuals three- to fourfold. The most speciose groups tend to be the smaller animals, though, so the total mass would be approximately doubled or tripled.
• Collecting all land animals instead of just mammals, birds, and reptiles would have insignificant impact on the space required, since those animals, though plentiful, are so small. (The problems come when you try to care for them all.)
• Leaving off the long-extinct animals would free considerable space. Woodmorappe doesn't say how many of the animals in his calculations are known only from fossils, but it is apparently 50-70% of them, including most of the large ones. However, since he took only juveniles of the large animals, leaving off all the dinosaurs etc. would probably not free more than 80% of the space. On the other hand, collecting all extinct animals in addition to just the known ones would increase the load by an unknown but probably substantial amount.
• Loading adults instead of juveniles as small as Woodmorappe uses would increase the load 13- to 50-fold.
• Including extra clean animals would increase the load by 1.5-3% if only the 13 traditional domestic ruminants are considered, but by 14-28% if all ruminants are considered clean.

References

Gould, Stephen Jay, 1980. A quahog is a quahog. In The panda's thumb, Norton, New York.
Steinsaltz, Adin, 1976. The essential Talmud. Basic books.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
Wilson, D.E. & D.M. Reeder (eds.), 1993. Mammal species of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press. (http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/)
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: a feasibility study. Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California.

4. Caring for the Animals

• Feeding the animals would take much longer if the food was in containers to protect it from pests.
• Many animals would have to be hand-fed.
• Watering several animals at once via troughs would not work aboard a ship. The water would be sloshed out by the ship's roll.
• Many animals, in such an artificial environment, would have required additional special care. For example, all of the hoofed animals would need to have their hooves trimmed several times during the year. [Batten, 1976, pp. 39-42]
• Not all manure could be simply pushed overboard; a third of it at least would have to be carried up at least one deck.
• Corpses of the dead animals would have to be removed regularly.
• Animals can't be expected to run laps and return to their cages without a lot of human supervision.

References

Batten, R. Peter, 1976. Living trophies. Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York.
Foelix, Rainer F., 1996. The biology of spiders, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York. Chpt. 6.
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: a feasibility study. Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California.

5. The Flood Itself

• How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
• If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
• If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
• A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
• Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.

• How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
• Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
• Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

• The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
• Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.
• Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
• Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]

• How could such a change be effected? To change the density and/or temperature of at least a quarter of the earth's crust fast enough to raise and lower the ocean floor in a matter of months would require mechanisms beyond any proposed in any of the flood models.
• Why are most sediments on high ground? Most sediments are carried until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the oceans, we should expect more sediments there. Baumgardner's own modeling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins [Baumgardner, 1994], so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick. [Poldervaart, 1955]
• Where's the evidence? The water draining from the continents would have produced tremendous torrents. There is evidence of similar flooding in the Scablands of Washington state (from the draining of a lake after the breaking of an ice dam) and on the far western floor of the Mediterranean Sea (from the ocean breaking through the Straits of Gibralter). Why is such evidence not found worldwide?
• How did the ark survive the process? Such a wholesale restructuring of the earth's topography, compressed into just a few months, would have produced tsunamis large enough to circle the earth. The aftershocks alone would have been devastating for years afterwards.

References

Austin, Steven A., John R. Baumgardner, D. Russell Humphreys, Andrew A. Snelling, Larry Vardiman, & Kurt P. Wise, 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global flood model of earth history. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 609-621.
Brown, Walt, 1997. In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. (www.creationscience.com/onlinebook)
Baumgardner, John R., 1990a. Changes accompanying Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the second international conference on creationism, vol. II, pp. 35-45.
Baumgardner, John R., 1990b. The imparative of non-stationary natural law in relation to Noah's Flood. Creation Research Society Quarterly 27(3): 98-100.
Baumgardner, John R., 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 77-86.
Carroll, Robert L., 1997. Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, Cambridge University Press.
Matsumura, Molleen, 1997. Miracles in, creationism out: "The geophysics of God".Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(3): 29-32.
Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth's crust. pp. 119-144 In: Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.

6. Implications of a Flood

References

Alley, R. B., D. A. Meese, C. A. Shuman, A. J. Gow, K.C. Taylor, P. M. Grootes, J. W. C. White, M. Ram, E. W. Waddington, P. A. Mayewski, & G. A. Zielinski, 1993. Abrupt increase in Greenland snow accumulation at the end of the Younger Dryas event.Nature 362: 527-529.
Becker, B. & Kromer, B., 1993. The continental tree-ring record - absolute chronology, C-14 calibration and climatic-change at 11 KA. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 103 (1-2): 67-71.
Becker, B., Kromer, B. & Trimborn, P., 1991. A stable-isotope tree-ring timescale of the late glacial Holocene boundary. Nature 353 (6345): 647-649.
Johnsen, S. J., H. B. Clausen, W. Dansgaard, K. Fuhrer, N. Gundestrap, C. U. Hammer, P. Iversen, J. Jouzel, B. Stauffer, & J. P. Steffensen, 1992. Irregular glacial interstadials recorded in a new Greenland ice core. Nature 359: 311-313.
Stuiver, Minze, et al, 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration back to 13,300 years BP and the 14 C age matching of the German Oak and US bristlecone pine chronologies. IN: Calibration issue / Stuiver, Minze, et al., Radiocarbon 28(2B): 969-979.

7. Producing the Geological Record

• the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
• the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
• why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
• why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
• why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
• how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
• why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
• why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
• why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
• why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
• why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

• Rain drops. [Robb, 1992]
• River channels. [Miall, 1996, especially chpt. 6]
• Wind-blown dunes. [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson & Abrahamsen, 1983; Hubert & Mertz, 1984]
• Beaches.
• Glacial deposits. [Eyles & Miall, 1984]
• Burrows. [Crimes & Droser, 1992; Thackray, 1994]
• In-place trees. [Cristie & McMillan, 1991]
• Soil. [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989; Wright, 1986, 1994]
• Desiccation cracks. [Andrews, 1988; Robb, 1992]
• Footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17) showing dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in layers above and below it. Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have several more examples, including dinosaur footprints on top of a coal seam (p. 361-366).]
• Meteorites and meteor craters. [Grieve, 1997; Schmitz et al, 1997]
• Coral reefs. [Wilson, 1975]
• Cave systems. [James & Choquette, 1988]

• Magma. The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions. Assuming (conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x 1027 joules while cooling 1100 degrees C. In addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release a great deal more heat.
• Limestone formation. There are roughly 5 x 1023 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p. D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 1026 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters.
• Meteorite impacts. Erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown number of impact craters on earth, but Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest that cratering to the extent seen on the Moon and Mercury occurred on earth during the year of Noah's Flood. The heat from just one of the largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3 x 1026 joules; the same sized object falling to earth would release even more energy. [Fezer, pp. 45-46]
• Other. Other possibly significant heat sources are radioactive decay (some Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old radiometric dates); biological decay (think of the heat released in compost piles); and compression of sediments.

• Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly mineralized, including some that biblical archaeology says are quite old - a substantial fraction of the age of the earth in this diluvian geology. For example, remains of Egyptian commoners buried near the time of Moses aren't extensively mineralized.
• Buried skeletal remains of extinct mammalian fauna show quite variable mineralization.
• Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized.
• Trilobite remains are usually mineralized - and in different sites, fossils of the same species are composed of different materials.

"Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in 'fossil graveyards' as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.
"Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate [land] fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded."

References

Andrews, J. E., 1988. Soil-zone microfabrics in calcrete and in desiccation cracks from the Upper Jurassic Purbeck Formation of Dorset. Geological Journal 23(3): 261-270.
Bignot, G., 1985. Micropaleontology Boston: IHRDC, p. 75.
Clemmenson, L.B. and Abrahamsen, K., 1983. Aeolian stratification in desert sediments, Arran basin (Permian), Scotland. Sedimentology 30: 311-339.
Crimes, Peter, and Mary L Droser, 1992. Trace fossils and bioturbation: the other fossil record. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 339-360.
Cristie, R.L., and McMillan, N.J. (eds.), 1991. Tertiary fossil forests of the Geodetic Hills, Axel Heiberg Island, Arctic Archipelago, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 403., 227pp.
Dawson, J.W., 1868. Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition. MacMillan and Co.: London, 694pp.
Donohoe, H.V. Jr. and Grantham, R.G. (eds.), 1989. Geological Highway Map of Nova Scotia, 2nd edition. Atlantic Geoscience Society, Halifax, Nova Scotia. AGS Special Publication no. 1, 1:640 000.
Eyles, N. and Miall, A.D., 1984, Glacial Facies. IN: Walker, R.G., Facies Models, 2nd edition. Geoscience Canada, Reprint Series 1: 15-38.
Ferguson, Laing, 1988. The fossil cliffs of Joggins. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Fezer, Karl D., 1993. "Creationism: Please Don't Call It Science" Creation/Evolution, 13:1 (Summer 1993), 45-49.
Gansser, A., 1964. Geology of the Himalayas, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., New York.
Gastaldo, R. A., 1990, Early Pennsylvanian swamp forests in the Mary Lee coal zone, Warrior Basin, Alabama. in R. A. Gastaldo et. al., Carboniferous Coastal Environments and Paleocommunities of the Mary Lee Coal Zone, Marion and Walker Counties, Alabama. Guidebook for the Field Trip VI, Alabama Geological Survey, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. pp. 41-54.
Gilette, D.D. and Lockley, M.G. (eds.), 1989. Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 454pp.
Gore, Rick, 1993. Dinosaurs. National Geographic, 183(1) (Jan. 1993): 2-54.
Grieve, R. A. F., 1997. Extraterrestrial impact events: the record in the rocks and the stratigraphic record. Palaeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 132: 5-23.
Hubert, J.F., and Mertz, K.A., Jr., 1984. Eolian sandstones in Upper Triassic-Lower Jurassic red beds of the Fundy Basin, Nova Scotia. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 54: 798-810.
Jackson, M.P.A., et al., 1990. Salt diapirs of the Great Kavir, Central Iran. Geological Society of America, Memoir 177, 139pp.
James, N. P. & P. W. Choquette (eds.), 1988. Paleokarst, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Kocurek, G., and Dott, R.H., 1981. Distinctions and uses of stratification types in the interpretation of eolian sand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 51(2): 579-595.
Miall, A. D., 1996. The Geology of Fluvial Deposits, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Moore, James R., 1973. "Charles Lyell and the Noachian Deluge", in Dundes, 1988, The Flood Myth, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Newell, N., 1982. Creation and Evolution, Columbia U. Press, p. 62.
Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth's crust. pp. 119-144 In: Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.
Reinhardt, J., and Sigleo, W.R. (eds.), 1989. Paleosols and weathering through geologic time: principles and applications. Geological Society of America Special Paper 216, 181pp.
Ricklefs, Robert, 1993. The Economy of Nature, W. H. Freeman, New York.
Robb, A. J. III, 1992. Rain-impact microtopography (RIM); an experimental analogue for fossil examples from the Maroon Formation, Colorado. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 62(3): 530-535.
Rosenberg, G. D. & Runcorn, S. K. (Eds), 1975. Growth rhythms and the history of the earth's rotation. Willey Interscience, New York.
Schadewald, Robert, 1982. Six 'Flood' arguments Creationists can't answer.Creation/Evolution 9: 12-17.
Schmitz, B., B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink, M. Lindstrom, & M. Tassinari, 1997. Accretion rates of meteorites and cosmic dust in the Early Ordovician. Science 278: 88-90.
Scrutton, C. T., ( 1964 ) 1965. Periodicity in Devonian coral growth. Palaeontology, 7(4): 552-558, Plates 86-87.
Short, D. A., J. G. Mengel, T. J. Crowley, W. T. Hyde and G. R. North, 1991. Filtering of Milankovitch Cycles by Earth's Geography. Quaternary Research. 35, 157-173. (Re an independent method of dating the Green River formation)
Stewart, W.N., 1983. Paleontology and the Evolution of Plants. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 405pp.
Thackray, G. D., 1994. Fossil nest of sweat bees (Halictinae) from a Miocene paleosol, Rusinga Island, western Kenya. Journal of Paleontology 68(4): 795-800.
Twenhofel, William H., 1961. Treatise on Sedimentation, Dover, p. 50-52.
Weast, Robert C., 1974. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 55th edition, CRC Press, Cleveland, OH.
Wells, J. W., 1963. Coral growth and geochronometry. Nature 197: 948-950.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
Wilson, J. L., 1975. Carbonate Facies in Geologic History. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Wright, V. P. (ed.), 1986. Paleosols: Their Recognition and Interpretation, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Wright, V. P., 1994. Paleosols in shallow marine sequences. Earth-Science Reviews, 37: 367-395. See also pp. 135-137.
Yun, Zhang, 1989. Multicellular thallophytes with differentiated tissues from Late Proterozoic phosphate rocks of South China. Lethaia 22: 113-132.
Yuretich, Richard F., 1984. Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place, Geology 12, 159-162. See also Fritz, W.J. & Yuretich, R.F., Comment and reply,Geology 20, 638-639.
Zimmer, Carl, 1992. Peeling the big blue banana. Discover 13(1): 46-47.

