What do you think about Noah’s flood?  Is it a myth, or did it really happen?  If it was an actual event, is there any evidence that can help us understand Noah’s flood in the context of the history of mankind?  What can hard facts—such as the stratigraphy of the earth’s geological and anthropological records—tell us about what Noah’s flood could and could not have been?

Noah's Flood

These are all fascinating questions that have been carefully vetted by engineers, scientists, and scholars at Reasons To Believe, the science-faith think tank whose “mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature.”

These people are smart.  Very smart.  And they’ve got soul—and class.

The primary goal of our blog is to share resources that corroborate the Bible.  The Reasons To Believe website is a treasure trove on the information superhighway.  They have thus far written 1,564 articles since their founding by Dr. Hugh Ross in 1986.  Their website has video and audio materials that prove their mission.  Pop into their search box and you’ll find amazing resources.

Their position on Noah’s flood (they call it the “RTB Flood Model”) is controversial—because it flies in the face of what a lot of people have traditionally believed about the events recorded in Genesis 6-9.

So…check it out for yourself.  Start with these links (some pages require Flash):

Overview of RTB’s Flood Model

Raining on a Misconception
Noah’s Floating Zoo
Does Human Genetic Evidence Support Noah’s Flood?
The Waters of the Flood
The Unsinkable Search for Noah’s Ark

RTB Articles related to Noah’s Flood

Start reading, and by all means form your own opinion.

For those who might be encouraged to dig a little deeper, the classes offered by Reasons Institute contain additional videos that they do not release to the general public (you need to sign up for the courses).  These course videos are as powerful as what you are able to download or purchase from their site.  I watched one yesterday by a geologist, who specializes in the earth’s stratigraphy, that was absolutely amazing in relating the geological record to Noah’s flood.


About John Paine

This blog is topical and devotional--we post whatever interests us, whenever. If you want to follow in an orderly fashion, please see our Kaqexeß page. View all posts by John Paine

3 responses to “Noah

  • Thom Mansfield

    I would like to believe that Darwin had the best of intentions while he simply POSED questions that have ever since wreaked havoc on The Word and provided fuel for the atheistically inclined; it seems as though RTB’s “great minds” are providing more of the same with their posings…

    Would RTB have us immensely discount or even throw away the Biblical Timeline and Geneologies? Apparently so.. yet they would be solidly in error to dispute the story that Jesus NEVER altered or refuted…

    I agree that these are bright people but feel also that they are far off the track and doing alot of stumbling around; get back to the WORD…


    • John Paine

      Reasons To Believe strongly opposes Darwinism, and they have a high view of Scripture (inerrant, inspired, authoritative). They hold that science and nature and all that we can observe consistently point to God and the resurrected Christ, and that the Bible is completely trustworthy. They are Old-Earth Creationists, and recognize that not everyone shares that view. They recognize how the church can divide over these issues, and hold to the idea that charity and love should characterize our debates. Apologetics is not about clubbing opponents with intellect, but caring enough about others who hold different opinions to appreciate where they are coming from, majoring in the majors, and when necessary, respectfully agreeing to disagree. I apologize if my post made it seem like they are off track. 🙂


    • Clarke Morledge


      It might be helpful to consider a key issue behind the debate between advocates of a “Local Flood”, like Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe (RTB), and those who argue for a “Global Flood”, such as folks like Ken Ham at Answers In Genesis,, and John Morris at the Institution for Creation Research, Both sides agree on a high view of Scriptural authority, but they disagree on the role of extra-biblical evidence; that is, evidence outside of the Bible, in helping us to determine how to interpret God’s Word.

      From the viewpoint of mainstream science, there is no evidence for a global deluge some five to ten thousand years ago. Evidence for a local flood is a little murky but not entirely improbable. The folks at RTB opt for the local flood and so are “concordists”, meaning that they believe that there is specific agreement — or “concord” — between what Holy Scripture says and the scientific record of Creation. In other words, the God of the Bible is also the Creator, and God does not contradict Himself. The Bible and science must be studied together in order to obtain the right view on these matters. So if Scripture itself does not demand a particular reading, then extra-biblical arguments can help us determine the most correct reading of Scripture.

      Global flood proponents go about things a bit differently. A more “literal” approach to Scripture takes precedence. Any science that agrees with a “literal” view is accepted in a “concordist” manner. However, any science that contradicts a more literal reading is either (1) merely a product of pagan thought or (2) something that may appear to be true now but that the literal reading will eventually show itself to be correct at some later point in time as more evidence becomes available, or (3) something that appears to be true now but the literal biblical reading requires us to rethink how to do science. These rejections of contemporary scientific consensus are not well-received by mainstream scientists.

      As you point out, a “global flood” perspective criticism is that the “local flood” people look like they are “stumbling around,” as you say, and are therefore drifting away from the Word of God. If indeed there is such “stumbling around”, then your concern is surely valid. On the other hand, a counter-argument is that when you “discount” or “throw away” much of modern science that you risk putting an anti-biblical wedge between the God who reveals Himself in Scripture and the God who reveals Himself in Creation. So, the question of how one handles extra-biblical evidence with respect to interpreting the Bible often determines whether you believe in a “global” vs. a “local” flood.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: