Gavin has recently produced way more thoughtful, scholarly and well produced videos on more theological topics than is reasonably possible for a single person in a short time frame. I can therefore only conclude that he's been cloned multiple times.
As a student who uses his academic work in my own research, I can attest that it's likely because he's finally understanding OUR want for this and how he transitions his Academic voice into spoken monologue. He's adapting, again. It's impressive both on his part and that of Holy Spirit whom guides him.
Gavin, I’m a devout Catholic who finds himself so throughly impressed with you. The quality and content of your videos are among the top in apologetics. The lengths to which you go to both respect the science and uphold the faith, without compromising either, is remarkable. I have truly learned so much from you. I just want to thank you for your contributions to the origin-like story and helping the faithful see how despite some of the details, the Christian can still find good reason to believe it, and more importantly, the Christian faith to be true. Thank you, truly.
Thank you for putting out this series. I am a nonbeliever, but still very interested in religion and am often frustrated that people on both sides of the aisle will talk only in literalist terms. I know many atheists who have only thought through aspects of religion from one perspective, so I am always interested in learning about these thoughtful interpretations that are different from the ones I grew up with.
That sounds like a sensible approach. Do you find that if you could believe in God, that it would be comforting to know there is a creator and another, much better life after this one?
I appreciate your honest comment! Even as a believer, while it is important to classical Christianity that some things of scripture are literal (like the resurrection of course), there is more room for disagreement than people realize. Only literal history or only fictional myth are not the only interpretive options when it comes to scripture. There is a wide range in between. Even something fictional like a parable can still have tremendous truth value.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I do! I have a difficulty both intellectually and emotionally in aligning three concepts: an “Omni” god (all good, all powerful, etc.), the reality of life around us, and the purported history of the Bible. However, while I personally have difficulty with integrating these three things, I also recognize that this is in some regard a “me” issue - if someone feels like they are able to do this, I don’t think that’s silly at all. In fact, I am actively seeking out a way to do this, I just haven’t found it yet. All that to say that for both this life and the potential next, I would definitely be comforted if I knew God existed, I am just having trouble understanding what that would look like.
@connorbrockman599 well watching Gavin is a good start! Also you could pray about it. Tell God all that you told us and more. Tell Him you want to believe, to show you. Ask for Him to reveal Himself .
As an aside, as a Catholic myself I expect that your new book on Protestantism will ultimately be one of the most substantial apologetics for it in our modern age. I mean this as a compliment.
If the Genesis flood story is a local/regional flood account, how should we then interpret the covenant God made with Noah (and with all future generations)? God said, "never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth," and "And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh" (Genesis 9:11, 15). How do we reconcile the existence of local/regional floods since that time? Did God break His covenant?
I’m just speculating here, but if the context for determining what “all the earth” means is the table of nations in Genesis 11 as Gavin says, that’s a huge region. Are there examples from history where a landmass of that size was flooded with the destruction of all life? If not, maybe there is no evidence that God’s promise hasn’t been faithfully kept.
Why would it be more difficult? If there could never again be a flood on the scale of Noah's flood then there could certainly never be a flood capable of wiping out humanity and that's the point.
@@HiHoSilvey Its seems that Gavin supports a universal flood rather than a global flood i.e. all of humanity lived in one large region and were destroyed by a great deluge, except Noah and his family. This seems to make God's covenant with Noah one of convenience rather than one of restraint. God's promise not to "cut off all flesh" again with water is only effective because all of humanity no longer lives in the same region, not because God actually retrains His judgement.
I don't think it matters. The Church understands the flood to be a prefigurement to baptism. Thus, God fulfilled his Covenant (fly your Real Rainbow flags with real pride in our God!) by not sending any other floods for the purpose of "destroying all flesh". Normal floods, we know, are caused by a variety of natural causes. Do people die? Sure. But the point is that natural floods are not to be understood as supernatural events. Now, our Lord gave us the sacrament of Baptism. We are saved through baptism in water and the Spirit. The "flood" that God sends when we are baptised still eradicates sin but does not destroy all flesh. We therefore are free from worrying about whether the universe is old or young, free from worrying about the flood is worldwide or local. Those things do not matter to our salvation. We are free to hold any opinion on the natural world we wish, and least of all should we care what the secular media have to say about these things!
It's very fascinating that there are stories about a great flood and a man making himself a boat for himself and animals in various tribal cultures as far away as Australia and the Americas. It's not just people groups from the Middle East area, but even peoples from all the complete opposite end of the world. One Aborigenal tribal flood story has the man builing a raft and taking a bunch of animals with him, and at the end he builds an altar and sacrifices a Kangaroo, which I find fascinating in both it's similarity and difference to the Noah story.
These cannot always be dated before contact with missionaries, but your example of Australia is excellent because they do have tales of rising water thought to date back to the younger dryas. In one of them a warrior kills a sacred stingray and its spirit casts a curse to swell the oceans and drown the coastal villages, leaving them submerged. I think this is the kind of thing we might expect if several local floods happened around the world due to melting ice age glaciers and violent monsoons.
@@Makaneek5060 We may not be able to date the stories from before or after missionaries. There have been ancient stories about Christ's birth, that they are sure predate European colonialism and the spreading of missionaries though. I can't remember all the details, but the natives in America have legends about someone very like Jesus coming to them and teaching.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Did this figure teach them the sacraments? Or teach them about his atonement? If so, do we have record of that, and if not, then how can we tell who it was?
In other parts of the Bible, God told people to migrate to avoid disaster. The fact that God commanded Noah to build a ship indicates that the flood was unique in its scale. It does not force us to insist that every spot of land was covered by water, but it strongly implies that there was nowhere that Noah could reasonably migrate to, or at least nowhere within the African or Eurasian landmasses. Likewise, in 2 Pet 3, the Flood is compared to both the Creation of the world (in which the same waters were used) AND the final destruction of the world by fire; both global events.
But there is a theological reason for having an ark within a flood. The point is a safe space within a judgment. But of course God didn't need a flood to kill off rebellious humans and his sovereignty could have stopped it if it was just a natural event. Therefore the ark was always ever being set up as an achetype (pun intended) to point to Christ.
There is a parallel between the creation in Gen 1 and the destruction and recreation of Gen 6-9. But perhaps this doesn’t help much with the question of scale. The Gen. 1 creation is of “the heavens and the earth” by water and out of water, as 2 Pet. 3 says. That world was deluged and judged, but it was not entirely destroyed, we still have the same basic structure of heavens, earth, waters, animals and man. This creation is what is destroyed in 2 Pet. 3 with the new heavens and the new earth. In that new creation there is no more sea, no night and no seasons, Rev. 21-22, the fruit of the tree of life goes to the healing of the nations 12 months a year. The animals are still there but are vegetarians, Is. 11, 65-66. This new world is a different system from the old one. But the animals in the bible are generally the non-covenant people. And the seas are the non-covenant land. The world of Gen. 1 is the creation of the covenant system, the covenant land is separate from the non-covenant land, and the covenant people are created to rule the non-covenant people (the animals), and the sun, moon and stars are created and set in the heavens to give light to the land but not the seas. The heavenly bodies are to rule the appointed times, the appointed days, seasons and years, that is the ceremonial calendar. They provide the light for the land to show the people how to be right with God, the covenant king. In the flood account, the animals include the mighty men, the giants, the kings who were building empires and shedding the blood of the covenant people. These are the beasts that the flood destroyed, along with their people. But the animals were also saved on the ark. They were saved in pairs, male and female, a man and his wife. This is the language of marriage between monogamous human beings, indicating that the animals were human beings, albeit not covenant man. These beasts are part of the Gen. 1 covenant system, and they are the ones that the covenant is renewed with under Noah. The animals are second class covenant people. These beasts are warned of the final judgment when they would shed the blood of the covenant men again, and pay the price. That price is paid when the Second Flood destroys the murderers, per Gen. 9:5-6; Deut. 32; Is. 28; Dan. 9:24-27; Mat. 7:24-27; 22:7; 23:29-38 etc. The flood would destroy the wicked leaders of Jerusalem as the Brood of Vipers, the beasts, who shed the blood of God’s servants. The Second Flood seems to explain the first flood, Noah’s flood. The flood was a covenant judgment upon the covenant people and the covenant animals, to confirm and restore the covenant order. The second flood was to take away that covenant order and replace it with the new covenant, where all men are clean and the covenant land is the whole world and there are no second class citizens, no Jews and Gentiles, but all one people. And no sun, moon and stars of that old system, no night, no seed time and harvest time, just eternal day and light of the ever expanding kingdom of God.
Hi Gavin, a brief response here from a YEC Anabaptist. First I want to say thanks for your great videos and modeling irenicism to all of us! Thanks for your willingness to be honest with your thoughts on controversial topics! It’s good to reexamine our Bible interpretation when there seems to be scientific conflict, but reexamination of scientific interpretations is healthy as well. I think we can make great progress when we come at it from both directions, and both ends of the issue should be addressed as we help those who are struggling with this as they consider Christianity. Argument 1: כל הארץ doesn’t always mean the whole earth in other passages, but rather the whole known or inhabited earth. Response: I agree that it doesn’t always mean the whole literal earth (though I would probably argue that it does mean the whole earth in more passages than others would be willing to grant). In this passage, it is just part of a cumulative case along with lots of other very universal sounding language. IP Argument: “the surface of the whole earth” can’t mean literally every bit of ground since the phrase is used in 8:10 about the dove just after saying in verse 5 that the mountain tops were sticking out. Response: I think we should give the author some grace and have the good sense to let immediate context determine meaning before distance context. Obviously, they intend an exception here for mountain peaks since they just said it. However, it would be a bit irresponsible to project that exception back onto the rest of the story, especially when 7:19-20 makes the coverage of mountain peaks explicit. (I’m also not sure how mountain peaks are covered in a local flood, or how a local flood carries a boat up into mountains to land.) IP Argument: The water obviously didn’t dry up from the whole earth since we still have oceans, so again “all the earth” must not mean “all the earth.” Response: While “earth” is used in 8:13-19, the specific phrase “all the earth” or “the whole earth” is not, so I’m not sure where the argument lies here. The context seems clear that the author is just speaking of earth as in the ground, which is supposed to be dry. Gavin, thanks for the interesting note that Josephus saw the flood as local. It is interesting that he suggests that other humans survived the flood, a particular point that the New Testament strongly indicates did not happen (1 Peter 3:20, Luke 17:27, Matt 24:39) I’m curious if any church fathers agreed with Josephus? Argument 2: Don’t multiply miracles. How did they get all the animals without a miracle, and how did the animals get back? Response: The text itself indicates a miracle here. The animals “went into the ark” with Noah as if they were directed by God to come of their own accord (7:9, 15). Creation scientists usually assume a Pangea before the Flood, with less extreme and diverse habitats, so that it wouldn’t have taken a transportation miracle, only an instinct miracle for all the animals to get to the boat. (Also, fossils of animals closely related to those only known in Australia and surrounding islands have been found in Asia and Turkey.) Other “miracles” mentioned are hibernation of animals on the ark, formation of mountains in the flood, rapid speciation after the flood, and others. Probably the most important thing to mention here is that global flood theories and studies on these things do not posit miracles for these events, but natural processes. That’s the whole point of their study. They assume a miracle to kick things off (the animals coming to the ark in the first place, the flood beginning at all) just as all Christians assume for creation itself. Then natural processes take over from there, as happens with any miracle. For those who are interested, Institute for Creation Research usually has stuff that’s a little more in-depth than AG, and they have some great flood geology research going on.
I wasn’t going to go here, but I guess I am…DNA…animals, humans…in an instant, God can alter, diversify DNA and voila! Speciation! Science and miracle unite…
@@TheBoredTheist > That's a modern scientific concept. Hence, scientific concordism. I stand corrected. Partly. - I don't think that saying the flood coincides with pangea qualifies as concordism. I thought concordism was a bit more stout than that. Maybe it's just semantics, so I'm willing to cede the point on pangea. - But Pangea notwithstanding, a global flood argument can't be dismissed as a pursuit of concordism. Too many of the datapoints in the flood narrative necessitate a global flood. And that was my main reason for replying earlier. Thanks.
@@TheBoredTheist I’m not sure how labeling an idea as a “modern scientific concept” makes it off- limits for a Scripture-sensitive scientist trying to reconstruct geologic history. I’m also unsure if it’s relevant whether people 3,000 years ago had any concept of a supercontinent … they probably had had equally vague ideas of current continents which are also a modern discovery. 🤔
I really appreciate this video. One minor criticism, as a former (very devoted) YEC I don't find the miracles aspect to be especially convincing. Most YECs believe that the supercontinent Pangaea existed before the flood, with the flood being the cause of the continental divide. Each new objection you raise also seems to assume that the standard YEC positions already mentioned aren't true. There would be no reason to assume polar bears would be on the ark, for example, if the "kind" = "family" paradigm is true, which I still take to be at least a plausible reading of the text. That being said, a lot of the arguments you presented in this video are the type of biblical arguments that moved me away from the YEC position. I really enjoyed it!
What did move you away from YEC and what made you believe it originally? I've found myself baffled that so many Christians still believe it, when there's so much evidence that the earth is far older than 6000 years old.
This video is about a regional vs global flood interpretation, not YEC. You can be a OEC and still believe a global flood. Regarding a local flood, what do you do about the divergence of the rivers coming out of Eden in Genesis 2:10-14? The 3 of the 4 that are identifiable in scripture (and with decent consensus among non-allegory-taking church fathers) as the Tigris, Euphrates, and the Nile. The 4th (Pishon) is a mystery, but doesn't detract from the problem of the first 3's divergent starting points today. How could the Nile come from the same source as the former 2 if the source (Eden) were locatable today? Does this not imply the Garden of Eden was so destroyed from the geography of original creation that the its rivers (named by later names Moses identified) are now scattered in fashion with what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:6 regarding pre-flood creation? Assuming this is correct, how could a local flood cause this degree of destruction? Anything larger than local and you end up with global scale implications.
as someone who has been deconstructing for several years and really doesn’t identify as a christian any longer, i have been looking for a long time for a channel with this measure of level-headedness and theological competency without any snarkiness towards those with other perspectives.
@@mendoza2489 dude. I've been deconstructing and that honestly HIT. I am definitely no longer a fundamentalist but that does not mean I should throw away EVERYTHING pertaining to Christianity
@@joshuastevens232 deconstructing from western evangelicalism has been one of the best things to happen to me. It’s not only strengthened my love for God but it’s deepened my understanding of Him. It’s also been helpful to know that this way of “Christianity” is more of a recent development tied to American pride and nationalism so much so unless you’re a conservative republican who borderline hates g@y people, believes in dispensationalism, and pledges your allegiance to a Ken Ham and young earth creationism then you can’t truly be a Christian. Except when I read sacred scripture there seems to be a “different” kingdom we are to pledge allegiance to. If you’re still on this journey may I suggest the book Surprised by Hope by NT Wright? It single handedly saved me from walking away from the faith and helped me realized some of the reasons behind why I felt the way I did. Good luck my friend!
Fundamentalist here. Just believe that Jesus is the Son of the one true God, suffered and died for the remission of your sins, and you are saved. We can disagree about everything else and we are still brothers in Christ and will see each other one day. I've had many beliefs and researched a ton of spiritual systems, but He finally gave me rest in the simplicity of the gospel. May His peace and love be with you now and forever.
I came into this video very skeptical, but I am pleased to say that you made your case very well. I’m still not entirely convinced that a local flood is the most natural reading of the text, but you bring up many good points. One consideration I would like to bring up is a thought experiment that you often use in your hermeneutics of church history. Some of the ways that Genesis describes the flood seem so universal, that it begs the question, “how could they have said it that would mean it was a universal flood.” As one example, here is Genesis 7:21-23 “And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.“ The examples of other seemingly “universal” instances in Scripture are compelling. However, I must ask, how could the author have written it so that it would be understood as universal if not with this language? I’m not sure about this myself, just a thought
I agree. For instance should me then assume that when the Bible uses universal language elsewhere its actually just local or narrow/constrained/specific. Example: Psalm 53 “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” Should we assume this is an exaggeration and actually some are righteous, bc who can take universal language seriously?? That seems logically incoherent. I believe God’s Word is accurate, specific, intentional, and true.
This is a good point. One aspect of the flood keyed on by people who want to see this flood as regional is limited scope of human habitation on the Earth at that time. Yet, God makes a point, and very strongly, to show his judgment is also against the animals for they also corrupted their way. Are we to believe animals only lived within a certain region of the Earth in that day and not globally?
@@tuckerchisholm1005 Those who believe that God is hyperbolic (full of hot air) will be astounded in the day of Wrath. How mankind can be so full of himself is beyond me.
Considering that scientists tell us major increases in seas levels, as well as catastrophic events, occurred in many places as the ice age came to an end and the polar ice sheets melted, the idea that such events might exist within human memory is not too hard to consider.
The problem is that geology and archaeology indicate this was a gradual change. There is no credible evidence for acute global flooding as Genesis instructs its reader. We would expect to see something like the K2 boundary line, and instead we see nothing.
Reasons to Believe was a great resource in investigating the "local vs. global flood" issue. When I read Hugh Ross's *Navigating Genesis,* I was convinced the flood is local--after 20 years of being a young-earth, global-flood creationist. The text leaves ample room for this interpretation, as Gavin carefully explains.
Same for me. Hugh Ross is the very best at explaining how modern science and the Bible interact. A global flood would be more impossible than a giant regional flood. NO SEEDS of any land plants could survive being soaked for a year- period! Just over water your flowers and see how fast they die. ALL animals require special environments to survive, which would NOT EXIST as they exited the ARK. The time to get to these special climate zones that they need to live would be impossible, not to mention they would need to cross OCEANS !! IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN GLOBALLY!
Bill Maher laughing at and mocking the Noah story and anyone that puts any credence in it is no way to convince anyone. I am a geologist and believer in an old world, but your approach to this is admirable and deserving of commendation. Your channel is great. I am happy to become a subscriber.
I don't believe Peter understood how to interpret ancient history, G1-11. If Peter though the flood was global, he was mistaken. Peter held the common view of his own time.
2 Peter 3:5-7, 10, seems to be pretty explicit that the flood was local. In verses 5, 7 and 10 Peter refers to the earth (Ge). But, when he describes, in verse 6, what was flooded, he switches to “the world” (kosmos). This word refers to the inhabited region. He goes further, “the kosmos of that time.” He references this in 2 Peter 2:5. So now, go back to Genesis 1-11, and find where the Bible says humanity moved beyond the Middle East, prior to the Tower of Babel. This is the region of the four rivers of Genesis 2, as well as the lands of Havilah, Cush, Nod and Eden (the paradise cursed in chapter 3). It’s the area where Noah’s ancestors still lived just before the flood (Genesis 5:29). They were still toiling (itstsabown) within the cursed ground of Eden (Genesis 3:17, 5:29).
A local flood is NOT “orthodox!” The VERY FACT that God instructed Noah to build an ark and had the animals go to the ark, shows that the flood WAS GLOBAL! If it were merely local, God wouldn’t have had Noah build anything perhaps except a wagon- because he could have taken the years it took to build the ark to move to the non-flood area! There is simply no case for a local flood. It’s not surprisingly complicated, Gavin! Also, from a anti-type and allegorical perspective, Given what the flood represents, and the ark represents, if you say that the flood was merely local that means that that the sin and the coming judgment on sin is not universal, and you say that the ark and the salvation offered in Christ is not the only way of deliverance.
“Types” and allegories do not mean a one to one relationship. Lots of things can be allegorical or types but does not mean everything about then lines up literally and exactly.
“Types” and allegories do not mean a one to one relationship. Lots of things can be allegorical or types, but does not mean everything about them lines up literally and exactly.
“Types” and allegories do not mean a one to one relationship. Lots of things can be allegorical or types, but does not mean everything about them lines up literally and exactly.
This used to be a major stumbling block for me, until I learned to try to read the bible for the context and message it was conveyed in, then I no longer worried if the earth was 6000 or 15 billion years old that wasn't the point of the creation story and the ones who wrote it probably didn't know or even consider the age of the earth. Once i learned that i learned to focus on what God was telling us through the text not on some mere points of curiosity that will not impact our eternal fate.
@@aulismarttinen8632 could be, could also be the gap theory is th correct way to read the Genesis account. Also if God wanted to expand the universe in a day light, supernovas and etc, he could, doesn't seem to be the way he interacts with creation, but I'm not going to say what God can or can't do.
@@aulismarttinen8632 nope. Its specified perfectly as a 24 hr pwriod per day, and reinterated throughout scripture and verified by the Maker Himself Jesus..when He spoke of Adam from the begnning. The Heavens were stretched out rapidly ..hence cosmic micorwave background that can be identified
I grew up going to a small nondenominational church that had several notable speakers come for about a week at a time. I remember they had Ken Ham come out there and give something like 3 talks during the week. I had always thought we had to rigidly believe a literal interpretation of the Bible, mostly because of how I was raised. I am more interested in understanding the Bible clearly now more than ever, and these videos have helped a lot. Thank you.
It's unfortunate that Ken Ham holds the position he does when dealing with old earth creationists. He goes so far as to claim they aren't believers for denying the scriptures.
Wonderful video, Mr. Ortlund! I’m a freshman in college, and this video is such a great blessing to me and my faith. May God bless you abundantly, sir. :)
My biggest problem with a local flood is as follows: -If the flood were local, why would God make Noah spend decades (possibly a century) building a boat to escape a flood instead of spending those years migrating out of the flood's area of effect?
I don’t see why that would be an issue. God could’ve used the arc as a prophetic statement to the people of the land. The arc was also a “type”, Pointing to the salvation, that would eventually be provided through Christ.