8. Species Survival and Post-Flood Ecology

• Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months. This is especially true if they were soaked in salt water. Some mangroves, coconuts, and other coastal species have seed which could be expected to survive the Flood itself, but what of the rest?
• Most seeds would have been buried under many feet (even miles) of sediment. This is deep enough to prevent spouting.
• Most plants require established soils to grow--soils which would have been stripped by the Flood.
• Some plants germinate only after being exposed to fire or after being ingested by animals; these conditions would be rare (to put it mildly) after the Flood.
• Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds can't survive a year before germinating. [Garwood, 1989; Benzing, 1990;Densmore & Zasada, 1983] Also, how did he distribute them all over the world?

References

Benzing, D. H., 1990. Vascular Epiphytes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Densmore, R. and J. Zasada, 1983. Seed dispersal and dormancy patterns in northern willows: ecological and evolutionary significance. Canadian Journal of Botany 61: 3207-3216.
Garwood, N. C., 1989. Tropical soil seed banks: a review. pp. 149-209 In: Leck, M. A., V. T. Parker, and R. L. Simpson (eds.), Ecology of Soil Seed Banks, Academic Press, San Diego
Keeling, M.J. & B.T. Grenfell, 1997. Disease extinction and community size: modeling the persistence of measles. Science 275: 65-67.
Simberloff, Daniel, 1988. The contribution of population and community biology to conservation science. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19: 473-511.

9. Species Distribution and Diversity

Reference

O'Brien, S. J., D. E. Wildt, M. Bush, T. M. Caro, C. FitzGibbon, I. Aggundey & R. E. Leakey, 1987. East African cheetahs: Evidence for two population bottlenecks? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 84: 508-511.

10. Historical Aspects

References

Baaren, Th. P., 1972. The flexibility of myth. Studies in the History of Religions, 22: 199-206. Reprinted in Dundes, A. (ed), 1984, Sacred Narrative, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bailey, Lloyd R., 1989. Noah: the person and the story in history and tradition. University of South Carolina Press, SC.
Ginzberg, Louis, 1909. The Legends of the Jews, vol. 1, pp. 145-169, Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia. Reprinted as "Noah and the Flood in Jewish legend" in: Dundes, Alan (ed.), 1988. The Flood Myth, University of California Press, Berkeley and London, pp. 319-336.
Isaak, Mark, 1997. Flood stories from around the world.http://www.talkorigins.org/faq/f....
Utley, Francis Lee, 1961. Internationaler Kongress der Volkserzä in Kiel und Kopenhagen, pp. 446-463, Walter De Gruyter, Berlin. Reprinted as "The Devil in the Ark (AaTh 825)" in: Dundes, Alan (ed.), 1988. The Flood Myth, University of California Press, Berkeley and London, pp. 337-356.

11. Logical, Philosophical, and Theological Points

"The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest. . . . Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel.
"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. . . ."

• If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles?
• The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?

References

Easterbrook, Gregg, 1997. Science and God: a warming trend? Science 277: 890-893.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's ark: A feasibility study. Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California.
Young, Davis, 1988. Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Artisan Sales, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Acknowledgements

• There would be enough water on earth for this to be a possibility
• The water wouldn't have covered Ararat by 22.5 feet: it would have covered Everest
• There would not be civilizations that didn't seem to notice the flood that was supposed to have covered them
• There would be genetic signs of a bottleneck in populations
• There would be a huge diversity of life in the Middle East, and close to no animals at all on places far away from there, like Australia. Humans would be in the Africa, Europe, and Asia (nowhere else) except that...
• We would all be dead, since all the plants on earth would have died after being underwater for a year, and...
• Most marine life would be dead. Freshwater dwellers wouldn't have been able to handle the increased salinity, and salt water dwellers couldn't have handled the decreased salinity

Sir, I’m assuming you want actual proof that Noah’s flood was global? Am I right?

Sadly, this “proof” doesn’t exist, neither in the scientific world nor in the Hebrew Bible.

Now either we people of faith can get over it, and swallow down the fact that the Bible is a joke. . . or we work away around it. Just because science says we came from apes, or that the global flood is a hoax, doesn’t mean G-d’s dead so-to-speak.

Not at all. Let me share you a little secret why.

What if I told you the flood was local all this time? And that the Torah, my tradition, and the scientific community, agreed with me?

What would you do? Give up faith? I hope not! As a Jew (assuming your Christian, anyway, the point is irrelevant here), that’s not our calling. We’re all gathered here to serve HaShem (1) no matter the costs.

Our Sages taught that the flood was local, not global, - hence, no problem.

Let me explain - though this short essay will be long, the research is premium.

I’ve broken the following up into three parts. Part one covers on what the Torah has to say, then part two and three will answer the many challenges purposed by those still believing in a global flood account.

Let’s get started.

PART ONE:

1.1 - What’s the story here?

Even thought there are well over 150 flood stories from different cultures and ethnicities, scientists from all fields - from geology to paleontology, ice cores to the signature cycles of Earth's orbital eccentricity variation - have found no evidence for a global flood. How come? Perhaps it never happened? But what does the Hebrew Bible have to offer?

In Isaiah 45:18-19, we find the following:

יחכִּי־כֹ֣ה אָמַר־יְ֠הֹוָה בּוֹרֵ֨א הַשָּׁמַ֜יִם ה֣וּא הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים יֹצֵ֨ר הָאָ֚רֶץ וְעֹשָׂהּ֙ ה֣וּא כֽוֹנְנָ֔הּ לֹֽא־תֹ֥הוּ בְרָאָ֖הּ לָשֶׁ֣בֶת יְצָרָ֑הּ אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה וְאֵ֥ין עֽוֹד:

יטלֹ֧א בַסֵּ֣תֶר דִּבַּ֗רְתִּי בִּמְקוֹם֙ אֶ֣רֶץ חֹ֔שֶׁךְ לֹ֥א אָמַ֛רְתִּי לְזֶ֥רַע יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב תֹּ֣הוּ בַקְּשׁ֑וּנִי אֲנִ֚י יְהֹוָה֙ דֹּבֵ֣ר צֶ֔דֶק מַגִּ֖יד מֵֽישָׁרִֽים:

“For so said the Lord, the Creator of heaven, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, He established it; He did not create it for a waste, He formed it to be inhabited, "I am the Lord and there is no other. Not in secret did I speak, in a place of a land of darkness; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, Seek Me, in vain; I am the Lord, Who speaks righteousness, declares things that are right.”

So G-d doesn’t lie, and He want shy away. But then why so much confusion?

Take for example, this quote by one of our greatest sages, Rabbi Moses Maimonides (1135-1204 CE):

"The account of the beginning [Genesis] is natural science but so profound that it is cloaked in parables." [This is because,] ". . .Conflicts between science and religion results from misinterpretations of the Torah."

