National Geographic Makes False Assumptions About Noah’s Flood

Genesis 6–9 describes the worldwide judgment of the flood of Noah’s day. The Bible tells us that the fountains of the great deep burst forth and it rained 40 days and 40 nights covering the whole globe with water (Genesis 7:12). All living things God had made were destroyed except for Noah, his family, and the animals that were brought aboard the ark.

The biblical account mentions that all the mountains were covered and that this was a global catastrophe (Genesis 7:18–20). Waters were upon the earth for about a year after the flood began. When the earth was dry, Noah and his family disembarked from the ark, which was then resting on the mountains of Ararat.

Noah and the flood are mentioned in the prophets (Isaiah 54:9; Ezekiel 14:12–20), the Gospels (Matthew 24:37–38), and the epistles (1 Peter 3:20; Hebrews 1:7). In all these cases, Noah is presented as a historical figure who showed great faith and lived through a historical judgment from God upon the world.

The second episode of National Geographic’s series Lost Treasures of the Bible explores the archaeology of ancient Mesopotamia, primarily the ancient city of Uruk. The narrator asks the following questions: What did Uruk look like during the time of the flood and what did the landscape look like? Could the Euphrates River be responsible for a “great flood”? What were the roots of this legend?

We will examine this episode utilizing our three questions of discernment: How do they treat the Bible? What primary sources do they use? And what assumptions do they start with?

How Do They Treat the Bible?

Earlier sources outside of the biblical account are treated as superior and more reliable.

National Geographic treats the first five books of the Bible—including Genesis—as later writings. Because of this, earlier sources outside of the biblical account are treated as superior and more reliable. They also believe these five books were compiled by several authors—a hypothesis that undermines Scripture’s authority.

What Primary Sources Do They Use?

In this episode, National Geographic opened the program with a summary of the biblical account but quickly turned their attention from the Bible and the details it recorded and focused instead on the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Sumerian kings list, and Eridu Genesis as primary sources of information.

Epic of Gilgamesh

The most complete version of the Epic of Gilgamesh was written during the seventh century BC. This document records the tale of one of the kings of Uruk (Akkadian, or Erek in Hebrew), Gilgamesh.

Gilgamesh Epic tablet XI “Flood Tablet”.
Photograph by Mike Peel., CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh epic records a massive flood that destroyed all living things except one man (Utnapishtim) and his family on a vessel that he was instructed to build. The city of Uruk, according to this tablet, was established before the great deluge and then was rebuilt with Gilgamesh being one of the many rulers after the catastrophe.

Sumerian Kings

National Geographic next looked at an ancient record of the kings of Sumer. The Sumerian kings list contains the name of Gilgamesh. If Gilgamesh was a historical figure, he would have reigned over Uruk after the flood (according to the biblical timeline this would be shortly after 2300 BC).

This is an image of the Weld-Blundell Prism, one of the best-preserved copies of the Sumerian kings list, dated to 1800 BC.
Photograph by Stephen Herbert Langdon, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

National Geographic summarized the information from the Sumerian kings list in this way: “The Sumerian kings list records the great flood as historical fact; this echoes the Bible’s claim that it took place before the foundations of cities like Uruk.”1

Eridu Genesis and Other Myths

The “great deluge” is mentioned in multiple ancient texts such as the Atrahasis Epic, the Eridu Genesis, and the Sumerian story of Ziusudra. National Geographic views the account in Genesis as no different than any of these other ancient myths and therefore categorizes it as a mythology with some aspects of reality embedded within.

Ark Tablet

“Ark Tablet” contains ancient instructions for how to build a round (“Gufa” or “coracle”) ark.
Photograph by Thamizhpparithi Maari, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The next source National Geographic referred to is known as the “Ark Tablet.” This ancient tablet records instructions for how to build a round ark called a “Guffah” or “Coracle.” They then utilized ancient building techniques to reconstruct this vessel. This was my favorite section of the episode because I love experimental archaeology and the process of creating a working construction of the past.

