Content under Construction….
2) God as author of both Scripture and the sciences.
3) How did the people living at that time see the world?
4) How a local Genesis flood is consistent with found scientific data.
5) How a global flood is scientifically problematic.
6) Black Sea flood.
7) What about the other flood stories that populate the word?
8) 1st century historian Josephus Flavius on the flood.
9) Local flood indicated by Psalm 104, the “Creation Psalm”.
10) The original Hebrew words ‘kol’ and ‘erets’.
11) The usage of “whole Earth” (kol erets) referring to local geographic locations.
12) The usage of “whole Earth” (kol erets) referring to people and not locations.
13) If the text was trying to convey that the flood covered the entire Earth, then how would it have said it?
14) A brief opening look at the Genesis flood text.
15) The flood text language analysed.
16) In conclusion.
Genesis 6-9 relays a significant story of Noah, the Ark, and the Flood. Many Christians hold that the waters covered the Earth while others view it as local even in a region known to Noah. Many have pointed out that from both the Bible and science a universal flood interpretation is problematic. These same people argue that evidence seems to be consistent with a catastrophic yet regional flood.
This article examines the evidence from the given biblical traditions, historical sources, as well as scientific data.
2. An Ancient Way of Seeing the World.
Life some 4000 years ago was very limited and anything a person knew about the world would have been very narrow. What they would know of the “world” would be confined to a local geographical area in which they lived. No evidence would seem to suggest that these people explored the Earth or had any idea of the expanses of it at that time. For example, the Babylonian Map of the World, the oldest known world map that we have, depicts the world as two concentric circles containing sites of Assyria, Babylon, Bit Yakin, Urartu, a few other cities and geographic features all surrounded by ocean (1).
These maps suggest that people were mostly familiar with the regions surrounding their homelands. To say that something happened in the “kol erets” (as will be explained below) or to “all people” would have been a way to refer to the entirety of Earth and its population in a manner in which ancient Israelites would have been familiar. Scientist and evangelical Christian, Davis Young explains that “Given the frequency with which the Bible uses universal language to describe local events of great significance, such as the famine or the plagues in Egypt, is it unreasonable to suppose that the flood account uses hyperbolic language to describe an event that devastated or disrupted Mesopotamian civilization — that is to say, the whole world of the Semites?” (2).
3. The Scientific Data.
Underwater archaeologist Robert Ballard argues that the Genesis flood was actually based on real events (3). Ballard is quite prominent in his field due to his 1985 discovering of the Titanic wreck using some sophisticated robotic equipment. Concerning the flood Ballard says that “We went in there to look for the flood, not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed… The land that went under stayed under.”
In the expedition he unearthed an ancient shoreline which gave the impression of an enormous flood occurring around 5000 BC. Some experts believe that this was around the time when Noah’s flood may have occurred. Ballard examines the enormity of the deluge, saying that “At some magic moment, it broke through and flooded this place violently, and a lot of real estate, 150,000 square kilometers of land, went under.” However, even given that this was the flood that the biblical author mentions, Ballard does not think that we will actually find the ark.
If Ballard is correct then scientific evidence suggests that there was indeed some cataclysmic flood event, though further questions remain.
4. Scientific Issues for a Global Flood.
4a. The Hidekkel and Euphrates rivers.
A global flood would have changed the topography of the land. For example, if there really was a worldwide flood the Hidekkel, or Tigris, and Euphrates rivers of Genesis 2:14 would have disappeared under layers of flood-laid sedimentary rock. Yet, what we find is that the Euphrates is mentioned again after the flood in Genesis 15:18, and the Hidekkel is alluded to in Daniel 10:4. This suggests that given the accuracy of the biblical descriptions the rivers still existed. This would not be the case if a global flood actually happened.
4b. A Bucket Load of Water.
A subsequent issue is the amount of water that would be needed to flood the entire world. Further, the pressure necessary for the condensation of such a large quantity of water would have been fatal for all living creatures. The flood water is said to have risen from the Earth (Genesis 7:11), which makes it more likely that these terms were referring to irrigation canals where the “fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.”
4c. It’s a Mad Zoo.
It is incredibly doubtful that two million known species of animals could fit onto the ark. Some try to explain that this is possible “because the average size of an animal is smaller than a cat.” Even if this were entertained it still urges one to question how all the animals were fed, taken care of, and where all the resources were stored. Given the biblical tradition the dimensions of the Ark were 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits (Genesis 6:15). This suggests a very large boat for that day and age, but not big enough to carry such a massive cargo. Other Christians have argued that not all species were included but only the representatives of each different animal. However, this still represents a great number of creatures. Further, it would require that the evolution of related species be drastically accelerated after the flood in order to account for current diversity of species. No evolutionary biologist or any mainstream credentialed scientist holds to this view.
