Gavin has recently produced way more thoughtful, scholarly and well produced videos on more theological topics than is reasonably possible for a single person in a short time frame. I can therefore only conclude that he's been cloned multiple times.

Thank you for putting out this series. I am a nonbeliever, but still very interested in religion and am often frustrated that people on both sides of the aisle will talk only in literalist terms. I know many atheists who have only thought through aspects of religion from one perspective, so I am always interested in learning about these thoughtful interpretations that are different from the ones I grew up with.

Gavin, I’m a devout Catholic who finds himself so throughly impressed with you. The quality and content of your videos are among the top in apologetics. The lengths to which you go to both respect the science and uphold the faith, without compromising either, is remarkable. I have truly learned so much from you. I just want to thank you for your contributions to the origin-like story and helping the faithful see how despite some of the details, the Christian can still find good reason to believe it, and more importantly, the Christian faith to be true. Thank you, truly.

In other parts of the Bible, God told people to migrate to avoid disaster. The fact that God commanded Noah to build a ship indicates that the flood was unique in its scale. It does not force us to insist that every spot of land was covered by water, but it strongly implies that there was nowhere that Noah could reasonably migrate to, or at least nowhere within the African or Eurasian landmasses. Likewise, in 2 Pet 3, the Flood is compared to both the Creation of the world (in which the same waters were used) AND the final destruction of the world by fire; both global events.

As an aside, as a Catholic myself I expect that your new book on Protestantism will ultimately be one of the most substantial apologetics for it in our modern age. I mean this as a compliment.

It's very fascinating that there are stories about a great flood and a man making himself a boat for himself and animals in various tribal cultures as far away as Australia and the Americas. It's not just people groups from the Middle East area, but even peoples from all the complete opposite end of the world. One Aborigenal tribal flood story has the man builing a raft and taking a bunch of animals with him, and at the end he builds an altar and sacrifices a Kangaroo, which I find fascinating in both it's similarity and difference to the Noah story.

If the Genesis flood story is a local/regional flood account, how should we then interpret the covenant God made with Noah (and with all future generations)? God said, "never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth," and "And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh" (Genesis 9:11, 15). How do we reconcile the existence of local/regional floods since that time? Did God break His covenant?

It's instantly a better day when Dr. Ortlund uploads.

as someone who has been deconstructing for several years and really doesn’t identify as a christian any longer, i have been looking for a long time for a channel with this measure of level-headedness and theological competency without any snarkiness towards those with other perspectives.

I came into this video very skeptical, but I am pleased to say that you made your case very well. I’m still not entirely convinced that a local flood is the most natural reading of the text, but you bring up many good points. One consideration I would like to bring up is a thought experiment that you often use in your hermeneutics of church history. Some of the ways that Genesis describes the flood seem so universal, that it begs the question, “how could they have said it that would mean it was a universal flood.” As one example, here is Genesis 7:21-23 “And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.“ The examples of other seemingly “universal” instances in Scripture are compelling. However, I must ask, how could the author have written it so that it would be understood as universal if not with this language? I’m not sure about this myself, just a thought

You asked for a response. 1. For TEN MONTHS the waters decreased CONTINUALLY. 2. The dove could not find dry land. Not local. After 10 months decreasing. 3. Earth was destroyed and ALL flesh. 4. Rainbow is promise of God. Is it local rainbow or global? If all flesh doesn't mean all flesh then if someone ever died(man or animal) in Local flood, that would BREAK rainbow promise. Which cant happen. 5. After Ten months THE TOPS of mountains were visible. 6. Promise of harvest and heat and cold are GLOBAL. There be no need to worry about them in local flood. 7. They are told to breed abundantly IN THE TEXT, its not additional. 8. As in days of Noah, So also is coming of Son of man. Is Jesus judging LOCALLY or whole world? 9. The flood shows world baptism. Can unsaved people survive without Jesus in the judgement? No. There only one door on Ark showing Jesus is the Only Door to be Saved. In local flood then you can survive without Jesus in your beliefs which is false. 10. You mention evolution and fossils. Thats what real problem is. You want to get along with everyone. Whosoever s a friend of the world is an Enemy of God. Do you want to be Bill Mahers friend or be a friend of God. Fossils do not support evolution. Out of order fossils are common. Its far more difficult for them to explain whale graveyards in desert and sea life on top of mountains. But to keep it short. The Giant subducted cold slabs in the earth prove global event that cant happen slowly. The massive dinosaurs drowned in mass graves. The mixed habitats show flooding and so on. Bent rick layers, interbedded layers, and so on. Its overwhelming. You want more? 11. You mention the various flood stories. A local flood story cant spread that far. But more problematic you even have people of Europe tracing their ancestry back to Noah and his sons in multiple genealogies. Not flood stories, just keeping track of their lineage. Not going to happen in local flood. And so on.