After replicating a small portion of a vessel in the same ancient building technique described in the tablet, they determined that the method was suitable for withstanding a flood; however, the size of the vessel in the “Ark Tablet” was far too large and would have proven structurally unsound. Therefore, they concluded that this tablet was used for scribal exercises for students to practice writing rather than recording historically accurate instructions for this great vessel.

I was disappointed that nowhere in the episode did National Geographic look at the biblical text and try to replicate what the ark of Noah could have looked like. Instead, they assumed that the biblical text was derived from these other ancient manuscripts, and they stopped short of completing the investigation with the biblical account itself.

They stopped short of completing the investigation with the biblical account itself.

What Assumptions Do They Start With?

National Geographic assumes that the biblical account of the flood was derived from earlier myths. Since National Geographic holds to a naturalistic worldview that rejects the supernatural, they seek to fit the archaeological and geological evidence into their own framework. They assume that the flood of Noah was not global because these ancient texts describe vessels that would not withstand a flood of that proportion. However, the biblical account is very clear and precise in its wording that the floodwaters covered the whole earth, and not a living creature was left that was outside the ark.

According to the secular timeline, the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia existed before the biblical date of the flood. Genesis 10–11 document the origin of all civilizations as they spread from the area of Mesopotamia after the flood and the tower of Babel event. We would therefore look to the fossil record that lies all over the globe as our evidence for a global flood before the establishment of major civilizations. However, because of their greatly inflated dates for the geological layers, as well as ancient sources and sites, National Geographic does not look in the right places or time for the evidence of Noah’s flood.

Digging Deeper

The book of Genesis is foundational to our understanding of the world and its origins. Genesis provides us the answer to “why” the world is the way it is today. If you reject the historicity of the supernatural, biblical creation account, then the rest of Scripture is undermined.

National Geographic interprets the data through a naturalistic lens. Rather than looking at stalagmites and soil samples taken from Uruk and northern Iraq (as National Geographic has done), we would look much deeper into the geological record for evidence of a worldwide catastrophe. These local samples represent a post-flood environment not evidence of the great deluge itself.2 However, because National Geographic dates these deeper geological layers to be millions of years old and not the result of a global catastrophe that occurred only thousands of years ago, they do not even consider this as evidence supporting the biblical account.

The authorship of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) is attributed to Moses who wrote the events following the Exodus event. National Geographic does not agree with this understanding of authorship. Instead, they claim multiple, later authors had a hand in writing down these accounts. This theory of how the Pentateuch is written, though unnamed by National Geographic, is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.3 This hypothesis undermines the authority of God’s Word and directly contradicts what other biblical authors believed about the authorship of the Pentateuch. Joshua, who took over leading the people after the death of Moses, wrote that Moses had indeed written down the Book of the Law of Moses:

Just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the people of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, “an altar of uncut stones, upon which no man has wielded an iron tool.” And they offered on it burnt offerings to the LORD and sacrificed peace offerings. (Joshua 8:31)

The Bible is God’s precious Word, and it sheds light on the truth of the origins of the world, why there is suffering and death, and God’s plan.

Within the field of archaeology, I am surprised that there are still archaeologists who believe that Moses couldn’t have written down the Book of the Law after he led the Israelites out of Egypt. Numerous writing systems existed at the time the Exodus occurred, and Moses was educated and brought up in the household of Pharoah. Why would it be unreasonable for him to write down what the Holy Spirit inspired him to write and share with the Israelites? It is not far-fetched; in fact, there is evidence of alphabetic script that very well could have been used by Moses and the Israelites. The Bible is God’s precious Word, and it sheds light on the truth of the origins of the world, why there is suffering and death, and God’s plan.

This episode is a prime example of how our presuppositions determine where we look for our data as well as our understanding of the data. National Geographic stopped short of completing the investigation of Noah’s great flood and dismissed the biblical account as being a later adaptation of ancient Near Eastern myths.