@@bjn3232 I understand the typology of the ark and how is is related to baptism. However, I still don't think that's a good enough explanation because God could have easily used a different type or prophecy and had the exact same effect. The fact that Noah and his family could have just migrated to save themselves instead of building the ark would somewhat imply that man (In the year of our Lord) could save himself some other way, or find a different means of salvation if he really wanted to. I feel the type is way less potent in a localized flood.
Remember that "local" does not mean "small." If the flood covered "the known world" then migrating outside of it could certainly have been unfeasible, up to and including crossing oceans.
@@samwhittaker9179 I'm pretty sure it is a thousand times easier to hike 10,000 miles of unexplored land than to mill 10,000 trees, treat the wood, construct an enormous ark, waterproof that ark, and furnish that ark in a way which could be suitable to house 2 of every kind of animal (plus sacrificial animals). Maybe I'm wrong, but migrating sounds a lot simpler.
Appreciate your kind approach. What is your take on Gen. 8:21? "And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." Which "all" would that be? Thanks.
Gavin there are secular geologists who believe there was something like a global flood and we find stories of a global flood in cultures all around the globe.
Not on the timescale you would need to make it work in context of the bible, and yes there likely was a near global catastrophe from the end of the ice age
I don't think Gavin is compromising, but I do think allowing some young earth creationists come on an interview with Gavin would help provide some perspectives from the young earth standpoint, because I do find that most of the objections raised by Gavin here have already been addressed with a reasonably satisfiable answer by the young earth side.
@@TruthUnites Thanks brother, here are a couple of young earth scientists for you to consider: ♦ Regarding the issues of Himalaya and other tall mountains, or related geological questions - Paul Garner ♦ Regarding the issue of rapid evolution or other issues related to genetics - Nathaniel Jeanson from AIG, or Robert Carter from CMI (Nathaniel and Robert don't completely agree with each other on some issues, but I found both their studies fascinating and data-based) ♦ Regarding biological migration before and after the flood - paleontologists like Marcus Ross, Matthew McLain, and Todd Wood are some good options
This topic is not controversial among Christians. The Bible clearly states in literal terms that the entire Earth was covered And that no living thing survived that walked the Earth.
Yea, I don't think it's false. I'd say the local flood idea is just some attempt to marry the religion of Darwin and big bang to Christianity. And yes, I would go as far as to say, those who reject the bible and take the view of some whiskey drinking TH-camr or ape to man believing philosopher (WLC), I question their salvation. This video is full of ignorance. The guy is a nice guy, but wrong.
A flood that covers Mt. Ararat would still be global, but not cover the Himalayas, the Rockies, and a few other areas. People who argue for a local flood have not considered the topography of the world without redefining all sorts of terms. For example, you have to claim the mountains are small hills. On top of that, the local flood people still can't explain the flood lasting so long, why the ark needed to be so big, or where all the water came from, because a glacial lake wouldn't fill the area significantly.
The same geological upheaval that "opened the vaults of the deep" would likely also create these mountains or volcanic eruptions that might cause them to grow. That's why we have seabed fossils on the Himalayas.
@@kriegjaeger I'm well aware of the catastrophic plate tectonics theory for Noah's Flood. I was just explaining the problem with a hybrid view that there was a major local flood that also didn't flood the rest of the world. That explanation makes more sense for someone who rejects altogether as mythology, and claims a glacial dam burst in Asia Minor somewhere causing a big flood from which the story originated. There's obviously plenty of parts of the story that aren't explained by a glacial dam, but at least the non-believer isn't required to explain why the Scripture is hyperbole and written as historical at the same time, as a local flood person is.
@@litigioussociety4249 Ah gotchya 👍 Every time Christians compromise with the world, they don't bring the worldly closer to God but push themselves further from Him.
I appreciate your humble tone that you take with these potentially divisive issues. Not a lot of scholarship being made public and accessible on these things, which is why I support you on Patreon. Keep it up 🤘
I appreciate that Gavin is pushing back on the idea that a global flood should be an indicator of orthodoxy, which I think is good. But I think this goal would have been serviced better if the arguments for both sides had been presented. One of the main reasons I see for a global flood is that it fits better with the purpose of God for the flood. It says that God regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and that he would wipe them out, and the same went for the animals. After the flood, God's covenant is with man and all living creatures, not to destroy them by a flood, and that the cycles of the earth would reliably continue. If the flood were local, I feel this covenant would most sensibly also be local. And the flood is compared to the coming judgment of Christ, which is of course global. I don't think it is a good argument to say that you need more and more miracles, not explicitly given in the text, to explain a global flood. God brought the animals, Noah was probably not an expert ship builder, and it says God sealed the door. I imagine that God miraculously held the ark together. I think when the text says that God brought the animals, and that God's purpose was that they would be preserved on the ark, we can assume that other miraculous things may be involved. We do see other periods where the miraculous seems gratuitous, like the pillar of cloud and of fire for the Israelites in the wilderness. That doesn't mean we don't have to consider evidence from the natural sciences, because God's work is still rational even when miraculous - we shouldn't assume the miraculous specifically to explain why something doesn't match the evidence. I personally wrestle with this text - actually mostly I wrestle with the fact that the scientific evidence as presented by science is hard to reconcile to the text. I land on the side of taking the text to mean what seems more obvious to me - a global flood - even if I can't explain how to reconcile that to scientific observations. But I agree it shouldn't be a test of orthodoxy and shouldn't affect our opinions of other believers.
I wonder if the reason for the flood was achieved though a local flood by punishing particularly horrendous sin at the time, and leaving a precedent for God's judgement towards sin which stood as a warning for the surviving peoples. It was never meant to erase sin totally, as this was to be achieved in Christ. As for the covenant not to destroy the world in the same way, my understanding would have to mean that this flood, while local, was by far the biggest, most catastrophic flood the world has ever seen.
Thanks for the responses, and hopefully I can look at that book eventually. I wanted to say that I appreciated the video and don't want to be negative about it.
2 Peter 3:5-6 "For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water."
I have a question from which i've never heard any attempt at an answer from the OEC camp. Why is the flood account and tower of Babel always grouped in with the creation account as primeval history. But statarting with Abraham we have a more literal history. I see no transition between genesis 11-12 to think that anything before chapter 11 should be considered a different type of history than what follows chapter 11. Why do OEC including the flood and tower of Babel in this section. it seems arbitrary to me.
The short answer to this is that you'd need to be able to see it for yourself in the original Hebrew language, and see how it's constructed in the first 11 chapters before getting to Abraham,Isaac, Jacob, Joseph where it slows down considerably. It's not that Gen 1-11 is not historical, it's that it's written in a genre that doesn't fit neatly into what we today call "history" It is full of dischronology and a lot of the stories are arranged in a way so as to make a theological point as opposed to a historical one.
@@choicemeatrandy6572how? Who says it is? William Lane Craig. It is arbitrary. OEC is nonsensical. It's anti-biblical. Oec are just ASHAMED of the teachings of the Bible. And it gets worse as we get closer to the end. Just try standing up and saying you believe God created the earth and man in a week and flooded the entire earth. You can understand why such people would want to compromise and concoct all these silly mytho-history nonsensical stories. Man has always been wrong, the Bible has always and continues to be proven right!!! I am a relatively new Christian. I've went from believing millions and billions to thankfully having my eyes opened. All these problems the original video presents have satisfied answers. I have a problem with Inspiring Philosophy. I do not believe that guy is a Christian. He's been drinking whiskey during debates and seen visibly drunk. Once I saw that, then I knew why we're in such a mess. We have professing Christians claiming the bible ain't saying what it's saying and they promote the ideas of men. Nonsense
Haven't watched the video yet (I'll likely play it in the background while I work), but I do have a question and some immediate thoughts. [EDIT: I watched the video. My thoughts after watching it are stated in my first reply to dennis9423 down in this thread.] Since God promised never to flood the entire earth again, how could anyone say the flood was local? Since many local floods are happening all over the world, wouldn't that mean God broke His promise? Plus, I would say a local flood assumes naturalism and that God cannot or does not have any plausible mechanisms for achieving such a flood. It's not rational to look at present geographical data and judge from there whether the flood could have happened naturally or not, because it wasn't a natural flood in the first place but a supernaturally driven catastrophic event. And whatever clearing (i.e. draining) mechanism for the waters God used, that also would be an event involving natural things being manipulated or controlled supernaturally. No doubt God used natural means, but it was sustained by God Himself supernaturally nonetheless. Asking whether the flood is local or global when the concern is reconciling it with naturalism is like asking whether the donkey really spoke supernaturally or if there had to be some natural mechanism that somehow changed a donkey's vocal chords into that which resembled human vocal chords so as to produce human speech. It's a category error. We simply have no obligation to explain to the naturalistic thinker how a supernatural event could have taken place. If you can get them to believe in a God who created everything from nothing, why should they stumble when we talk about global floods or talking donkeys or men rising from the dead?
@@TheCruiseDog I did watch the video already, and while Gavin was irenic (as usual, thank God, and an excellent example to all of us), I wasn't convinced. Immediately I found most of his points lacking. I still stand by the things I said in my first comment here. And his quotation of Bavinck is astute. Christianity is unashamed suipernaturalism. Gavin already acknowledged that even a local flood was supernatural and also needed miracles, but turned around and said the miracles seem to fit more with a local flood view rather than a global flood view. My brother in Christ, the appeal to supernaturalism was already there, so why stop at a local level? He did point out that YECs have an explanation for these things, but his response to those in this video was that those views required an addition of more miracles mentioned nowhere in the text. But see, they don't have to be mentioned in the text, and all we need in order to uphold the global flood view are plausible explanations as to what happened afterwards. And indeed YECs have that. I would go back to the main issue here: it's a matter of interpretation, and interpretation is always done according to one's presuppositions. The local flood view I think takes naturalistic presuppositions too seriously. Of course, supernaturalists who are YECs have the presupposition that the flood was indeed global, and will interpret the evidence according to that presupposition. As long as there is internal consistency within either views, then both can be held to without any problems whatsoever. So for now, I'm still sticking to the YEC view.
@@juilianbautista4067 I am really glad you listened to the video. I would like to comment further on your points. In regards to local floods happening all over the earth, they are part of the natural order of things ("the rain falls on the just and the unjust" as said by Jesus). But, the Flood of Noah was purposeful: to wipe out all wickedness. It did not take the righteous but only the wicked, much like when He acted against Sodom and Gormorrah. His promise to never flood the earth again is according to His purpose of sending judgment. He will not do that again to wipe out the wicked. There still will be natural floods that take both the good and bad, but not exclusively for the wicked. So, God is not breaking His promise everytime there is a natural flood. Gavin said that this was a supernatural event, a miraculous one, so I don't think that it is naturalism by default as you suggest. Gavin said God could do it anyway He wanted to. He was stating that the geological evidence does not match the global interpretation. Personally, I believe that "God is not a man who lies" and that He cannot deceive. Therefore, I tend to believe in the geological record that supports a local flood rather than a global one. I do agree with you that we do not need to explain the supernatural world to unbelievers. I also agree with you that there does not need to be further mention in scripture for added miracles for an event to happen a certain way. Scripture is silent on many things and particularly to the mechanics of the Flood, the Ark, and the repopulation of humans and animals. We do not have to know all the ways of God to accept a miracle. Good comments. Thanks again.
I feel like all of Gavin's videos address exactly things that I have wondered about or struggled with. Covering very relevant topics in a very thoughtful way.
Wow, I wrote a text a few days ago saying that Noah's flood is one of the most difficult things in the Bible for me (not so much because of God's judgment, but from an archaeological point of view). Many times, fruitful central discussions about Jesus have shifted to less fruitful discussions about Noah when I have talked with non-Christians. Many have said that if the Bible and Christianity rests with the global flood, then all of Christianity can be given a funeral. At the very least, I hope that this discussion can be left as a tertiary question. True Christians can disagree about the extent of the flood etc.
What are you talking about? Evolutionists ALL agree that the earth used to be covered with water. The signs are obvious all over the earth. They just insist the earth was covered in water millions of years ago. Get a grip of reality.
@@pontificusmaximus And these same scholars have no way of knowing if it was really millions or thousands of years ago that the earth was actually covered w/ water. I would guess both, by Genesis chapter 1, where it talks about separating the waters from the waters w/ the firmament.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Genesis ch.1 waters represent chaos just like the Chaos Dragon in 1:21 : not a dinosaur , chaos to order . It has nothing to do with the Flood of Noah in any related time frame.
Hey, Dr. Ortlund I think you put together a thoughtful case and I’m not intending to refute it. It’s a very well done video. I do think a couple things were missed however. 1. Belief in a global flood is almost always associated with young earth creation (to my knowledge). The “rapid evolution” is a common belief for young earth creationists. We believe the variance in adaptation is much more limited than evolutionists would say but that the changes happen much more quickly (we actually see some evidence of this), so that wouldn’t be miraculous from our perspective. 2. We do see biblical evidence that the earth changed more than just rising water levels: “[O]n that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth” (7:11). Also, some, including myself, believe Psalm 104 may refer to the flood when it says, “The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that [the waters] may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth” (verse 8-9). I know others see this as exclusively referring to creation, but it was God’s promise to Noah that the waters would not again cover the earth (9:11). 3 I don’t think the Bible lacking specificity in all that took place to make the flood event possible is evidence against the global perspective. Unless the account were about all the scientific and miraculous details, we wouldn’t expect to see them either way, making this an argument from silence that doesn’t really work. I appreciate it if you made it to the end. Again, great video. I don’t think this refutes your perspective, but it may help the dialogue. May God continue to bless your ministry!
@@TheBoredTheist I appreciate your thoughts. I don’t have time to investigate them in detail, but I don’t think I’m convinced. Most of the best English translations take it as the earth being reformed (and these are experts in the languages, not just a reference to a concordance). Of course, I recognize that it must be somewhat ambiguous since some other experts see it your way, but the best and most modern don’t. To me, whether you take this as creation or Noah, it seems to be talking about forming the earth (the land) to contain the waters.
@@TheBoredTheist I would always put more trust in the ESV, NASB, and NLT than the KJV (which is good but has some outdated conclusions) and the NIV (which has some important erroneous translations). I’m less familiar with the NRSV though. These are all good translations, but the better and more modern ones take the translation as reforming the earth. Without much knowledge of Hebrew, I find it hard to argue against them, since it makes more sense in the context of the passage (in my opinion).
@@TheBoredTheist I think it would be best to agree to disagree on this point. I don’t think you’re understanding my perspective (and that might be my fault), but I don’t have time to explain it better right now. I do agree I wouldn’t make this dogma, but I do think it can be carefully used as evidence.
Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, certainly didn't think it was local (II Peter 2:5 and 3:6). And the Noahic Covenant basically becomes incomprehensible if we insist that flood was limited to a region in Mesopotamia. Maybe go to Kentucky and pay attention to the mountain of information they have there. It is more compelling and voluminous than what's being presented here. All of these alleged problems are more-than-adequately addressed.
2 Peter 2 and 3 doesn’t require reading as a global flood. 2 Peter 2 already contains S&G as non-universal, and judging of angels as narrow, why does “ancient world” need to mean universal? Likewise, as the narrative flow of scripture starts with Mesopotamia, narrows to Israel, then expands (as the gospel spreads) to the whole earth, why can’t Peter simply be referring to what scripture records with no specifically required interpretation, leaving room for a localised flood? You’re welcome to hold to a global flood but I don’t see how 2 Peter indicates one way or another that Peter did.
@@readeral Cool. So "The 'κόσμος' that then existed," doesn't actually mean what it says, ""כָּל־בָּשָֽׂר׃" (all flesh), in Genesis 9 doesn't actually mean what it says and "הָאָדָֽם׃ וְכֹ֖ל" (all mankind) in Genesis 7 doesn't mean what it says. I'm not sure how God could've communicated any more clearly, but have at it. The Noahic Covenant is incomprehensible but at least we've got deep time and that's what really matters, I guess.
@@warriorpriestblog all my comment was saying is that Peter’s letters aren’t as obviously conclusive as you asserted, there’s still more to wrestle with as you say.
There is so much here to respond to. I think for now I’ll limit my response to: your main thesis, two key issues I think you did not address, and the incomplete nature of local flood interpretations. Main thesis: I agree that this is not an orthodoxy vs. heresy issue. Many local flood proponents are godlier men than me. I would argue that this is not even the kind of thing that churches should divide over. That’s a fairly modest claim and I’m not sure how much we even need to get into evidence for either view to reach that conclusion. I already agree with your thesis even though I think the evidence for the local flood view is not good. So perhaps the content of your video was quite ambitious relative to your modest thesis. Two key issues not addressed: 1. What are the implications for a local flood interpretation on the character of God? A local flood puts most of the fossil record before the Fall, which means God created a world full of natural disasters, and diseases like cancer and arthritis in animals before Adam’s sin (as observed in the fossils). This is the main reason the global Flood is considered important; it’s not just some fundamentalists stubbornly insisting on a wooden literalistic reading of the text. 2. What are the implications for a local flood interpretation on the doctrine of perspicuity? If you couldn’t find one Church Father to support your view (and even the Josephus passage is ambiguous) how can anyone reasonably be expected to find this view in the text. I think your case was extremely weak in this area. And what should the author of the flood narrative have said to more clearly communicate a global flood? Surely the text teaches that at least the mountains of Ararat were underwater? What’s the elevation of those mountains and what would that imply for the extent of the Flood? This leads nicely into my final point. Local flood interpretations are incomplete: Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the case for a local flood is typically being made by attempting to poke holes in the global flood and YEC paradigm (often without a good understanding of the paradigm being criticized, I might add), rather than by making a positive case for a local flood model that explains both the details of the biblical text and the scientific data. So the Black Sea flood, for example, doesn’t fit with a judgment on all of humanity, and probably not with the idea that the water covered the mountains of Ararat. Are OEC and theistic evolutionist scientists coming up with their own local flood models that fit the details of the biblical text, or looking at animal migration to and from the ark, or counting numbers of animal kinds that the local flood would have required to be on the ark? I haven’t seen anything like this. So is there a workable model out there somewhere, and if so, what miracles does it require that are not in the text? That would be a more fair way to compare the local and global flood interpretations. Thanks for the video, Gavin, and God bless you and your family in your new home.
Thanks for the comment, Daniel, and glad you don't think this is a heresy vs. orthodoxy issue. When you raise the criticism that I often don't have a "good understanding of the paradigm being criticized," I am not sure what you are referencing, but part of the problem here is that there is such diversity among proponents of this paradigm.
@@TruthUnites That’s a fair point. I’m probably not aware of the full diversity of views out there. Here are a few cases where I thought you were criticizing a version of the YEC paradigm that did not seem familiar to me: 1. You mention caring for polar bears on the ark, whereas elsewhere you had mentioned the YEC view of “kinds” on the ark. Maybe you didn’t know that it would imply that polar bears arose after the flood so this is a non-issue for that YEC view. 2. You mentioned penguins migrating from Antarctica. I thought it was the common YEC view that the continents were not in their present positions prior to the flood (and the ancestors of penguins likely lived on a different land mass anyway). 3. You seem to imply that miracles are required on the YEC view to explain how some creatures survived outside the ark (e.g., on floating vegetation mats). I am not aware of miracles being invoked for this.
@@danielklassen1513 To clarify on 1, I am aware many YECs say that -- what I tried to convey is that its a trade off -- they EITHER need super speedy evolution OR more animals on the ark, either of which has downsides. Perhaps I should have reiterated this point when it comes up again with special climate animals. Similarly on 2, yes, I know some YECs believe all the continents were connected, but again that is the trade off - you have to posit the cataclysmic geological reshaping just a few thousand years ago, which I would say faces the same challenge of additional miracles (I know some disagree on that point from Psalm 104). On 3, yeah perhaps miracle in the strict sense is not the right category for that.
@@TruthUnites Thanks, that’s helpful. Your arguments don’t fully make sense to me, but I have a theory about why that might be. I think you’re criticizing the YEC paradigm from a standpoint inside a different paradigm. So animals adapting to their new environments after the flood you call “evolution” because that’s what the evolution paradigm calls it. In that paradigm, changes are slow and gradual, so you say the YEC view is lightning fast evolution (by comparison), which is too fast to fit with the evolution paradigm. The YEC paradigm has resources unavailable to the evolution paradigm, like a pre-programmed ability to adapt to new environments, so different timescales for biological change are to be expected. Pre-programming is off limits to the evolution paradigm but makes sense within YEC. So to criticize YEC on its own terms perhaps you have to make a case that the proposed mechanisms are inadequate. Similarly, regarding cataclysmic geological reshaping, in YEC it makes sense to posit catastrophic plate tectonics as a mechanism for rapid geological change, and this mechanism is based on real physics (not miracles) and backed by advanced computer models. In the old earth paradigm this explanation is off limits because tectonic plates in the past are assumed to move at the rates observed today. Perhaps it would require a miracle to radically reshape the surface of the earth without rapid plate movements, but that’s not what YEC is claiming. I don’t think anyone knows what initiated the rapid plate movements, so perhaps there’s a miracle there, but nobody knows what initiated the local flood either so that’s no different.
@@danielklassen1513 its definitely true we are operating from different paradigms, and that will sometimes hinder our ability our communication and understanding (even if I wouldn't say that is the root cause of my disagreements with the young-earth paradigm). Hopefully patient dialogue will enable us to make progress as we go.
Water finds its lowest point. The Bible says the water of the flood was above the peaks of the highest mountains. For there to have been a local flood, there would have been a wall of water rising above one side of the mountains and not finding its lowest point on the other side of the mountains. This rules out a local flood.