4d. Animal Migration.
How would all those animals have migrated after the flood to their habitats? It did not happen, and is why there are no traces of animal ancestors along the proposed courses of migration.
“Nevertheless, the stratigraphy of some of the Mesopotamian flood deposits, literature pertaining to Gilgamesh and ancient Sumerian cities, the New Eastern setting of the biblical account, and the obvious affinities of the biblical and Mesopotamian flood traditions all converge to suggest that there may very well have been a catastrophic deluge in the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys that severely disrupted the civilization of that area — a civilization that represented the world to the biblical writer — and it may be that this is what the biblical story is all about” (Davis Young)
6) Black Sea flood:
In the 1990’s a pair of Columbia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman concluded that a massive local flood took place in the area known as the Black Sea. They theorized that when the Ice Age ended and glaciers melted a wall of seawater surged from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea. This flood, which may have occurred around 5500 BC, would fit into the Old Testament timeline of Noah’s Flood.
Robert Ballard (mentioned above in point 3), led his expedition in 1999 in the hope of finding more evidence for this theory proposed by Ryan and Pitman. As mentioned above, they revealed an ancient shoreline for the Black Sea, and after radiocarbon dating, the findings supported their hypothesis that a freshwater lake and surrounding manmade structures were in place before the flood. Some difficulties and conflicts are evident as it is thought that 5500 BC would be too early for Noah to have used metal tools to create the ark, and the location of the Black Sea does not fit the Sumerian and Babylonian accounts of the flood, which strongly suggest that it took place in Mesopotamia.
This is why there is still ongoing interest for geologists.
7) What about the other flood stories that populate the word?
It is true that flood stories exist in all parts of the world, and it has been argued by literalists and Young Earth Creationists that this is evidence that the Genesis flood story was carried from the Middle East with those living after the flood to all parts of the world. However, although this is an interesting theory no evidence seems to suggest that this happened at all.
From an analysis of 61 flood stories from different parts of the world, and by comparing them together two men James Strickling and Byron C. Nelson concluded that eight people could not populate the entire world. It is, however, true that some of these flood stories bare striking resemblance to the Genesis flood, on this point Strickling comments:
“Either catastrophic flooding of global or near-global dimensions occurred more than once, or there were more survivors of the Great Deluge than one crew, or both.”
Byron Nelson, in 1931, compiled more than 41 flood stories and found that despite their remarkable similarities, there were also striking differences to them. For instance, only nine of the 41 stories mention the carrying of animals on the ship and only five mention that there was divine favour on those saved from the flood.
As the geologist Dick Fischer writes:
“However tempting it might be to attribute all those ancient stories to a one-time global catastrophe to conform with the traditional interpretation of the Genesis Flood, a literal reading of Genesis does not require it, and the unyielding revelations of nature and history disavow it.”
Also, the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states that the:
“Flood stories are almost entirely lacking in Africa, occur only occasionally in Europe, and are absent in many parts of Asia. They are widespread in America, Australia, and the islands of the Pacific.
8) The 1st century historian Josephus Flavius on the flood:
Some literalist Christians think that a local flood interpretation is a recent invention of those who are trying to reconcile science with the Bible. However, the first century Jewish writer, Josephus wrote about other writers who indicated that the flood was local and that some inhabitants survived by seeking higher ground:
“Now all the writers of barbarian [Greek] histories make mention of this flood and of this ark: among whom is Berosus the Chaldean… Hieronymous the Egyptian…. Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them, where he speaks thus: ‘There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote’.”
How revealing is this that a local flood occurred in history that seems to fit the Genesis account, and that “this might be the man about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote”? However, Josephus does not seem to correct any of the other authors’ narratives. So, the idea that the flood was a local event is not just a 21st century idea.
9) A local flood is seemingly indicated by Psalm 104, and other Bible passages.
Psalm 104 is called the “creation psalm”, as it describes and outlines the creation of the Earth as we read in Genesis 1. Just like the very first line of the Bible indicates the Big Bang expanding universe model (creation from nothing), so we also see stated in Psalm 104.
The water cycle is also described in the Psalm which is a parallel to Genesis 1:6-8. Then the Earth is described as a planet completely covered with water which is a parallel to Genesis 1:9. The verse in Psalm 104 that would seem to negate a global flood is:
“You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.”
