Despite the incredible theological implications conveyed in the scriptures concerning the person and work of Christ, if Jesus did not physically and bodily rise from the grave, then he is still dead—and so is all subsequent Christian theology and faith.23 No mere resurrection of Christ in the “hearts” of the people, nor some sort of mystical resurrection “within the ‘kerygma’” will do it; if God-the-Son did not become physically incarnate in the human being known as Jesus of Nazareth and did not die on the Cross of Calvary (located at a specific geographic site just outside the walls of Jerusalem) and literally rise from the dead (in every physical and bodily sense), then there is no salvation available. Moreover, if that were to be the case, then all of Judeo-Christianity is a lie and the entirety of Christian faith is a farce (1 Cor 15:12–28). The unbridled telos of such thinking is essentially an insidious and hollow existentialism which conflicts with virtually every biblical tenet of evangelical-sacramental Christianity. The fact of physical and material incarnationality is the essence of the scriptural Judeo-Christian reality.24
So—within the realm of the empirical universe, which notion is more difficult to embrace: that God, in accordance with the OT Scriptures, caused a global Flood upon the Earth during the time of Noah; or that God, in accordance with the NT Scriptures, caused the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead during the governorship of Pontius Pilate? Which, if either, fits more securely within the parameters of common reason, everyday experience, and the evidences of naturalistic science? Certainly, the notion of God raising the dead back to life should confound the rationalistic thinker at least as much as the notion of God causing an Earth-immersive Flood.25 Yet, again, the Scriptures equally proclaim both to be actual occurrences in the material world of which we now live. Both are proclaimed to be unqualified truth.
Please know this: Neither a symbolic Christ Event—nor a symbolic Flood Event—would have any truth significance whatsoever. Taken as merely stories outside of concrete history—regardless of any lessons we try to assign to them, they both become only tall tales rendering even the lessons invalid. The doctrines and the theology of the faith must always be founded on firm and objective historical factuality.26 Otherwise, they too—like the message-conveying fabulistic stories themselves—would be veraciously null and void. Symbolism without factuality is fluff. Therefore, with the symbolic interpretation cast aside, the issue then becomes a matter of determining whether the Flood is best understood as a global or a local/regional phenomenon.
The nature and importance of the historic Noahic Flood should cause those with a concern for Christian apologetics to seriously consider that the event must have indeed left its recorded footprint, both textually and terrestrially. Much chronological time has passed since the Noahic Flood event within the context of all biblical paradigms (i.e., Young-Earth = c. 4–4.5 ka27; Old-Earth = possibly much further back in time28), thus the overtness of the geo-terrestrial footprint has most certainly faded to some degree over the ages through natural attrition. Yet, while we resolutely and unwaveringly stand on the evidence of God’s preserved scriptural revelation of the event, we are also quite confident that God has preserved at least some of the diluvial evidence in nature and history and allows it to be made presently visible to those seekers who truly want to see.29 An inquiry into this collaborative (scriptural/natural/historical) assertion shall be the major quest of this book. Are there sufficient evidences to plausibly warrant positing a global Noahic Flood within the auspices of a specific Old-Earth biblical paradigm? If so, what are they?
1. Young, The Biblical Flood, 312.
2. Montgomery, The Rocks Don’t Lie, xiv.
3. Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, xix.
4. Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, xix.
5. The old saying about “the forest and the trees” constantly comes to mind. If we only look at the forest, we may very well miss many, if not all, of the trees. If we only look at the trees, we may not see the entire forest right before our eyes. For example, there are a number of trace evidences that could point to a global Flood, yet may not be definitive in and of themselves. However, several such evidences when viewed together may be considered to be much more convincing. Thus, an investigator would do well to look at each piece of evidence individually and then consider them all as a composite whole before finally reaching a conclusion. This is an important principle of good forensics and good basic investigation. Furthermore, it is also imperative to view the Flood within the greater eschatological context. God is indeed going somewhere—an ultimate destination—with his actions in and through all of those things of which he has created.
6. Davidson, “Biblical Evidence,” 79
7. It is the common praxis among those who attempt such a refutation to disregard the built-in textual intention of Scripture—even when that teaching is blatantly obvious on its face and truly leaves no other viable options—and thus, in so doing, to subordinate the Bible to accommodate their perception of nature. When it comes down to it, the underlying presumption is that nature actually carries more weight in a given discussion. As just one representative sampling of this from among many other similar works, see David R. Montgomery, The Rocks Don’t Lie (2012). He concludes: “We may argue endlessly about how to interpret the Bible, but the rocks don’t lie. They tell it like it was” (257). Of course, this view fails to seriously consider the duo-reality that, first, the natural order is fallen; and that, second, the Bible, without blemish, tells it like it was, is, and forever will be.
8. Davidson, who is Professor of Old Testament Exegesis at Andrews University, has done a tremendous amount of work concerning the biblical teachings of the Noahic Flood.
9. Davidson, “Biblical Evidence,” 79–90.
10. Davidson, “Biblical Evidence,” 79–90.
11. Francisco, “Genesis,” 139.
12. Francisco, “Genesis,” 139. This is essentially a regional Flood view—”all the inhabited earth,” in his understanding, refers only to the Mesopotamian region.
13. Francisco is likely correct implying that there were not any Native Americans present for the Acts 2 event.
14. By the way, there are several other such details in the Noahic text as well. For example, notice the specifics given as to the Ark’s dimensions (Gen 6:14–16), as well as the specifics given as to the day the Flood began (Gen 7:11), etc. Accounts with explicit details, particularly those using very precise numbers, lend themselves to being a conveyance of historicity.