@@TheBoredTheist we can use the hyperbolic explanation any time scripture seems inconvenient to one’s worldview. How do we distinguish when scripture is being literal and when it is being non-literal? Context is a good place to start. The reason for the flood was to kill all of humanity because it as a whole had become evil and corrupted. The Nephalim were also present, which was part of that corruption. The only man righteous was Noah. The account describes an event that killed all land animals and humans, where an ark was built to the dimensions of an ocean liner to save the lives of a family of eight and every land animal God brought to it. This flood was so unique and lethal that God promised to never again flood the world like He did. The water level rose above the highest mountain peaks and remained like that for a year. To say “the waters rose above the highest mountain peaks” is hyperbolic, one also must say that all of humanity and land animals dying is hyperbolic too. Why build an ark so big then? Maybe the Ark size and Noah being the only righteous man are also hyperbolic. Maybe raining 40 days and nights is hyperbolic. At this point why not call it a myth as the skeptics do? How do you distinguish between hyperbole and literal descriptions?
@@TheBoredTheist I understand the “fountains of the great deep” to mean subterranean pressurized water that gave way, which raised the sea level tremendously. Still today there are many pockets of subterranean water beneath the sea floor. The windows of heaven is reference to rain falling from the sky. Either Genesis is a revelation that Moses received from God or it’s a bunch of near eastern myths that the Jews gathered from the contemporary cultures around them. Jesus spoke of the flood in the gospels and so did Peter in his epistle. Jesus likened the flood of Noah to the day of the LORD, when the world will be judged. Noah’s flood fails as a simile for the world wide final judgment of mankind if the flood was local. The final judgment will be global, not local.
I nearly wasn't going to respond as there is so much to respond to! However, if I were to try and sum up what I wanted to say it would simply be this. A lot of what you said was based on the idea that there is no text to support the 'additional' miracles. When I read the creation story it is mind bogglingly simple. When I read the parting of the red sea, it's mind-bogglingly simple. Just because the text doesn't say how God bought the animals to the ark, or returned them to their original location, or fed them with special food etc etc etc, doesn't mean God is not eminently capable of doing all that and more. The point is there are so many examples in the Bible where God doesn't 'explain' to us how it was done. He really doesn't have to. Compared with creation the whole flood episode is child's play in terms of miracles (miracle being defined as something inexplicable). I believe that we are just becoming too concerned about what the world thinks, and for Christians who struggle with doubt about such incredible events I would say the problem is a limited view of the reality of Almighty God. Finally, I would say that when God says he will destroy all mankind, He means all. And when He says He will bring every kind of animal, I will take Him at His word. Because if He didn't, then he's a liar. I am not a fundamentalist by any means, and these issues I also struggle with and try to my best to think through. But honestly the scripture that comes to mind is a paraphrase of Genesis 3 where the serpent said 'Did God really say that?' and so, sewed his doubt. BTW.. still love your stuff Gavin, but just can't agree on this one.
The phrases used to describe the extent 'all flesh' or 'all living' are the same used to describe Eve, where she is called the mother of all living. What is in view in the text is judgment on Adam and Eve's descendants. There is no reason for God to flood the Amazon rainforest as part of judement on humans when it was likely unihabited
Appreciate you sharing this info and doing so in a very thoughtful manner. There are plenty of dogmatic Christians out there that immediately dig their heels in the moment someone says “the flood was likely local, not global.” It’s incredibly ignorant and they think you are trying to use scientific knowledge to usurp biblical authority. It’s not the case at all and you explained that very well.
Gavin has once again provided us with a thoughtful, carefully researched topic. This kind of theological consideration, that is so specifically Biblically based and reasonably presented, is so needed. This is another example of helping me understand a topic that I have not had the chance to research at this level before. Gavin, you are a blessing to us all.
I love the end of this video soooo much. As someone who struggles with the anxiety of knowing if I’m saved or not based on still (regretfully) being a sinner, thank you.
Gavin, I seriously love your content and am thankful for your ministry! My question here is coming from someone who's pretty on the fence between these two (global vs. local) options. In Gen 8:20-9:17, God establishes his covenant with Noah and his sons and all creatures, promising to never again do what he just did. If what he just did was a local flood, then we would expect that he would never do a local flood again, right? But we've seen catastrophic local floods since then. More broadly, I've heard many people take the Noahic covenant promises to be universal- not just promises regarding a specific region ("I'll never flood this region again") or people ("Specifically Noah's descendants can eat animals now") or animals ("I'll never wipe out the animals of this specific region"). If the Noahic covenant is being made in response to a local event, isn't the fairly evident "restarting" or "recommissioning" of creation/humanity theme threatened? Thanks so much for your charitable attitude and commitment to the Word of God! God bless!
The argument against rapid speciation post-flood is odd. Within a few hundreds of years look at how many dog breeds we have with such vast morphological differences had we not seen it ourselves we would have categorized many or possibly most into different species if we came along later and discovered them. To say this type of rapid speciation is unlikely or impossible because of a few wild canine species is ironic
@@jonathanw1106 , that's a matter of preference in how we choose to categorize breeds which comes from the knowledge we have that they were bred that way. The reality is many fossils with similar degrees of variation or less variation between them do get classified as different species.
@@andywhitaker2387 no its not species are remarked by their inability to breed with each other, among other things. Dogs are still dogs, chihuahua or great dane
@@jonathanw1106 it is, because there are definite exceptions to that rule and that definition is still a hotly debated topic. With that said it's not worth missing the forest for the trees getting hung up on the definition of species. The Bible says nothing about species. The question is whether it is possible for some number of animals which can fit on the ark to possibly give rise to the variety we see today... and clearly variety can spring up to an incredible degree within merely a few hundred years. If what you want is evidence that in a longer period of time between when we began breeding our dog breeds and the flood that it is possible for those varieties to lose the ability to create fertile offspring with each other, I'd say that's fair to ask. I think it is also fair to ask evolutionists then for harder evidence the degree of speciation they claimed did indeed happen though as well. If their story can pass muster by organizing morphologically similar fossils on a story board without great incredulity while claiming it's just an extrapolation of what we observe over a longer period of time it's hard to see how what's good for that goose wouldn't be as good for this gander
I have heard people claim that the Flood was a localised event, but with very little backup, so I remained unpersuaded. I don't know that I fully lean one side or the other, nor do I feel I know enough to make such a decision, but this is the first I've heard a detailed, well-reasoned argument in a localised flood's favor. Thank you for your presentation, as well as your graciousness in presenting it.
The evidence people would seem to appropriate for the purpose of proving it was local would not support a massive sub-global flood either (continent wide or hemispherical, like an asteroid strike leading to a massive tidal wave, plus rain). Instead they point merely to large historical flood plain outliers... as if Mesopotamia alone getting flooded explains it all away, but it doesn't. So I find this moderate "it wasn't global but it wasn't merely local either" is sort of trying to argue for a middle way but that is seemingly excluded by the "evidence" against a global flood. Especially in light of the universality of the geological theory's expression of the geological column. And the universality of the flood myth. I'm not saying su h a hemispherical model of the flood wouldn't satisfy the biblical data, in a way it would, but thats the only data it would satisfy, and imperfectly at that. Not geology. Not skeptics arguments.
@@ravissary79 Too bad geology is meh at it's own job, ever actually see how good they are at finding oil or diamonds, without any seismic instrumentation? Or ever look into how good they are at carbon dating lava? You just assumed they were good it but they're better than a diving rod but seismic is infinitely more useful than a lot of elaborate and unprovable theories.
@@darthbigred22 no it's not that I assume they're good, I just mean that the data can be interpreted a couple different ways by different schools of thought, but neither would seem to support some middle perspective, a hemispherical flood.
@@scottrussell1018 yup. 💯 it just depends on your model. The data fits a global flood or only small local floods, this in between idea doesn't seem to make sense.
Thank you Pastor Gavin - this was so helpful. Your ministry has taught me to read my Bible slower and deeper. It’s also revealed that many biblical beliefs from my childhood were not grounded in Scripture and took many liberties with the text. PS I just started “How God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t” And already I’m grateful for your humility in “spoon feeding” the readers a bit. Many of us are not scholars, but we are hungry! And this is beyond helpful for us. Thank you - it’s apparent your goal is to glorify our Heavenly Father.
Agree. Gavin seems honest enough and I appreciate some of his other videos, however for a guy so well read on the local flood position, he posits a lot of straw man aurguments from the global flood position (Ex: I know of no popular global flood proponents arguing that the current mountains (and their height) existed before the flood and yet he says there isn’t possibly enough water on earth to reach/cover them at tat height. No one is suggesting there was. Kind of sad (and unfair) that he wasn’t able to give the strongest arguments from both sides of the debate. He sure put a lot of time and study in on the local flood position. :/
@@MathewDRhys What isn't he charitable w/? This is about flood theory, so I can't imagine some people would be sensitive about it. W/ Marian doctrines, it's a huge branch of Christianity and they get super sensitive and defensive about their next level Marian devotion and feel they are being attacked as Catholics about it, if we can't help but point out deep error as we see it.
@saintejeannedarc9460 Gavin's dogmatic assertion that Global Flood proponents came to their conclusions from a place emotional ignorance as opposed to BECAUSE of the worldwide evidence of cataclysm. Atheist evolutionary geologists haven't even questioned catastrophicsm for almost 50 years, they only argue about the timing and number of catastrophes
Actually, the Bible is clear on whether the waters covered the earth: Genesis 7:19-- "And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered." What on this earth is higher than the mountains? What is more clear than "everywhere"? And two opposing views cannot both be true, and therefore cannot both be orthodox.
This video helps me see how literal interpretations, instead of literary interpretations, can sometimes lead to misinterpretations of hyperbolic language. Thank you for making it!
So when God comes in Wrath to burn up the whole earth, He is only going to burn up part of it? You think that God is embellishing? Why? Because He is incapable?
Because every culture that lasted long enough and succeeded enough to write, lived on the bank of a river. Rivers have huge floods every once and a while. Some bigger than others.
Yes proving worldwide flood. Only a LIAR is going to say ALL THE earth means NOT ALL. AND the rainbow disproves local flood. There are local floods TODAY. They are saying God lied If they believe local flood.
@@cooperthatguy1271 I meant that the the reason every culture knows about the flood is explained by the tower of Babel, and the extent of the flood shouldn't matter.
Thank you for this video, and also your extremely gracious manner. I also hold to a "local flood" view, and I must admit I am annoyed with those who accuse those who take this view of being somehow compromisers, liberal, "of the devil" etc etc. My argument actually starts with a very careful and honest literal reading of Genesis 1, which assures me that this is not a strictly scientific account of origins, but involves a concession to human perception and knowledge at the time (the evidence is the creation of the sun and the moon within the firmament, which was itself created in the midst of the waters of the earth. The sun and the moon may have appeared to be set in the sky - in the earth's atmosphere - but we know these bodies are in outer space well outside the earth's atmosphere and not within a body of water. This is indisputable textual proof that human perception is taken into account when relating events.) This principle of "conceding to human perception" can also be applied to the flood account, and you are absolutely right that "all the earth" means "all the known earth" - probably Mesopotamia, where it is likely the entire human race existed at the time. I am unconvinced by the global flood claim that the great mountain ranges were created by the flood, as clearly we all understand that the waters could not have covered these ranges. A literal reading of Proverbs 8:25 makes clear that the hills and mountains were settled at the time of creation, which is the context of Proverbs 8:22-31 (Wisdom existing before the beginning of creation). To argue that this passage is making the point that Wisdom existed between creation and the flood (although, of course, true) is missing the point of this passage of text. Also Proverbs 8:29 rules out a global flood - God set in place a law at creation concerning the limits of the sea, but this can still allow for local floods involving rivers and rain, as perhaps would have been the case in Mesopotamia. Some object by saying: what is the point of the ark, if the flood is local? God could have just told Noah to flee. But the NT refers to Noah as "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5), and therefore the building of the ark was a prophetic witness to mankind, who must have been local, because how can Noah preach to people scattered all over the earth?
As a global flood guy, I think there are some compelling arguments here. The one thing I would call attention to is the assumption that all the various life forms back then were identical to now. The argument that the ark story necessitates packing into it a myriad of life forms we see now, is reading outside the text. On the other hand, I've often wondered why the middle east going west to the Sahara is all sand, but surrounded by vegetation. On the other hand, global catastrophic tectonic plate shifts is not unreasonable. And I don't care much for the argument that animal types would necessitate rapid evolution at lightning speed. Science shows novel types can appear in as little as one year. Lots of assumptions on both sides, but It's fascinating to consider a regional flood, or other. Well presented Gavin! Btw I wish someone would challenge the idea of coring. I don't buy all the conclusions.
Interesting, but Im not persuaded. What best fits with the overarching biblical narrative? In other words, what is the extent of sin in this world? Is it global or local? You spend a lot time explaining the problem of how all the various animals could go to and fro the arc miraculously but little to no time talking about various humans that presumedly lived outside the radius of a hypothetical local flood at the time. If humans survived the flood outside of the arc, this to me undermines a possible main narrative and premise of any flood at all. The arc may be a type of Christ and the flood waters a type of judgment. Is it possible to be saved apart from Christ or to not be affected by sin or escape judgment? These are the theological questions that aren't answered in this video. Isn't it easier to just believe in a global flood with these theological considerations? I can't make sense of this story theologically otherwise. I love your videos, but this has left me unsatisfied. Even if this story was a real local flood, it really loses its punch if it truly didn't wipe out all mankind other than those on the arc. Forget the animals for a minute and address the real issue with the humans.
This is one of the hardest topics. I remember while I was still a Baptist that this issue was one that nearly broke friendships. People really do feel it makes or breaks the faith. I only kept some friends by having long discussions about "literary" vs "literal," and that focusing on what material form the events took place in leads to not seeing the theological claims. They were still uneasy about it, but it helped when they saw things that could be true in both lines of reasoning but which they could not see because they were focused on being literal.
I recently had these thoughts when our men's group was studying Exodus. The plagues use similar (or the same?) language talking about everything dying in the whole land/earth, but then the next plague has more of the same stuff dying.
I express my skepticism on the global flood and God being responsible for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah in a men's group that included the church pastor. The church pastor while he believes in the global flood and that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorah was very respectful and acknowledged that a lot of people feel the same way as me. Another person though very strangely said "I just believe because I realized if God can do certain things he can do anything."
Hi Gavin, you’ve mentioned in the past getting a YEC advocate on the show. Could I suggest someone like Paul Garner, Ken Coulson or Marcus Ross? I think you’d have a really productive conversation with any of them.
Speciation occurs quicker than you think. “When a scientist name John Gould studied rock wallabies in Australia in the mid-1800s, he could only find six different species. Today there are at least 15 different species of rock wallaby. The formation of new species in only 100 years shows us that it does not take a long time for the species of animals to come about.” There was plenty of time for all of the species of animals we have today to have derived from their ancestors that came off of the Ark.
@@TheBoredTheist What basis do you have in saying this? John Gould had every reason to be as accurate and thorough in his findings at the time. No scientist wants to be discredited.
It seems convenient that one doesn't have to commit to a boundary for a localized flood. We're informed in Genesis chapter 7, verses 19-20, that "...the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep." The implication of these two ideas is that there was a wall of water sustained in some shape around the perimeter of the flood. So whether it was a slope or a sheer wall, there would have been a field of "God energy" maintaining the height of this boundary around the flooded land. That, certainly, would be an "extra," unmentioned-but necessary-miracle. You also mentioned the objection that if the flood were local, why would God have Noah build an Ark at all rather than migrate with his family and the animals? One response in the comments I've seen is that it's just an allegory for a safe space from God's judgment, but simply moving to another region of land (Russia, for example, although I'm not saying that all the landmasses as we know them were the same) would also fulfil this idea. If the flood didn't eliminate all other spaces, making an Ark doesn't make good sense when another, unflooded region of the world could have served as a safe space from God's judgment well enough. With that said, I do appreciate the humility and the repeated assurances that you're not trying to mock people who hold to a literal interpretation, which is important for the goal of lessening division.
Hey Gavin, appreciate the effort and work you put into your content. I am by no means a YEC, but i do believe the flood impacted all of the world. So I was wanting to ask a pastoral question as i would argue, that a local flood weakens the comfort Christianity can give to the climate anxiety of non-believers of our day. For if Gen 9:22 only applies to the flooded region, then is it only Mesopotamia that is guaranteed to have regular seasons and harvests, whereas everywhere else can be destryoed by a climate catastrophe? How do you interpret the applicability and reach of the Noahic covenant under your framework? Thanks Gavin.
I mean similar climate catastrophes to what the scientists are proposing have happened at smaller scales already, I don't think genesis 9:22 can be used to argue against that, it is an extremely broad statement
@briandiehl9257 I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying while also proving my point... One of the promises of the Noahic covenant under a universal (not necessarily global) flood is that God guarantees that the earth's seasons will continue undisrupted, despite regional natural disasters. But if the flood in Genesis is regional, then what is the scope and purpose of Gen 9:22 when God says he'll maintain the earth's seasons from thereon and never curse it again? Do the similar climate catastrophes you mentioned mean God has broken his promise to Noah under the regional model? This is what I'm trying to work out under Gavin's model.
At about minute 26 you state something like how different animals from all over the world would “need” to be “miraculously” transported to the location of the Ark. I would contend with this idea as it assumes a more uniformitarian thought process (things have always been as we observe it currently) on this particular contention. I can see no reason why all of the different “kinds” of animals couldn’t be in the near the vicinity, but you’d have to consider two things: 1) the pre flood world was markedly different than what we observe today, take for example the size of some land animals and the fact that in today’s atmosphere they could not survive. 2) it is not necessarily true that every “species” of animal need be on the ark, rather two of every kind. Meaning, it’s not necessary for arctic wolves, and timber wolves, and, dingos to have two of every kind, rather it’s only necessary for two “dog” kind on specimens to have accompanied Noah. There is too much to contend in this format, however, I would encourage you to consider this topic further than you have. I want to finish by saying that your channel has been a GREAT blessing to me and I really appreciate your candor. Thank you brother, and may the peace of our Lord be with you.
How does the idea of a local flood impact one’s understanding of the Noahic covenant? We have had many local floods since then, so has God kept His promise? And is the Noahic covenant between God and all of creation or is it restricted to the region impacted by the flood?
Sure, this one would be clearly set apart from the rest. But are we to believe that God’s promise of “never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” is limited to any specific region no matter the size? (Genesis 9:11).
@@johngrimm1131 Again the argument is in the nature of the universal language. Does all life mean all life or does it mean the lives within the designated region of Genesis 10s table of nations. If the point of the flood was a theological precurser to salvation in Christ then the territorial size factor is of lesser importance. Only those on the ark get saved within the designated area of destruction. The death of the whole world as we know it will come by fire in some cataclysmic battle and only those in Christ get saved. No one is truly concerned about a world wide flood except maybe global warming theorists right? And in terms of God's promise being kept one would have to say it has been as other local floods never wiped out all mankind. The real question is how much of the human population at the time actually died in the original flood. Was it literally so far back in history that no one lived outside the middle east? That would seem to me to be the more problematic take for people who say that all humans alive today are descendents of Noah and his wife.
I had come to the "local flood" position myself some years ago. My thinking was partially the logistics of storing and caring for representatives of every animal on earth, and partially what might have been meant by the term "whole world". If the point of the flood was to wipe out mankind and start over with Noah and his crew, and if mankind had not yet spread out over the globe, then you really only needed to flood the areas where we were found. Dr. Ortlund has, of course, done a better job of researching and thinking this through than I did. It's good to see wider support for this view, especially backed by careful reasoning along with respect for Scripture.
If what you're saying is true, that it was to wipe out everything in an area, God could have just asked Noah to move, journey to a safe area while he wiped out the bad area. No need for an ark.
You're assuming that animals had spread out to the whole Earth at that point. But it's very possible that, just like humans, animals only populated a central area on Earth, and have gradually spread out/migrated over time, as the population increased.
Thank you for this thoughtful synthesis of is important topic of contention. It is this kind of analysis that makes holding both a biblical and rational understanding of the world viable. Keep up the good apologetic work👍🏽🙏🏽
The local flood theory cannot consistently account for all of scripture (Gen 6-9, Isa 54:9, Matt 24, Luke 17, Heb 11, 1 Pet 3, 2 Pet 2-3). The local flood theory only nitpicks the Genesis account but totally fails to address the rest of scripture.
I was looking forward to this one ever since you published that list of possible future topics. It’s even better than I expected. Thanks for all of the effort in the research and for the carefully thought out and delivered arguments
Thank you for being so thoughtful and taking a concern to be respectful to everyone, Gavin, no matter what the belief about Noah's flood. In the past, I've been appalled by the scorn and mocking displayed by some who support a global flood concept. I've also wondered if this scorn carries over for the children brought up in that atmosphere. They get to college, and encountering greater scorn and mocking displayed by professors there for Biblical texts, they are persuaded by the familiar tone and give up belief in Scripture altogether. For them, they've learned that truth claims show disrespect for anyone who disagrees, and this makes it easier to be persuaded to change. This is a much better tone to adopt as a follower of Christ, and I appreciate it greatly.
”The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;“ Genesis 7:20-21 NASB1995 The water prevailed higher. It started to cover the mountain tops. All flesh that moved on the earth perished. The mountains were covered. Seems like a global flood. We still have the problem of having animals on islands or Australia. I’m not sure if your view has some creatures surviving the flood. Since you quoted Heiser you might. Also regarding the Nephilim ”The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.“ Genesis 6:4 NASB1995 And afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men. Whenever the sons of God came in to the daughters of men the Nephilim were created. That happened after the flood.
