Noah's flood- Was it global, and did others survive?

Recently I have been challenged to defend my view on a global flood. This was in light of the possibility that there has been misinterpretation of the Hebrew language into our English understanding. I think, however, that it is important here to not attempt only to interpret the words correctly, but to understand the story within the context of the entire bible, and look at how this impacts how we view the gospel message as a whole. On that point, never having delved into this topic from the point of view that the flood may have been a local event, I didn’t have strong or convincing evidence to present, but I decided I needed to study the topic out further so that I could have understanding that would allow me to take a firm position on the issue.

The topic was brought to light in view of a belief that it was possible that humans other than Noah and his family survived the flood. There, another deep subject of interpretation was laid upon my doorstep. Did God create just one man and one woman or did He create other humans as well? I’ve always interpreted my biblical reading as God having created Adam and Eve, and the entire human race descending from them. However, I was challenged that God may have created many different races from the beginning, and thus races were not descended from the children of Noah, but were present from the beginning and survived the flood. Below is a discussion of my research on the matter.

First, one can see that there are 2 different recountings in Genesis of God’s creation of man. In the first He “created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female” (Genesis 1:27). In the second account “the Lord God formed man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7) and “Then the Lord God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man” (Genesis 2:22). Just because Genesis 1 does not explain the details of God’s creation of man does not mean that the account in Genesis 2 is talking of a separate Creation event whereby He could have created many men in chapter 1 and a special man in chapter 2.

In the Genesis 1 recounting God creates all the creatures and then creates humans, albeit all on the 6^th day of Creation. In the Genesis 2 recounting it can be interpreted that God creates man, then birds and wild animals, and later goes on to make woman. Why is there a different order to creation? From my understanding (and in this know that I do not have a fully developed understanding of the Hebrew language) the word  for ‘formed’ that is used in Genesis 2:19 in reference to the creation can be interpreted in the pluperfect form of the verb, meaning God had created them some time in the past. It does not have to be interpreted as a change in the chronology of events. For that matter Genesis 2 appears to be meant for added detail about the creation and purpose of man, not as a rehashing of the timeline of events established in chapter 1.

If we look at the bible as a whole for answers on the matter of whether Adam was the only man formed at the time of creation we can reference 1 Corinthians 15:45, “So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.” Additionally, when considering Genesis 2:20b, “but for the man no helper was found as his complement,” we can understand that there must not have been a woman upon the earth because surely if God had already created females He would not have had to take from Adam’s own flesh to find him a wife. Even the naming of Eve speaks to the existence of only two people on the earth. Genesis 3:20, “Adam named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all the living.” Acts 17:26 also helps draw this conclusion, “From one man (or ‘one blood’) He has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live.”

Even if this evidence was not conclusive, if there were other races or people groups formed at the time of creation, why would Adam’s sin have condemned everyone? God says in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, ” For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. ²² For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” Throughout the bible God condemns those who sin and even curses their children at times, but why would God condemn someone who has not sinned? Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned.” And yes, you may say that they sinned as well, but the bible makes it clear that the curse of death is due to Adam’s original sin. Romans 5:17a, “Since by the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man.” I think if God had created other peoples we would have been told of their ‘Fall’ as well.

Some would also argue that if Adam and Eve were the only humans their children would not have had spouses. This is due to God’s laws against marriage to siblings. The bible makes it clear that Adam and Eve had a large family consisting of both sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). At this time in history God did not have any laws against marriage of siblings. These laws did not come into effect until the time of Moses. Leviticus 18:6 “You are not to come near any close relative for sexual intercourse; I am Yahweh.” In fact in Genesis 20:12 we learn that Sarah is Abraham’s half-sister, “Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife.” God blesses this union despite the charge of incest one could apply from today’s perspective. And, even if you did want to condemn sibling marriage- since the law was not in place there was no way of holding anyone accountable. Romans 5:13 “In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to a person’s account when there is no law.“ Therefore I conclude that Adam and Eve’s children likely married one another.

We see that Cain is married, and has children, but it is not clear when he married. The bible only indicates that he had a child in the land of Nod after being banished (Genesis 4:17). The passage does not indicate that he took a wife for himself after he arrived in Nod. I conclude that he was married to one of his sisters prior to his banishment.