So, if the waters of the ocean covered the whole Earth during creation, and then God set boundaries so that will prevent the waters ever crossing them again, then it seems to suggest that Noah’s flood was local in scale.
It is kind of like this syllogism (I like syllogisms):
- God creates the Earth and it is covered by water.
- God creates land and continents and promises never to let the water cross these boundaries again.
- Noah’s flood happened, and the water crossed these boundaries, therefore, God lied, was mistaken, or went back on His promise.
- Or, Noah’s flood was local, not global, and God’s promise that the water “never again will they cover the earth”, after He created water the first time still stands.
Now, some other Bible passages seem to suggest the very same thing as David wrote here, such as:
- When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth; (Proverbs 8:29)
- “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding… Or who enclosed the sea with doors When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; (Job 38:4, 8)
- By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses. (Psalm 33:6-7)
If one combines these various passages into one it certainly indicates a local flood, or these verses are compromised if one still holds to a global flood.
10) The original Hebrew words ‘kol’ and ‘erets’.
When one reads any English translation of the biblical account of the flood, they seem to notice certain words and verses that on their face seem to suggest that the waters covered all of Earth.
Let’s look at a few of these:
- “And behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.” (Genesis 6:17)
- “also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.”
- “but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark; for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took her, and brought her into the ark to himself.”
Rightfully so, the above verses seem to suggest a global flood that covered the entire Earth, however, the truth is that today we see things from a global perspective, but the Bible nearly always refers to local geography.
Yet, the Hebrew words which are translated as “whole earth” or “all the earth” are kol (Strong’s number H3605) which means “all”, and erets (Strong’s number H776) which means “earth,” “land,” “country,” or “ground.”
For example we see “kol erets” first being used:
- “The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold.”
- “And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush.”
Above it seems rather straightforward that “kolerets”, although meaning whole Earth etc., actually is referring to a local geographical location. It is also worth noting that kol erets is mostly used to describe local areas of land in the Old Testament, and not the entire Earth.
11) The usage of “whole Earth” (kol erets) referring to local geographic locations:
Often in the Bible when we read “whole Earth” the author actually means a local area, the following verses suggest this:
- “Is not the whole [kol] land [erets] before you? Please separate from me: if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left.”
-Here the “whole land” was only referring to the land of Canaan (the Promised Land).
- “And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.”
-Obviously this is not referring to all the people of the Earth, or we would be lead to think that people from Japan went to Egypt to get food.
- “Behold, I (God) am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all [kol] the earth [erets], nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you.
-There would be no need to add “nor among any of the nations” if “all the earth” was referring to the entire Earth.
- “So when they had gone about through the whole [kol] land [erets], they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.”
(2 Samuel 24:8)
-This group to not venture through the entire Earth, but rather through the lands of Palestine.
“And all [kol] the earth [erets] was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart.”
(1 Kings 10:24)
-Obviously it was not all the people of the Earth seeking for Solomon.
- “Then the fame of David went out into all [kol] the lands [erets]; and the LORD brought the fear of him on all the nations.”
(1 Chronicles 14:17)
-So would those living in South America know of David? Clearly this is not referring to the entire Earth.
- “And they were bringing horses for Solomon from Egypt and from all [kol] countries [erets].”
(2 Chronicles 9:28)
-Obviously the Japanese were not shipping horses over to Solomon.
- “Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land.”
-Here the law does not apply only to those who own the entire Earth.
- “behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken.”
-In this verse kol erets could not be referring to the entire Earth, since it would not be possible for Gideon to check the entire earth.
- “And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, “Let the Hebrews hear.””
- Samuel 13:3)
-Obviously hyperbole is being used as Saul could not have blown a trumpet loud enough to be heard throughout the entire Earth.
- “For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured.”
- Samuel 18:8)
-This battle did not take place over the entire Earth.
It’s rather obvious that the above examples (and the listed ones below) of “kol erets” do not refer to the entire Earth but rather to a local area. Out of over 200 uses of the world kol erets in the entire Old Testament only 40 of them suggest or refer to the “entire Earth” – even many of the 40 instances are debatable.
For more examples see: Job 42:15, Psalm 45:16, Psalm 48:2, Isaiah 7:24, Isaiah 10:23, Isaiah 13:5, Isaiah 14:26, Isaiah 37:18, Jeremiah 1:18, Jeremiah 4:20, Jeremiah 4:27, Jeremiah 8:16, Jeremiah 12:11, Jeremiah 15:10, Jeremiah 16:15, Jeremiah 23:3, Jeremiah 23:8, Jeremiah 23:15, Jeremiah 25:11, Jeremiah 32:37, Jeremiah 40:4, Jeremiah 40:11, Jeremiah 45:4, Lamentations 2:15, Ezekiel 20:6, Ezekiel 20:15, Ezekiel 22:4, Daniel 8:5, Daniel 9:7, Zechariah 5:3, Zechariah 5:6, Zechariah 13:8, Zechariah 14:10, for further reading.