I have to say, I'm not so sure about this. It seems to me when we look at the geology all over the planet, we have no need to limit the flood to a Middle Eastern region, (granted, the source you mentioned arguing that the flood is not responsible for Grand Canyon). 1) while I recognize it hypothetically possible that man had not spread beyond a given region, then subsequently flooded, from the Biblical text I don't see any reason why we should assume so, but rather the opposite. But all the more so, the animals - can we really imagine that animal life had not spread beyond same region? God expressly said, the flood was to end all life apart from that saved in the Ark, "So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man *and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens*, for I am sorry that I have made them." Gen 6:7. also v.17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy *all flesh in which is the breath of life* under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die. This seems pretty conclusive. Gen 9:9-11 If any animal life survived the flood, then the rainbow covenant of "no more world-destroying flood" would not be to them, but only Noah's family and the animals that came off the Ark (and descendants). Indeed, the various descriptions in Gen 9: "[the covenant] is for every beast of the earth", "...all flesh be cut off by the waters", "... a flood to destroy the earth", "...covenant between me and the earth", "...every living creature of all flesh", "waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh", "everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth," this does not correspond to "regional". It looked to me like some of the examples of "kol eretz" you gave are still qualified: Lev 25:9 "all the land" is all *your* land; the Israelite land (this qualification is explicit in the text). Deut 2:25 I would say this does apply to the whole earth, all peoples who would ever hear of the Hebrew nation. On the other hand, Ex 34:10 I think we can fairly agree that for the plagues of Egypt, their like had not been seen in the whole earth. It seems many of the obstacles you put to a younger view stem from assuming preflood geography/geology the same as we have now, but as I understand most young earth views see things very differently, including a single pre-flood continent (corresponding to Gen 1:9), the mountains we know today grew from the plate tectonics that commence after the flood etc. As I've seen, the biology corresponding to 'kinds' really does hold up. What younger earth proponents recognize is the remarkable capacity of biological forms to adapt into the niches they find themselves in. It should be recognized that this process actually corresponds to a *loss* of genetic potential, not growth. I think it is really problematic for you to describe the diversification of the animals that came from the Ark as "evolution." It is expression of the wealth of genetic potential present in those forebears as they spread over the earth, followed by speciation. This is all sound science, while Darwinian macro-evolution, from fish to flamingos, is absurd. As to the timescale, just look at the production of dog breeds by humans in modern times. So, for your polar bear, what would have been required on the Ark is one, maybe two varieties of bear. Then a population of bears adapted and acclimatized to the polar regions. Same with penguins, and important to note there are many penguin species with subtropical and even tropical ranges. About the volume of flood waters, I imagine you are aware that the younger earth view would see that the preflood mountains are not the same as we know now, and those especially like the Himalayas, produced by the tectonics following the flood. And then the waters drain off the continents into the newly form(ing) ocean basins. I may say that I have looked into the science of the methods that date rocks to millions of years, and I am comfortable to say that it really is on shaky ground. Such calculations might be valid *assuming* various rates of change would remain constant going back through all that time, but those are assumptions I do not think we are warranted to make. To this point, there are often multiple dating 'methods' that can be used for a given object, and they frequently give widely inconsistent answers; these cases are pointers to non-uniform rates of change. In conclusion, it seems to me that the two options really have their own separate paradigms with a lot of required details about how they each makes sense, to whatever extents they do. But overall, in my studies of science, I have learned that science can be very good at determining what happens (ie. what would happen now, and generally speaking what does happen, in other words the laws of physics) based on *repeated* experimentation, measurement and testing of hypothesis. But the scientific method is more poorly equipped to answer what happened too far back in the past, much as it is very difficult to predict what will be in the future, because the extrapolation (either past or future) can be very problematic. I say this as someone currently doing my PhD in cosmology, though I don't think I will plan to spend my life's work on cosmology...
I think the biggest argument against a local flood is asking, "Why didn't Noah and his family just take the animals 100 miles south?" Or whatever. I mean, I heard Gavin bring that up, but I don't remember hearing a good explanation. Building an Ark with the dimensions the Bible gives seems a lot harder than moving some place else.
I see Genesis as suggesting it is global and not local. Here are a few points: 1) Noah's ark is extremely oversized for a local flood. He would not need that many animals just for a localized flood. 2) If it was just local Noah could have just moved away in the 120 years God gave him instead of building the ark. 3) Are we to believe all of humanity could be killed by a local flood? The whole point of the flood was to kill all of humanity except for Noah and his family because of humanity's sin. 4) The bird Noah sent out would have been able to easily find land to make a new home at with a localized flood so the bird returning because it can't find land doesn't really make sense. 5) The duration of the flood is unbelievably long for just a local flood. A big problem is people don't like to believe God is willing to perform such massive miracles. I won't ever say someone isn't saved on this issue I just am not convinced by a local flood.
True brother, people would believe Jesus multiplied fish, but never that He multiplies the waters, for some reason thats too embarrasing. Even though science cant explain either
I think you are under estimating the size many have in mind for this 'local flood'. One of the guys cited in the video presents evidence for a flood that was comparable in size to Saudi Arabia that connected the mediteranian to the indian ocean. That would definitely be enough to wipe out all of humanity if they hadn't dispersed to the entire world, it would be too far for the birds, it would fit the duration of the flood, etc
@briandiehl9257 how would a flood that would cover the tops of the mountains stay contained to that small of an area? In order to get waters that high, I would think the whole earth would have to be covered. Otherwise, the water would just keep spreading further away and not be able to get high enough to cover the mountains.
It's not just about unbelief concerning massive miracles. It's about currently accepted scientific theory and refusal to accept the scorn of the world for the sake fo Christ. It's about subordinating the Word of God to Godless theories in order to bring judgment from God on the church. This is the devil's tactic. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and will not witness to a lie being preached, even if the lie is wrapped in a veneer of Holy Scripture.
All over the globe we have the same sedimentary layers continents wide. Most of the same animals burried in those layers on those continents. And that itsself points to a global catastroph/flood Even without the bible to tell us so. Im not saying that to belive in a global flood is required for salvation. But remember satan loves to twist scripture. Thats what he does. And Christ rebukes satan with scripure. So i am taking this to be a true account as stated. Just as Christ says in the begining He made them male and female. Meaning one man and one woman forever. Not man and man, woman and woman, not divorce, etc....
Hello Gavin! As a young-earth creationist myself, I hear you and agree on so much. This is not a dividing matter. But one concern I would like someone from your viewpoint to adress is in the area of hermeneutics. You say you can responsibly see this as describing a local event. It is not satisfactory to me to read the Bible and just believe that it describes a real event. What about the actual details? It says for example that the Flood covered the highest mountains by 17 cubits. If the mountains of Ararat are about 5137 meters above sea level, would you for example accept this as true? That the Flood at least stood about 5150 meters above sea level? If you don´t accept the worldwide view, do you think God collected one of each kind of animal from the entire region in the Middle East then? When God says He will never again send a flood to destroy all flesh, do you believe He actually did destroy all flesh aside from Noah and his family? If all flesh here means only the local human populace, does the promise not to flood and the rainbow also only apply to them, since He makes a covenant with "all flesh"? And I am not asking like a gotcha, I see you as a solid brother, but more because it really matters to me how the Word of God is handled. While I agree that we should respect what the author is trying to communicate, I think this is often used to dodge the actual statements and claims made in the text. Authorial intent is very dangerous as an argument, since we don´t know their intent, we have no record of that, but it gets especially dangerous when used to argue against what is stated in the text.
I too feel like a local flood raises waaay more questions than it solves. The only form it is conforting is if you are already on the evolutionist train
Very good and tracks with my own arguments. I'd actually be a bit stronger and say that the context of Genesis 2-11 is all Mesopotamian (with perhaps some Levantine), wherever we have actual geographic markers in the text. This STRONGLY implies that the purview of the Flood in chaps. 6-8 is in this region: While global flood proponents point to chapter 1 (the creation of the whole universe) as the Flood context, this misses that the narrative pivots in chapter 2 to the creation of a specific locale, the creation of the Garden located by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, so explicitly Mesopotamia. In chapter 10 we get the Table of Nations. And 9:19 implies this is "the whole earth" in view. Then we get the Tower of Babel, again Mesopotamia. Then we come to Abraham's migration out of Ur, in Mesopotamia. So 2-11 are all setting the table between creation and Abrahams story, which picks up there. It is not a stretch, indeed it is almost certain, that this would have been understood as Noah's "land".
I don't care if atheists call us dumb. The story is literal, and young earth creationist scientists have very good reasons to believe it was global. I don't even need their opinion, the bible is enough, and no, the bible doesn't teach it was local. And no, I'm not being closed minded, I just believe the bible without compromises of what the unbelieving world without the Holy Spirit may say about it. I couldn't care less, and every believer should do the same thing. "Professing to be wise they became fools". Do you believe this verse? Then believe Noah's story too and stop trying to be a friend of the world.
Great job brother! When joining RTB's scholar's community this was my only hesitation only because I had not sat down and done the research you just presented. I will do my follow up work but you did a great job and answered some of the questions I had. I am a former colleague of Mark Rooker and Ken Keathley - and still friends!
Alright Gavin, you asked for it, so Imma let you have it. That was really well researched, written, and explained. Kudos. This will be my go-to video for when I encounter people who have questions surrounding the flood.
Does considering the flood a local flood, mean that God has broken his promise with the rainbow, because there has in fact been local floods which destroy entire areas?
No one in his right mind would spend around 100 years building an ark just for a local flood. By walking 300 miles in one year (which is not much), in 10 years Noah and his family could have moved to a distance of 3000 miles from the local flood...
@@jonatasmachado7217 I know what you are saying, but the argument against you is that God told Noah to do it. So irregardless of the scope of the Flood, the order to build was given by God. Now, the question is, would God order such a massive vessel to be built for a regional flood? And would the species of the animals on the ark truly perish from the Earth as God said if they were not included on the ark, and if it was only regional? And would all that had the breath of life truly perish from the Earth (which is speaking of animals as well) if the Flood were only local? For the animals didn't live in only a small region. I can't answer any of those questions in the affirmative.
I frequently argue that 'universal language' is used throughout the Bible to **often** (not always) refer to a general location. Your Acts 2:5 verse is an excellent example (there are dozens more, both in the Bible and in rabbinical literature. the earth coming for Joseph's grain; Babylon destroyer of the whole world; etc, etc, etc, etc. I have a long list.). However, you have several issues with a local flood: - For a local flood to last more than a few weeks, let alone a year (as specified), you need mountains around the perimeter to contain the water. None exist today. So either the flood was global, or the mountains in question have gone away for some strange reason (if you can't believe that Everest popped up in less than 4000 years, then you ought to be consistent and believe that the perimeter of mountains can't go away in < 4000 years. And if you're fine with believing that the mountain perimeter could vanish so quickly, then you should have no problem believing that the ocean floor was only a few feet deep until the flood hit. Then afterwards, with tectonic plate shifting, the floor of the oceans became deep enough to draw all the water away from the land. - Some NT verses: [+] who before were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while the ship was being built. In it, few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. (1Pet 3:20) This suggests only 8 people survived the flood. Not even the Nephilim. [+] For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth formed out of water and amid water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. (2Pet 3:5-6) Peter seems to be taking Gen 6-8 quite literally (a global flood) So I think we're better off affirming that the whole world was destroyed except 8 people. Regarding your 5 points: - I'm puzzled as to why you think animals lived in those locations prior to the flood and then had to go back to their respective locations. (Where animals live now is irrelevant when trying to think about where they lived in Enoch's day.) - Even today, we have no empirical data on how rapidly micro evolution changes a species. DNA is a very recent study. (we're just now discovering the wild variety that can come about due to epigenetics. I think it's quite hasty to assume evolution today was the same as evolution back then. More on this in a sec) - Noah's family tending to the care of the animals is an odd rebuttal. You're making a ton of assumptions about how animals were back then, assuming their condition/habits today are the same back then. That assumption is, imho, completely unwarranted. Here's what we do know about animas back then: - all animals prior to the flood were herbivores! (Gen 9) Which means many of them changed rapidly in their digestive biology to become carnivores. - all animals were friendly to man. Again, another rapid change since then. (and if Isaiah 65 is to be taken literally, they'll revert back to their antediluvian biology in the future) - Eve wasn't spooked that the serpent could talk. What if all animals could talk back then? Or maybe just many animals? And maybe they could take care of their own food and hygiene? Regarding flood myths around the world... If 60+ flood narratives can be found all across the world, and those locations had humans that survived the flood because the flood was local to the Mediterranean ... how did the people on the other side of the planet know that the flood happened?? They didn't have smartphones back then. And since the flood didn't happen in their world, they wouldn't have known about it, and likely wouldn't have believed a traveler 500 years later who came to tell them (How long would it take for a migrant to travel from Mediterranean to the Philippines in 3000 BC?) Seems to me that the only way they knew was that one of their great-great-grandparents was in that flood and handed the story down. Which is what the Bible pretty much directly implies. Ever onward, ever upward!
_- Eve wasn't spooked that the serpent could talk. What if all animals could talk back then? Or maybe just many animals? And maybe they could take care of their own food and hygiene?_ This is what is meant by multiplication of miracles. In order for the flood to be truly global (a word that no one living prior to Copernicus would have ascribed to the earth) then you have to introduce more miracles to the story than are relayed. You need super evolution to happen as well afterwards, in addition to, having to not accounting for how invertebrates were housed within the ark or animals that are only indigenous to certain parts of the world survived.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 Reread the comment I made and think about the significance of the clues we're given in the text. Its not a multiplication of miracles; its noting that radical changes are quietly documented in the text. And with all due respect, even the ancient Romans knew the world was round. What does Copernicus have to do with anything? Ancient Middle Easterners probably ought not be confused with old European white guys.
@@timffoster Tomans? You meant Romans right? And there were no Romans around in 5000 BC _Ancient Middle Easterners probably ought not be confused with old European white guys._ What does this even mean?
@@choicemeatrandy6572 Yes, Romans. Thanks. (I corrected it) I'm referring to the many statues from the Greco-Roman world that featured heroes standing on (or carrying) globes of the planet (Atlas, etc). Pliny (1st century) wrote that the earth was round like a ball. And it is generally believed that the Greeks knew the earth was spherical as early as 500 BC. They're closer to ancient Mesopotamia than they are to Copernicus. What great discovery did they have that led them to conclude the earth was round? Be specific. They didn't have Columbus' ship. He didn't set sail for another 2,000 years! If they had the smarts to know the earth was a sphere, why should we refuse to believe that the ancient Sumerians didn't? Especially when they spoke of it as being round. That seems needlessly cynical to me. Unless you're willing to present hard evidence that the **majority** of them believed the world was flat (despite their comments to the contrary), I'm going to go conclude you have an agenda, and that truth isn't your highest objective in this discussion. ..and I'm still trying to figure out why you're invoking Copernicus. He's almost 2,000 years after the Greeks believed the world was round. He didn't share their culture, their history, their language, their century. Why bring him up? Non sequitur.
Just because you frequently argue from that position doesn't inherently make your right. Abortionists frequently argue that infanticide is a guaranteed right in the Constitution, even though it clearly guarantees a person's right to live. You frequently argue from an illogical position because you want your word to carry more weight than God's.
Dr. Ortlund, before I disagree with you, I would like to thank you for your ministry. It has been incredibly profitable to me and has made me a significantly more well-rounded and thoughtful follower of Christ! A compelling argument (for me at least) for a global flood is that face of the Earth was fundamentally reshaped during and after the time of the flood. You briefly mentioned this idea (35:00) but I am concerned that you were too quick to wave it away as an unattested miracle. Psalm 104:5-9 seems to me to indicate this very idea. This could potentially mean that tectonic plates were shifted during the flood to create the mountains and make it so that the water is gathered and collected. It may then be reasonable to assume that great tectonic activity happened generally as well. This may very well imply that a Pangea like Earth existed during the time of the pre-flood Patriarchs and a more modern continental structure was revealed as the flood receded into the Earth. This idea of a pre-flood Pangea, I think, would have explanatory power for the idea that animals came from all over the world. We would not have to worry about animals coming from a separate continent, as all animals would be on the same landmass. Regarding your argument of exceptional evolution, I would agree with you that my position relies on a miraculously fast method of speciation. I think that this is a point that I am willing to concede because it makes sense to me that theistic evolution is possible given GMO food. I have seen what we can do as humans to turn things like corn into superfood by selective breeding. If our intelligence can shape the biology of corn to make it more nutritious, how much more can God? I commend you for your honesty and hunger for truth. You have given me several points to mull over. You mentioned that you have been thinking about this for 25 years, which is longer than I have been alive! I am not in doubt that you have already considered these points and am curious why you did not find them compelling, though perhaps this comes from the positive case that you make for your side. Thank you for this video and furthering conversations about things like this that matter. This was the first thing that I dove into when I became a Christian about 5 years ago because it gave me great anxiety.
This is so good! Thank you so much, and I completely agree with you that we don't need to try to require beliefs from people who may be struggling with the text, beyond what is actually written. Hugh Ross helped me understand Genesis in such a way that made it possible for me to open my eyes to the entire bible when I had been closed off to it before. You are doing the same kind of work and I'm convinced this is important, God-glorifying work. Now I'm going to binge all of your videos and share them far and wide!! 😊
This is very interesting. Also the comments are super interesting You have some very thoughtful subscribers Dr Ortlund 😀 of which i am one lol 73000 subscribers!!! There should be a million 😊
Gavin, I used to think like you on this issue of old vs. young earth, as well as the Flood, but that was before I made a deeper dive into the actual science that is coming from young-earth creationists, not only from Answers in Genesis, but also from the Institute on Creation Research. I think the problems you pose for a young earth perspective are answered with much better answers than we get from modern atheistic science. The entire materialistic and naturalistic perspective that dominates modern science is falling apart. What do you expect from those who are bent on a denial of God? The Bible declares them to be fools.
If the flood was only local then wouldn’t that make God a covenant breaker and liar when He promised Noah that He would never flood the earth in Gen 9? If the flood was local that covenant wouldn’t make sense and it would make God a liar since there are local floods ever since.
Gavin has recently produced way more thoughtful, scholarly and well produced videos on more theological topics than is reasonably possible for a single person in a short time frame. I can therefore only conclude that he's been cloned multiple times.
Agreed, it's the only reasonable explanation 🤷♂️
As a student who uses his academic work in my own research, I can attest that it's likely because he's finally understanding OUR want for this and how he transitions his Academic voice into spoken monologue. He's adapting, again. It's impressive both on his part and that of Holy Spirit whom guides him.
What!? We need him to make a video offering a logical defense of the morality of this act!
@@jtbasener1810 I mean I’m against human cloning…but if it allows Ortlund churn out more videos. Maybe I’m a pragmatist
While cloning is deeply problematic morally, we need more of these videos. So, special dispensation has been granted.
Gavin, I’m a devout Catholic who finds himself so throughly impressed with you. The quality and content of your videos are among the top in apologetics. The lengths to which you go to both respect the science and uphold the faith, without compromising either, is remarkable. I have truly learned so much from you. I just want to thank you for your contributions to the origin-like story and helping the faithful see how despite some of the details, the Christian can still find good reason to believe it, and more importantly, the Christian faith to be true. Thank you, truly.
Thank you for putting out this series. I am a nonbeliever, but still very interested in religion and am often frustrated that people on both sides of the aisle will talk only in literalist terms. I know many atheists who have only thought through aspects of religion from one perspective, so I am always interested in learning about these thoughtful interpretations that are different from the ones I grew up with.
glad the video was of interest, thanks for watching!
That sounds like a sensible approach. Do you find that if you could believe in God, that it would be comforting to know there is a creator and another, much better life after this one?
I appreciate your honest comment! Even as a believer, while it is important to classical Christianity that some things of scripture are literal (like the resurrection of course), there is more room for disagreement than people realize. Only literal history or only fictional myth are not the only interpretive options when it comes to scripture. There is a wide range in between. Even something fictional like a parable can still have tremendous truth value.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I do! I have a difficulty both intellectually and emotionally in aligning three concepts: an “Omni” god (all good, all powerful, etc.), the reality of life around us, and the purported history of the Bible. However, while I personally have difficulty with integrating these three things, I also recognize that this is in some regard a “me” issue - if someone feels like they are able to do this, I don’t think that’s silly at all. In fact, I am actively seeking out a way to do this, I just haven’t found it yet.
All that to say that for both this life and the potential next, I would definitely be comforted if I knew God existed, I am just having trouble understanding what that would look like.
@connorbrockman599 well watching Gavin is a good start! Also you could pray about it. Tell God all that you told us and more. Tell Him you want to believe, to show you. Ask for Him to reveal Himself .
As an aside, as a Catholic myself I expect that your new book on Protestantism will ultimately be one of the most substantial apologetics for it in our modern age. I mean this as a compliment.
If the Genesis flood story is a local/regional flood account, how should we then interpret the covenant God made with Noah (and with all future generations)? God said, "never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth," and "And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh" (Genesis 9:11, 15). How do we reconcile the existence of local/regional floods since that time? Did God break His covenant?
This is one of many issues with the regional flood narrative, it’s pretty clear scripture asserts a worldwide flood.
I’m just speculating here, but if the context for determining what “all the earth” means is the table of nations in Genesis 11 as Gavin says, that’s a huge region. Are there examples from history where a landmass of that size was flooded with the destruction of all life? If not, maybe there is no evidence that God’s promise hasn’t been faithfully kept.
Why would it be more difficult? If there could never again be a flood on the scale of Noah's flood then there could certainly never be a flood capable of wiping out humanity and that's the point.
@@HiHoSilvey Its seems that Gavin supports a universal flood rather than a global flood i.e. all of humanity lived in one large region and were destroyed by a great deluge, except Noah and his family. This seems to make God's covenant with Noah one of convenience rather than one of restraint. God's promise not to "cut off all flesh" again with water is only effective because all of humanity no longer lives in the same region, not because God actually retrains His judgement.
I don't think it matters. The Church understands the flood to be a prefigurement to baptism. Thus, God fulfilled his Covenant (fly your Real Rainbow flags with real pride in our God!) by not sending any other floods for the purpose of "destroying all flesh". Normal floods, we know, are caused by a variety of natural causes. Do people die? Sure.
