Exegesis for Genesis 9:8-11

Faith & Science Conversation
, , , ,
1

Hello all,

I am trying to understand Genesis from a local flood perspective and I want to construct the best argument I can. Genesis 9:8-11 reads as follows:

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, 9 “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. 11 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.”

Based on a reading of all major commentaries on this verse, it would appear that the author/source indicates the following:

  1. The Flood is universal for both man and animals, as the subsequent covenant is made with both Noah and all flesh (animals) at the time (as many as came out of the ark).
  2. The “all flesh” of the text would include all humans as well as animals.

Since most commentators would place the flood around 2300-3000 BC, and since most scientific fields would place other humans on the earth in that time, it follows that either the flood was not universal (no mass destruction of Mesopotamia at the time). What explains discrepancies in the text? Thanks for your help!

2

Hi Jonah and welcome.

It will rile up some here, but yes science tells us there was never a global flood. Trying to read this as a record of a local flood is also not without it’s own problems.

To me, it is better to take this as a story with a theological meaning and not as a record of any actual event. Then there are no problems with the details.

1 Like
3

a pretty good article discussing the topic:

4

I never believed in a global flood since I read the account in Hebrew (and I’m a literalist in that I follow the literal text, not what anyone adds to it).

For a darned good discussion of that, I’ll quote an article by Dr. Michael Heiser nearly in whole (with permission) :

The word “all” (כֹּל / kōl)

The word “all” (kōl) means nothing in and of itself, for it produces the question: “all” of what? If I say, “that vacuum sucked up all the dirt,” do I mean that there isn’t a single speck of dirt (every molecule of dust, e.g.) left anywhere? Of course not. In Gen 41:57 we read: “All (כֹל; kōl) the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain.” Are we to conclude that every last human being on the globe came to Egypt? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. We know this not only because it’s ridiculous, but because we know from the biblical story that Jacob and his sons and their families had not gone down to Egypt at the time of the statement (see ch. 42ff.). In regard to ʾerets, as noted above, the term often means a point or piece of land. Gen 41:56, the verse before the one cited above, is an example: “So when the famine had spread over all the land, Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe in the land (ʾerets) of Egypt.” The “land” (ʾerets) of Egypt isn’t the whole world. Some global flood theorists like to argue that “land” + a qualifier (like “Egypt”) is necessarily limited, but “land” (ʾerets) without such a qualifier must mean the totality of the globe. Gen 41:57 contradicts that, and it isn’t the only such instance where ʾerets by itself cannot mean exhaustive totality (see Gen 10:11 – Shinar is the referent; Gen 12:7, 10; 13:7, 17; 15:18; 23:15; etc. etc.). The word for “mountain” in the flood account (har) is used elsewhere of a hill or, in general terms, something quite smaller than Everest (Gen 22:14; 36:8 [Edom]; Josh 13:19; 2 Kings 1:9; 23:13; Jer 3:6; Hagg 1:8 [trees don’t grow on very high mountains]). Even “high” doesn’t help much as a qualifier, as it begs the question, “How high is high?” Consequently, in response to the water covering “all the earth a local flood theorist would say, “Yep, the water covered the entire / all the earth in that region.” – and add that their view is defensible because of the limitations of the phrase “all” + noun elsewhere and their context argument (see below).

Word Combinations (“all” + noun) Found in the Flood Story That Do Not Speak of Exhaustive Totality Elsewhere

Here are some examples where the vocabulary of Genesis 6-8 (individual words or combinations or phrases) show up elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible where “all encompassing” interpretation isn’t coherent or even possible. In many such instances, the language is hyperbole or that of naked eye observation.

Combination of כֹּל (kōl; “all”) and אֶרֶץ (ʾerets; “earth, land”)

Gen 2:11

The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole (כֹּל) land (אֶרֶץ) of Havilah, where there is gold. (Are we really being asked to believe that every place in Havilah was infiltrated by this river? Or that a river surrounded the entire land? If so, the Bible would be in error when it comes to Havilah.

Gen 2:13

And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole (כֹּל) land (אֶרֶץ) of Cush (Ditto the above)

1 Sam 14:25

And all (כֹּל) the land (אֶרֶץ) entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground. The word כֹּל presumes “people” here – but are we really to believe that every last person of the land of Israel entered into this single forest?

Isaiah 14:7

The whole (כֹּל) earth (אֶרֶץ) is at rest and is quiet … Really? No human or animal in the entire earth was making a sound?

Genesis 13:9 (Abraham to Lot)

Is not the whole (כֹּל) land (אֶרֶץ) before you? – No, Lot wasn’t looking at the entire globe, nor could he.

Genesis 41:57

And the people of all (כֹּל) the earth (אֶרֶץ) came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph . . . Did everyone in the Mediterranean come? China? India? North America? Again, the hyperbole is obvious.

