Bruce Jones – Is Genesis 1-11 Historical and Accurate?

Written by on June 27, 2016

Mars Hill Network
Mars Hill Network
Bruce Jones - Is Genesis 1-11 Historical and Accurate?

Part Seven – “The Sole Survivors of the Flood”


As I continued my research on this topic I discovered some other excellent apologetic arguments to defend a biblical interpretation of a universal flood. For example PC proponents often denounce despite the evidence we saw last week and discredit the idea of a universal application of the word “all’ by quoting Luke 2:1 which reads “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world be taxed.”  In their view it should be obvious that literally not all the world was taxed meaning every last person. So they argue that since the whole world wasn’t enrolled the flooding of the whole world need not have been involved in a universal flood. Ok so let’s use that logic with Romans 3:23 where it says “all have sinned”. Now of course we know that isn’t true because like Genesis, the plain literal sense makes the most sense. And if we were in doubt we would look at the context where it says” no not one” to then confirm our interpretation, which we can repeatedly do in the Genesis account. If we consult secular Greek literature at the time we would find that the Greek word was often used to refer specifically to just the “Roman Empire” so in context then Caesar did take a census of the whole world, the whole Roman world. Then again they may quote Genesis 41:56 and I Kings 10:24 where global terms are applied to local conditions but if this form of explanation were to be applied to anyplace else then we would end up with what one author calls “a mockery of Scripture” such as being applied to God as Creator of all the World when in fact using this faulty hermeneutical method He is only the Creator of middle east or Mesopotamia as PC’s would have to believe. And another argument against the PC view is that if the word is used over and over again for clarification and conformation it is especially made clear when other qualifiers are used in context like (a) the flood was “everywhere under the heavens” plural for all the heavens above all the earth. Or (b) everyone died ‘in whose mouth is the breath of life” If this explanation is not convincing enough let’s look at other texts that comment on the universality of the flood.


And as we do I must point out that there is also a serious question of integrity when PC apologists claim authorization for their views from a study of Hebrew, which of course puts the reader at their mercy because they don’t know Hebrew and neither do I even though I took a summer course. So here is where I do depend on scholars one of which points out this misrepresentation in a few of the Genesis texts. Here is an example. In Genesis 7:19 the text says “and the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth and all the hills that were under the whole heaven were covered” Now just one observation. If you read in the paper a similar report that “the enemy overran our troops on an Island and all our troops were slaughtered” would you be able to read into that that there were survivors? I don’t think so. So the PC reinterpretation of this text claims the word high is not in the Hebrew (and for me even it were not the all-inclusive word all rules out any exceptions to the case so high or low mountains qualify). The fact of the matter is the word is definitively used in the text so we have an ignorant or maybe intended misrepresentation of the text. Then one more point is that this same author says the text represents the limited view of Noah but this information could not come from him as looking out of his window he could see or know that “all the high mountains were  covered everywhere under heaven”. Only God who authored the text could know that. And then as we interpret scripture by scripture that Old and New Testament confirm that there were no survivors of a universal flood except Noah, his family and animals.


Isaiah 54:9 says “For this is like the days of Noah when I swore the waters of Noah should not flood the earth again.” Then in Jeremiah 5:22 we read “For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, so that it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail, though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it.” Now as I see it, it’s absolutely unacceptable to alter the meaning of these texts to propose a local flood when it would hardly be applicable to thereby hold back the waters of the sea if we were only talking about a local flood. The highest flood I know of was in Albany in February 1857 when the highest flood ever recorded was only 21.71 feet high (certainly not 17,000 feet high like Mount Ararat).


Then there are a few New Testament Texts to look at as well. There is Matthew 24:37-42 also recorded in Luke 17:26-27.  In Matthew 24 38-39 and Luke 17:26 Jesus says “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away” And Luke 17:26 ends the same quote with Jesus saying” the flood came and destroyed them all. Let’s be honest with the text that Jesus says as a result of this flood it “took them all away” and “destroyed them all. Now go to the text in Genesis again and underline how many times the word ALL precedes the word “flesh” or “the earth” showing how universal this flood was. Then 2 Peter 3:6 says “The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” It was not a “natural flood” not a supernatural one. And the text does not say the local Mesopotamian area perished. It is clearly a universal event for the whole world, called elsewhere by Peter “the world of the ungodly.” By the way the Greek words used here are those from which the English word “cataclysm” comes, an unusual flood. Which brings me to another Bible truth. No amount of science or supposed scriptural interpretation can dissuade me from saying that the subjects of this judgment by a flood were the ungodly of the day and only.“Noah and his family” were “saved.” 1 Peter 3:9-says after Jesus died “He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,  who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. “destroyed them all”. And one more observation from this text is that it is compared to the final judgment and “destruction of ungodly men” (2 Peter 3:7) To close this argument in favor of a universal flood I must refer to 2 Peter 3:3-5 which says knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished”


And if that isn’t enough there is another line of reasoning based on Scripture that agrees with the proper interpretation of Genesis 6-8 and that is what follows. Now to be consistent I must point out that the King James Version of the phrase “to refill” the earth is not in the original, but I think I can safely say it is implied in the text when God simply says to “fill” the earth. But again in Genesis 9 God only makes a covenant with Noah and his descendants (seeing they are the only survivors). And again we see the terms (a) “every” animal three times included, (b) the location being “the earth” there times and then (c) the phrase “all flesh” five times. To reinterpret these verses as PC advocates want to do is to not only discredit the account but deny it outright. So as I have already said, if this is a local flood then God has reneged on His Word because we have had many local floods since and He mislead us by the plain words He spoke.


Now this is a somber warning in that it tells us of those in the latter days who say ‘all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation, which in the context clearly means they reject “that the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.”  Of course in chapter two it says ‘that God did not spare the ancient world when He brought a flood upon the world of ungodly” but He did spare Noah and seven others. If we are willing to take this warning seriously it says that those who deny these facts are called “mockers will come mocking following their own lusts” The living Bible says they will “laugh at the truth” and no doubt laugh at those who hold to that truth. Would this fit the description of those who call us “stupid bible thumbing literalists”? The amplified Bible says these “scoffers” will say “all things have continued as they did from the beginning of creation” whose words seem identical to those who today say there was no universal flood, only a local flood. I intend to take that warning seriously and I hope anyone hearing this broadcast will do the same.


Download the Transcript

Current track