Hi Gavin, a brief response here from a YEC Anabaptist. First I want to say thanks for your great videos and modeling irenicism to all of us! Thanks for your willingness to be honest with your thoughts on controversial topics! It’s good to reexamine our Bible interpretation when there seems to be scientific conflict, but reexamination of scientific interpretations is healthy as well. I think we can make great progress when we come at it from both directions, and both ends of the issue should be addressed as we help those who are struggling with this as they consider Christianity. Argument 1: כל הארץ doesn’t always mean the whole earth in other passages, but rather the whole known or inhabited earth. Response: I agree that it doesn’t always mean the whole literal earth (though I would probably argue that it does mean the whole earth in more passages than others would be willing to grant). In this passage, it is just part of a cumulative case along with lots of other very universal sounding language. IP Argument: “the surface of the whole earth” can’t mean literally every bit of ground since the phrase is used in 8:10 about the dove just after saying in verse 5 that the mountain tops were sticking out. Response: I think we should give the author some grace and have the good sense to let immediate context determine meaning before distance context. Obviously, they intend an exception here for mountain peaks since they just said it. However, it would be a bit irresponsible to project that exception back onto the rest of the story, especially when 7:19-20 makes the coverage of mountain peaks explicit. (I’m also not sure how mountain peaks are covered in a local flood, or how a local flood carries a boat up into mountains to land.) IP Argument: The water obviously didn’t dry up from the whole earth since we still have oceans, so again “all the earth” must not mean “all the earth.” Response: While “earth” is used in 8:13-19, the specific phrase “all the earth” or “the whole earth” is not, so I’m not sure where the argument lies here. The context seems clear that the author is just speaking of earth as in the ground, which is supposed to be dry. Gavin, thanks for the interesting note that Josephus saw the flood as local. It is interesting that he suggests that other humans survived the flood, a particular point that the New Testament strongly indicates did not happen (1 Peter 3:20, Luke 17:27, Matt 24:39) I’m curious if any church fathers agreed with Josephus? Argument 2: Don’t multiply miracles. How did they get all the animals without a miracle, and how did the animals get back? Response: The text itself indicates a miracle here. The animals “went into the ark” with Noah as if they were directed by God to come of their own accord (7:9, 15). Creation scientists usually assume a Pangea before the Flood, with less extreme and diverse habitats, so that it wouldn’t have taken a transportation miracle, only an instinct miracle for all the animals to get to the boat. (Also, fossils of animals closely related to those only known in Australia and surrounding islands have been found in Asia and Turkey.) Other “miracles” mentioned are hibernation of animals on the ark, formation of mountains in the flood, rapid speciation after the flood, and others. Probably the most important thing to mention here is that global flood theories and studies on these things do not posit miracles for these events, but natural processes. That’s the whole point of their study. They assume a miracle to kick things off (the animals coming to the ark in the first place, the flood beginning at all) just as all Christians assume for creation itself. Then natural processes take over from there, as happens with any miracle. For those who are interested, Institute for Creation Research usually has stuff that’s a little more in-depth than AG, and they have some great flood geology research going on.

I really appreciate this video. One minor criticism, as a former (very devoted) YEC I don't find the miracles aspect to be especially convincing. Most YECs believe that the supercontinent Pangaea existed before the flood, with the flood being the cause of the continental divide. Each new objection you raise also seems to assume that the standard YEC positions already mentioned aren't true. There would be no reason to assume polar bears would be on the ark, for example, if the "kind" = "family" paradigm is true, which I still take to be at least a plausible reading of the text. That being said, a lot of the arguments you presented in this video are the type of biblical arguments that moved me away from the YEC position. I really enjoyed it!

Nice video. Thanks for the shoutout!

How do you understand Peter’s usage of the flood in 2 Peter 3?

Gavin, I used to think like you on this issue of old vs. young earth, as well as the Flood, but that was before I made a deeper dive into the actual science that is coming from young-earth creationists, not only from Answers in Genesis, but also from the Institute on Creation Research. I think the problems you pose for a young earth perspective are answered with much better answers than we get from modern atheistic science. The entire materialistic and naturalistic perspective that dominates modern science is falling apart. What do you expect from those who are bent on a denial of God? The Bible declares them to be fools.

I grew up going to a small nondenominational church that had several notable speakers come for about a week at a time. I remember they had Ken Ham come out there and give something like 3 talks during the week. I had always thought we had to rigidly believe a literal interpretation of the Bible, mostly because of how I was raised. I am more interested in understanding the Bible clearly now more than ever, and these videos have helped a lot. Thank you.

Bill Maher laughing at and mocking the Noah story and anyone that puts any credence in it is no way to convince anyone. I am a geologist and believer in an old world, but your approach to this is admirable and deserving of commendation. Your channel is great. I am happy to become a subscriber.

Considering that scientists tell us major increases in seas levels, as well as catastrophic events, occurred in many places as the ice age came to an end and the polar ice sheets melted, the idea that such events might exist within human memory is not too hard to consider.

When you said "How did all the insects survive?" My only response is unfortunately.

Wonderful video, Mr. Ortlund! I’m a freshman in college, and this video is such a great blessing to me and my faith. May God bless you abundantly, sir. :)

A flood that covers Mt. Ararat would still be global, but not cover the Himalayas, the Rockies, and a few other areas. People who argue for a local flood have not considered the topography of the world without redefining all sorts of terms. For example, you have to claim the mountains are small hills. On top of that, the local flood people still can't explain the flood lasting so long, why the ark needed to be so big, or where all the water came from, because a glacial lake wouldn't fill the area significantly.

I don't think Gavin is compromising, but I do think allowing some young earth creationists come on an interview with Gavin would help provide some perspectives from the young earth standpoint, because I do find that most of the objections raised by Gavin here have already been addressed with a reasonably satisfiable answer by the young earth side.

My biggest problem with a local flood is as follows: -If the flood were local, why would God make Noah spend decades (possibly a century) building a boat to escape a flood instead of spending those years migrating out of the flood's area of effect?

Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, certainly didn't think it was local (II Peter 2:5 and 3:6). And the Noahic Covenant basically becomes incomprehensible if we insist that flood was limited to a region in Mesopotamia. Maybe go to Kentucky and pay attention to the mountain of information they have there. It is more compelling and voluminous than what's being presented here. All of these alleged problems are more-than-adequately addressed.

2 Peter 3:5-6 "For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water."

Gavin there are secular geologists who believe there was something like a global flood and we find stories of a global flood in cultures all around the globe.

This used to be a major stumbling block for me, until I learned to try to read the bible for the context and message it was conveyed in, then I no longer worried if the earth was 6000 or 15 billion years old that wasn't the point of the creation story and the ones who wrote it probably didn't know or even consider the age of the earth. Once i learned that i learned to focus on what God was telling us through the text not on some mere points of curiosity that will not impact our eternal fate.

Appreciate your kind approach. What is your take on Gen. 8:21? "And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." Which "all" would that be? Thanks.

I appreciate your humble tone that you take with these potentially divisive issues. Not a lot of scholarship being made public and accessible on these things, which is why I support you on Patreon. Keep it up 🤘

I appreciate that Gavin is pushing back on the idea that a global flood should be an indicator of orthodoxy, which I think is good. But I think this goal would have been serviced better if the arguments for both sides had been presented. One of the main reasons I see for a global flood is that it fits better with the purpose of God for the flood. It says that God regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and that he would wipe them out, and the same went for the animals. After the flood, God's covenant is with man and all living creatures, not to destroy them by a flood, and that the cycles of the earth would reliably continue. If the flood were local, I feel this covenant would most sensibly also be local. And the flood is compared to the coming judgment of Christ, which is of course global. I don't think it is a good argument to say that you need more and more miracles, not explicitly given in the text, to explain a global flood. God brought the animals, Noah was probably not an expert ship builder, and it says God sealed the door. I imagine that God miraculously held the ark together. I think when the text says that God brought the animals, and that God's purpose was that they would be preserved on the ark, we can assume that other miraculous things may be involved. We do see other periods where the miraculous seems gratuitous, like the pillar of cloud and of fire for the Israelites in the wilderness. That doesn't mean we don't have to consider evidence from the natural sciences, because God's work is still rational even when miraculous - we shouldn't assume the miraculous specifically to explain why something doesn't match the evidence. I personally wrestle with this text - actually mostly I wrestle with the fact that the scientific evidence as presented by science is hard to reconcile to the text. I land on the side of taking the text to mean what seems more obvious to me - a global flood - even if I can't explain how to reconcile that to scientific observations. But I agree it shouldn't be a test of orthodoxy and shouldn't affect our opinions of other believers.

I feel like all of Gavin's videos address exactly things that I have wondered about or struggled with. Covering very relevant topics in a very thoughtful way.

The argument against rapid speciation post-flood is odd. Within a few hundreds of years look at how many dog breeds we have with such vast morphological differences had we not seen it ourselves we would have categorized many or possibly most into different species if we came along later and discovered them. To say this type of rapid speciation is unlikely or impossible because of a few wild canine species is ironic

This topic is not controversial among Christians. The Bible clearly states in literal terms that the entire Earth was covered And that no living thing survived that walked the Earth.

Reasons to Believe was a great resource in investigating the "local vs. global flood" issue. When I read Hugh Ross's *Navigating Genesis,* I was convinced the flood is local--after 20 years of being a young-earth, global-flood creationist. The text leaves ample room for this interpretation, as Gavin carefully explains.

I nearly wasn't going to respond as there is so much to respond to! However, if I were to try and sum up what I wanted to say it would simply be this. A lot of what you said was based on the idea that there is no text to support the 'additional' miracles. When I read the creation story it is mind bogglingly simple. When I read the parting of the red sea, it's mind-bogglingly simple. Just because the text doesn't say how God bought the animals to the ark, or returned them to their original location, or fed them with special food etc etc etc, doesn't mean God is not eminently capable of doing all that and more. The point is there are so many examples in the Bible where God doesn't 'explain' to us how it was done. He really doesn't have to. Compared with creation the whole flood episode is child's play in terms of miracles (miracle being defined as something inexplicable). I believe that we are just becoming too concerned about what the world thinks, and for Christians who struggle with doubt about such incredible events I would say the problem is a limited view of the reality of Almighty God. Finally, I would say that when God says he will destroy all mankind, He means all. And when He says He will bring every kind of animal, I will take Him at His word. Because if He didn't, then he's a liar. I am not a fundamentalist by any means, and these issues I also struggle with and try to my best to think through. But honestly the scripture that comes to mind is a paraphrase of Genesis 3 where the serpent said 'Did God really say that?' and so, sewed his doubt. BTW.. still love your stuff Gavin, but just can't agree on this one.

Why are you treating Bill Maher like he's a serious critic, though? And why would we try to appease someone like that? He is not someone to whom Christian should want to give an inch. If he, in his unregenerate state, firmly believed X about God or the Bible, it would make me less likely to believe X, not more.

As a young-earth creationist, I have benefited from Jason Lisle's book "Understanding Genesis." You might consider inviting him on your channel.