Judges 6:37 (Gideon)

Behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all (כֹּל) the ground (אֶרֶץ), then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me – “all the ground” refers to a small portion of land in the area where Gideon was.

1 Samuel 13:3

Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout all (כֹּל) the land (אֶרֶץ), saying, “Let the Hebrews hear.” – Obviously, Saul didn’t blow a trumpet loud enough for everyone on the globe to hear it (nor could he send trumpeters throughout all the earth).

2 Samuel 18:8

For the battle there was spread over the whole (כֹּל) land (אֶרֶץ) … (This battle didn’t take place in every portion of the entire globe).

1 Kings 10:24

And all (כֹּל) the earth (אֶרֶץ) was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. (Everyone in the Mediterranean come? The Chinese? The people of Easter Island? Native American tribes? Again, the hyperbole is obvious.

Combination of כֹּל (kōl; “all”) and בָּשָׂר (bāśār; “flesh”)

There are several instances where this combination cannot logically refer to every human on the planet (you can look them up — that will promote study!):

Ps 65:2 – What about people on the other side of the world?

Isa 40:5 – Is everyone awake at the same time? When this passage is quoted in the NT, it isn’t used for a universal reference, otherwise we’d have to adopt universalist salvation (which has serious problems).

Isa 66:23-24 – How will every person in the world (v. 23) see these bodies (v. 24)?

Jer 25:31 – God is judging the nations, not Israel, here, so it isn’t every person on earth.

Ezek 20:48 – The fire is in the Negeb (v. 47), so is every human being gathered to the Negeb to see this fire?

Ezek 21:4 – What about east and west? (The context and geographical reference of north and south refer to Israel, and so not all the people of the entire planet).

Joel 2:28 – Not everyone received the Holy Spirit when this passage was (at least partially) fulfilled in Acts 2. And not every person will be saved, either.

The Contextual Argument

What about context? Context is king for interpretation. Context always dictates word meaning. So what is the right context for reading the flood account? Many (oddly) think Gen 1:1-3 is the context for the flood account. But why? There’s a better one — and one that is pretty explicit.

A regional flood theorist would direct you to Genesis 10 as the context for the flood account asking, What is “the world” to the biblical writer? Answer: Genesis 10. That chapter lists out all the nations descended from Noah’s sons. They cover only the Mediterranean and ancient Near East. There is no knowledge of Australia, China, Japan, North America, South America, etc. Hence they would take the language of Gen 6-8 and simply argue that, to the writer, the account covered all the known land masses, but the real-time event wasn’t global.

They would then take you to “all the earth” in Gen 9:19. Look at it carefully: “These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed.”

Since the sons of Noah produced all the nations of Genesis 10, and those nations do not represent the totality of the globe, Genesis 10 = “the whole earth.” The point is the phrase “all the earth” is getting defined in this verse as the places populated by the descendants of the sons of Noah. Those places are listed in Genesis 10, and that very obviously don’t add up to the entire planet.

The contextual argument helps the local-regional theorist to parse phrases like “the whole heaven.” They’d ask the obvious question: Did Noah see the sky over Australia? North America? Or just as far as the eye could see – covering tens of thousands of square miles? A local-regional theorist would point out that a flood of that magnitude (hundreds of thousands, even millions of square miles — but not the entire globe) is unprecedented and accounts for the language and the real-time experience of Noah.

The lesson here is that those who prefer a global flood reading of Gen 6-8 need to avoid calling those who don’t “unbiblical” in their position, or arguing “from science against the Bible” when taking a local-regional view. The above has nothing to do with science. It’s a text-based approach. So, if we’re going to argue about the biblical account of the flood, let’s do that from the text, not personal attacks.

3 Likes
5

As usual a glaring absence of 2 Peter 2:3 and Matthew 24:37-39

Christ is clearly talking about the second coming…a real future coming “GLOBAL” event and referencing what happened to the entire earth in Noahs day as supporting evidence for the finality of it. Theres no moral stpry there, Christ is explicitly saying, dont repeat what happened in Noahs day where those who were not on the ark died.

The second coming is not prophesied to be a local event

Also, read Revelation 21…that is not a local event…its total destruction.

You cant read these very explicit texts and attempt to stitch together a belief via twisting the other references, most of which have nothing to do with the flood, into a localised event.

That is adding to the text…not what the apostle and Christ (God) tell us, which is quite emphatically that the flood was global.

Also, it is untrue that sckence univerally supports no.global flood…that simply isnt true…there is a wealth of evidence that refutes that claim.

Id suggest the O.P should go looking for that evidence instead of listening to parrots, who quote parrots, who quote parrots.