But the point is that natural floods are not to be understood as supernatural events. Now, our Lord gave us the sacrament of Baptism. We are saved through baptism in water and the Spirit. The "flood" that God sends when we are baptised still eradicates sin but does not destroy all flesh.
We therefore are free from worrying about whether the universe is old or young, free from worrying about the flood is worldwide or local. Those things do not matter to our salvation. We are free to hold any opinion on the natural world we wish, and least of all should we care what the secular media have to say about these things!
It's very fascinating that there are stories about a great flood and a man making himself a boat for himself and animals in various tribal cultures as far away as Australia and the Americas. It's not just people groups from the Middle East area, but even peoples from all the complete opposite end of the world. One Aborigenal tribal flood story has the man builing a raft and taking a bunch of animals with him, and at the end he builds an altar and sacrifices a Kangaroo, which I find fascinating in both it's similarity and difference to the Noah story.
Is there a link to this as a peer reviewed article of historical significance from Australia?
These cannot always be dated before contact with missionaries, but your example of Australia is excellent because they do have tales of rising water thought to date back to the younger dryas. In one of them a warrior kills a sacred stingray and its spirit casts a curse to swell the oceans and drown the coastal villages, leaving them submerged.
I think this is the kind of thing we might expect if several local floods happened around the world due to melting ice age glaciers and violent monsoons.
@@Makaneek5060 We may not be able to date the stories from before or after missionaries. There have been ancient stories about Christ's birth, that they are sure predate European colonialism and the spreading of missionaries though. I can't remember all the details, but the natives in America have legends about someone very like Jesus coming to them and teaching.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Did this figure teach them the sacraments? Or teach them about his atonement? If so, do we have record of that, and if not, then how can we tell who it was?
The Chickasaw of the Southeastern US have the same story
In other parts of the Bible, God told people to migrate to avoid disaster. The fact that God commanded Noah to build a ship indicates that the flood was unique in its scale. It does not force us to insist that every spot of land was covered by water, but it strongly implies that there was nowhere that Noah could reasonably migrate to, or at least nowhere within the African or Eurasian landmasses. Likewise, in 2 Pet 3, the Flood is compared to both the Creation of the world (in which the same waters were used) AND the final destruction of the world by fire; both global events.
But there is a theological reason for having an ark within a flood. The point is a safe space within a judgment. But of course God didn't need a flood to kill off rebellious humans and his sovereignty could have stopped it if it was just a natural event. Therefore the ark was always ever being set up as an achetype (pun intended) to point to Christ.
There is a parallel between the creation in Gen 1 and the destruction and recreation of Gen 6-9. But perhaps this doesn’t help much with the question of scale. The Gen. 1 creation is of “the heavens and the earth” by water and out of water, as 2 Pet. 3 says. That world was deluged and judged, but it was not entirely destroyed, we still have the same basic structure of heavens, earth, waters, animals and man. This creation is what is destroyed in 2 Pet. 3 with the new heavens and the new earth. In that new creation there is no more sea, no night and no seasons, Rev. 21-22, the fruit of the tree of life goes to the healing of the nations 12 months a year. The animals are still there but are vegetarians, Is. 11, 65-66. This new world is a different system from the old one.
But the animals in the bible are generally the non-covenant people. And the seas are the non-covenant land. The world of Gen. 1 is the creation of the covenant system, the covenant land is separate from the non-covenant land, and the covenant people are created to rule the non-covenant people (the animals), and the sun, moon and stars are created and set in the heavens to give light to the land but not the seas. The heavenly bodies are to rule the appointed times, the appointed days, seasons and years, that is the ceremonial calendar. They provide the light for the land to show the people how to be right with God, the covenant king.
In the flood account, the animals include the mighty men, the giants, the kings who were building empires and shedding the blood of the covenant people. These are the beasts that the flood destroyed, along with their people. But the animals were also saved on the ark. They were saved in pairs, male and female, a man and his wife. This is the language of marriage between monogamous human beings, indicating that the animals were human beings, albeit not covenant man. These beasts are part of the Gen. 1 covenant system, and they are the ones that the covenant is renewed with under Noah. The animals are second class covenant people. These beasts are warned of the final judgment when they would shed the blood of the covenant men again, and pay the price. That price is paid when the Second Flood destroys the murderers, per Gen. 9:5-6; Deut. 32; Is. 28; Dan. 9:24-27; Mat. 7:24-27; 22:7; 23:29-38 etc. The flood would destroy the wicked leaders of Jerusalem as the Brood of Vipers, the beasts, who shed the blood of God’s servants.
The Second Flood seems to explain the first flood, Noah’s flood. The flood was a covenant judgment upon the covenant people and the covenant animals, to confirm and restore the covenant order. The second flood was to take away that covenant order and replace it with the new covenant, where all men are clean and the covenant land is the whole world and there are no second class citizens, no Jews and Gentiles, but all one people. And no sun, moon and stars of that old system, no night, no seed time and harvest time, just eternal day and light of the ever expanding kingdom of God.
It literally Does tell us that all the land was under water. "All the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered." Genesis 7:19.
@@dpainter1526 Sorry, this is a theology debate. You're not supposed to quote the bible here. (sarcasm, in case you didn't get it)
@dpainter1526 did you watch the video?
Hi Gavin, a brief response here from a YEC Anabaptist. First I want to say thanks for your great videos and modeling irenicism to all of us! Thanks for your willingness to be honest with your thoughts on controversial topics! It’s good to reexamine our Bible interpretation when there seems to be scientific conflict, but reexamination of scientific interpretations is healthy as well. I think we can make great progress when we come at it from both directions, and both ends of the issue should be addressed as we help those who are struggling with this as they consider Christianity.
Argument 1: כל הארץ doesn’t always mean the whole earth in other passages, but rather the whole known or inhabited earth.
Response: I agree that it doesn’t always mean the whole literal earth (though I would probably argue that it does mean the whole earth in more passages than others would be willing to grant). In this passage, it is just part of a cumulative case along with lots of other very universal sounding language.
IP Argument: “the surface of the whole earth” can’t mean literally every bit of ground since the phrase is used in 8:10 about the dove just after saying in verse 5 that the mountain tops were sticking out.
Response: I think we should give the author some grace and have the good sense to let immediate context determine meaning before distance context. Obviously, they intend an exception here for mountain peaks since they just said it. However, it would be a bit irresponsible to project that exception back onto the rest of the story, especially when 7:19-20 makes the coverage of mountain peaks explicit. (I’m also not sure how mountain peaks are covered in a local flood, or how a local flood carries a boat up into mountains to land.)
IP Argument: The water obviously didn’t dry up from the whole earth since we still have oceans, so again “all the earth” must not mean “all the earth.”
Response: While “earth” is used in 8:13-19, the specific phrase “all the earth” or “the whole earth” is not, so I’m not sure where the argument lies here. The context seems clear that the author is just speaking of earth as in the ground, which is supposed to be dry.
Gavin, thanks for the interesting note that Josephus saw the flood as local. It is interesting that he suggests that other humans survived the flood, a particular point that the New Testament strongly indicates did not happen (1 Peter 3:20, Luke 17:27, Matt 24:39) I’m curious if any church fathers agreed with Josephus?
Argument 2: Don’t multiply miracles. How did they get all the animals without a miracle, and how did the animals get back?
Response: The text itself indicates a miracle here. The animals “went into the ark” with Noah as if they were directed by God to come of their own accord (7:9, 15). Creation scientists usually assume a Pangea before the Flood, with less extreme and diverse habitats, so that it wouldn’t have taken a transportation miracle, only an instinct miracle for all the animals to get to the boat. (Also, fossils of animals closely related to those only known in Australia and surrounding islands have been found in Asia and Turkey.)
Other “miracles” mentioned are hibernation of animals on the ark, formation of mountains in the flood, rapid speciation after the flood, and others. Probably the most important thing to mention here is that global flood theories and studies on these things do not posit miracles for these events, but natural processes. That’s the whole point of their study. They assume a miracle to kick things off (the animals coming to the ark in the first place, the flood beginning at all) just as all Christians assume for creation itself. Then natural processes take over from there, as happens with any miracle.
For those who are interested, Institute for Creation Research usually has stuff that’s a little more in-depth than AG, and they have some great flood geology research going on.
Amazing interpretation and counter logic. Just awesome. Ty
@@TheBoredTheist I would say that scientific concordism is not being used here. (WLC likes to put that out, but I don't see it)
I wasn’t going to go here, but I guess I am…DNA…animals, humans…in an instant, God can alter, diversify DNA and voila! Speciation! Science and miracle unite…
@@TheBoredTheist > That's a modern scientific concept. Hence, scientific concordism.
I stand corrected. Partly.
- I don't think that saying the flood coincides with pangea qualifies as concordism. I thought concordism was a bit more stout than that. Maybe it's just semantics, so I'm willing to cede the point on pangea.
- But Pangea notwithstanding, a global flood argument can't be dismissed as a pursuit of concordism. Too many of the datapoints in the flood narrative necessitate a global flood. And that was my main reason for replying earlier.
Thanks.
@@TheBoredTheist I’m not sure how labeling an idea as a “modern scientific concept” makes it off- limits for a Scripture-sensitive scientist trying to reconstruct geologic history. I’m also unsure if it’s relevant whether people 3,000 years ago had any concept of a supercontinent … they probably had had equally vague ideas of current continents which are also a modern discovery. 🤔
Nice video. Thanks for the shoutout!
thanks, appreciate your work on this!
Aaawww!! ❤❤
The love is sweet. 😊😁
It's instantly a better day when Dr. Ortlund uploads.
Not when he’s obsessed with explaining away Genesis. 🙄
@@TheSaintFrenzyHam and Hovind do that in their ignorance!
So then answer his questions and provide the 5 miracles needed. Prove you are not an idiot. @@TheSaintFrenzy
@@wojo9732??huh??
@@cosmictreason2242 watch the video and you will understand young child
When you said "How did all the insects survive?" My only response is unfortunately.
Did Noah REALLY have to bring along the mosquitos?^^
I really appreciate this video. One minor criticism, as a former (very devoted) YEC I don't find the miracles aspect to be especially convincing. Most YECs believe that the supercontinent Pangaea existed before the flood, with the flood being the cause of the continental divide. Each new objection you raise also seems to assume that the standard YEC positions already mentioned aren't true. There would be no reason to assume polar bears would be on the ark, for example, if the "kind" = "family" paradigm is true, which I still take to be at least a plausible reading of the text.
That being said, a lot of the arguments you presented in this video are the type of biblical arguments that moved me away from the YEC position. I really enjoyed it!
What did move you away from YEC and what made you believe it originally? I've found myself baffled that so many Christians still believe it, when there's so much evidence that the earth is far older than 6000 years old.
This video is about a regional vs global flood interpretation, not YEC. You can be a OEC and still believe a global flood.
Regarding a local flood, what do you do about the divergence of the rivers coming out of Eden in Genesis 2:10-14? The 3 of the 4 that are identifiable in scripture (and with decent consensus among non-allegory-taking church fathers) as the Tigris, Euphrates, and the Nile. The 4th (Pishon) is a mystery, but doesn't detract from the problem of the first 3's divergent starting points today. How could the Nile come from the same source as the former 2 if the source (Eden) were locatable today? Does this not imply the Garden of Eden was so destroyed from the geography of original creation that the its rivers (named by later names Moses identified) are now scattered in fashion with what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:6 regarding pre-flood creation? Assuming this is correct, how could a local flood cause this degree of destruction? Anything larger than local and you end up with global scale implications.
The man is an evolutionist, which is gnostic.
as someone who has been deconstructing for several years and really doesn’t identify as a christian any longer, i have been looking for a long time for a channel with this measure of level-headedness and theological competency without any snarkiness towards those with other perspectives.
Do you think maybe you’re just deconstructing from fundamentalism but not necessarily wanting to leave the faith?
@@mendoza2489 dude. I've been deconstructing and that honestly HIT. I am definitely no longer a fundamentalist but that does not mean I should throw away EVERYTHING pertaining to Christianity
@@joshuastevens232 deconstructing from western evangelicalism has been one of the best things to happen to me. It’s not only strengthened my love for God but it’s deepened my understanding of Him. It’s also been helpful to know that this way of “Christianity” is more of a recent development tied to American pride and nationalism so much so unless you’re a conservative republican who borderline hates g@y people, believes in dispensationalism, and pledges your allegiance to a Ken Ham and young earth creationism then you can’t truly be a Christian. Except when I read sacred scripture there seems to be a “different” kingdom we are to pledge allegiance to. If you’re still on this journey may I suggest the book Surprised by Hope by NT Wright? It single handedly saved me from walking away from the faith and helped me realized some of the reasons behind why I felt the way I did. Good luck my friend!
Fundamentalist here. Just believe that Jesus is the Son of the one true God, suffered and died for the remission of your sins, and you are saved. We can disagree about everything else and we are still brothers in Christ and will see each other one day. I've had many beliefs and researched a ton of spiritual systems, but He finally gave me rest in the simplicity of the gospel. May His peace and love be with you now and forever.
I came into this video very skeptical, but I am pleased to say that you made your case very well. I’m still not entirely convinced that a local flood is the most natural reading of the text, but you bring up many good points. One consideration I would like to bring up is a thought experiment that you often use in your hermeneutics of church history. Some of the ways that Genesis describes the flood seem so universal, that it begs the question, “how could they have said it that would mean it was a universal flood.” As one example, here is Genesis 7:21-23
“And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.“
The examples of other seemingly “universal” instances in Scripture are compelling. However, I must ask, how could the author have written it so that it would be understood as universal if not with this language?
I’m not sure about this myself, just a thought
I agree. For instance should me then assume that when the Bible uses universal language elsewhere its actually just local or narrow/constrained/specific. Example:
Psalm 53
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
Should we assume this is an exaggeration and actually some are righteous, bc who can take universal language seriously?? That seems logically incoherent. I believe God’s Word is accurate, specific, intentional, and true.
This is a good point. One aspect of the flood keyed on by people who want to see this flood as regional is limited scope of human habitation on the Earth at that time. Yet, God makes a point, and very strongly, to show his judgment is also against the animals for they also corrupted their way.
Are we to believe animals only lived within a certain region of the Earth in that day and not globally?
@@tuckerchisholm1005 Those who believe that God is hyperbolic (full of hot air) will be astounded in the day of Wrath. How mankind can be so full of himself is beyond me.
Considering that scientists tell us major increases in seas levels, as well as catastrophic events, occurred in many places as the ice age came to an end and the polar ice sheets melted, the idea that such events might exist within human memory is not too hard to consider.
This
The problem is that geology and archaeology indicate this was a gradual change. There is no credible evidence for acute global flooding as Genesis instructs its reader. We would expect to see something like the K2 boundary line, and instead we see nothing.
Thanks!
Reasons to Believe was a great resource in investigating the "local vs. global flood" issue. When I read Hugh Ross's *Navigating Genesis,* I was convinced the flood is local--after 20 years of being a young-earth, global-flood creationist. The text leaves ample room for this interpretation, as Gavin carefully explains.
Same for me. Hugh Ross is the very best at explaining how modern science and the Bible interact. A global flood would be more impossible than a giant regional flood. NO SEEDS of any land plants could survive being soaked for a year- period! Just over water your flowers and see how fast they die. ALL animals require special environments to survive, which would NOT EXIST as they exited the ARK. The time to get to these special climate zones that they need to live would be impossible, not to mention they would need to cross OCEANS !! IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN GLOBALLY!
Bill Maher laughing at and mocking the Noah story and anyone that puts any credence in it is no way to convince anyone.
I am a geologist and believer in an old world, but your approach to this is admirable and deserving of commendation. Your channel is great. I am happy to become a subscriber.
thanks, glad to be connected!
Bill Maher is a son of Esau.
How do you understand Peter’s usage of the flood in 2 Peter 3?
I don't believe Peter understood how to interpret ancient history, G1-11. If Peter though the flood was global, he was mistaken. Peter held the common view of his own time.
@@KW-fd9lv so the inspired, inerrant writer didn't understand inspired inerrant Scriptures.
Noted.
2 Peter 3:5-7, 10, seems to be pretty explicit that the flood was local. In verses 5, 7 and 10 Peter refers to the earth (Ge). But, when he describes, in verse 6, what was flooded, he switches to “the world” (kosmos). This word refers to the inhabited region. He goes further, “the kosmos of that time.” He references this in 2 Peter 2:5. So now, go back to Genesis 1-11, and find where the Bible says humanity moved beyond the Middle East, prior to the Tower of Babel. This is the region of the four rivers of Genesis 2, as well as the lands of Havilah, Cush, Nod and Eden (the paradise cursed in chapter 3). It’s the area where Noah’s ancestors still lived just before the flood (Genesis 5:29). They were still toiling (itstsabown) within the cursed ground of Eden (Genesis 3:17, 5:29).
@@KW-fd9lvso Peter, who was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who IS GOD, didn’t understand history???
A local flood is NOT “orthodox!”
The VERY FACT that God instructed Noah to build an ark and had the animals go to the ark, shows that the flood WAS GLOBAL! If it were merely local, God wouldn’t have had Noah build anything perhaps except a wagon- because he could have taken the years it took to build the ark to move to the non-flood area!
There is simply no case for a local flood.
It’s not surprisingly complicated, Gavin!
Also, from a anti-type and allegorical perspective, Given what the flood represents, and the ark represents, if you say that the flood was merely local that means that that the sin and the coming judgment on sin is not universal, and you say that the ark and the salvation offered in Christ is not the only way of deliverance.
This is an excellent response! Thank you!
Great points.
“Types” and allegories do not mean a one to one relationship. Lots of things can be allegorical or types but does not mean everything about then lines up literally and exactly.
“Types” and allegories do not mean a one to one relationship. Lots of things can be allegorical or types, but does not mean everything about them lines up literally and exactly.
“Types” and allegories do not mean a one to one relationship. Lots of things can be allegorical or types, but does not mean everything about them lines up literally and exactly.
This used to be a major stumbling block for me, until I learned to try to read the bible for the context and message it was conveyed in, then I no longer worried if the earth was 6000 or 15 billion years old that wasn't the point of the creation story and the ones who wrote it probably didn't know or even consider the age of the earth.
Once i learned that i learned to focus on what God was telling us through the text not on some mere points of curiosity that will not impact our eternal fate.
Yep but if you believe the earth is 15 billion years etc, then you don’t believe the bible …Jesus confirmed the age of the earth
Supernovas light to reach earth takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years to reach earth. One day of creation might be a period of time?
@@aulismarttinen8632 could be, could also be the gap theory is th correct way to read the Genesis account. Also if God wanted to expand the universe in a day light, supernovas and etc, he could, doesn't seem to be the way he interacts with creation, but I'm not going to say what God can or can't do.
@@aulismarttinen8632 nope. Its specified perfectly as a 24 hr pwriod per day, and reinterated throughout scripture and verified by the Maker Himself Jesus..when He spoke of Adam from the begnning. The Heavens were stretched out rapidly ..hence cosmic micorwave background that can be identified
@@ryanesau8147 Nope, there's other passages indicating a period of time for a day. Do your research.
I grew up going to a small nondenominational church that had several notable speakers come for about a week at a time. I remember they had Ken Ham come out there and give something like 3 talks during the week. I had always thought we had to rigidly believe a literal interpretation of the Bible, mostly because of how I was raised. I am more interested in understanding the Bible clearly now more than ever, and these videos have helped a lot. Thank you.
This is wise.
It's unfortunate that Ken Ham holds the position he does when dealing with old earth creationists. He goes so far as to claim they aren't believers for denying the scriptures.
@@jonnydoe85 I can't stand Ken Ham's approach. It reminds me a lot of hardcore Calvinists in the all or nothing way they think.
@@jonnydoe85 Provide one statement from Ken that makes this claim or else you are spreading lies bout a fellow Christian.
No sir, that is slander. He does NOT say that at all. Not sure where you got that idea, but rest assured, he does not make that claim.@@jonnydoe85
Wonderful video, Mr. Ortlund! I’m a freshman in college, and this video is such a great blessing to me and my faith. May God bless you abundantly, sir. :)
My biggest problem with a local flood is as follows:
-If the flood were local, why would God make Noah spend decades (possibly a century) building a boat to escape a flood instead of spending those years migrating out of the flood's area of effect?
I don’t see why that would be an issue. God could’ve used the arc as a prophetic statement to the people of the land. The arc was also a “type”, Pointing to the salvation, that would eventually be provided through Christ.
@@bjn3232 I understand the typology of the ark and how is is related to baptism. However, I still don't think that's a good enough explanation because God could have easily used a different type or prophecy and had the exact same effect.
The fact that Noah and his family could have just migrated to save themselves instead of building the ark would somewhat imply that man (In the year of our Lord) could save himself some other way, or find a different means of salvation if he really wanted to. I feel the type is way less potent in a localized flood.
Remember that "local" does not mean "small." If the flood covered "the known world" then migrating outside of it could certainly have been unfeasible, up to and including crossing oceans.
@@samwhittaker9179 I'm pretty sure it is a thousand times easier to hike 10,000 miles of unexplored land than to mill 10,000 trees, treat the wood, construct an enormous ark, waterproof that ark, and furnish that ark in a way which could be suitable to house 2 of every kind of animal (plus sacrificial animals).
Maybe I'm wrong, but migrating sounds a lot simpler.
Why would Jesus heal one blind man with mud and another without?
Appreciate your kind approach. What is your take on Gen. 8:21? "And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." Which "all" would that be? Thanks.
there is no approach, because the bible is saying it was world wide, not regional
Gavin there are secular geologists who believe there was something like a global flood and we find stories of a global flood in cultures all around the globe.