Thank you for being so thoughtful and taking a concern to be respectful to everyone, Gavin, no matter what the belief about Noah's flood. In the past, I've been appalled by the scorn and mocking displayed by some who support a global flood concept. I've also wondered if this scorn carries over for the children brought up in that atmosphere. They get to college, and encountering greater scorn and mocking displayed by professors there for Biblical texts, they are persuaded by the familiar tone and give up belief in Scripture altogether. For them, they've learned that truth claims show disrespect for anyone who disagrees, and this makes it easier to be persuaded to change. This is a much better tone to adopt as a follower of Christ, and I appreciate it greatly.

Calling it a “known-world” flood (known by humans at that time) vs a “world” flood seems to solve the problems.

Gavin has once again provided us with a thoughtful, carefully researched topic. This kind of theological consideration, that is so specifically Biblically based and reasonably presented, is so needed. This is another example of helping me understand a topic that I have not had the chance to research at this level before. Gavin, you are a blessing to us all.

there are stories of great floods in many different cultures for example native australian aboriginal and native american cultures

Haven't watched the video yet (I'll likely play it in the background while I work), but I do have a question and some immediate thoughts. [EDIT: I watched the video. My thoughts after watching it are stated in my first reply to dennis9423 down in this thread.] Since God promised never to flood the entire earth again, how could anyone say the flood was local? Since many local floods are happening all over the world, wouldn't that mean God broke His promise? Plus, I would say a local flood assumes naturalism and that God cannot or does not have any plausible mechanisms for achieving such a flood. It's not rational to look at present geographical data and judge from there whether the flood could have happened naturally or not, because it wasn't a natural flood in the first place but a supernaturally driven catastrophic event. And whatever clearing (i.e. draining) mechanism for the waters God used, that also would be an event involving natural things being manipulated or controlled supernaturally. No doubt God used natural means, but it was sustained by God Himself supernaturally nonetheless. Asking whether the flood is local or global when the concern is reconciling it with naturalism is like asking whether the donkey really spoke supernaturally or if there had to be some natural mechanism that somehow changed a donkey's vocal chords into that which resembled human vocal chords so as to produce human speech. It's a category error. We simply have no obligation to explain to the naturalistic thinker how a supernatural event could have taken place. If you can get them to believe in a God who created everything from nothing, why should they stumble when we talk about global floods or talking donkeys or men rising from the dead?

This is a controversial topic indeed! More controversial than it needs to be. I used to be a young earther myself, for a long time. Grew up in a very young-earth church environment, even visiting the ICR museum occasionally, which was local to where my family lived. I just want people to realize that old earth views can and are held by devout, conservative evangelicals, who take the Bible to be the inspired and accurate Word of God, as you do, and as do I. Keep up the excellent work, Gavin!

I have a question from which i've never heard any attempt at an answer from the OEC camp. Why is the flood account and tower of Babel always grouped in with the creation account as primeval history. But statarting with Abraham we have a more literal history. I see no transition between genesis 11-12 to think that anything before chapter 11 should be considered a different type of history than what follows chapter 11. Why do OEC including the flood and tower of Babel in this section. it seems arbitrary to me.

I have heard people claim that the Flood was a localised event, but with very little backup, so I remained unpersuaded. I don't know that I fully lean one side or the other, nor do I feel I know enough to make such a decision, but this is the first I've heard a detailed, well-reasoned argument in a localised flood's favor. Thank you for your presentation, as well as your graciousness in presenting it.

Wow, I wrote a text a few days ago saying that Noah's flood is one of the most difficult things in the Bible for me (not so much because of God's judgment, but from an archaeological point of view). Many times, fruitful central discussions about Jesus have shifted to less fruitful discussions about Noah when I have talked with non-Christians. Many have said that if the Bible and Christianity rests with the global flood, then all of Christianity can be given a funeral. At the very least, I hope that this discussion can be left as a tertiary question. True Christians can disagree about the extent of the flood etc.

Thank you Pastor Gavin - this was so helpful. Your ministry has taught me to read my Bible slower and deeper. It’s also revealed that many biblical beliefs from my childhood were not grounded in Scripture and took many liberties with the text. PS I just started “How God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t” And already I’m grateful for your humility in “spoon feeding” the readers a bit. Many of us are not scholars, but we are hungry! And this is beyond helpful for us. Thank you - it’s apparent your goal is to glorify our Heavenly Father.

This is one of the hardest topics. I remember while I was still a Baptist that this issue was one that nearly broke friendships. People really do feel it makes or breaks the faith. I only kept some friends by having long discussions about "literary" vs "literal," and that focusing on what material form the events took place in leads to not seeing the theological claims. They were still uneasy about it, but it helped when they saw things that could be true in both lines of reasoning but which they could not see because they were focused on being literal.

I had come to the "local flood" position myself some years ago. My thinking was partially the logistics of storing and caring for representatives of every animal on earth, and partially what might have been meant by the term "whole world". If the point of the flood was to wipe out mankind and start over with Noah and his crew, and if mankind had not yet spread out over the globe, then you really only needed to flood the areas where we were found. Dr. Ortlund has, of course, done a better job of researching and thinking this through than I did. It's good to see wider support for this view, especially backed by careful reasoning along with respect for Scripture.

All over the globe we have the same sedimentary layers continents wide. Most of the same animals burried in those layers on those continents. And that itsself points to a global catastroph/flood Even without the bible to tell us so. Im not saying that to belive in a global flood is required for salvation. But remember satan loves to twist scripture. Thats what he does. And Christ rebukes satan with scripure. So i am taking this to be a true account as stated. Just as Christ says in the begining He made them male and female. Meaning one man and one woman forever. Not man and man, woman and woman, not divorce, etc....