12) The usage of “whole Earth” (kol erets) referring to people and not locations:
There are many examples of where kol erets is used without reference to any specific land, although it is clearly indicating a local area. For instance in the Tower of Babel narrative we read:
“the whole [kol] earth [erets] used the same language.”
This seems to refer to a local area in which the people involved lived and worked, and certainly not the “whole Earth” of all the people. Other examples that suggest kol erets seems to refer to people rather than the geography of the land, or “whole Earth” are:
- “Shall not the Judge of all [kol] the earth [erets] deal justly?”
-Here God judges the people of the Earth, and not the Earth itself.
- “Now behold, today I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets], and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the LORD your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed.”
-Here Joshua is going the way of all people in the Earth whose ultimate destiny is death.
- “And all [kol] the people of the land [erets] entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground.”
(1 Samuel 14:25)
-The words “the people of” are added to the English, since they are not found in the Hebrew. The actual translation would be “all the land entered the forest,” obviously referring to the people and not to the land itself moving into the forest.
- “While all [kol] the country [erets] was weeping with a loud voice, all the people passed over.”
(2 Samuel 15:23)
-Hyperbole is obviously being used here as the Earth/country “cannot weep with a loud voice”.
- “I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets]. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man.”
(1 Kings 2:2)
-Here David is going the way of all people in the earth whose ultimate destiny is death.
- “Let all [kol] the earth [erets] fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.”
-Here the text is referring to people, and not planets that fear the Lord.
Other passages that invoke the very same language are 1 Chronicles 16:14, 1 Chronicles 16:23, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 66:1, Psalm 66:4, Psalm 96:1, Psalm 96:9, Psalm 98:4, Psalm 100:1, Isaiah 14:7 – this is if you prefer further reading.
13) If the text was trying to convey that the flood covered the entire Earth, then how would it have said it?
The Hebrew word that would most likely have been used to convey the message of a global flood would have been “tebel” – tebel is found 37 times in the Old Testament. However, this word has never been used to describe the flood although it is used to describe the creation of the Earth and the judgment of the peoples of the Earth.
14) A brief opening look at the Genesis flood text:
Genesis 6 and 9 tell us that the Earth is corrupt. Genesis, as well as the New Testament clearly tells us that God’s judgment of humans is universal. Yet, outside of Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:5, we are dealing with localised geography (for example the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11) as all of the places indicated fall within the Mesopotamian flood plain, or Mesopotamian Basin. Therefore, Noah’s flood narrative is seen in Genesis 7, thus indicating that it was local in scale and outside of Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:5.
We can also see that the flood narrative seems to use many universal descriptions that suggest global proportions. However, this cannot be the case as the universal text seemingly contradicts itself if we are to interpret it on a global scale. For instance, in the Genesis narrative we read that all flesh had become corrupted. However, the same passage tells us that Noah was a “righteous man, blameless in his time”. It is clear from the text that “all flesh” did not actually refer to all flesh, since there was at least one exception.
15) The flood text language analyzed:
In the Genesis flood narrative we read the phrase “the face of the earth”, yet this is the exact phrase used by Cain when he was banished by God in Genesis 4:14. Obviously we are not being lead to think that Cain was banished to space, or some other place off Earth.
The Genesis narrative also reads that “the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth” (Genesis 7:17). If “earth” really refers to the planet, this text would imply that the ark somehow levitated above the planet. Obviously “earth” refers to the local land in which the ark was situated, and not to the actual Earth.
In Genesis 7:20 we read, “The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.”
There are two points of issue with this single text, for instance, the Hebrew word “ma‛al” is seemingly translated as “higher”, yet actually means “upward”. So, the text is saying that the flood was 15 cubits (20 feet) deep, in total, and not 15 cubits above the mountains.
Secondly, where English translations have the Hebrew word “har” referring to mountains, it is actually on most occasions refers to hills in the Hebrew language.
According to the flood narrative we see that in the tenth month, the mountains became visible to Noah (Genesis 8:5), 40 days later (Genesis 8:6) Noah sends out a dove from the ark (Genesis 8:8). However, the dove was unable to land because of all the water (Genesis 8:9).