He also said:

"Study astronomy and physics if you desire to comprehend the relation between the world and G-d's management of it." (2)

Hence, G-d's given us a job to do: study science to find Him, don't just rely on faith to solve everything because that’s the definition of sophism and someday that faith is going to run out; and if we're not careful, we might have already locked ourselves inside a safe we can't get out of. . such a disaster won't look good for the people of the book.

Thankfully, the rabbis kept this in mind and have made sure the Torah could never be misrepresented within their own circle.

Backtracking through the Torah, we come up with a really odd argument from the Christian camp. I've drawn up two of the toughest ones below.

1.) Did G-d use a global flood to cover the whole earth?

2.) If only a local flood, why didn't G-d just allow Noah and the animals to migrate away?

Let's answer them one at a time.

PART TWO: ARGUMENT ONE

1.) Did G-d use a global flood to cover the whole earth?

2.1 - It’s nothing more than bad mistranslation

The Hebrew phrase "whole earth" is "kol," which is translated as "all", or "erets" meaning, "earth; land; country; or ground."

There are in total, a set of three definitions. The first definition involves land (we will cover them all throughout the course of this essay).

The good news is we can see the first clause in action, all we have to do is open to the second book of Genesis where the term "kol erets" is first used.

"The name of one is Pishon; that is the one that encompasses all [kol] the land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold." (Genesis 2:11)

"And the name of the second river is Gihon; that is the one that encompasses all [kol] the land [erets] of Cush." (Genesis 2:13)

In Tanakh, the phrase "kol erets" is almost always used when describing a piece of land rather than the whole planet. (3)

That being said, I should point out how there are other verses in Tanakh which expresses the phrase "kol erets" as a group of people, in other words, definition two. Based off the context, we know that this group lives on a piece of land on the earth. I've provided a brief example below:

"And all the land [kol] came in the forest, and there was honey on the ground." (1 Samuel 14:25)

How do we know it is the people and not the land itself? We know this because of the next verse which reads:

"And the people came into the forest, and behold, a flow of honey, but no one put his hand to his mouth for the people feared the oath.”

Regardless, the Hebrew of 1 Samuel 14:25 never tells us directly it was the people. (4) Hence, without a correct understanding of the context, untrained readers of the Hebrew Bible might perceive the first verse of actually talking about land physically moving. (5)

2.2 - Mountains or hills?

Let's move forward. Here's another challenge Young-Earth Creationists throw out at us: "What about Genesis 7:20? Doesn't the verse mention the waters covering the summit of mountains?"

Here it is based off it's original Hebrew translation:

"Fifteen cubits above did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered up."

The Hebrew here is "ma‛al," and it means "upward," not "higher." Hence, Orthodox Jews have always taught that the flood was, at its least, 20 feet deep (15 cubits) and not 15 cubits above the tallest mountains. Moreover, the Hebrew word for mountains is not in the original text, rather, it is "har" which just means "hills." As it then turns out, this verse is just another victim of bad Christian mistranslation. (6)

Hence, when one reads the passages all throughout Genesis 8:5-9, where Noah sends out the dove in its sojourn for land, the "mountains" should really be translated as "hills," and the earth, "kol erets" as "land."

So what then about the claim that the ark landed on Mount Ararat? If we examine the passage more in depth, we'd find a very strange and foreign story then the one we're sadly used to.

In Genesis 8:10-11, the dove returns with an olive branch. Had Noah been atop Mount Ararat (at 17,000 feet of elevated ground), I'm sure he would have not found any olive branches (they don't even grow less than 5,000 feet!), hence, the ark most likely landed upon a foothill next to Ararat, if one is still to believe it to be the final resting place of the ark, theories abound. (7)

2.3 - Psalm 104 contradicts a global flood

As observant Jews, we must search the entirety of the Holy Scriptures. Hence, just as one can find many references to Sinai in the Psalms, so can one find references to the flood.

And Creationists claim they know just where that one reference to the flood is, it’s Psalm 104. There's just one problem, not only does it not mention any flood (this is all just very bad scholarship), it straight up contradicts it!

As an example, let's take the famous "Creation Psalm," (8) Psalm 104:9, it states the following:

"You set a boundary that they should not cross, that they should not return to cover the earth."

And here it is in Hebrew, the native tongue:

גְּֽבוּל־שַׂ֖מְתָּ בַּל־יַֽעֲבֹר֑וּן בַּל־יְ֜שֻׁב֗וּן לְכַסּ֥וֹת הָאָֽרֶץ:

If the author of the psalm is correct, lest the whole of Tanakh be in error, then G-d never again had the waters cover over the entire face of the earth ("kol erets") (9) since the inception of its own creation. In effect, a global flood in Noah's day would have been impossible. (10)

2.4 - What does the New Testament, contemporary historians, and the Talmud say?

Creationists who believe in the New Testament writings often cite 2 Peter 3:6-7 in their defense for G-d's worldwide deluge. Even though I'm writing for a Jewish audience, I feel it important enough to quickly answer this claim for if nothing less than to preserve the shake of historic data. If left unanswered, it is a perfect anchoring point for the belief that not all Jews (and gentiles) believed in the notion of a local flood 2,000 years ago.

So let's dissect this Christian verse. The reality is obviously different from this deceptive tactic, for the chapter in question does not stand favorably with the mindset of Creationists, it actually goes against it.

“But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed [conveying the flood].” (2 Peter 3:5-6)

Interesting. The verse claims that at "that time" ("tote cosmos”), all the people, gathered into one place before the flood, were killed. In retrospect, one could call that a worldwide flood to the ancients (specifically the Mesopotamian region). This is what the author meant when he stated how G-d flooded the "world of that time" in human history; note how at the time of this writing, the world was much larger due to the expansion made by the Romans. Had Peter wanted to convey the sense that his world and their world were the same, the Greek word, “tote” would have to go.

Again, had the people been spread out across the globe, then we could make the logical assertion that the whole world, based on the Gospel account, was indeed flooded.

So, you ask, where am I getting this concept that all the people were gathered into one place during Noah’s generation? After all, 2 Peter 3:5-6 doesn't mention this outright. But before you shout “faker” to my face, I’ll remind you that the Tower of Babel happened after the flood of Noah (Genesis 11:8-9)! Since that event, G-d separated man across the farthest reaches of the globe as a consequence for his previous failure in multiplying and occupying the entire globe. Hence, a global flood would have been both a waste of time and resources.