Not on the timescale you would need to make it work in context of the bible, and yes there likely was a near global catastrophe from the end of the ice age
@@jonathanw1106 secular scientists are constantly adjusting their timeline
@taylorbarrett384 yeah not on the timescales yec needs
@@jonathanw1106yec =/= global flood
two separate things
@@taylorbarrett384 they go hand in hand
I don't think Gavin is compromising, but I do think allowing some young earth creationists come on an interview with Gavin would help provide some perspectives from the young earth standpoint, because I do find that most of the objections raised by Gavin here have already been addressed with a reasonably satisfiable answer by the young earth side.
who do you recommend as young-earth folks to engage with? thanks for any recommendations
@@TruthUnites Thanks brother, here are a couple of young earth scientists for you to consider:
♦ Regarding the issues of Himalaya and other tall mountains, or related geological questions - Paul Garner
♦ Regarding the issue of rapid evolution or other issues related to genetics - Nathaniel Jeanson from AIG, or Robert Carter from CMI (Nathaniel and Robert don't completely agree with each other on some issues, but I found both their studies fascinating and data-based)
♦ Regarding biological migration before and after the flood - paleontologists like Marcus Ross, Matthew McLain, and Todd Wood are some good options
@@yanfeili1920 thanks for the suggestions! Many have differing opinions about this so I always appreciate trying to get a sense of the majority view
@@TruthUnitesKen Hamm
@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 i find Ken Ham to be too dismissive of opposing arguments to the point of questioning the faith of opponents.
Thank you, Gavin! As a geologist and Christian, i appreciate your efforts in helping the church through this one.
This topic is not controversial among Christians. The Bible clearly states in literal terms that the entire Earth was covered And that no living thing survived that walked the Earth.
And that's false
Yea, I don't think it's false. I'd say the local flood idea is just some attempt to marry the religion of Darwin and big bang to Christianity.
And yes, I would go as far as to say, those who reject the bible and take the view of some whiskey drinking TH-camr or ape to man believing philosopher (WLC), I question their salvation.
This video is full of ignorance. The guy is a nice guy, but wrong.
A flood that covers Mt. Ararat would still be global, but not cover the Himalayas, the Rockies, and a few other areas. People who argue for a local flood have not considered the topography of the world without redefining all sorts of terms. For example, you have to claim the mountains are small hills. On top of that, the local flood people still can't explain the flood lasting so long, why the ark needed to be so big, or where all the water came from, because a glacial lake wouldn't fill the area significantly.
The same geological upheaval that "opened the vaults of the deep" would likely also create these mountains or volcanic eruptions that might cause them to grow. That's why we have seabed fossils on the Himalayas.
@@kriegjaeger I'm well aware of the catastrophic plate tectonics theory for Noah's Flood. I was just explaining the problem with a hybrid view that there was a major local flood that also didn't flood the rest of the world. That explanation makes more sense for someone who rejects altogether as mythology, and claims a glacial dam burst in Asia Minor somewhere causing a big flood from which the story originated. There's obviously plenty of parts of the story that aren't explained by a glacial dam, but at least the non-believer isn't required to explain why the Scripture is hyperbole and written as historical at the same time, as a local flood person is.
@@litigioussociety4249
Ah gotchya 👍
Every time Christians compromise with the world, they don't bring the worldly closer to God but push themselves further from Him.
These people are not serious reasoners
Rapid Mountain creation would produce so much heat that it would boil any water of a flood. Look up the heat problem.
I appreciate your humble tone that you take with these potentially divisive issues. Not a lot of scholarship being made public and accessible on these things, which is why I support you on Patreon. Keep it up 🤘
I appreciate that Gavin is pushing back on the idea that a global flood should be an indicator of orthodoxy, which I think is good. But I think this goal would have been serviced better if the arguments for both sides had been presented.
One of the main reasons I see for a global flood is that it fits better with the purpose of God for the flood. It says that God regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and that he would wipe them out, and the same went for the animals. After the flood, God's covenant is with man and all living creatures, not to destroy them by a flood, and that the cycles of the earth would reliably continue. If the flood were local, I feel this covenant would most sensibly also be local. And the flood is compared to the coming judgment of Christ, which is of course global.
I don't think it is a good argument to say that you need more and more miracles, not explicitly given in the text, to explain a global flood. God brought the animals, Noah was probably not an expert ship builder, and it says God sealed the door. I imagine that God miraculously held the ark together. I think when the text says that God brought the animals, and that God's purpose was that they would be preserved on the ark, we can assume that other miraculous things may be involved. We do see other periods where the miraculous seems gratuitous, like the pillar of cloud and of fire for the Israelites in the wilderness. That doesn't mean we don't have to consider evidence from the natural sciences, because God's work is still rational even when miraculous - we shouldn't assume the miraculous specifically to explain why something doesn't match the evidence.
I personally wrestle with this text - actually mostly I wrestle with the fact that the scientific evidence as presented by science is hard to reconcile to the text. I land on the side of taking the text to mean what seems more obvious to me - a global flood - even if I can't explain how to reconcile that to scientific observations. But I agree it shouldn't be a test of orthodoxy and shouldn't affect our opinions of other believers.
We should consider that scientific observations change about every decade. Once we thought we understood what defined the sexes 🤷♂
Start telling Ken Ham that then.
I wonder if the reason for the flood was achieved though a local flood by punishing particularly horrendous sin at the time, and leaving a precedent for God's judgement towards sin which stood as a warning for the surviving peoples. It was never meant to erase sin totally, as this was to be achieved in Christ.
As for the covenant not to destroy the world in the same way, my understanding would have to mean that this flood, while local, was by far the biggest, most catastrophic flood the world has ever seen.
What would be the point of a global flood if the population had not yet dispersed as it did after the tower of Babel?
Thanks for the responses, and hopefully I can look at that book eventually. I wanted to say that I appreciated the video and don't want to be negative about it.
2 Peter 3:5-6
"For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water."
The "willfully forget" part has always struck me as a warning
I have a question from which i've never heard any attempt at an answer from the OEC camp. Why is the flood account and tower of Babel always grouped in with the creation account as primeval history. But statarting with Abraham we have a more literal history. I see no transition between genesis 11-12 to think that anything before chapter 11 should be considered a different type of history than what follows chapter 11. Why do OEC including the flood and tower of Babel in this section. it seems arbitrary to me.
The short answer to this is that you'd need to be able to see it for yourself in the original Hebrew language, and see how it's constructed in the first 11 chapters before getting to Abraham,Isaac, Jacob, Joseph where it slows down considerably. It's not that Gen 1-11 is not historical, it's that it's written in a genre that doesn't fit neatly into what we today call "history" It is full of dischronology and a lot of the stories are arranged in a way so as to make a theological point as opposed to a historical one.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 i haven't heard any of that, could you tell me a resorce, maybe a book on the topic?
@@choicemeatrandy6572how? Who says it is? William Lane Craig. It is arbitrary. OEC is nonsensical.
It's anti-biblical. Oec are just ASHAMED of the teachings of the Bible. And it gets worse as we get closer to the end. Just try standing up and saying you believe God created the earth and man in a week and flooded the entire earth. You can understand why such people would want to compromise and concoct all these silly mytho-history nonsensical stories. Man has always been wrong, the Bible has always and continues to be proven right!!!
I am a relatively new Christian. I've went from believing millions and billions to thankfully having my eyes opened. All these problems the original video presents have satisfied answers.
I have a problem with Inspiring Philosophy. I do not believe that guy is a Christian. He's been drinking whiskey during debates and seen visibly drunk. Once I saw that, then I knew why we're in such a mess. We have professing Christians claiming the bible ain't saying what it's saying and they promote the ideas of men. Nonsense
Haven't watched the video yet (I'll likely play it in the background while I work), but I do have a question and some immediate thoughts. [EDIT: I watched the video. My thoughts after watching it are stated in my first reply to dennis9423 down in this thread.]
Since God promised never to flood the entire earth again, how could anyone say the flood was local? Since many local floods are happening all over the world, wouldn't that mean God broke His promise?
Plus, I would say a local flood assumes naturalism and that God cannot or does not have any plausible mechanisms for achieving such a flood. It's not rational to look at present geographical data and judge from there whether the flood could have happened naturally or not, because it wasn't a natural flood in the first place but a supernaturally driven catastrophic event. And whatever clearing (i.e. draining) mechanism for the waters God used, that also would be an event involving natural things being manipulated or controlled supernaturally.
No doubt God used natural means, but it was sustained by God Himself supernaturally nonetheless. Asking whether the flood is local or global when the concern is reconciling it with naturalism is like asking whether the donkey really spoke supernaturally or if there had to be some natural mechanism that somehow changed a donkey's vocal chords into that which resembled human vocal chords so as to produce human speech. It's a category error.
We simply have no obligation to explain to the naturalistic thinker how a supernatural event could have taken place. If you can get them to believe in a God who created everything from nothing, why should they stumble when we talk about global floods or talking donkeys or men rising from the dead?
Watch the video and then ask your questons. Many are already answered.
@@TheCruiseDog I did watch the video already, and while Gavin was irenic (as usual, thank God, and an excellent example to all of us), I wasn't convinced. Immediately I found most of his points lacking. I still stand by the things I said in my first comment here.
And his quotation of Bavinck is astute. Christianity is unashamed suipernaturalism. Gavin already acknowledged that even a local flood was supernatural and also needed miracles, but turned around and said the miracles seem to fit more with a local flood view rather than a global flood view. My brother in Christ, the appeal to supernaturalism was already there, so why stop at a local level?
He did point out that YECs have an explanation for these things, but his response to those in this video was that those views required an addition of more miracles mentioned nowhere in the text. But see, they don't have to be mentioned in the text, and all we need in order to uphold the global flood view are plausible explanations as to what happened afterwards. And indeed YECs have that.
I would go back to the main issue here: it's a matter of interpretation, and interpretation is always done according to one's presuppositions. The local flood view I think takes naturalistic presuppositions too seriously. Of course, supernaturalists who are YECs have the presupposition that the flood was indeed global, and will interpret the evidence according to that presupposition. As long as there is internal consistency within either views, then both can be held to without any problems whatsoever.
So for now, I'm still sticking to the YEC view.
@@juilianbautista4067 I am really glad you listened to the video. I would like to comment further on your points.
In regards to local floods happening all over the earth, they are part of the natural order of things ("the rain falls on the just and the unjust" as said by Jesus). But, the Flood of Noah was purposeful: to wipe out all wickedness. It did not take the righteous but only the wicked, much like when He acted against Sodom and Gormorrah. His promise to never flood the earth again is according to His purpose of sending judgment. He will not do that again to wipe out the wicked. There still will be natural floods that take both the good and bad, but not exclusively for the wicked. So, God is not breaking His promise everytime there is a natural flood.
Gavin said that this was a supernatural event, a miraculous one, so I don't think that it is naturalism by default as you suggest. Gavin said God could do it anyway He wanted to. He was stating that the geological evidence does not match the global interpretation.
Personally, I believe that "God is not a man who lies" and that He cannot deceive. Therefore, I tend to believe in the geological record that supports a local flood rather than a global one. I do agree with you that we do not need to explain the supernatural world to unbelievers.
I also agree with you that there does not need to be further mention in scripture for added miracles for an event to happen a certain way. Scripture is silent on many things and particularly to the mechanics of the Flood, the Ark, and the repopulation of humans and animals. We do not have to know all the ways of God to accept a miracle.
Good comments. Thanks again.
I feel like all of Gavin's videos address exactly things that I have wondered about or struggled with. Covering very relevant topics in a very thoughtful way.
Wow, I wrote a text a few days ago saying that Noah's flood is one of the most difficult things in the Bible for me (not so much because of God's judgment, but from an archaeological point of view).
Many times, fruitful central discussions about Jesus have shifted to less fruitful discussions about Noah when I have talked with non-Christians. Many have said that if the Bible and Christianity rests with the global flood, then all of Christianity can be given a funeral.
At the very least, I hope that this discussion can be left as a tertiary question. True Christians can disagree about the extent of the flood etc.
What are you talking about? Evolutionists ALL agree that the earth used to be covered with water. The signs are obvious all over the earth. They just insist the earth was covered in water millions of years ago. Get a grip of reality.
@@pontificusmaximus And these same scholars have no way of knowing if it was really millions or thousands of years ago that the earth was actually covered w/ water. I would guess both, by Genesis chapter 1, where it talks about separating the waters from the waters w/ the firmament.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Genesis ch.1 waters represent chaos just like the Chaos Dragon in 1:21 : not a dinosaur , chaos to order .
It has nothing to do with the Flood of Noah in any related time frame.
@@davidjanbaz7728 I didn't say it has anything to do w/ the flood of Noah.
@@saintejeannedarc9460" I would guess both " keep guessing!
Hey, Dr. Ortlund
I think you put together a thoughtful case and I’m not intending to refute it. It’s a very well done video. I do think a couple things were missed however.
1. Belief in a global flood is almost always associated with young earth creation (to my knowledge). The “rapid evolution” is a common belief for young earth creationists. We believe the variance in adaptation is much more limited than evolutionists would say but that the changes happen much more quickly (we actually see some evidence of this), so that wouldn’t be miraculous from our perspective.
2. We do see biblical evidence that the earth changed more than just rising water levels: “[O]n that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth” (7:11). Also, some, including myself, believe Psalm 104 may refer to the flood when it says, “The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that [the waters] may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth” (verse 8-9). I know others see this as exclusively referring to creation, but it was God’s promise to Noah that the waters would not again cover the earth (9:11).
3 I don’t think the Bible lacking specificity in all that took place to make the flood event possible is evidence against the global perspective. Unless the account were about all the scientific and miraculous details, we wouldn’t expect to see them either way, making this an argument from silence that doesn’t really work.
I appreciate it if you made it to the end. Again, great video. I don’t think this refutes your perspective, but it may help the dialogue.
May God continue to bless your ministry!
@@TheBoredTheist
I appreciate your thoughts. I don’t have time to investigate them in detail, but I don’t think I’m convinced. Most of the best English translations take it as the earth being reformed (and these are experts in the languages, not just a reference to a concordance). Of course, I recognize that it must be somewhat ambiguous since some other experts see it your way, but the best and most modern don’t.
To me, whether you take this as creation or Noah, it seems to be talking about forming the earth (the land) to contain the waters.
@@TheBoredTheist
I would always put more trust in the ESV, NASB, and NLT than the KJV (which is good but has some outdated conclusions) and the NIV (which has some important erroneous translations). I’m less familiar with the NRSV though. These are all good translations, but the better and more modern ones take the translation as reforming the earth. Without much knowledge of Hebrew, I find it hard to argue against them, since it makes more sense in the context of the passage (in my opinion).
@@TheBoredTheist
I think it would be best to agree to disagree on this point. I don’t think you’re understanding my perspective (and that might be my fault), but I don’t have time to explain it better right now. I do agree I wouldn’t make this dogma, but I do think it can be carefully used as evidence.
Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, certainly didn't think it was local (II Peter 2:5 and 3:6). And the Noahic Covenant basically becomes incomprehensible if we insist that flood was limited to a region in Mesopotamia.
Maybe go to Kentucky and pay attention to the mountain of information they have there. It is more compelling and voluminous than what's being presented here. All of these alleged problems are more-than-adequately addressed.
2 Peter 2 and 3 doesn’t require reading as a global flood. 2 Peter 2 already contains S&G as non-universal, and judging of angels as narrow, why does “ancient world” need to mean universal? Likewise, as the narrative flow of scripture starts with Mesopotamia, narrows to Israel, then expands (as the gospel spreads) to the whole earth, why can’t Peter simply be referring to what scripture records with no specifically required interpretation, leaving room for a localised flood? You’re welcome to hold to a global flood but I don’t see how 2 Peter indicates one way or another that Peter did.
@@readeral I would encourage you to do some research on the Greek word Peter uses for "world."
Having referenced BDAG before I made my comment, I’m content with my reply based on the Greek that I know.
@@readeral Cool. So "The 'κόσμος' that then existed," doesn't actually mean what it says, ""כָּל־בָּשָֽׂר׃" (all flesh), in Genesis 9 doesn't actually mean what it says and "הָאָדָֽם׃ וְכֹ֖ל" (all mankind) in Genesis 7 doesn't mean what it says.
I'm not sure how God could've communicated any more clearly, but have at it. The Noahic Covenant is incomprehensible but at least we've got deep time and that's what really matters, I guess.
@@warriorpriestblog all my comment was saying is that Peter’s letters aren’t as obviously conclusive as you asserted, there’s still more to wrestle with as you say.
There is so much here to respond to. I think for now I’ll limit my response to: your main thesis, two key issues I think you did not address, and the incomplete nature of local flood interpretations.
Main thesis: I agree that this is not an orthodoxy vs. heresy issue. Many local flood proponents are godlier men than me. I would argue that this is not even the kind of thing that churches should divide over. That’s a fairly modest claim and I’m not sure how much we even need to get into evidence for either view to reach that conclusion. I already agree with your thesis even though I think the evidence for the local flood view is not good. So perhaps the content of your video was quite ambitious relative to your modest thesis.
Two key issues not addressed:
1. What are the implications for a local flood interpretation on the character of God? A local flood puts most of the fossil record before the Fall, which means God created a world full of natural disasters, and diseases like cancer and arthritis in animals before Adam’s sin (as observed in the fossils). This is the main reason the global Flood is considered important; it’s not just some fundamentalists stubbornly insisting on a wooden literalistic reading of the text.
2. What are the implications for a local flood interpretation on the doctrine of perspicuity? If you couldn’t find one Church Father to support your view (and even the Josephus passage is ambiguous) how can anyone reasonably be expected to find this view in the text. I think your case was extremely weak in this area. And what should the author of the flood narrative have said to more clearly communicate a global flood? Surely the text teaches that at least the mountains of Ararat were underwater? What’s the elevation of those mountains and what would that imply for the extent of the Flood? This leads nicely into my final point.
Local flood interpretations are incomplete: Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the case for a local flood is typically being made by attempting to poke holes in the global flood and YEC paradigm (often without a good understanding of the paradigm being criticized, I might add), rather than by making a positive case for a local flood model that explains both the details of the biblical text and the scientific data. So the Black Sea flood, for example, doesn’t fit with a judgment on all of humanity, and probably not with the idea that the water covered the mountains of Ararat. Are OEC and theistic evolutionist scientists coming up with their own local flood models that fit the details of the biblical text, or looking at animal migration to and from the ark, or counting numbers of animal kinds that the local flood would have required to be on the ark? I haven’t seen anything like this. So is there a workable model out there somewhere, and if so, what miracles does it require that are not in the text? That would be a more fair way to compare the local and global flood interpretations.
Thanks for the video, Gavin, and God bless you and your family in your new home.
Thanks for the comment, Daniel, and glad you don't think this is a heresy vs. orthodoxy issue. When you raise the criticism that I often don't have a "good understanding of the paradigm being criticized," I am not sure what you are referencing, but part of the problem here is that there is such diversity among proponents of this paradigm.
@@TruthUnites That’s a fair point. I’m probably not aware of the full diversity of views out there. Here are a few cases where I thought you were criticizing a version of the YEC paradigm that did not seem familiar to me:
1. You mention caring for polar bears on the ark, whereas elsewhere you had mentioned the YEC view of “kinds” on the ark. Maybe you didn’t know that it would imply that polar bears arose after the flood so this is a non-issue for that YEC view.
2. You mentioned penguins migrating from Antarctica. I thought it was the common YEC view that the continents were not in their present positions prior to the flood (and the ancestors of penguins likely lived on a different land mass anyway).
3. You seem to imply that miracles are required on the YEC view to explain how some creatures survived outside the ark (e.g., on floating vegetation mats). I am not aware of miracles being invoked for this.
@@danielklassen1513 To clarify on 1, I am aware many YECs say that -- what I tried to convey is that its a trade off -- they EITHER need super speedy evolution OR more animals on the ark, either of which has downsides. Perhaps I should have reiterated this point when it comes up again with special climate animals. Similarly on 2, yes, I know some YECs believe all the continents were connected, but again that is the trade off - you have to posit the cataclysmic geological reshaping just a few thousand years ago, which I would say faces the same challenge of additional miracles (I know some disagree on that point from Psalm 104). On 3, yeah perhaps miracle in the strict sense is not the right category for that.
@@TruthUnites Thanks, that’s helpful. Your arguments don’t fully make sense to me, but I have a theory about why that might be. I think you’re criticizing the YEC paradigm from a standpoint inside a different paradigm.
So animals adapting to their new environments after the flood you call “evolution” because that’s what the evolution paradigm calls it. In that paradigm, changes are slow and gradual, so you say the YEC view is lightning fast evolution (by comparison), which is too fast to fit with the evolution paradigm. The YEC paradigm has resources unavailable to the evolution paradigm, like a pre-programmed ability to adapt to new environments, so different timescales for biological change are to be expected. Pre-programming is off limits to the evolution paradigm but makes sense within YEC. So to criticize YEC on its own terms perhaps you have to make a case that the proposed mechanisms are inadequate.
Similarly, regarding cataclysmic geological reshaping, in YEC it makes sense to posit catastrophic plate tectonics as a mechanism for rapid geological change, and this mechanism is based on real physics (not miracles) and backed by advanced computer models. In the old earth paradigm this explanation is off limits because tectonic plates in the past are assumed to move at the rates observed today. Perhaps it would require a miracle to radically reshape the surface of the earth without rapid plate movements, but that’s not what YEC is claiming. I don’t think anyone knows what initiated the rapid plate movements, so perhaps there’s a miracle there, but nobody knows what initiated the local flood either so that’s no different.
@@danielklassen1513 its definitely true we are operating from different paradigms, and that will sometimes hinder our ability our communication and understanding (even if I wouldn't say that is the root cause of my disagreements with the young-earth paradigm). Hopefully patient dialogue will enable us to make progress as we go.