I will mever understand why gavin doesn't have more subscribers. He's amazing.

Many blessings to Ps. Gavin, Esther and their kids; hope they are settling in well in a new place. Now, look away Ortlund kids, Father Gavin is in big trouble, haha. 😅 I honestly don't have any problem with 'kol erets' being *able to mean* a certain land or something akin to 'the known world', I just think it's incongruent with the context in multiple ways. Saying it's a linguistic option in some cases in no way establishes that usage. That's like saying that 'blue' can mean depressed and therefore the song about 'blue skies' is secretly a blues song despite its upbeat melody and other optimistic lyrics. You have to make a positive case and I didn't see that being argued from the text. I also don't think you can even make the same argument to neutralise a statement like Gen 7;22 "Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died." It seems that this passage is contrasting the beasts of the land, crawling things etc to the creatures of the sea as we saw in the Creation account. This phrase 'the dry land' isn't designating a region based upon the known territories of nations at the time, it's the natural way of describing land as opposed to sea(as seen in Haggai 2:6). It's also clear that the land is no longer dry at this point so it only works as a referent to the pre-Flood land that was dry contrasting to the existing bodies of water at the time. It's not addressed here but what do local Flood proponents think the text means by mountains being fully immersed if this took place in some sort of basin area? The table of nations pertains to a much larger human spread than could possibly be contained by any geographical feature that we know of, not least of all because it spans continents and these flood waters would naturally drain into the ocean without building up for 40 days as claimed, nor persist for months afterwards. I noticed this problem in IP's original video, along with others. Seems the only justification offered is obfuscating the progression of the flood waters rising and receding in Gen 7-8. That's just bad exegesis; I was as disappointed when Michael did this originally as I am to hear it quoted on Truth Unites. The face of the Earth being covered when we already know the waters have gone down somewhat at this point doesn't require mountains to be covered, it just requires reading the passage chronologically to see what is happening. Really sad to see IP stumble so badly on this one. The very mountains that are exposed in 8;5 were previously covered and are therefore implied to be lower than Mount Ararat which the Ark has been resting on for almost 3 months at this point. So it's either a problem for both views or 'face of the Earth' simply doesn't include mountains that have already been mentioned as having their tops exposed. It seems no matter what size the flood plain was, for there to be mountains that were fully covered within the region(Gen 7;20) there must be significantly larger mountain ranges surrounding the entire area for this to occur in terms of the depth of flooding. The only thing left seems to be the Local Flood advocate adding miracles which are not specified in the text, the very thing Gavin is accusing Global Flood advocates of doing. There's also the question whether the people at the edge of the 'known world' could simply evacuate once the waters start rising. God says he was going to destroy them all. I appreciate that Gavin genuinely believes that this is a 'permissible and responsible' reading and maybe if you're willing to take it as hyperbolic and somewhat allegorical there's some way to do that, but I don't think you can hold that the account is historically "truthful" by the local Flood view so I'd say rejecting the Global view necessarily pushes you to mythologise early Genesis as a result. It also seems superfluous to involve the local animal populations at all when there have been *billions* of species driven to extinction over time in the Old Earth perspective. They could also just migrate in the 50 years it took the Ark to be built.

The local flood theory cannot consistently account for all of scripture (Gen 6-9, Isa 54:9, Matt 24, Luke 17, Heb 11, 1 Pet 3, 2 Pet 2-3). The local flood theory only nitpicks the Genesis account but totally fails to address the rest of scripture.

This video helps me see how literal interpretations, instead of literary interpretations, can sometimes lead to misinterpretations of hyperbolic language. Thank you for making it!

I recently had these thoughts when our men's group was studying Exodus. The plagues use similar (or the same?) language talking about everything dying in the whole land/earth, but then the next plague has more of the same stuff dying.

Hi Pastor Gavin, just got to know about your channel. Truly blessed by your content. I'm an old earth creationists born again believer. God bless.

Great job brother! When joining RTB's scholar's community this was my only hesitation only because I had not sat down and done the research you just presented. I will do my follow up work but you did a great job and answered some of the questions I had. I am a former colleague of Mark Rooker and Ken Keathley - and still friends!

I am one that thinks the flood was global flood. But I do agree with you that the most important thing is getting to know God the father thought his son Jesus Christ. I will not argue with anyone but one reason is that there was birds taken onto the ark ? Why take them if it was a local flood ?

Gavin, I know you got hammered by the CNs (of which I am one) on Twitter for this. But you’re right and I appreciate your handling of it. Don’t worry.

It seems convenient that one doesn't have to commit to a boundary for a localized flood. We're informed in Genesis chapter 7, verses 19-20, that "...the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep." The implication of these two ideas is that there was a wall of water sustained in some shape around the perimeter of the flood. So whether it was a slope or a sheer wall, there would have been a field of "God energy" maintaining the height of this boundary around the flooded land. That, certainly, would be an "extra," unmentioned-but necessary-miracle. You also mentioned the objection that if the flood were local, why would God have Noah build an Ark at all rather than migrate with his family and the animals? One response in the comments I've seen is that it's just an allegory for a safe space from God's judgment, but simply moving to another region of land (Russia, for example, although I'm not saying that all the landmasses as we know them were the same) would also fulfil this idea. If the flood didn't eliminate all other spaces, making an Ark doesn't make good sense when another, unflooded region of the world could have served as a safe space from God's judgment well enough. With that said, I do appreciate the humility and the repeated assurances that you're not trying to mock people who hold to a literal interpretation, which is important for the goal of lessening division.