So in Noah’s day, the local flood would have weeded out only a fraction of humanity when compared to today’s standards. Luckily, Noah freed himself from this fallen, miserable lot. (11)

Originally, G-d had planned to wipe out all of humanity from the small communities it comprised of when all were gathered into one region, this is because Josephus (30-100 CE), one of the top Jewish historians when it comes to the ancient world, clearly stated that G-d was "determined to destroy the whole race of mankind, and to make another race that should be pure from wickedness." (12)

"Now all the writers of barbarian [Greek] histories make mention of this flood and of this ark: among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. . . Hieronymous the Egyptian. . . . Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, has a particular relation about them, where he speaks such: 'There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man [Noah] about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote'." (13)

Notice how Josephus only mentions the nations around this local region, not the whole planet. Furthermore, he admits that there are in fact other accounts of this narrative (all within close distance to each other), which only goes to show how true of an event it really must have been to them. Regardless, the concept of a local flood can no longer be seen as a 20th century invention foreign to the Torah.

Then we have the Talmud and other works of the rabbis.

To simple quote Genesis Rabbah 23:

"The deluge in the time of Noah was by no means the only flood with which this earth was visited. The first flood did its work of destruction as far as Jaffé, and the one of Noah's days extended to Barbary.” (14)

Furthermore, the Talmud, in Sanhedrin 108a, says that everything in this world "was destroyed," meaning to say the "face of the ground" in which Noah lived. If we look at Berachot 55a, we learn that all the world "under heaven" was destroyed. This land was just east of Eden. It then states, "One who vows oneself off of the waters of the Euphrates is forbidden from all the waters in the world." This is to say that the Euphrates all the waters from the world sprang from there. That being said, there are other waters of the world with their own sources, and the rabbis knew this all too well - hence, when they spoke of "this world," they meant the one being occupied in the Middle East.

Then, in Zevachim 113a, we find the answer as to why Rabbis' Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagreed on whether the flood descended upon the land of Israel. When Rabbi Lakish said it did, he was interrupted by the former, who was shocked to hear that Israel wasn't "under heaven." But the latter assured him that was only the case because the deluge was local. (15) Genesis Rabbah 33:6 concurs with this view, being the dove brought back a torn olive leaf from Eden, which inspired Noah to plant the last grapevine from that place when he left the ark.

2.5 - A Challenge to Young-Earth Creationists

So now that I've answered some of their claims, I'd like to propose a simple challenge to Creationists who dedicate their lives fruitlessly proving a global flood: Genesis 8:1-5 tells us that G-d drove the water away through the power of a strong wind, causing it to "recede." If this were indeed a global flood, where would all that water recede too? Furthermore, how would a solid wind have had any effect at all if there were so much water on the face of the earth?

Moreover, it would behoove me to remind you that Genesis 8:6-7 and 13-14 states that the "land" became a "desert." If this thing was again global, then did the whole world become a desert? Was the earth all "dried up"? Any rational person must admit that this "earth" is nothing more than a flaw in translation.

I know this all looks like I'm jumping all over the place, but please bear with me here, it is my belief that such things are necessary in order to demonstrate to you just why a global flood could have never taken place.

PART THREE: ARGUMENT TWO

2.) If only a local flood, why didn't G-d just allow Noah and the animals to migrate away?

3.1 - Why Noah didn't have to migrate

On a rational level, why did G-d have Noah build an ark when He could have just had easily sent him away? One thing Creationists have to understand is that this kind of logic could be applied to all throughout Tanakh, including why did G-d make the Israelites travel around Jericho for seven days (Joshua 6:1-5) and why set up a system whereof the only means of healing a snake bite in the wilderness was determined on whether the person locked eyes upon a bronze serpent or not (Numbers 21:8-9)?

Let us not forget that HaShem runs the show, and that He has a plan for everyone of us to contribute too. Hence, if He so pleased for Noah to prove his love and faithfulness (as He tested Abraham with Isaac), then what better way than to test him through the command of building an ark? By doing so, Noah would have surely proven that he was indeed a follower of the one true G-d.

With all that said, G-d does give warning to the wicked, He sent angels to Sodom before its ultimate demise (Genesis 19:1), and Jonah to the gentile citizens of Nineveh (Jonah 3:3). G-d works with judgement, but also with mercy, hence, He gave Noah (and Methuselah, son of Enoch) (16) over a hundred years to build the ark and warn the people. (17) We see a clear example of this again from the commentary of Genesis Rabbah:

"Wherever [the phrase] 'a man' occurs it indicates a righteous man who warned [others]. For one hundred and twenty years Noah planted cedars and cut them down. On being asked, 'Why are you doing this?' he replied, 'The L-RD of the Universe has informed me that He will bring a Flood in the world [land].'” (18)

Of course the people scoffed him, then on second-thought, accompanied that with mockery, (19) so when the floodgates opened, they begged Noah to let them enter the ark, promising repentance - but Noah was ordered by G-d previously not to let them enter, for they had been warned for over a hundred years and chose sin over love. When the people heard that they were to be left to their fate, around 700,000 charged the ark, but were pushed back by Noah (who fought them off till the water reached his knees), (20) lions, and other wild beasts of the local area (again, if the flood were global, than lions would be extinct today since they weren't in the ark - if local, then this is no problem). (21)

That generation then drowned in the flood, but before they gave in, many of them climbed the highest hills in the desperate attempt to survive, even to the point of throwing their children over the wayside to make room. (22)

But think about it: had Noah simply leave the people behind, without ever offering a word or visual representation of what he was doing, they would have been doomed without having at least been given the chance to repent and earn their salvation.

3.2 - Why the birds and animals didn’t have to migrate

Detractors of the local flood purpose at first what appears to be an astonishing claim against its credibility, it goes something like this:

“If Noah was only troubled with a local flood, why did G-d have to send the animal kingdom and birds into the ark? Why couldn't they simply move away from the upcoming danger?"

These people aren't ornithologists, they don't have such a fair grounding in the trajectory of bird migration (note: most of the species are localized and don't actually migrate, furthermore, birds such as the Hummingbird are not capable of flying for more than twenty minutes, and in such harsh conditions as a wild storm, (23) these birds would rather sit on their perches, waiting for it to stop, and drown in the process than fly).

As for animals, some were indigenous to the region in which Noah lived, more so, if a global flood occurred, it would have taken hundreds of years for Noah and his decedents to replicate the fauna which once existed had all life been wiped out and then have to be brought back into the fold. (24)

G-d's problem was not with the animals, but with the people. Since the animals were in the way of a local flood, some indigenous to the region would have to be saved. It is also possible, like their fellow human counterparts, that not all the animals and birds migrated around the globe at that time, hence, their survival was all the more crucial. (25)

2.3 - What about G-d’s promise never again to flood the earth as discussed in Genesis 9:1-15?

When we read Genesis 9:11, 15, and Isaiah 54:9, we get the notion that G-d flooded the entire planet and then promised never again. But if the Noahic flood were only a locality issue, then why make such a promise in the first place when there have most certainly been many floods in the past and since? Hence, did the Creator of heaven and earth lie?

In order to understand what's really going on in Genesis 9:11 and 15, we'll have to examine the passage.

