HUGH ROSS AND A NON-WORLDWIDE FLOOD OF NOAH

Did Noah’s flood cover the entire planet earth and destroy all of the animal life in the process? Citing astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, Christian Post argues that the flood was not worldwide:

·       [Hugh] Ross, a proponent of old earth creationism, argued against the claims of young earth creationists that the flood covered the entire Earth. https://www.christianpost.com/news/did-the-flood-of-noah-cover-the-entire-earth-hugh-ross-on-what-the-bible-says.html

However, the Genesis account explicitly states that the flood was worldwide:

·       And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” (Genesis 6:13 ESV)

Not only would all flesh be destroyed but also the entire earth in order to accomplish God’s purpose of destroying all flesh except what was in the ark:

·       “For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.” (Genesis 7:4)

The flood waters rose 15 cubits (22 feet) above the highest mountains. This meant that they covered the entire earth:

·       And 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. (Genesis 7:19-20)

·       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. (Genesis 7:23)

How then does Ross defend his notion that the flood wasn’t worldwide? He claims that it was only intended to destroy the ungodly:

·       if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly. (2 Peter 2:5)

Although the ungodly were the cause of the worldwide flood, this doesn’t mean that the flood was limited to the ungodly.

Ross also cites Psalm 104 in support, claiming that during the time of creation, God had pledged that He would NOT allow the waters to cover the earth again as they had prior to the six days of creation:

·       The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth. (Psalm 104:8-9)

Ross explains:

·       "So there's an explicit statement, once we've got continents on the face of the earth, never again are we going to return to a water world."

However, this promise seems to pertain to God’s promise to Noah after the flood waters had receded and not to the creation account (Genesis 1:2):

·       “I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth…I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.” (Genesis 9:11-15)

It seems that Ross, with the help of the Christian Post, are straining, without Biblical license, to argue in favor of a non-worldwide flood, but why:

·       When non-Christians discover that the Bible does not teach that the floodwaters covered the whole earth they are more open to considering its claims as a serious, inerrant document, Ross explained.

Why would an argument in favor of a non-worldwide flood make it easier for unbelievers to believe the Bible? Simply because modern scholarship opposes the idea of a worldwide food!

However, if the Church is devoted to winning people to the faith by demonstrating “our agreement with the modern scholarly consensus,” then just about everything in the Bible has to be modified – the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Ascension, Hell…

This also raises the question, “Perhaps we are not leading people to believe in Jesus but in another Jesus, a popularized version of Jesus?”

Perhaps this strategy creates an even more serious problem. Loving God is the greatest Commandment, and this is a matter of keeping His Word (John 14:21-24), even when unpopular. We are therefore instructed not to conform His Word to the tastes of this world but to conform their philosophies to the unchanging Word of His Gospel:

·       Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:2)

·       For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)

Instead of being the light to the world, we are allowing the darkness of this world to extinguish our light. Consequently, Ross’ strategy has a long and disastrous history in the Church.