As for the claims that like beget like, and we could not have different races if God did not create them from the beginning, I again present Acts 17:26- “From one man He has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live.” Beyond that I consider the biologic differences of the races to be miniscule at best. Genetic differences between races are less than 0.2% of our DNA. In fact there are more genetic differences between a man and woman than there are between a black man and white man. If you consider what the human race has done in developing dog breeds for specific purposes- completely changing the size and shape, making anything and everything from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane – is it really that hard to imagine that people groups living on different continents for hundreds of years could develop skin tones that are the result of more or less melanin in their skin? Or that maybe the traits needed for survival (e.g. increased athletic ability in the African safari) would become predominant due to the ‘survival of the fittest’ phenomena?  We are not told in the bible that Adam and Eve were white or black or yellow, we have no idea what their genetic potential might have held. Here I rest my case. I find no strong biblical evidence that God created anyone other than Adam and Eve during the Creation events, and I find multiple areas of support for the claim that they were the sole humans present at that time. I think to draw further conclusion from the text is to test God- something He has warned us against. Deuteronomy 6:16a, “Do not test the Lord your God.”

Now, moving on to the topic of a local or global flood. It has been brought to my attention that the phrase translated “all the earth” in Genesis 6 can and has, in other parts of Genesis, been translated as a piece of land. With this in mind, I looked intently at scripture to try to draw a conclusion as to whether this was God’s intended interpretation in this case.

First I think it important to address the reason God sent a flood. Genesis 6:5-7, “When the Lord saw that man’s wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every scheme his mind thought of was nothing but evil all the time, ⁶ the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. ⁷ Then the Lord said, ‘I will wipe off from the face of the earth mankind, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky—for I regret that I made them.’” This passage indicates that all men that lived upon the earth were sinful. And as established previously- the Fall affected all men. Therefore, why would you draw a conclusion other than it was God’s intention to destroy all men? Genesis 7:23, “He wiped out every living thing that was on the surface of the ground, from mankind to livestock, to creatures that crawl, to the birds of the sky, and they were wiped off the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.” 2 Peter 2:5b reiterates this, “He didn’t spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others, when He brought a flood on the world of the ungodly.” In Luke 17:27 it is reported that, “People went on eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day Noah boarded the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” The word ‘all’ in this passage meaning each and every one. Therefore I conclude that the purpose of the flood was to destroy all human life, so even if the flood were not global, God’s intent seems to be the destruction of all human life aside from Noah and his family.

As for the debate for or against a global flood, ‘erets’- the word used in the Genesis 6 flood account is used to refer both to the whole earth (Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [erets].” or Genesis 1:10a “God called the dry land ‘earth,’”) and a section of land (Genesis 2:11, “The name of the first is Pishon, which flows through the entire land [erets] of Havilah”). However, when the word erets is interpreted in a local sense it is generally qualified with some boundary. In the flood account the word erets is used without qualification. Additionally, references to the flood in the New Testament (eg. Hebrews 11:7 and 2 Peter 2:5) use the word kosmos to describe the world- that being defined as universe or world or inhabitants of the world. In this case the New Testament writers are clearly portraying a global event.

When Jesus describes the end of the age in Matthew 24:37-39 He is referring to a world-wide event. “As the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. ³⁸ For in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah boarded the ark. ³⁹ They didn’t know until the flood came and swept them all away. So this is the way the coming of the Son of Man will be.” Based on the context here, we can imply that both events are global in expanse. There is clearly an implication that humanity at large has become evil in both of these cases. Therefore, why would God have limited His judgement to only one small area?

As a related discussion topic, there are some questions about the survival of fish in a global flood (among other related topics). Fish as we see them today are generally either fresh or salt water creatures. In the case of a common body of water during the flood how would these fish have survived? I think it possible that the fish at the time were able to live in mixed salinity water. As discussed earlier about human skin tone, fish likely have undergone microevolutionary changes which have lead to development of fresh and salt water fish species. I don’t see why we would expect that animals we have today are not significantly altered from their genetic state at the time of the flood. Selection pressures have changed milk production in dairy cows from a mere 3,000 pounds per cow annually in 1900 to nearly 20,000 pounds annually today. Obviously we did not change cows into horses, but we have significantly altered their genetics. It just seems reasonable to believe that over almost 6,000 years there may have been significant genetic changes which would have allowed the survival of fish at the time of the flood.

Furthermore, I think that implications as to whether the flood was global and killed off everyone other than Noah have implications that ripple down into interpretation of the gospel message. The ark can be a representation of God’s saving grace. Noah was saved through the flood waters via the ark- God’s way of escape. If others survived the flood without going through the ark, then the conclusion could be drawn that even though God has said that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, could there not be some other way to sneak by? Luke 14:6 states, “Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.’” Let there be no doubt, the only way into heaven is through the front door. A faith in Jesus Christ is our only choice for salvation. The idea that God’s judgement can be escaped is a slippery slope and one I don’t think worth entertaining. Here I rest my case again. I think God asks us to study scripture to have a complete understanding, but in the context of the bible in its entirety, I find that God has provided a strong case for a global flood interpretation with the idea that He intended to judge the whole earth.