As always, much appreciated for your work and graceful approach. Your new library is sweet. A tour of what’s on your shelves would be awesome!

Finally someone is preaching on this !!!

As someone who has wrestled with and changed my mind on this issue, I very much appreciate seeing thoughtful engagement on it. I feel like this issue gets less press than others but is still one that bothers many. I saw Dr. Ortlund quote from what I think is one of the best resources discussing how a non-global view of the flood could be biblical, "The Lost World of the Flood" by John Walton and Tremper Longman III. I find their arguments more helpful than most, especially their suggestion that the language of the flood is semi-apocalyptic and intended to sound universal, much like many other judgment passages in the Bible that address local events but are talked about in universal terms. While knowing the range of meaning of the word "land/earth" is helpful, I don't think that alone addresses all the "global" language of the flood story. If any follow-up videos are done, I would love to hear the Walton/Longman contribution interacted with.

Hi Gavin, you’ve mentioned in the past getting a YEC advocate on the show. Could I suggest someone like Paul Garner, Ken Coulson or Marcus Ross? I think you’d have a really productive conversation with any of them.

There is so much here to respond to. I think for now I’ll limit my response to: your main thesis, two key issues I think you did not address, and the incomplete nature of local flood interpretations. Main thesis: I agree that this is not an orthodoxy vs. heresy issue. Many local flood proponents are godlier men than me. I would argue that this is not even the kind of thing that churches should divide over. That’s a fairly modest claim and I’m not sure how much we even need to get into evidence for either view to reach that conclusion. I already agree with your thesis even though I think the evidence for the local flood view is not good. So perhaps the content of your video was quite ambitious relative to your modest thesis. Two key issues not addressed: 1. What are the implications for a local flood interpretation on the character of God? A local flood puts most of the fossil record before the Fall, which means God created a world full of natural disasters, and diseases like cancer and arthritis in animals before Adam’s sin (as observed in the fossils). This is the main reason the global Flood is considered important; it’s not just some fundamentalists stubbornly insisting on a wooden literalistic reading of the text. 2. What are the implications for a local flood interpretation on the doctrine of perspicuity? If you couldn’t find one Church Father to support your view (and even the Josephus passage is ambiguous) how can anyone reasonably be expected to find this view in the text. I think your case was extremely weak in this area. And what should the author of the flood narrative have said to more clearly communicate a global flood? Surely the text teaches that at least the mountains of Ararat were underwater? What’s the elevation of those mountains and what would that imply for the extent of the Flood? This leads nicely into my final point. Local flood interpretations are incomplete: Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the case for a local flood is typically being made by attempting to poke holes in the global flood and YEC paradigm (often without a good understanding of the paradigm being criticized, I might add), rather than by making a positive case for a local flood model that explains both the details of the biblical text and the scientific data. So the Black Sea flood, for example, doesn’t fit with a judgment on all of humanity, and probably not with the idea that the water covered the mountains of Ararat. Are OEC and theistic evolutionist scientists coming up with their own local flood models that fit the details of the biblical text, or looking at animal migration to and from the ark, or counting numbers of animal kinds that the local flood would have required to be on the ark? I haven’t seen anything like this. So is there a workable model out there somewhere, and if so, what miracles does it require that are not in the text? That would be a more fair way to compare the local and global flood interpretations. Thanks for the video, Gavin, and God bless you and your family in your new home.

As a global flood guy, I think there are some compelling arguments here. The one thing I would call attention to is the assumption that all the various life forms back then were identical to now. The argument that the ark story necessitates packing into it a myriad of life forms we see now, is reading outside the text. On the other hand, I've often wondered why the middle east going west to the Sahara is all sand, but surrounded by vegetation. On the other hand, global catastrophic tectonic plate shifts is not unreasonable. And I don't care much for the argument that animal types would necessitate rapid evolution at lightning speed. Science shows novel types can appear in as little as one year. Lots of assumptions on both sides, but It's fascinating to consider a regional flood, or other. Well presented Gavin! Btw I wish someone would challenge the idea of coring. I don't buy all the conclusions.

I encourage everyone to apend more time with Dr. Michael Heiser's teaching. His unifying theory of the Bible is compelling.

I was looking forward to this one ever since you published that list of possible future topics. It’s even better than I expected. Thanks for all of the effort in the research and for the carefully thought out and delivered arguments

While I do believe the flood was global. I have no problem with people who read it as local.

You should have inspiring philosophy on the show to talk about this. He made a great video regarding the flood being local as opposed to a global flood

To allow for two mutually exclusive and opposing views on a previously uncontroversial core narrative would be a major step backwards. Jesus said the Spirit would lead us into all truth. What is proposed here implies that the Spirit cannot, or chooses not to enlighten basic matters of doctrine. Would he rather have us in a confusion now?

I enjoyed your presentation. Solid content presented concisely and clearly, as well as humbly and winsomely. Well done. Food for thought!

