Was the flood universal?

[steve7150]

The bible translations say the flood would cover the earth, but the hebrew word "erets" usually means "land" or sometimes "country." It is translated as land 1,476 times and country 140 times.

For example the way erets is used concerning Abraham. "Get thee out of thy country" (erets) unto a land (erets) that i will show thee." Gen 12.1

Even when erets is used to mean the "earth" it often is an idiom. Concerning locusts, "They covered the face of the whole earth (erets) through all the land of Egypt."
Ex 10.5,14,15

Having escaped from Egypt , the Israelites were described as "a people which covered the face of the earth" Num 22.5,11

Vast quantities of quail fell upon "the face of the earth" Num 11.31

Jeremiah spoke of a flood overflowing the erets
"Behold waters rise up out of the north, and shall be an overflowing flood and shall overflow the land (erets) and all that is therein Jere 47.2
Jeremiah was describing an overwhelming flood but applying it to the land and particularly a city.



This info is from the book by Ralph Woodrow called "Noah's Flood, Joshua's Long Day and Lucifers Fall. I'll be back to present more info from this excellent book.

[steve7150]

There are subleties in the bible account that hint it was a regional flood but this view is rarely examined seriously. Here are a couple but there are many more.

The reason for the flood was because the earth was filled with violence. Gen 6.11 Most of the earth was uninhabited but the land in which Noah lived was filled with violence so the translation "erets" to land fits much better and makes sense.


In Gen 7.24 it says the flood "prevailed" or maintained it's level for a period of time after the rain stopped before abating. If erets means land then streams draining down from the mountains could have prevailed the level of water but if erets meant "earth", how could the waters have prevailed?

Of course you can always explain anything by saying "God just did it" but there is nothing in the text to indicate God caused anything beyond the flood.

[Bud]

Since the Bible has the flood covering some very substantial mountains it seems the best guess would be that it covered the whole Earth unless God had the water heaping up on itself.
Maybe the tops of some mountains out of the area weren't covered.

[steve]

I like Ralph Woodrow's work, but disagree with him on the regional flood. It is true that erets can mean "land" as easily as "earth", but I think there are a number of reasons that the flood must have been global:

1. As Bud mentioned, the waters covered all the mountains, there would be nothing to contain the water in one location with all the mountains covered;

2. As you mentioned, the waters did not abate for a period of many months. This is better explained if the flood was global. The water would have to evaporate (a slower process) rather than drain off;

3. If the flood was regional, it would not be necessary to build an ark at all. A hundred and twenty years is more than enough time for Noah's family and all animals to flee the region;

4. There have been many regional floods since Noah's time. Since God said He would never send another flood of that type, He would seem to have broken His promise, if it was only a regional flood;

5. When the dove returned with an olive sprig, it was interpreted as evidence that the waters had abated, rather than evidence that there were other regions, which the dove had found, where there had been no flooding;

6. All over the world there are ancient flood legends sufficiently similar to the biblical account to be recognized as referring to the same flood (of course, this could be explained by the fact that Noah's descendants migrated to those regions and are the source of those stories);

[steve7150]

1. As Bud mentioned, the waters covered all the mountains, there would be nothing to contain the water in one location with all the mountains covered;



I believe the region is the Mesopotamian basin which is a very large basin surrounded by mountains. The mountains even though covered could still keep the waters within the basin as long as the flood waters didn't overun the mountains.

Woodrow refers to Gen 8.4-5 "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."

It was 74 days after the ark rested that the tops of the mountains were seen but that doesn't reconcile with all the mountains of the earth being covered as Ararat is 17K feet high but Everest is 29K feet high and would have been visible very quickly. The author sounded like he was referring to a regional area.

Additionally if the writer meant all the mountains of the world the ark would have been under 2 miles of water when it came to rest which really would make it more like a submarine.

[steve7150]

4. There have been many regional floods since Noah's time. Since God said He would never send another flood of that type, He would seem to have broken His promise, if it was only a regional flood;







If it was a regional flood the covenant was with Noah to never again flood that land.

[steve7150]

3. If the flood was regional, it would not be necessary to build an ark at all. A hundred and twenty years is more than enough time for Noah's family and all animals to flee the region;








God didn't say a flood was coming in 120 years nor did it take Noah 120 years to build the ark. In Gen 6.3 "My Spirit shall not always strive with man , yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."

It's really not a specific warning about anything as far as i see.

[Bud]

Steve7150 wrote,
"I believe the region is the Mesopotamian basin which is a very large basin surrounded by mountains. The mountains even though covered could still keep the waters within the basin as long as the flood waters didn't overun the mountains."

I don't think that is possible. Mountains don't form perfect bowl like ridges that contain water to the top.

I am not dogmatic about this topic, just my best reasoning.

Grace and Peace,

[darinhouston]

I don't think that is possible. Mountains don't form perfect bowl like ridges that contain water to the top.

And yet localized flooding is not uncommon today even without bowl-like ridges.

[mattrose]

If you already believe that the world is millions of years old, then you'll tend to interpret Noah's flood as local
If you already believe that the world is thousands of years old, then you'll tend to interpret Noah's flood as global