"And I will establish My covenant with you, and never again will all flesh be cut off by the flood waters, and there will never again be a flood to destroy the earth [land]."

A few verses later. . .

"And I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and between you and between every living creature among all flesh, and the water will no longer become a flood to destroy all flesh."

The first verses denotes that G-d will never again destroy "all flesh" by universal means such as a flood. The verse has nothing to say about a global flood, rather, the covenant is made with the people of the earth. In verse 15, we find out how the flood was local, although global in judgment of humanity. Remember, man only spread out around the globe a few chapters later, hence, even if there was a global flood, there'd be no need of it because all mankind was in one place on the earth at that time. Anything else would have been a waste of both time and resources.

But what about the rest of verse 15, where G-d promises never again to wipe out the earth ("kol erets")? The answer lies in two verses previous to this chapter. Remember Genesis 6:11-12?

Genesis 6:11 reads: "Now the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth became full of robbery."

The next verse answers:

"And God saw the earth, and behold it had become corrupted, for all flesh had corrupted its way on the earth."

Remember, the "earth" is "kol erets," or the "people of the land." Hence, G-d did not make a covenant with the earth, but with the people, and He made a promise never again to destroy them. (26)

3.4 - Conclusion

Not only do outside sources and scientific data discredit the theory of a worldwide flood, but also just a simple plain reading from the Torah (when put back into context and its original translation). If there was ever a global flood, then the Torah is in stark contradiction with the rest of Tanakh (specifically Psalm 104). Plus, there are no references found of a global flood in Genesis except for the creation account, which tells us that the catastrophic flood of Noah's day was local to his geography, and while this version of the story (which closely resembles the truth), may not be as dramatic as the cinematic portal of Hollywood epics, this is the truth of the Torah, and as Jews we are ordered to obey every word of it, regardless of our past, and often misunderstood, finite presuppositions.

__________________

Footnotes:

1. I will at times refer to G-d as “HaShem,” which is interchangeable with the former in Jewish tradition. In Hebrew it means “no name” and is said out of respect for the Creator since we’re prohibited from uttering the Tetragrammaton.

2. Quoted from Moses Maimonides’ “Guide to the Perplexed.”

3. First definition:

Let's expound on the matter that "kol erets", as far as its first definition, refers to "land."

As an example, Leviticus 25:9 uses "kol erets" when speaking about land as opposed to the whole earth, we know this because it is not logically sound to claim that the Hebrews were to sound a horn throughout the world. A similar example can be found with Saul blowing his shofar in 1 Samuel 13:3, again, we wouldn't expect him to blow for the whole earth, now would we!

Judges 6:37 obviously expects Gideon to check his lands, not the earth's entirety, as the text says; such a task would have been impossible.

2 Samuel 18:8 says there was a battle over the face of the earth. After all, the text uses "earth [kol erets]". But truthfully, with a clear analysis of the text, it doesn't, because "kol erets" meant only a spot of land. More like a battlefield in fact. Furthermore, nor did the Jews travel throughout the earth as described in 2 Samuel 24:8. And neither did the whole earth "seek the presence" of Solomon (1 Kings 4:31-34, 10:24 and 2 Chronicles 9:22-24).

In 1 Chronicles 14:17, we hear that the world was under David's direct command, it is obvious that this isn’t true, nor was his Temple to be famous amongst all the nations during his lifetime (1 Chronicles 22:5). 2 Chronicles 9:28 tells us that the world brought all its horses to Solomon, this couldn't be possible given the timeline and circumstances of ancient history.

Even the New Testament confirms to this convention when Paul supposedly preached to the whole world (obviously, the whole world was only the Roman Empire) as described in Acts 2:5, Romans 1:8, and Colossians 1:6.

From this rendering, Hebraists know that the phrase "kol erets" means land, which is often misinterpreted to mean the whole of earth as further verses attest below​:

Genesis 13:9 speaks of separating the "whole land," though that whole land was just Canaan, not earth. Genesis 13:15 speaks of G-d reserving the land of Canaan for Abraham's decedents. Genesis 19:28 uses "kol erets" when describing the land between Sodom and Gomorrah.

4. Second definition:

"Kol erets" (i.e., the people, meaning to say, when Tanakh says, "the whole of earth," it can sometimes mean a population rather than a geographical space).

Some further examples: ​

"Far be it from You to do a thing such as this, to put to death the righteous with the wicked so that the righteous should be like the wicked. Far be it from You! Will the Judge of the entire earth [the people therein] not perform justice?" (Genesis 18:25)

For more, see Joshua 23:14, 2 Samuel 15:23, 1 Kings 2:2, 1 Chronicles 16:14, 16:30, Psalms 66:4, 96:1, 9, 98:4, 100:1, 105:7, and Isaiah 14:7. It is obvious from these verses alone that the earth doesn't weep, shout and cry, people do.

Here's a quick example from the flood narrative itself:

"Now the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth became full of robbery." (Genesis 6:11)

Can the earth become corrupted? Of course not, this verse alludes to the people. Genesis 6:12, 9:13, and 11:1 further echo this sentiment.

Some more examples with brief comments:

Genesis 41:57 reads: "And all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to purchase, for the famine had intensified on the entire earth."

Once again, had you attempted to interpret this verse to mean the entire world population, then where were the Americans, Africans and Chinese?

To the ancients "kol erets" was their world.

Exodus 34:10 mentions how G-d will perform miracles not seen in all the earth "amongst any of the nations." This clause crushes any claim that G-d meant the whole planet, for even in our modern day, there are still islands barren of man's footprint.

5. Third definition:

"Kol erets" appears no less than 205 times throughout the Hebrew Bible, and when it does refer to the entire world (which is no more than 40 times in all, and is debatable), they are mostly found in either the Psalms or Isaiah (see footnotes 11-13).

Genesis sporadically mentions "the whole earth," but only in three places, first is in the creation account, the second is incorrectly translated in the flood narrative, and the third in Cain's banishment (Genesis 4:14) - but was Cain literally banished from the earth? No, only from the land in which he resided.

​Funny enough, there's an actual Hebrew word for the whole earth, or at least its inhabitants. That word is "tebel," and it appears only in the accounts of the creation or the earth during its future Messianic Age.

In all its 37 occurrences throughout Tanakh, it is never once used in describing Noah's flood.

6. This is because we have textual proof of this: "Har" usually refers to hills as can be seen in well over 649 verses all throughout Tanakh, 212 times it is translated as "hills" in the plural, or "hilly country." In Genesis, "har," as in hills, makes up 10 out of 19 verses, whereas "mountains" (note how there's never any mention of a mountain range in the flood narrative) make up only 4 of 9 verses (and of which only appear in the flood narrative)! That must really tell you something about bad translation and what the KJV, along with other popular modern Christian Bibles such as the NASB and NIV, have done to our Torah.

