Nothing New Under the Sun

“Theologian Claims Noah’s Flood Was Regional, Not Global”

“Noah’s Ark Controversy: Theologian’s Genesis Flood Claim Ignites Social Media Reaction”

The news articles reminded me of this verse: “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

It was amazing to me that the articles and various responses on social media seemed to suggest his views are a big new controversy. But certain theologians claiming Noah’s flood was local and not global is nothing new. This compromising belief has been around for a long time, particularly since the rise of naturalism in the early 1800s. It’s a view that the world is billions of years old and the fossil layers are the result of millions of years of processes.

Answers in Genesis has answered such false teaching that the flood was local in many articles over the years.

Now, Answers in Genesis has answered such false teaching that the flood was local in many articles over the years. (For example, “Was the Flood of Noah Global or Local in Extent?”)

Gavin Ortlund has recently produced videos on YouTube critical of my stand on God’s Word in Genesis. He objected to my claiming that those who interpret the days of creation as long time periods start outside of Scripture and bring ideas about old ages to Scripture, thus forcing them to reinterpret the clear teaching of Scripture. Now, he claims he is starting with the text of Scripture. In the same video series, however, he gives many reasons why he believes the earth/fossil layers are millions of years old. And that was exactly my point. He has refused to acknowledge that his interpretation of Genesis was being driven by the fact he already believed in millions/billions of years.

What Ortlund does to the Genesis text is eisegesis, driven by his commitment to an old earth/universe. What we do at Answers in Genesis is exegesis—starting with Scripture and letting the words speak to us in context. We don’t impose ideas from outside of Scripture as Ortlund does.

In regard to the claim Ortlund makes that Noah’s flood was local or regional and not global, we would claim he is again being driven by his commitment (which he clearly admits) to believing in an old earth of millions/billions of years.

Once Christians believe the fossil layers were laid down over millions of years, then they can’t accept Noah’s flood being global as that flood would have destroyed those fossil layers. Thus, they have to make Noah’s flood a local event.

There really is nothing new under the sun here. What Ortlund is doing has been done before many times by those who accept the beliefs of geological evolutionary naturalism and try to fit them into Scripture.

Read Genesis 7 for yourself and see if that sounds like a local flood event! And remember, in Genesis 9 we read how God said the rainbow would be a sign of his covenant with man and the animals that he would never flood the earth again as happened at that time. But there’s been many local floods since. What we haven’t experienced since is a global flood.

Noah’s flood was global, worldwide, covering the entire earth—we know this because Scripture makes that clear.

Noah’s flood was global, worldwide, covering the entire earth—we know this because Scripture makes that clear.

My counsel to Gavin Ortlund: “Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?” (Isaiah 2:22).

Also, if quoted correctly in the news articles, I believe Ortlund and I have a different view of Scripture itself. He seems to emphasize that humans wrote the Bible and therefore their knowledge of the time is reflected in what was recorded. For instance, he’s quoted as stating, “All of us are responding to the progress of science and knowledge about planet Earth and having to adjust our interpretation of Scripture accordingly.”

But the Bible is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). And even though humans wrote down the words, they were inspired by God to write God’s infallible Word. We need to be reminded of what God through the Apostle Paul stated: “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Frankly, Ortlund suffers from what I call “intellectual schizophrenia.” He has one way of interpreting Genesis (eisegesis—starting with man’s belief of millions of years) but then a different way (exegesis—starting from Scripture) for the rest of Scripture (e.g., the virgin birth, resurrection, etc.).

Remember, man’s science has never shown a human woman having a virgin birth or that a man can rise from the dead! But Ortlund wouldn’t then say we have to reinterpret the virgin birth or the bodily resurrection of Christ.

The devil knows that Genesis 1–11 is foundational to all doctrine, the rest of the Bible, the Christian worldview, and in fact, everything.

The devil knows that Genesis 1–11 is foundational to all doctrine, the rest of the Bible, the Christian worldview, and in fact, everything. I believe that’s why there’s been such an attack on Genesis 1–11 in this era. And let me clearly say: just because someone believes in millions of years and a local flood and rejects the literal days of creation doesn’t mean they are not a Christian. Salvation is conditioned by faith in Christ, not what one believes about the age of the earth or the reality of a global flood. But by compromising God’s Word in Genesis (and that is what Ortlund is doing), he is undermining the authority of the Word of God.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.