Water finds its lowest point. The Bible says the water of the flood was above the peaks of the highest mountains. For there to have been a local flood, there would have been a wall of water rising above one side of the mountains and not finding its lowest point on the other side of the mountains. This rules out a local flood.
@@TheBoredTheist we can use the hyperbolic explanation any time scripture seems inconvenient to one’s worldview. How do we distinguish when scripture is being literal and when it is being non-literal? Context is a good place to start. The reason for the flood was to kill all of humanity because it as a whole had become evil and corrupted. The Nephalim were also present, which was part of that corruption. The only man righteous was Noah.
The account describes an event that killed all land animals and humans, where an ark was built to the dimensions of an ocean liner to save the lives of a family of eight and every land animal God brought to it. This flood was so unique and lethal that God promised to never again flood the world like He did. The water level rose above the highest mountain peaks and remained like that for a year.
To say “the waters rose above the highest mountain peaks” is hyperbolic, one also must say that all of humanity and land animals dying is hyperbolic too. Why build an ark so big then? Maybe the Ark size and Noah being the only righteous man are also hyperbolic. Maybe raining 40 days and nights is hyperbolic. At this point why not call it a myth as the skeptics do? How do you distinguish between hyperbole and literal descriptions?
@@TheBoredTheist where in the flood account is the three tired cosmology described?
@@TheBoredTheist I understand the “fountains of the great deep” to mean subterranean pressurized water that gave way, which raised the sea level tremendously. Still today there are many pockets of subterranean water beneath the sea floor. The windows of heaven is reference to rain falling from the sky.
Either Genesis is a revelation that Moses received from God or it’s a bunch of near eastern myths that the Jews gathered from the contemporary cultures around them. Jesus spoke of the flood in the gospels and so did Peter in his epistle. Jesus likened the flood of Noah to the day of the LORD, when the world will be judged. Noah’s flood fails as a simile for the world wide final judgment of mankind if the flood was local. The final judgment will be global, not local.
Finally someone is preaching on this !!!
I nearly wasn't going to respond as there is so much to respond to! However, if I were to try and sum up what I wanted to say it would simply be this. A lot of what you said was based on the idea that there is no text to support the 'additional' miracles. When I read the creation story it is mind bogglingly simple. When I read the parting of the red sea, it's mind-bogglingly simple. Just because the text doesn't say how God bought the animals to the ark, or returned them to their original location, or fed them with special food etc etc etc, doesn't mean God is not eminently capable of doing all that and more. The point is there are so many examples in the Bible where God doesn't 'explain' to us how it was done. He really doesn't have to. Compared with creation the whole flood episode is child's play in terms of miracles (miracle being defined as something inexplicable). I believe that we are just becoming too concerned about what the world thinks, and for Christians who struggle with doubt about such incredible events I would say the problem is a limited view of the reality of Almighty God. Finally, I would say that when God says he will destroy all mankind, He means all. And when He says He will bring every kind of animal, I will take Him at His word. Because if He didn't, then he's a liar. I am not a fundamentalist by any means, and these issues I also struggle with and try to my best to think through. But honestly the scripture that comes to mind is a paraphrase of Genesis 3 where the serpent said 'Did God really say that?' and so, sewed his doubt.
BTW.. still love your stuff Gavin, but just can't agree on this one.
The phrases used to describe the extent 'all flesh' or 'all living' are the same used to describe Eve, where she is called the mother of all living. What is in view in the text is judgment on Adam and Eve's descendants. There is no reason for God to flood the Amazon rainforest as part of judement on humans when it was likely unihabited
@@TheBoredTheist I don't know why you responded to me with genesis 4, that is exactly the point I am making
Appreciate you sharing this info and doing so in a very thoughtful manner. There are plenty of dogmatic Christians out there that immediately dig their heels in the moment someone says “the flood was likely local, not global.” It’s incredibly ignorant and they think you are trying to use scientific knowledge to usurp biblical authority. It’s not the case at all and you explained that very well.
Gavin has once again provided us with a thoughtful, carefully researched topic. This kind of theological consideration, that is so specifically Biblically based and reasonably presented, is so needed. This is another example of helping me understand a topic that I have not had the chance to research at this level before. Gavin, you are a blessing to us all.
I love the end of this video soooo much. As someone who struggles with the anxiety of knowing if I’m saved or not based on still (regretfully) being a sinner, thank you.
Gavin, I seriously love your content and am thankful for your ministry! My question here is coming from someone who's pretty on the fence between these two (global vs. local) options.
In Gen 8:20-9:17, God establishes his covenant with Noah and his sons and all creatures, promising to never again do what he just did. If what he just did was a local flood, then we would expect that he would never do a local flood again, right? But we've seen catastrophic local floods since then.
More broadly, I've heard many people take the Noahic covenant promises to be universal- not just promises regarding a specific region ("I'll never flood this region again") or people ("Specifically Noah's descendants can eat animals now") or animals ("I'll never wipe out the animals of this specific region"). If the Noahic covenant is being made in response to a local event, isn't the fairly evident "restarting" or "recommissioning" of creation/humanity theme threatened?
Thanks so much for your charitable attitude and commitment to the Word of God! God bless!
th-cam.com/video/4hhE6tzJR_c/w-d-xo.htmlsi=EdVQ_m8TTNEugpFs
The argument against rapid speciation post-flood is odd. Within a few hundreds of years look at how many dog breeds we have with such vast morphological differences had we not seen it ourselves we would have categorized many or possibly most into different species if we came along later and discovered them. To say this type of rapid speciation is unlikely or impossible because of a few wild canine species is ironic
Dog breeds aren't new species...
@@jonathanw1106 , that's a matter of preference in how we choose to categorize breeds which comes from the knowledge we have that they were bred that way. The reality is many fossils with similar degrees of variation or less variation between them do get classified as different species.
@@jonathanw1106 ... Organisms too for that matter
@@andywhitaker2387 no its not species are remarked by their inability to breed with each other, among other things. Dogs are still dogs, chihuahua or great dane
@@jonathanw1106 it is, because there are definite exceptions to that rule and that definition is still a hotly debated topic. With that said it's not worth missing the forest for the trees getting hung up on the definition of species. The Bible says nothing about species. The question is whether it is possible for some number of animals which can fit on the ark to possibly give rise to the variety we see today... and clearly variety can spring up to an incredible degree within merely a few hundred years. If what you want is evidence that in a longer period of time between when we began breeding our dog breeds and the flood that it is possible for those varieties to lose the ability to create fertile offspring with each other, I'd say that's fair to ask. I think it is also fair to ask evolutionists then for harder evidence the degree of speciation they claimed did indeed happen though as well. If their story can pass muster by organizing morphologically similar fossils on a story board without great incredulity while claiming it's just an extrapolation of what we observe over a longer period of time it's hard to see how what's good for that goose wouldn't be as good for this gander
I have heard people claim that the Flood was a localised event, but with very little backup, so I remained unpersuaded. I don't know that I fully lean one side or the other, nor do I feel I know enough to make such a decision, but this is the first I've heard a detailed, well-reasoned argument in a localised flood's favor. Thank you for your presentation, as well as your graciousness in presenting it.
The evidence people would seem to appropriate for the purpose of proving it was local would not support a massive sub-global flood either (continent wide or hemispherical, like an asteroid strike leading to a massive tidal wave, plus rain).
Instead they point merely to large historical flood plain outliers... as if Mesopotamia alone getting flooded explains it all away, but it doesn't.
So I find this moderate "it wasn't global but it wasn't merely local either" is sort of trying to argue for a middle way but that is seemingly excluded by the "evidence" against a global flood.
Especially in light of the universality of the geological theory's expression of the geological column.
And the universality of the flood myth.
I'm not saying su h a hemispherical model of the flood wouldn't satisfy the biblical data, in a way it would, but thats the only data it would satisfy, and imperfectly at that. Not geology. Not skeptics arguments.
@@ravissary79 Too bad geology is meh at it's own job, ever actually see how good they are at finding oil or diamonds, without any seismic instrumentation? Or ever look into how good they are at carbon dating lava?
You just assumed they were good it but they're better than a diving rod but seismic is infinitely more useful than a lot of elaborate and unprovable theories.
@@darthbigred22 no it's not that I assume they're good, I just mean that the data can be interpreted a couple different ways by different schools of thought, but neither would seem to support some middle perspective, a hemispherical flood.
Actually a global catastrophic flood does explain the geology and fossils, look at Grand Canyon.
@@scottrussell1018 yup. 💯 it just depends on your model. The data fits a global flood or only small local floods, this in between idea doesn't seem to make sense.
Hi just found your channel and loved this video. Thanks so much was very well presented, thought out and helpful!
Glad it was helpful!
As a young-earth creationist, I have benefited from Jason Lisle's book "Understanding Genesis." You might consider inviting him on your channel.
Agreed, let’s bring someone in from outside this echo chamber.
anybody unlike Ken Ham
No, please don't - the movement is already saturated with his type
Jason Lisle sucks. I don't think he ever corrected his faulty receding moon math.
Wow! This is the very best explanation I ever heard, in detail, I know.
Thank you Pastor Gavin - this was so helpful. Your ministry has taught me to read my Bible slower and deeper. It’s also revealed that many biblical beliefs from my childhood were not grounded in Scripture and took many liberties with the text. PS I just started “How God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t” And already I’m grateful for your humility in “spoon feeding” the readers a bit. Many of us are not scholars, but we are hungry! And this is beyond helpful for us. Thank you - it’s apparent your goal is to glorify our Heavenly Father.
I will mever understand why gavin doesn't have more subscribers. He's amazing.
IDK, the strawmanning in this video almost makes me unsub. I find it strange that he was more charitable with Marian devotion than with this.
If he was Catholic or catered more to Catholics like Gospel Simplicity does, his channel would blow up overnight.
Agree. Gavin seems honest enough and I appreciate some of his other videos, however for a guy so well read on the local flood position, he posits a lot of straw man aurguments from the global flood position (Ex: I know of no popular global flood proponents arguing that the current mountains (and their height) existed before the flood and yet he says there isn’t possibly enough water on earth to reach/cover them at tat height. No one is suggesting there was. Kind of sad (and unfair) that he wasn’t able to give the strongest arguments from both sides of the debate. He sure put a lot of time and study in on the local flood position. :/
@@MathewDRhys What isn't he charitable w/? This is about flood theory, so I can't imagine some people would be sensitive about it. W/ Marian doctrines, it's a huge branch of Christianity and they get super sensitive and defensive about their next level Marian devotion and feel they are being attacked as Catholics about it, if we can't help but point out deep error as we see it.
@saintejeannedarc9460 Gavin's dogmatic assertion that Global Flood proponents came to their conclusions from a place emotional ignorance as opposed to BECAUSE of the worldwide evidence of cataclysm. Atheist evolutionary geologists haven't even questioned catastrophicsm for almost 50 years, they only argue about the timing and number of catastrophes
Actually, the Bible is clear on whether the waters covered the earth: Genesis 7:19-- "And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered." What on this earth is higher than the mountains?
What is more clear than "everywhere"?
And two opposing views cannot both be true, and therefore cannot both be orthodox.
This video helps me see how literal interpretations, instead of literary interpretations, can sometimes lead to misinterpretations of hyperbolic language. Thank you for making it!
So when God comes in Wrath to burn up the whole earth, He is only going to burn up part of it? You think that God is embellishing? Why? Because He is incapable?
there are stories of great floods in many different cultures for example native australian aboriginal and native american cultures
Because every culture that lasted long enough and succeeded enough to write, lived on the bank of a river. Rivers have huge floods every once and a while. Some bigger than others.
That's more Tower of Babel than anything.
Yes proving worldwide flood. Only a LIAR is going to say ALL THE earth means NOT ALL. AND the rainbow disproves local flood. There are local floods TODAY. They are saying God lied If they believe local flood.
@@maxxiong I think it’s unreasonable to attribute that to the Tower of Babel. The timeline does not line up.
@@cooperthatguy1271 I meant that the the reason every culture knows about the flood is explained by the tower of Babel, and the extent of the flood shouldn't matter.
Thank you for this video, and also your extremely gracious manner. I also hold to a "local flood" view, and I must admit I am annoyed with those who accuse those who take this view of being somehow compromisers, liberal, "of the devil" etc etc. My argument actually starts with a very careful and honest literal reading of Genesis 1, which assures me that this is not a strictly scientific account of origins, but involves a concession to human perception and knowledge at the time (the evidence is the creation of the sun and the moon within the firmament, which was itself created in the midst of the waters of the earth. The sun and the moon may have appeared to be set in the sky - in the earth's atmosphere - but we know these bodies are in outer space well outside the earth's atmosphere and not within a body of water. This is indisputable textual proof that human perception is taken into account when relating events.) This principle of "conceding to human perception" can also be applied to the flood account, and you are absolutely right that "all the earth" means "all the known earth" - probably Mesopotamia, where it is likely the entire human race existed at the time. I am unconvinced by the global flood claim that the great mountain ranges were created by the flood, as clearly we all understand that the waters could not have covered these ranges. A literal reading of Proverbs 8:25 makes clear that the hills and mountains were settled at the time of creation, which is the context of Proverbs 8:22-31 (Wisdom existing before the beginning of creation). To argue that this passage is making the point that Wisdom existed between creation and the flood (although, of course, true) is missing the point of this passage of text. Also Proverbs 8:29 rules out a global flood - God set in place a law at creation concerning the limits of the sea, but this can still allow for local floods involving rivers and rain, as perhaps would have been the case in Mesopotamia. Some object by saying: what is the point of the ark, if the flood is local? God could have just told Noah to flee. But the NT refers to Noah as "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5), and therefore the building of the ark was a prophetic witness to mankind, who must have been local, because how can Noah preach to people scattered all over the earth?
As a global flood guy, I think there are some compelling arguments here. The one thing I would call attention to is the assumption that all the various life forms back then were identical to now. The argument that the ark story necessitates packing into it a myriad of life forms we see now, is reading outside the text.
On the other hand, I've often wondered why the middle east going west to the Sahara is all sand, but surrounded by vegetation.
On the other hand, global catastrophic tectonic plate shifts is not unreasonable.
And I don't care much for the argument that animal types would necessitate rapid evolution at lightning speed. Science shows novel types can appear in as little as one year.
Lots of assumptions on both sides, but It's fascinating to consider a regional flood, or other. Well presented Gavin!
Btw I wish someone would challenge the idea of coring. I don't buy all the conclusions.
global catastrophic tectonic plate shifts in the time scales you are thinking of would generate enough heat to melt the surface of the earth
Interesting, but Im not persuaded. What best fits with the overarching biblical narrative? In other words, what is the extent of sin in this world? Is it global or local? You spend a lot time explaining the problem of how all the various animals could go to and fro the arc miraculously but little to no time talking about various humans that presumedly lived outside the radius of a hypothetical local flood at the time. If humans survived the flood outside of the arc, this to me undermines a possible main narrative and premise of any flood at all. The arc may be a type of Christ and the flood waters a type of judgment. Is it possible to be saved apart from Christ or to not be affected by sin or escape judgment? These are the theological questions that aren't answered in this video. Isn't it easier to just believe in a global flood with these theological considerations? I can't make sense of this story theologically otherwise. I love your videos, but this has left me unsatisfied. Even if this story was a real local flood, it really loses its punch if it truly didn't wipe out all mankind other than those on the arc. Forget the animals for a minute and address the real issue with the humans.
Believing in local or global or pure allegory is kind of an irrelevant issue as none are required in order to be a Christian.
This is one of the hardest topics. I remember while I was still a Baptist that this issue was one that nearly broke friendships. People really do feel it makes or breaks the faith. I only kept some friends by having long discussions about "literary" vs "literal," and that focusing on what material form the events took place in leads to not seeing the theological claims.
They were still uneasy about it, but it helped when they saw things that could be true in both lines of reasoning but which they could not see because they were focused on being literal.
There is no reason to think it wasn't literal. If you question one story of Genesis, then you have to question all the stories.
There is nothing "hard" about believing God when He told Noah that He would destroy the entire world.
I recently had these thoughts when our men's group was studying Exodus. The plagues use similar (or the same?) language talking about everything dying in the whole land/earth, but then the next plague has more of the same stuff dying.
I express my skepticism on the global flood and God being responsible for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah in a men's group that included the church pastor. The church pastor while he believes in the global flood and that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorah was very respectful and acknowledged that a lot of people feel the same way as me. Another person though very strangely said "I just believe because I realized if God can do certain things he can do anything."
Hi Gavin, you’ve mentioned in the past getting a YEC advocate on the show. Could I suggest someone like Paul Garner, Ken Coulson or Marcus Ross? I think you’d have a really productive conversation with any of them.
Make it so
Speciation occurs quicker than you think. “When a scientist name John Gould studied rock wallabies in Australia in the mid-1800s, he could only find six different species. Today there are at least 15 different species of rock wallaby. The formation of new species in only 100 years shows us that it does not take a long time for the species of animals to come about.” There was plenty of time for all of the species of animals we have today to have derived from their ancestors that came off of the Ark.
@@TheBoredTheist What basis do you have in saying this? John Gould had every reason to be as accurate and thorough in his findings at the time. No scientist wants to be discredited.
It seems convenient that one doesn't have to commit to a boundary for a localized flood. We're informed in Genesis chapter 7, verses 19-20, that
"...the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep."
The implication of these two ideas is that there was a wall of water sustained in some shape around the perimeter of the flood. So whether it was a slope or a sheer wall, there would have been a field of "God energy" maintaining the height of this boundary around the flooded land. That, certainly, would be an "extra," unmentioned-but necessary-miracle.
You also mentioned the objection that if the flood were local, why would God have Noah build an Ark at all rather than migrate with his family and the animals? One response in the comments I've seen is that it's just an allegory for a safe space from God's judgment, but simply moving to another region of land (Russia, for example, although I'm not saying that all the landmasses as we know them were the same) would also fulfil this idea. If the flood didn't eliminate all other spaces, making an Ark doesn't make good sense when another, unflooded region of the world could have served as a safe space from God's judgment well enough.
With that said, I do appreciate the humility and the repeated assurances that you're not trying to mock people who hold to a literal interpretation, which is important for the goal of lessening division.
Hey Gavin, appreciate the effort and work you put into your content. I am by no means a YEC, but i do believe the flood impacted all of the world.
So I was wanting to ask a pastoral question as i would argue, that a local flood weakens the comfort Christianity can give to the climate anxiety of non-believers of our day. For if Gen 9:22 only applies to the flooded region, then is it only Mesopotamia that is guaranteed to have regular seasons and harvests, whereas everywhere else can be destryoed by a climate catastrophe? How do you interpret the applicability and reach of the Noahic covenant under your framework? Thanks Gavin.
I mean similar climate catastrophes to what the scientists are proposing have happened at smaller scales already, I don't think genesis 9:22 can be used to argue against that, it is an extremely broad statement
@briandiehl9257 I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying while also proving my point... One of the promises of the Noahic covenant under a universal (not necessarily global) flood is that God guarantees that the earth's seasons will continue undisrupted, despite regional natural disasters. But if the flood in Genesis is regional, then what is the scope and purpose of Gen 9:22 when God says he'll maintain the earth's seasons from thereon and never curse it again? Do the similar climate catastrophes you mentioned mean God has broken his promise to Noah under the regional model? This is what I'm trying to work out under Gavin's model.
At about minute 26 you state something like how different animals from all over the world would “need” to be “miraculously” transported to the location of the Ark. I would contend with this idea as it assumes a more uniformitarian thought process (things have always been as we observe it currently) on this particular contention. I can see no reason why all of the different “kinds” of animals couldn’t be in the near the vicinity, but you’d have to consider two things: 1) the pre flood world was markedly different than what we observe today, take for example the size of some land animals and the fact that in today’s atmosphere they could not survive. 2) it is not necessarily true that every “species” of animal need be on the ark, rather two of every kind. Meaning, it’s not necessary for arctic wolves, and timber wolves, and, dingos to have two of every kind, rather it’s only necessary for two “dog” kind on specimens to have accompanied Noah.
There is too much to contend in this format, however, I would encourage you to consider this topic further than you have.
I want to finish by saying that your channel has been a GREAT blessing to me and I really appreciate your candor. Thank you brother, and may the peace of our Lord be with you.
He either woefully misunderstands the YEC position or is intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way, he is poisoning the well in his presentation.
How does the idea of a local flood impact one’s understanding of the Noahic covenant? We have had many local floods since then, so has God kept His promise? And is the Noahic covenant between God and all of creation or is it restricted to the region impacted by the flood?
Excellent questions!
None that wiped out multiple civilizations over the region the size of the middle east.
Sure, this one would be clearly set apart from the rest. But are we to believe that God’s promise of “never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” is limited to any specific region no matter the size? (Genesis 9:11).
@@johngrimm1131 Again the argument is in the nature of the universal language. Does all life mean all life or does it mean the lives within the designated region of Genesis 10s table of nations. If the point of the flood was a theological precurser to salvation in Christ then the territorial size factor is of lesser importance. Only those on the ark get saved within the designated area of destruction. The death of the whole world as we know it will come by fire in some cataclysmic battle and only those in Christ get saved. No one is truly concerned about a world wide flood except maybe global warming theorists right?
And in terms of God's promise being kept one would have to say it has been as other local floods never wiped out all mankind.
The real question is how much of the human population at the time actually died in the original flood. Was it literally so far back in history that no one lived outside the middle east? That would seem to me to be the more problematic take for people who say that all humans alive today are descendents of Noah and his wife.
So you’re saying that God’s promise to not bring another one of these floods applies only to that region of the world?
I had come to the "local flood" position myself some years ago. My thinking was partially the logistics of storing and caring for representatives of every animal on earth, and partially what might have been meant by the term "whole world". If the point of the flood was to wipe out mankind and start over with Noah and his crew, and if mankind had not yet spread out over the globe, then you really only needed to flood the areas where we were found. Dr. Ortlund has, of course, done a better job of researching and thinking this through than I did. It's good to see wider support for this view, especially backed by careful reasoning along with respect for Scripture.