Technically, one could replug-in "hills" all throughout the flood narrative and be in perfect harmony with the original Hebrew as it was meant to be read.

Now of course there is an actual Hebrew word for mountains, and that's "gaboah", but it is noteworthy that the term is never once used when describing Noah's flood. Based on everything's we've now learned, we can be sure the waters did not cover up the tallest mountains of the earth.

7. The rabbis (Midrash ha-Gadol, p. 161; 'Eduy. ii. 10; Seder 'Olam R. iv.), thought he landed in Siwan, at the base of Mount Kartunja. Furthermore, it couldn’t have been Mount Ararat because the Torah never says so, it only says “The mountains of Ararat” (see Genesis 8:4).

8. The “Creation Psalm” consists of Psalm 104:1-9, it recounts the creation in the exact same order as Genesis. The verses after it clearly have no relation whatsoever since they mention Lebanon as an active nation.

9. The psalm is an exception to the biblical rule of "kol erets" because it specifically distinguishes the creation account as of the whole earth - before the flood. In effect, this rendering of "kol erets" falls in with definition three.

10. Let's dig a little here, the following are some further examples which will show the reader the deep comparisons Psalm 104 has with the creation account of Genesis and the Tanakh as a whole:

Psalm 104:2, "[You, G-d] enwrap Yourself with light like a garment; [You] extend the heavens like a curtain. . . ."

This fits perfectly with Genesis 1:1, 1:3, Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15, and Zechariah 12:1.

Psalm 104:3 says: "Who roofs His upper chambers with water; Who makes clouds His chariot, which goes on the wings of the wind."

Again, in harmony with Amos 9:6.

Psalm 104:4, "He makes winds His messengers, burning fire His ministers."

Psalm 104:5, "He founded the earth on its foundations that it not falter to eternity."

This parallels Psalm 102:25, Isaiah 48:13, 51:13, 51:15, and Zechariah 12:1.

Psalm 104:6, "You covered the deep as [with] a garment; the waters stand on the mountains."

An allusion to Genesis 1:2 and 1:9 when referencing sea creatures being the world was in a state of mass volumes of water prior to man’s existence prior to the receding of the seas.

Psalm 104:7-8, "From Your rebuke they fled; from the sound of Your thunder they hastened away. They ascended mountains, they descended into valleys to this place, which You had founded for them."

We see this in direct correlation to Genesis 1:9-10 and Psalm 136:5-6.

Psalm 104:9, "You set a boundary that they should not cross, that they should not return to cover the earth."

Again, see the correspondence between the verse above and Proverbs 8:29, Psalm 33:6-7, Jeremiah 5:22, and Job 38:8-11 (which actually references day three of creation).

When one studies the flood narrative, he or she will quickly note that the term "boundaries", as seen in Psalm 104:9, 33:6-7, Proverbs 8:29, 30:4, Jeremiah 5:22, and Job 38:4, 8-11, cannot be referencing a global flood because the term doesn't appear in those which do reference it!

Overall, Psalm 104 is not talking about a global flood as so many have mistakenly deduced from Genesis 6-9. G-d did not stretch out the heavens, nor lay the foundations of the earth during the flood narrative. On the flip side, there is not one reference to judgement nor destruction for the sins of the people in this blessed psalm. We can then rest assured that Psalm 104 has nothing to do with the flood narrative found in Genesis.

11. To the rabbis of the Talmud, Noah’s wicked generation would not resurrect for the World to Come (the Messianic Age), rather, they’d be trapped in Gehenna for all eternity (Sanhedrin 108a, B.T.) This is due to their sins, which consisted of both rape and larceny (Genesis 6:2,11). Sanhedrin 38b B.T. and Tanna debe Eliyahu 31 mentions that the people of Noah’s day walked proudly in their nakedness. Furthermore, Rashi (1040–1105 CE) tells us that six generations before, man was punished by G-d for his disbelief in the divine, but the punishment wasn’t severe enough and man, self-evidently, didn't learn his lesson (see Rashi, commentary on Genesis 4:26).

In retrospect, G-d, after saving Noah, had thought about reconsidering and continuing on with His destruction of mankind but stopped short due to the sudden realization that if the world could produce more men such as Noah, it would be better to continue nurturing them (see both Genesis 9:13, commentary by Ibn Ezra and Chagiga 16a, B.T.). Some rabbis even went as far as to believe that G-d had first threatened to destroy Noah too, but then again, relented after “finding favor in his eye” (Sanhedrin 108a, B.T., via a grammatical construction on Genesis 6:7).

From Sanhedrin 108b, B.T., we further learned that G-d forbade Noah and his family of any sexual license while in voyage, as a result, they were in a state of celibacy. Sanhedrin 108a, B.T. conveys the idea that had Noah lived in any other generation, he would not have been considered righteous because his deeds were no match to those of the patriarchs of the Torah (Genesis Rabbah 22:3 takes it a step further, quoting Noah as the inventor of grape-dressing, and hence, an occasional drunkard in pre-flood times). In the Talmud, Rabbi Oshaia compared him to a barrel of wine sitting in the cellar, where its order is fragrant next to a vault of acid (representing the wicked generation); anywhere else, and it will not smell as sweet.

Though it is worth mentioning that Ezekiel 14:14 considered him to be on the same end of the spectrum as Daniel and Job; and as a consequence, the rabbis were always debating on who was the better servant, Noah or Abraham. It was their belief that Abraham showed more mercy when squaring off with G-d in Genesis 18:28-32; Noah did no such thing.

As a side note, it is interesting to learn that many of the above quotations were taken straight out of Tanakh, but were later edited out by the rabbis as “deleted scenes” of the Bible and replaced in the Talmud. Many of these extra-biblical stories were later rediscovered by non-Jewish scientists still intact in their original form within the Dead Sea Scrolls.

For a full text of Sanhedrin 108a-b (as well as all other Talmudic passages quoted herein), please see Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 108.

12. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews: Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 2.

13. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews: Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 6.

14. For the full text of Genesis Rabbah, see https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishi....

15. Also see Pirke R. El. 33.

16. See Genesis 5:21-27. G-d delayed the flood until Methuselah’s death (Sefer ha-Yashar, p. 144). Afterwich, seven days were taken for mourning in which G-d changed the natural order of the cosmos by removing two stars from the Kimah constellation (pleiades) which made night into day and vice-versa in the final hopes that mankind would witnesses these “signs” and repent (Midrash ha-Gadol, p. 155-156; Sanhedrin 108b).

17. Noah was 600 years old when the floodgates opened. G-d commanded him to start building the ark (Genesis 6:3) 120 years previously. At 100 years in, Yafet (also spelled Japheth) was born; 98 years in, Noah’s second son, Shem, was born. Somewhere around 95-96, Ham was born. 55 years in, Noah finally started construction on the ark and everything (animals included) were loaded 7 days before the first raindrop of the Hebrew year, 1656.