At about minute 26 you state something like how different animals from all over the world would “need” to be “miraculously” transported to the location of the Ark. I would contend with this idea as it assumes a more uniformitarian thought process (things have always been as we observe it currently) on this particular contention. I can see no reason why all of the different “kinds” of animals couldn’t be in the near the vicinity, but you’d have to consider two things: 1) the pre flood world was markedly different than what we observe today, take for example the size of some land animals and the fact that in today’s atmosphere they could not survive. 2) it is not necessarily true that every “species” of animal need be on the ark, rather two of every kind. Meaning, it’s not necessary for arctic wolves, and timber wolves, and, dingos to have two of every kind, rather it’s only necessary for two “dog” kind on specimens to have accompanied Noah. There is too much to contend in this format, however, I would encourage you to consider this topic further than you have. I want to finish by saying that your channel has been a GREAT blessing to me and I really appreciate your candor. Thank you brother, and may the peace of our Lord be with you.

Good job. A quick video on Luther, Calvin, and the early Protestants versus Copericus would also be helpful. I like the title, From Calvin to Kepler

Local flood, incoming. Noah just walks away from it.

John Walton has the best quote for addressing things like this: "The event itself is not inspired but the interpretation of the event is."

Hey, Dr. Ortlund I think you put together a thoughtful case and I’m not intending to refute it. It’s a very well done video. I do think a couple things were missed however. 1. Belief in a global flood is almost always associated with young earth creation (to my knowledge). The “rapid evolution” is a common belief for young earth creationists. We believe the variance in adaptation is much more limited than evolutionists would say but that the changes happen much more quickly (we actually see some evidence of this), so that wouldn’t be miraculous from our perspective. 2. We do see biblical evidence that the earth changed more than just rising water levels: “[O]n that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth” (7:11). Also, some, including myself, believe Psalm 104 may refer to the flood when it says, “The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that [the waters] may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth” (verse 8-9). I know others see this as exclusively referring to creation, but it was God’s promise to Noah that the waters would not again cover the earth (9:11). 3 I don’t think the Bible lacking specificity in all that took place to make the flood event possible is evidence against the global perspective. Unless the account were about all the scientific and miraculous details, we wouldn’t expect to see them either way, making this an argument from silence that doesn’t really work. I appreciate it if you made it to the end. Again, great video. I don’t think this refutes your perspective, but it may help the dialogue. May God continue to bless your ministry!

Great video. I think there is a very good argument for the great flood being a "local flood" which covered all the AREA, as you mentioned with the rivers, but still covering the entire human population which had not been spread at the time. Interestingly this could explain both the existence of Atlantis as destroyed by a flood, and explain a lush green north Africa where crocodiles existed in the Mediterranean which has been supposed too, and the great flood as having happened close to 2600 bc. Lush Africa is said to be 3000 bc, and Plato was around 350 bc told about Atlantis as being 9000 years ago by a Egyptian priest. But the Egyptians had a different calendar, and interestingly 9000 seasons would have been 2600 bc. Which could connect with Mauritania having a original king Atlas around the Atlas mountains, with the Riyadh structure being a possible site of ancient Atlantis. It could also then explain the lack of a need for every species on Earth being in Noah's ark as the flood did not include then the Americas, Australia or Antarctica. This could explain the countless of flood myths with almost every people around the world, and why there is virtually no historical evidence of human civilization before 2600 outside of "the area". It could also explain the possibility that Noah's ark may have been found at mount Ararat in Armenia. There is plenty of cause and reason to believe that the people in the America's arrived there between 2600 bc and 600 bc. Also the Indus Valley civilization collapsed around 2500 bc supposedly, and it is close to this time too that we actually have evidence of a beginning of civilization in China. This would seem a strange coincidence since both ancient China, India and the America's also had ancient flood myths. Obviously none of this is conclusive, but it is a possible and likely explanation assuming that atheist today like Bill Mayer has more reason to mock and lie, than the people in the Bible, the ancient Egyptians, historians and Plato. My point is that this could fit and still be within the realm of what science can explain and prove, what the myths and legends say, and what the Bible say. The only part which would not fit into all of this would be the assumption of Neanderthals, Cave-men and Dinosaurs. But Dinosaurs was not even found or mentioned until 1841 and dating methods are unreliable as the c-14 in carbon dating is not and can and should not be concluded to be consistent. In other words this last piece of information I think is very likely to be the one lest likely to be true, despite the fact that we have fewer people to verify those accounts. But even atheists and scientists today would agree that it is not the amount of people who believe in something that matters, but rather the quality of the evidence to support the belief. And what is so often forgotten in looking for evidence, is the cause and motivation a source might have to be truthful or not.

If the flood was only a local flood, then was the covenant God made with Noah, promising he would never again destroy the earth by flood only a local covenant?

Hi just found your channel and loved this video. Thanks so much was very well presented, thought out and helpful!

Very good and tracks with my own arguments. I'd actually be a bit stronger and say that the context of Genesis 2-11 is all Mesopotamian (with perhaps some Levantine), wherever we have actual geographic markers in the text. This STRONGLY implies that the purview of the Flood in chaps. 6-8 is in this region: While global flood proponents point to chapter 1 (the creation of the whole universe) as the Flood context, this misses that the narrative pivots in chapter 2 to the creation of a specific locale, the creation of the Garden located by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, so explicitly Mesopotamia. In chapter 10 we get the Table of Nations. And 9:19 implies this is "the whole earth" in view. Then we get the Tower of Babel, again Mesopotamia. Then we come to Abraham's migration out of Ur, in Mesopotamia. So 2-11 are all setting the table between creation and Abrahams story, which picks up there. It is not a stretch, indeed it is almost certain, that this would have been understood as Noah's "land".

