Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt
(Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org
THE FLOOD
The unbelief of this present day demands that those of us who preach
that Noah was saved in an ark from a universal flood go the second mile
to substantiate our belief. We come under close scrutiny from a number
of quarters. Neo evangelicals and modernists who seek to play down or
deny anything that requires faith in a supernatural God unite with
atheistic evolutionists to pour scorn on our interpretation of the
events recorded in Genesis 6-9. This extra mile, however, hardly causes
any of us to break sweat!
The Bible narrative itself gives every indication that the flood was
universal. If it were merely local in its devastation, we are left
wondering why God bothered getting Noah to construct an ark at all? Why
spend no less than 120 years in its building? Why summons all the
animals, specifically arranged as to provide survival of their kind, to
enter into the ark? Why not simply organise an escape route out of the
affected area? Moses uses language consistent with a universal flood.
The depravity of man, which drew on the flood, was universal in Genesis
6. There is no indication that "all flesh" and the "earth...filled with violence" is
limited in its condemnation. Why then, are the consequences judged to
be any different? How else could God reveal to us that every living
substances created would be destroyed (7:4) and that every living
creature did perish except those with Noah in the ark (7:21-23) than by
using the language He did? The distinct absence of any relief words
like "some" or "few" in the narrative cannot be explained away. The waters "prevailed exceedingly" and "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered" (7:19) which
must rule out a localised flood. Again, if the flood was local and the
rainbow denotes God's promise that such would never been repeated
(9:9-16) then evidently God reveals Himself to be a liar because many
local floods have taken many lives in the intervening centuries.
Not surprisingly, the New Testament vindicates the record of the old.
The Lord Jesus Himself used the universality of the flood to denote the
universality of the coming of the Son of Man. (Luke 17:24-27) Paul
contrasts the saving effects of Noah's faith upon his household with
his condemnation of the whole world (Hebrews 11:8) while Peter likewise
employs universal language to denote the judgement of God upon all who
are ungodly (2 Peter 2:5) These things cannot be gainsaid.
Many evolutionists, who also happen to be scientists also, pour scorn
upon the world wide flood. They attack relentlessly every last revealed
detail, abandoning the fundamental principles of their scientific
profession. Science is a neutral subject and its rules refuse to bend
to favour any side in any non scientific dispute. Although we cannot
prove a world wide flood scientifically - none of us were there to
witness it and we cannot reproduce one - yet we can logically defend
it. There is plenty of evidence out there to substantiate our belief.
Our opponents cannot scientifically defend their position either. Both
camps can examine the same evidence and draw entirely different
conclusions. The reality is that we are both carrying preconceived
ideas and the evolutionist scientist who says otherwise is only
bluffing himself. We need to remember that science does not have the
final say so in every dispute. Such insistence that it does comes from
outside science itself and so is a philosophical or even a religious
belief which its holder is trying to impose on others.
Unable to deny the universality of the flood from the Bible, its
critics must go elsewhere to fuel their attacks. No Bible believer need
fear attacks from any quarter. Any attack upon truth is, by definition,
a lie and the lie will always, sooner or later, be exposed for what it
is. Working on the principle that if the strongest attacks can be
rebutted, then the lesser arguments will likewise fail, we may examine
two main arguments against our belief.
The first main argument lies in the geologic record. Our evolutionary
friends push the rather restricted view that rock strata can only be
laid over a long period of time. The wider the strata then the greater
the time period it took to lay it down. This supposedly negates our
claims that in many cases such strata may be attributed to the flood of
Noah's day. While we do not believe that Noah's flood is always
responsible, we may argue successfully that it is often so. We can
prove scientifically that one major catastrophic event can lead to
various sedimentary layers being laid down in a very short period.
After the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State in May 1980,
strata up to 600 metres feet thickness has been laid. In March 1982, a
mudflow from Mount St. Helens eroded a canyon system upto 140 feet deep
in a very short time. Certainly there is nothing in the geologic record
that denies the world-wide flood of Noah's day.
The second main argument, designed to sink Noah's ark into the rubbish
bin of fantasy, is the thought that it could not contain all the
animals which were said to have gone into it. Sometimes it is not hard
to expose the bias which lies behind this argument. Simply ask [1] What
were the measurements of the ark? and [2] How many animals eventually
went in? Often the objector cannot answer these basic questions, but
tries to tell us that it could not be done anyway. This is sheer
unbelief, void of any scientific basis whatsoever. In their classic
book The Genesis Flood,
Henry Morris and John Whitcomb estimate that less than 75,000
individual animals would have been rescued in the ark, all fitting on
one floor of the three floored boat. Another estimate by Woodmorappe
limits the number to 16,000. If we remember that "kinds" are not "species",
that even big animals start off small, allow room for hibernation, and
the fact that this was an emergency situation and not a pleasure
cruise, then it is entirely feasible that the Bible record is true.
The reason why some folk deny the reality of the flood is moral and not
intellectual. They hate the thought that God has set standards and
decreed that the failure to keep them constitutes sin. They despise the
doctrine of retribution for sin which the justice of God demands. This
hatred is aggravated by the observation of Peter, mentioned above, that
God uses the flood to substantiate His claims that He will visit this
wicked world again in wrath (2 Peter 2:5) Perhaps most of all,
they hate the Christ of God, whom the ark typifies. Just as 8 souls
found safety in the ark (1 Peter 3:20) so too all who flee for refuge
to Jesus Christ are safe from the wrath of God. Not content to refuse
to enter in themselves, wicked men would seek to prevent others from
doing so. Every artifice of hell is employed for their wicked cause:
the use of scorn, false insinuations, unsustainable arguments, pseudo
science etc., However, they all fall idly to the ground when tested by
the word of God, which endureth forever! (1 Peter 1:25)
THE END