Once he was inside, Noah did not need the rays of the sun to see. This is because in Genesis 6:16, a rare word is found. That word is tzohar, and Noah was commanded by G-d to make it prior to the deluge. It is usually translated as "window," but to the Kabbalists and Jewish mystics, that light was actually a unique gemstone containing the light of creation from day one.

This notion of a glowing gem has its origins in the Talmud, where Rabbi Johanan first interpreted the tzohar as such.

In Genesis Rabbah 31:11, we read:

"During the entire twelve months that Noah was in the ark he did not require light of the sun by day or the light of the moon by night, but he had a polished stone which he hung up - when it was dim, he knew it was day, when it was bright, he knew it was night."

We find this small little light not only in the Talmud, but in works such as Baba Batra, Pirke Avot, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer and Exodus Rabbah. This small gem was created before by Adam, who then passed it down his line to Noah, to Moses, and all the way to the founder of Kabbalah, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.

18. Midrash Genesis Rabbah, 30:7, p.235. Also, the New Testament confirms the Midrashic source when it quotes Noah preaching to the people (see Hebrews 11:7).

19. [The people shouted back at Noah:]”‘If the flood should come, it could not harm us. We are too tall; and moreover, we could close [it] up with our feet the springs from below [mocking the abyss].’ In fact, they resorted to these tactics; but G-d heated the water, and their feet and the flesh of the bones were scaled (Pirke R. El. 22). According to the Midrash ha-Gadol (see specifically ed. Schechter, p. 145), Noah asked them what kind of flood they thought were to befall them had they chose not to repent.

The people again responded with much laughter: “If a flood of fire, they had a fire-animal, ‘alitha’ [thought to be some mythical fungus], the name of which would act as a spell against fire; if water, they had sheets of iron wherewith to cover the land so that no water could come through from below; but in case the waters descended from above, they had another contrivance by which to escape - the ‘akosh.’” (Sponge, Sanhedrin 108a, b, B.T.). G-d, of course, thwarted their plans.

​20. See Genesis Rabbah, 32.

21. Tanhuma, Noah, 10; Genesis Rabbah 32.14; Sefer HaYashar.

22. See Tanchuma Noah 10.

23. Speaking of animals, Noah got his knowledge of how to feed them in two fold: by studying their habits during the lapse of a 120 years and the teachings of G-d. He would then use these skills to feed them daily (Genesis 7:21) and found G-d’s grace (6:8) when he fed each animal “in the second hour of the day and which best was to be fed in the third hour of the night” (Genesis Rabbah 29:4). Figs and branches were reserved for the elephants, “chatsubah for the deer, z’khukhit for the ostriches.” Noah even gave the latter shards of glass so they could grind the food while digesting (Midrash Tanchuma, Noah 2) and only fed himself an equal amount of which he gave each creature. He would even sometimes save his meal only when he was very hungry - viewing his importance as secondary to that of the survival of the animal kingdom (Genesis Rabbah 31:14). His family hardly felt any sleep because of the odor and constant preparations which went for carrying them (see Genesis Rabbah 30:6 and Midrash Tanhuma). One time, he was so tired that he forgot about the lion and was late with its meal, when he approached it, it bit him hard and forevermore Noah carried a limp (Tanchuma Noah 14).

Noah suffered through all these trials because he loved the animals. “It is written, ‘A righteous one knows the soul of his animal.’ (citing Proverbs 12:10) The righteous one of the world [G-d] even understands the soul of his animal [i.e., the animals in the ark]” (Tanhuma Noah 10). Earlier, we find in tanhuma Noah 4, the following: “Why is Noah called ‘righteous’? Because he fed the creatures of the Holy One, blessed be He, and became like his Creator. Thus it says, ‘For the L-RD is righteous, loving righteous deeds.”

“Rabbi Chana b. Bizna said: [Once,] Eliezer (Abraham's servant) asked Shem, ‘What was it like for you [in the ark]?’ He replied, ‘We had so much trouble in the ark. The animals which usually feed by day we fed by day, and those which normally feed at night we fed by night. But my father [Noah] didn’t know what was the food of the chameleon [he forgot]. One day he was sitting and cutting up a pomegranate, when a worm dropped out of it, which [the chameleon] ate. From then on he mashed up bran for him, and when it became wormy, he ate it.’” We further learn that the phoenix was so distressed by events that it forbade itself of food, in reaction to this, Noah blessed it to have eternal life (Sanhedrin 108, B.T.

24. Rabbi Abba believed in a local flood, he taught to his student how Noah’s wife, Naamah, actually played a major role in the ecological system by helping Noah gather all the food prior to the flood. Later, she’d gather all the seeds from all plant life (within the local community) for replanting once the ark had landed (for more, see Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso’s Noah’s Wife: The Story of Naamah).

25. The Sefer HaYashar believes while the ark was on it’s sojourn, it was visited by several severe storms.

26. Another sign for G-d’s promise was the initiation of flowers which were, prior to the pre-flood world, never seen on earth. The Zohar explains:

"When did they [the first flowers] appear? When a rainbow can [first] be seen, they [were] revealed. At that moment . . . the time came to eradicate all the evil in the world. . . . Why did they [the humans] survive [the flood]? Because flower buds have appeared on the land. And if they were to be seen beforehand, they could not have remained in the world [because it was full of evil], and the world would not have been able to exist. Had they not appeared, there would be no salvation for the world [of humanity]."

Before an answer is given as to why this is so, I feel it my duty to quickly introduce some of the basic tenets of Kabbalah to those readers unversed in it’s highly esoteric nature.

In Kabbalistic tradition, G-d (the Ein Sof, or infinite being), created the physical universe with Malchut (darkness), and the spiritual realm with the ten emanations of Sefirot (light), which make up His being.

Man’s goal in this world is to penetrate the darkness of his own evil inclination (the Yetzer Hara), and by so doing, he’ll create a cosmic bridge to the metaphysical realm of the divine and resuscitate the world, which has fallen in darkness since the transgression of Adam. Once he has accomplished this task, the Ein Sof can reunite with the core of Malchut, and through this balance, heal humanity. In Noah’s day, man failed to bear fruit. G-d then capitalized in effect to drown out the wicked. After the destruction, He repopulated the land with the first buds, a new radiance was born, and this, along with the rainbow, served as a sign - a sign which read: give us a chance, mankind can overcome his wrong, and repair this broken world.

But these flowers were only the first act; they marked the opening of light entering into darkness to redeem the world. It is up to us to complete the undone task. Are we up to the test? Only time, and the hopeful good heart of humanity, will tell - lest we wish to repeat the flood of Noah’s day.