If what you're saying is true, that it was to wipe out everything in an area, God could have just asked Noah to move, journey to a safe area while he wiped out the bad area. No need for an ark.
How long ago do you think humans arrived in north America and how long ago do you think the flood was?
You're assuming that animals had spread out to the whole Earth at that point. But it's very possible that, just like humans, animals only populated a central area on Earth, and have gradually spread out/migrated over time, as the population increased.
@@nerychristian have you heard of fossils?
@@prophetrob Yes, I have. What about it?
Thank you for this thoughtful synthesis of is important topic of contention. It is this kind of analysis that makes holding both a biblical and rational understanding of the world viable. Keep up the good apologetic work👍🏽🙏🏽
The local flood theory cannot consistently account for all of scripture (Gen 6-9, Isa 54:9, Matt 24, Luke 17, Heb 11, 1 Pet 3, 2 Pet 2-3).
The local flood theory only nitpicks the Genesis account but totally fails to address the rest of scripture.
Thank you so much for addressing this even in the face of differing opinions ❤
I was looking forward to this one ever since you published that list of possible future topics. It’s even better than I expected. Thanks for all of the effort in the research and for the carefully thought out and delivered arguments
Thank you for being so thoughtful and taking a concern to be respectful to everyone, Gavin, no matter what the belief about Noah's flood. In the past, I've been appalled by the scorn and mocking displayed by some who support a global flood concept.
I've also wondered if this scorn carries over for the children brought up in that atmosphere. They get to college, and encountering greater scorn and mocking displayed by professors there for Biblical texts, they are persuaded by the familiar tone and give up belief in Scripture altogether. For them, they've learned that truth claims show disrespect for anyone who disagrees, and this makes it easier to be persuaded to change.
This is a much better tone to adopt as a follower of Christ, and I appreciate it greatly.
I love Heiser! A dearly missed biblical scholar. So glad you brought his thoughts into this!
Would you be willing to give a date to this event?
”The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;“
Genesis 7:20-21 NASB1995
The water prevailed higher. It started to cover the mountain tops.
All flesh that moved on the earth perished. The mountains were covered.
Seems like a global flood.
We still have the problem of having animals on islands or Australia.
I’m not sure if your view has some creatures surviving the flood. Since you quoted Heiser you might.
Also regarding the Nephilim
”The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.“
Genesis 6:4 NASB1995
And afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men.
Whenever the sons of God came in to the daughters of men the Nephilim were created.
That happened after the flood.
I have to say, I'm not so sure about this. It seems to me when we look at the geology all over the planet, we have no need to limit the flood to a Middle Eastern region, (granted, the source you mentioned arguing that the flood is not responsible for Grand Canyon). 1) while I recognize it hypothetically possible that man had not spread beyond a given region, then subsequently flooded, from the Biblical text I don't see any reason why we should assume so, but rather the opposite. But all the more so, the animals - can we really imagine that animal life had not spread beyond same region? God expressly said, the flood was to end all life apart from that saved in the Ark, "So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man *and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens*, for I am sorry that I have made them." Gen 6:7. also v.17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy *all flesh in which is the breath of life* under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die. This seems pretty conclusive. Gen 9:9-11 If any animal life survived the flood, then the rainbow covenant of "no more world-destroying flood" would not be to them, but only Noah's family and the animals that came off the Ark (and descendants). Indeed, the various descriptions in Gen 9: "[the covenant] is for every beast of the earth", "...all flesh be cut off by the waters", "... a flood to destroy the earth", "...covenant between me and the earth", "...every living creature of all flesh", "waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh", "everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth," this does not correspond to "regional".
It looked to me like some of the examples of "kol eretz" you gave are still qualified: Lev 25:9 "all the land" is all *your* land; the Israelite land (this qualification is explicit in the text). Deut 2:25 I would say this does apply to the whole earth, all peoples who would ever hear of the Hebrew nation. On the other hand, Ex 34:10 I think we can fairly agree that for the plagues of Egypt, their like had not been seen in the whole earth.
It seems many of the obstacles you put to a younger view stem from assuming preflood geography/geology the same as we have now, but as I understand most young earth views see things very differently, including a single pre-flood continent (corresponding to Gen 1:9), the mountains we know today grew from the plate tectonics that commence after the flood etc.
As I've seen, the biology corresponding to 'kinds' really does hold up. What younger earth proponents recognize is the remarkable capacity of biological forms to adapt into the niches they find themselves in. It should be recognized that this process actually corresponds to a *loss* of genetic potential, not growth. I think it is really problematic for you to describe the diversification of the animals that came from the Ark as "evolution." It is expression of the wealth of genetic potential present in those forebears as they spread over the earth, followed by speciation. This is all sound science, while Darwinian macro-evolution, from fish to flamingos, is absurd. As to the timescale, just look at the production of dog breeds by humans in modern times. So, for your polar bear, what would have been required on the Ark is one, maybe two varieties of bear. Then a population of bears adapted and acclimatized to the polar regions. Same with penguins, and important to note there are many penguin species with subtropical and even tropical ranges.
About the volume of flood waters, I imagine you are aware that the younger earth view would see that the preflood mountains are not the same as we know now, and those especially like the Himalayas, produced by the tectonics following the flood. And then the waters drain off the continents into the newly form(ing) ocean basins. I may say that I have looked into the science of the methods that date rocks to millions of years, and I am comfortable to say that it really is on shaky ground. Such calculations might be valid *assuming* various rates of change would remain constant going back through all that time, but those are assumptions I do not think we are warranted to make. To this point, there are often multiple dating 'methods' that can be used for a given object, and they frequently give widely inconsistent answers; these cases are pointers to non-uniform rates of change.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the two options really have their own separate paradigms with a lot of required details about how they each makes sense, to whatever extents they do. But overall, in my studies of science, I have learned that science can be very good at determining what happens (ie. what would happen now, and generally speaking what does happen, in other words the laws of physics) based on *repeated* experimentation, measurement and testing of hypothesis. But the scientific method is more poorly equipped to answer what happened too far back in the past, much as it is very difficult to predict what will be in the future, because the extrapolation (either past or future) can be very problematic. I say this as someone currently doing my PhD in cosmology, though I don't think I will plan to spend my life's work on cosmology...
As always, much appreciated for your work and graceful approach. Your new library is sweet. A tour of what’s on your shelves would be awesome!
Yes! I was zooming in to the background trying to see his library!
I think the biggest argument against a local flood is asking, "Why didn't Noah and his family just take the animals 100 miles south?" Or whatever.
I mean, I heard Gavin bring that up, but I don't remember hearing a good explanation. Building an Ark with the dimensions the Bible gives seems a lot harder than moving some place else.
I see Genesis as suggesting it is global and not local. Here are a few points:
1) Noah's ark is extremely oversized for a local flood. He would not need that many animals just for a localized flood.
2) If it was just local Noah could have just moved away in the 120 years God gave him instead of building the ark.
3) Are we to believe all of humanity could be killed by a local flood? The whole point of the flood was to kill all of humanity except for Noah and his family because of humanity's sin.
4) The bird Noah sent out would have been able to easily find land to make a new home at with a localized flood so the bird returning because it can't find land doesn't really make sense.
5) The duration of the flood is unbelievably long for just a local flood.
A big problem is people don't like to believe God is willing to perform such massive miracles. I won't ever say someone isn't saved on this issue I just am not convinced by a local flood.
True brother, people would believe Jesus multiplied fish, but never that He multiplies the waters, for some reason thats too embarrasing. Even though science cant explain either
I think you are under estimating the size many have in mind for this 'local flood'. One of the guys cited in the video presents evidence for a flood that was comparable in size to Saudi Arabia that connected the mediteranian to the indian ocean. That would definitely be enough to wipe out all of humanity if they hadn't dispersed to the entire world, it would be too far for the birds, it would fit the duration of the flood, etc
@briandiehl9257 how would a flood that would cover the tops of the mountains stay contained to that small of an area?
In order to get waters that high, I would think the whole earth would have to be covered. Otherwise, the water would just keep spreading further away and not be able to get high enough to cover the mountains.
It's not just about unbelief concerning massive miracles. It's about currently accepted scientific theory and refusal to accept the scorn of the world for the sake fo Christ. It's about subordinating the Word of God to Godless theories in order to bring judgment from God on the church. This is the devil's tactic. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and will not witness to a lie being preached, even if the lie is wrapped in a veneer of Holy Scripture.
@@daltonburroughs3811 A storm surge from the flood the size of saudi arabia would do that
All over the globe we have the same sedimentary layers continents wide. Most of the same animals burried in those layers on those continents. And that itsself points to a global catastroph/flood
Even without the bible to tell us so. Im not saying that to belive in a global flood is required for salvation. But remember satan loves to twist scripture. Thats what he does. And Christ rebukes satan with scripure. So i am taking this to be a true account as stated. Just as Christ says in the begining He made them male and female. Meaning one man and one woman forever. Not man and man, woman and woman, not divorce, etc....
Thankful for you brother. ❤
The background is getting better and better
Hello Gavin!
As a young-earth creationist myself, I hear you and agree on so much.
This is not a dividing matter.
But one concern I would like someone from your viewpoint to adress is in the area of hermeneutics. You say you can responsibly see this as describing a local event.
It is not satisfactory to me to read the Bible and just believe that it describes a real event. What about the actual details? It says for example that the Flood covered the highest mountains by 17 cubits. If the mountains of Ararat are about 5137 meters above sea level, would you for example accept this as true? That the Flood at least stood about 5150 meters above sea level?
If you don´t accept the worldwide view, do you think God collected one of each kind of animal from the entire region in the Middle East then?
When God says He will never again send a flood to destroy all flesh, do you believe He actually did destroy all flesh aside from Noah and his family? If all flesh here means only the local human populace, does the promise not to flood and the rainbow also only apply to them, since He makes a covenant with "all flesh"?
And I am not asking like a gotcha, I see you as a solid brother, but more because it really matters to me how the Word of God is handled.
While I agree that we should respect what the author is trying to communicate, I think this is often used to dodge the actual statements and claims made in the text. Authorial intent is very dangerous as an argument, since we don´t know their intent, we have no record of that, but it gets especially dangerous when used to argue against what is stated in the text.
I too feel like a local flood raises waaay more questions than it solves. The only form it is conforting is if you are already on the evolutionist train
As far as I’m concerned, if Genesis is not true, it renders baptism irrelevant and the cross moot.
Very good and tracks with my own arguments. I'd actually be a bit stronger and say that the context of Genesis 2-11 is all Mesopotamian (with perhaps some Levantine), wherever we have actual geographic markers in the text. This STRONGLY implies that the purview of the Flood in chaps. 6-8 is in this region:
While global flood proponents point to chapter 1 (the creation of the whole universe) as the Flood context, this misses that the narrative pivots in chapter 2 to the creation of a specific locale, the creation of the Garden located by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, so explicitly Mesopotamia.
In chapter 10 we get the Table of Nations. And 9:19 implies this is "the whole earth" in view.
Then we get the Tower of Babel, again Mesopotamia.
Then we come to Abraham's migration out of Ur, in Mesopotamia.
So 2-11 are all setting the table between creation and Abrahams story, which picks up there.
It is not a stretch, indeed it is almost certain, that this would have been understood as Noah's "land".
I don't care if atheists call us dumb. The story is literal, and young earth creationist scientists have very good reasons to believe it was global. I don't even need their opinion, the bible is enough, and no, the bible doesn't teach it was local. And no, I'm not being closed minded, I just believe the bible without compromises of what the unbelieving world without the Holy Spirit may say about it. I couldn't care less, and every believer should do the same thing.
"Professing to be wise they became fools". Do you believe this verse? Then believe Noah's story too and stop trying to be a friend of the world.
Amen 🙏
You sound like a Ham bone minion!
Great job brother! When joining RTB's scholar's community this was my only hesitation only because I had not sat down and done the research you just presented. I will do my follow up work but you did a great job and answered some of the questions I had. I am a former colleague of Mark Rooker and Ken Keathley - and still friends!
Dr Keathly got it right
Alright Gavin, you asked for it, so Imma let you have it. That was really well researched, written, and explained. Kudos. This will be my go-to video for when I encounter people who have questions surrounding the flood.
The library looks awesome Dr. Ortlund!
Does considering the flood a local flood, mean that God has broken his promise with the rainbow, because there has in fact been local floods which destroy entire areas?
A big ark doesn't make sense if the flood was local...a cart would do the job
He addressed that like 5 minutes in
No one in his right mind would spend around 100 years building an ark just for a local flood. By walking 300 miles in one year (which is not much), in 10 years Noah and his family could have moved to a distance of 3000 miles from the local flood...
@@jonatasmachado7217 I know what you are saying, but the argument against you is that God told Noah to do it. So irregardless of the scope of the Flood, the order to build was given by God.
Now, the question is, would God order such a massive vessel to be built for a regional flood? And would the species of the animals on the ark truly perish from the Earth as God said if they were not included on the ark, and if it was only regional? And would all that had the breath of life truly perish from the Earth (which is speaking of animals as well) if the Flood were only local? For the animals didn't live in only a small region.
I can't answer any of those questions in the affirmative.
@@scottb4579 if the flood was global, God's comand makes perfect sense. If it was local it seems arbitrary...
Are you in Nashville now? Your studio setup looks amazing.
I frequently argue that 'universal language' is used throughout the Bible to **often** (not always) refer to a general location. Your Acts 2:5 verse is an excellent example (there are dozens more, both in the Bible and in rabbinical literature. the earth coming for Joseph's grain; Babylon destroyer of the whole world; etc, etc, etc, etc. I have a long list.).
However, you have several issues with a local flood:
- For a local flood to last more than a few weeks, let alone a year (as specified), you need mountains around the perimeter to contain the water. None exist today. So either the flood was global, or the mountains in question have gone away for some strange reason (if you can't believe that Everest popped up in less than 4000 years, then you ought to be consistent and believe that the perimeter of mountains can't go away in < 4000 years. And if you're fine with believing that the mountain perimeter could vanish so quickly, then you should have no problem believing that the ocean floor was only a few feet deep until the flood hit. Then afterwards, with tectonic plate shifting, the floor of the oceans became deep enough to draw all the water away from the land.
- Some NT verses:
[+] who before were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while the ship was being built. In it, few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. (1Pet 3:20)
This suggests only 8 people survived the flood. Not even the Nephilim.
[+] For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth formed out of water and amid water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. (2Pet 3:5-6)
Peter seems to be taking Gen 6-8 quite literally (a global flood)
So I think we're better off affirming that the whole world was destroyed except 8 people.
Regarding your 5 points:
- I'm puzzled as to why you think animals lived in those locations prior to the flood and then had to go back to their respective locations. (Where animals live now is irrelevant when trying to think about where they lived in Enoch's day.)
- Even today, we have no empirical data on how rapidly micro evolution changes a species. DNA is a very recent study. (we're just now discovering the wild variety that can come about due to epigenetics. I think it's quite hasty to assume evolution today was the same as evolution back then. More on this in a sec)
- Noah's family tending to the care of the animals is an odd rebuttal. You're making a ton of assumptions about how animals were back then, assuming their condition/habits today are the same back then. That assumption is, imho, completely unwarranted. Here's what we do know about animas back then:
- all animals prior to the flood were herbivores! (Gen 9) Which means many of them changed rapidly in their digestive biology to become carnivores.
- all animals were friendly to man. Again, another rapid change since then. (and if Isaiah 65 is to be taken literally, they'll revert back to their antediluvian biology in the future)
- Eve wasn't spooked that the serpent could talk. What if all animals could talk back then? Or maybe just many animals? And maybe they could take care of their own food and hygiene?
Regarding flood myths around the world...
If 60+ flood narratives can be found all across the world, and those locations had humans that survived the flood because the flood was local to the Mediterranean ... how did the people on the other side of the planet know that the flood happened?? They didn't have smartphones back then. And since the flood didn't happen in their world, they wouldn't have known about it, and likely wouldn't have believed a traveler 500 years later who came to tell them (How long would it take for a migrant to travel from Mediterranean to the Philippines in 3000 BC?)
Seems to me that the only way they knew was that one of their great-great-grandparents was in that flood and handed the story down. Which is what the Bible pretty much directly implies.
Ever onward, ever upward!
_- Eve wasn't spooked that the serpent could talk. What if all animals could talk back then? Or maybe just many animals? And maybe they could take care of their own food and hygiene?_
This is what is meant by multiplication of miracles. In order for the flood to be truly global (a word that no one living prior to Copernicus would have ascribed to the earth) then you have to introduce more miracles to the story than are relayed. You need super evolution to happen as well afterwards, in addition to, having to not accounting for how invertebrates were housed within the ark or animals that are only indigenous to certain parts of the world survived.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 Reread the comment I made and think about the significance of the clues we're given in the text. Its not a multiplication of miracles; its noting that radical changes are quietly documented in the text.
And with all due respect, even the ancient Romans knew the world was round. What does Copernicus have to do with anything? Ancient Middle Easterners probably ought not be confused with old European white guys.
@@timffoster Tomans? You meant Romans right? And there were no Romans around in 5000 BC
_Ancient Middle Easterners probably ought not be confused with old European white guys._
What does this even mean?
@@choicemeatrandy6572 Yes, Romans. Thanks. (I corrected it)
I'm referring to the many statues from the Greco-Roman world that featured heroes standing on (or carrying) globes of the planet (Atlas, etc). Pliny (1st century) wrote that the earth was round like a ball. And it is generally believed that the Greeks knew the earth was spherical as early as 500 BC. They're closer to ancient Mesopotamia than they are to Copernicus. What great discovery did they have that led them to conclude the earth was round? Be specific.
They didn't have Columbus' ship. He didn't set sail for another 2,000 years!
If they had the smarts to know the earth was a sphere, why should we refuse to believe that the ancient Sumerians didn't? Especially when they spoke of it as being round. That seems needlessly cynical to me. Unless you're willing to present hard evidence that the **majority** of them believed the world was flat (despite their comments to the contrary), I'm going to go conclude you have an agenda, and that truth isn't your highest objective in this discussion.
..and I'm still trying to figure out why you're invoking Copernicus. He's almost 2,000 years after the Greeks believed the world was round. He didn't share their culture, their history, their language, their century. Why bring him up? Non sequitur.
Just because you frequently argue from that position doesn't inherently make your right. Abortionists frequently argue that infanticide is a guaranteed right in the Constitution, even though it clearly guarantees a person's right to live. You frequently argue from an illogical position because you want your word to carry more weight than God's.
Dr. Ortlund, before I disagree with you, I would like to thank you for your ministry. It has been incredibly profitable to me and has made me a significantly more well-rounded and thoughtful follower of Christ!
A compelling argument (for me at least) for a global flood is that face of the Earth was fundamentally reshaped during and after the time of the flood. You briefly mentioned this idea (35:00) but I am concerned that you were too quick to wave it away as an unattested miracle. Psalm 104:5-9 seems to me to indicate this very idea. This could potentially mean that tectonic plates were shifted during the flood to create the mountains and make it so that the water is gathered and collected.
It may then be reasonable to assume that great tectonic activity happened generally as well. This may very well imply that a Pangea like Earth existed during the time of the pre-flood Patriarchs and a more modern continental structure was revealed as the flood receded into the Earth. This idea of a pre-flood Pangea, I think, would have explanatory power for the idea that animals came from all over the world. We would not have to worry about animals coming from a separate continent, as all animals would be on the same landmass.
Regarding your argument of exceptional evolution, I would agree with you that my position relies on a miraculously fast method of speciation. I think that this is a point that I am willing to concede because it makes sense to me that theistic evolution is possible given GMO food. I have seen what we can do as humans to turn things like corn into superfood by selective breeding. If our intelligence can shape the biology of corn to make it more nutritious, how much more can God?
I commend you for your honesty and hunger for truth. You have given me several points to mull over. You mentioned that you have been thinking about this for 25 years, which is longer than I have been alive! I am not in doubt that you have already considered these points and am curious why you did not find them compelling, though perhaps this comes from the positive case that you make for your side. Thank you for this video and furthering conversations about things like this that matter. This was the first thing that I dove into when I became a Christian about 5 years ago because it gave me great anxiety.
This is so good! Thank you so much, and I completely agree with you that we don't need to try to require beliefs from people who may be struggling with the text, beyond what is actually written. Hugh Ross helped me understand Genesis in such a way that made it possible for me to open my eyes to the entire bible when I had been closed off to it before. You are doing the same kind of work and I'm convinced this is important, God-glorifying work. Now I'm going to binge all of your videos and share them far and wide!! 😊
This is very interesting. Also the comments are super interesting
You have some very thoughtful subscribers Dr Ortlund 😀 of which i am one lol
73000 subscribers!!! There should be a million 😊
Gavin, I used to think like you on this issue of old vs. young earth, as well as the Flood, but that was before I made a deeper dive into the actual science that is coming from young-earth creationists, not only from Answers in Genesis, but also from the Institute on Creation Research.
I think the problems you pose for a young earth perspective are answered with much better answers than we get from modern atheistic science. The entire materialistic and naturalistic perspective that dominates modern science is falling apart. What do you expect from those who are bent on a denial of God? The Bible declares them to be fools.
Same here.
Science itself is proving things like Noah's Flood to be true.
One thing important discovery is soft tissue in dinosaur bones.
If the flood was only local then wouldn’t that make God a covenant breaker and liar when He promised Noah that He would never flood the earth in Gen 9?
If the flood was local that covenant wouldn’t make sense and it would make God a liar since there are local floods ever since.
Exactly!
No because the extent of the flood is the most catastrophic one to date.