Speciation occurs quicker than you think. “When a scientist name John Gould studied rock wallabies in Australia in the mid-1800s, he could only find six different species. Today there are at least 15 different species of rock wallaby. The formation of new species in only 100 years shows us that it does not take a long time for the species of animals to come about.” There was plenty of time for all of the species of animals we have today to have derived from their ancestors that came off of the Ark.

Also another thought, if Genesis was intending to communicate a global flood, are there clear ways the text could have made it clearer. The unique word מבול is especially interesting.

Actually, the Bible is clear on whether the waters covered the earth: Genesis 7:19-- "And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered." What on this earth is higher than the mountains? What is more clear than "everywhere"? And two opposing views cannot both be true, and therefore cannot both be orthodox.

This is so good! Thank you so much, and I completely agree with you that we don't need to try to require beliefs from people who may be struggling with the text, beyond what is actually written. Hugh Ross helped me understand Genesis in such a way that made it possible for me to open my eyes to the entire bible when I had been closed off to it before. You are doing the same kind of work and I'm convinced this is important, God-glorifying work. Now I'm going to binge all of your videos and share them far and wide!! 😊

I always understood the flood as happening to Pangea, and then afterwards the continents drifted apart. This would explain how people groups and animals got to be where they are today. Obviously this has its own problems, but that's what made sense to me growing up

For me to make sense of the flood narrative, I consider the "why". God was grieved that He made mankind and wanted to wipe them out (saving Noah and his family). So the flood, it seems to me, went where the people were.

I always appreciate your uploads Gavin! Thank you very much for a well presented view of a local flood.

A local flood is NOT “orthodox!” The VERY FACT that God instructed Noah to build an ark and had the animals go to the ark, shows that the flood WAS GLOBAL! If it were merely local, God wouldn’t have had Noah build anything perhaps except a wagon- because he could have taken the years it took to build the ark to move to the non-flood area! There is simply no case for a local flood. It’s not surprisingly complicated, Gavin! Also, from a anti-type and allegorical perspective, Given what the flood represents, and the ark represents, if you say that the flood was merely local that means that that the sin and the coming judgment on sin is not universal, and you say that the ark and the salvation offered in Christ is not the only way of deliverance.

My Catholic mother-in-law really likes your videos, but one thing that keeps her Catholic is the sacrament of confession/penance. Do you have a video about this? If not, would you consider doing one? Thanks 🙂

How does the idea of a local flood impact one’s understanding of the Noahic covenant? We have had many local floods since then, so has God kept His promise? And is the Noahic covenant between God and all of creation or is it restricted to the region impacted by the flood?

To those who believe in a global flood, do they take that Genesis 41:57 means people crossed oceans to get to Egypt for food too?

I would love to see you get into the science part of this thing. Maybe have a couple guys on from each side like a Hugh Ross and a Jason Lyle type. This stuff is fascinating. Love your content, you always make me think!

This was very interesting. I'm not sure where I stand on flood discussion. But, I REALLY appreciate your insights. I love hearing different positions and learning from them. One counter point, though. According to the text, God caused the animals to come to Noah. That was a miracle given in the text. It follows that He would cause them to go out, spread, and multiply, even though it doesn't specifically say so in the text. So, it is the assumption of a miracle, but it may be a reasonable assumption. Also, there's good discussion of the genetic development of humans at Answers in Genesis---actually two playlists, maybe 3. But, they were very interesting. Keep doing what you're doing. It's awesome work.

This channel is a big reason that I am keeping the faith. I have struggled my whole life with fundamental evangelical interpretations of scripture and how their affirmation determines whether you are Orthodox or not. Much appreciation Pastor Ortlund. One topic I struggle with is non homo sapiens people groups. Where do they fit in scripture and God's plan. Thanks again.

Yeah but if literally the whole planet was flooded that would be pretty badass

In reply to @legodavid9260: On the similarity between the Biblical account of the flood, and other flood stories of various nations/cultures etc: Let us for a moment take the Noah story to be true, and follow a natural line of reasoning based upon it: 1-Noah and his family experienced a dramatic, world changing event. They are now the Only people left alive. All of them Personally witnessed said event. 2-- This event would naturally have been related to their children, just as our parents/grandparents relate their histories to us. The difference being that, as they were initially a small group, this story would have more easily have stayed with all of them. And no doubt, the Ark and effects of the flood were likely still plainly to be seen for a long while. 3 -- This story continues to be told to further generations. The various branches of the family break off and become various nations, and some of those nations turn to foreign gods. Yet in spite of this, through the centuries the echoes of the flood story remain in their minds, and somehow it weaves its way into every conceivable myth or religion that man contrives. Conclusion: How could there NOT be a version of the flood story mentioned in every religion?

Two things to say, when you spoke about the miracle argument, I instantly thought about John Calvin, he believed in some miracles like that the door of the ark would be too heavy for Noah so God would close it instead. Second, about the "whole earth" language in the bible you're right, even as a yec i did noticed that before. Good video!

Gavin, another great video. My pastor is global flood, whereas I’m probably more on the local flood side. So this was very helpful to understand the other side. Also would you ever consider doing a video with Michael Jones (InspiringPhilosophy) as he’s thought loads on this issue.