Then the text tells us that water was “on the surface of all the earth”. This is an example of a bad translation of kol erets (entire Earth) as, according to the text itself, we know that the water had not covered the mountains for at least 40 days as the “mountains” became “visible” to Noah (Genesis 8:8).
From this it is clear that kol erets must be referring to local geography and should not have been translated as “all the land” or “all the ground”. All our English translations make this same error, and because of this it is no wonder that people who read the English translation of the Bible “literally” come to the conclusion that the flood must have been global.
Now, let’s consider Genesis 8:
“So he waited yet another seven days; and again he sent out the dove from the ark. And the dove came to him toward evening; and behold, in her beak was a freshly picked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the water was abated from the earth.”
Now, think of this logically, if the ark had come to rest on the top of Mount Ararat (Genesis 8:4) this would be at 17 000 foot elevation (very high).
However, olive trees do not grow at 17 000 feet. In fact, you will not find olive trees growing much above 5,000 feet, and therefore, we know from the Biblical texts itself that the ark did not come to rest on the top of Mount Ararat, but rather somewhere on the foothills of the mountain much lower.
Another piece of circumstantial evidence that suggests the flood was most likely local would be that the water receded, and was dried by the wind. If the flood were global, there would be no place for the waters to recede to – where would all that water go? Likewise, a wind would not significantly affect a global flood, this only further suggesting that the Genesis flood was local in extent.
Another problem for the global flood interpretation is what happened to the “earth” after the flood, the narrative clearly states that the Earth was “dry”. Here “earth” in the following verses does not refer to the entire planet:
“…the earth was completely dry. Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth.”
“After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth.”
“Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth.”
“By the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth.”
“and in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.“
“By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.”
If one were to interpret these verses from a global perspective, one would have to conclude that the entire earth became a desert after the flood. Obviously this cannot be true, so the English translations must be offish. In these verses, the dryness of the earth is obviously referring to the local land area of the flood and not the entire planet earth.
“In all these and other Bible passages the words translated as “all the world,” “the whole world,” “every nation under heaven,” and “all over the world” refer to geographical or geopolitical regions somewhat less extensive than planet Earth’s entire surface.” (Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe)
16) In conclusion:
What I have tried to convey here is that from Scripture, history, and science is that a global flood is not what was indicated by the Genesis account. Much of the evidence presented stems from Scripture itself and how the original Hebrew indicates that the flood was not intended to be global in scale, but rather local within the known world of Noah – our modern English translations have mistranslated the original meaning of the Hebrew words that God revealed to Moses, and it is for this reason that literalists seem to think that the flood was global.
As I showed above, if we try to fit the Genesis flood into a global phenomenon it contradicts itself with other Biblical verses. Also, the lack of global references in the book of Genesis through chapter 11 (with the exception of Genesis 1), reveals that all the early events of Genesis occurred in a small geographic area. Not only is the global flood Scripturally problematic, it is also both scientifically and historically impossible. No evidence from a historical standpoint seems to suggest that anyone living at that time knew anything of the bigger world, as we saw with the oldest historical map that we know of, the Babylonian map. Scientifically, the problems for a global flood only get worse as we analyse it, as I presented it above. We also noted that the world “tebel” would have been used if Moses wished to convey that the flood was really worldwide in scale, this word was not used and, thus, indicates to us that the flood was not intended to be global in scale.
ALorence G Collins concluded in his article, “Yes, Noah’s Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth” (4):
“If the 3.4-meter–thick layer of flood deposits in southeastern Mesopotamia (MacDonald 1988) represents a huge flood of ancient times, and if it is the remnants of the one described in the early Babylonian epics, then the authors of these epics were likely survivors who lived in a village on natural levees on the lower parts of either the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers where the flood waters covered their village, natural levees, and adjacent flood plains for distances of 160 to 320 kilometers so that no land could be seen, and their “whole world” would have been under water.”
Hugh Ross, “Exploring the Extent of the Flood: Part One”, Reasons to Believe, http://www.reasons.org/articles/exploring-the-extent-of-the-flood-part-one
Hugh Ross, “Exploring the Extent of the Flood: Part Two”, Reasons to Believe. http://www.reasons.org/articles/exploring-the-extent-of-the-flood-part-one
“How should we interpret the Genesis flood account?” Biologos.org, http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood
Rich Deem, “The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible says it must be local.” GodAndScience.org. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
Greg Koukl, “No Global Flood”, Stand to Reason, http://www.str.org/videos/greg-koukl—no-global-flood#.VLKNfnuEKQE