6

Thank you for that article - while I think this supplies great evidence in favor of a local flood, possibly in favor of an anthropologically universal one if there are flaws in the anthropological record, I can’t find any exegetes who read the covenant in Genesis 9 as anything other than universal based on a global (or at least universal flood).

The closest I have come is Carol Hill’s book A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture, which sees it as God preserving Adam’s line in a world of non-Adamites, but I can’t find her sources and that’s what I’m looking for. Would you hold that the flood was local and anthropologically universal? How do you see it?

7

I see Noah’s flood as a theological story built off of cultural memories of a major local flood, or local floods. I do not find it to be primarily historically based, though historical events may have been incorporated.
I think to hold it as a global flood is anachronistic, as the writers of the time had no idea that the earth was a globe. While floods occur everywhere, which is what you would expect for a world covered primarily with water and having roving continents with plate tectonics, there is no credible evidence of a global flood in the time range of human existence. On the other hand, the theologic meaning in the story of Noah is profound, and has been recognized through the ages, with Augustine expounding a lot on that front from a Christian perspective.
You state that commentaries you have looked at tend to hold to the global or universal flood and see it as historical. No doubt they do in conservative circles, but that is somewhat of a bubble, and the greater Christian community holds a more diverse view.
Here is an article on this site from Peter Enns that does a good job of explaining things as I understand them:

2 Likes
8

I see evolution as the origin of the homo-sapiens species which of course took millions of years.

I see communication with God, specifically Adam and Eve, as the origin of humanity and civilization.

In that context, Noah’s flood was a local flood wiping out the first human civilization. Thus it is local with respect to the entire species and the planet, but total/universal with respect to humanity and civilization.

At least, that is what I think the Bible account is about. Absolutes and generalizations are always difficult to maintain, for reality tends to be messy and more complicated.

What discrepancies? There is no concept of the planet or a globe associated with the word for “earth” in the text. I would point out the phrase “and every living creature that is with you.” Not every living creature on the planet, let alone all in existence, but those “with you.” The flood was universal with respect to HUMANITY (not homo sapiens) and the creatures WITH THEM.

Of course, humanity is generally considered a matter of potential rather than abilities and accomplishments, so in some sense all the homo sapiens species became human with Adam and Eve, like children which haven’t grown up yet. But the sins (bad habits) from Adam and Eve as well as in that first civilization certainly would have had nothing to do with them.

1 Like
9

I know this sidesteps your question more than answers it, but here is another reaction that involves backing up a step and examining the challenge / question itself.

I think you’ll find at least some believers here who think the whole program of seeking the endorsement of science (or at least reconciling with it) to be a misguided motivation to start with. It isn’t that we shouldn’t be interested in historicity or what things may or may not have happened in historical senses - those are great questions to get addressed since they preoccupy thinking people of these times. And of course believers will be eager to seize on a worldview that seems a coherent whole with as few internal inconsistencies in it as possible. Understandable. But I at least, am interested in consistency or ‘concordance’ at a higher level: is this a book of and for Truth? For me, that agreement is less about “can a historical interpretation of this event be consistent with a plausible scientific understanding” and more about “Am I approaching this or that entire field of study - including but not limited to science - with the integrity and truth demanded of me by the entire scriptural narrative?” The latter concern is what should govern our attention in my opinion. And maybe for some, that latter concern leads them right back to the former way of being concerned about it. But many here can see how those preoccupied with the former concern have paid a steep price on the latter front - and it costs them their credibility when others observe how much they are willing to disregard clear evidence in order to protect their desired conclusions.

All that is a long way of saying, then, that I don’t view “the flood” as a literal, global event since that would force me to abandon integrity and truth in general on things that have clearly been shown and discovered (including by many Christians, no less!); and scriptural integrity has far more violence done to it by our disregard for its exhortations toward honesty and integrity than it does by my having to adjust my own understandings of it so that it’s in accordance with the testimonies of God’s creation.

3 Likes
10

Yes, He is talking about it coming as a surprise even though there are warnings. So?

But He doesn’t say that – He says there was a flood that surprised people who had been warned.

That’s exactly what I’m refusing to do. The text does not say the Flood was global, Jesus doesn’t say it was global, Peter doesn’t say it was global – so I refuse to add to the text by calling it global. Indeed as my long article quote shows, it is necessary to twist the text to make it global!

No – that is what you are saying, and I am pointing out that there’s no such thing in the text; it’s a tradition of men that runs counter to the Genesis context.

There is no scientific evidence for a global flood – period. There are trees older that your date for the Flood; for that matter there are buried forests older than your date for Creation. There are mountain ranges which are on the order of a hundred times older than your date for Creation, and that involves no assumptions!
Why you believe the lies of AiG I don’t know, but they lie consistently about science and they lie just as consistently about scripture. Throw off their arrogance and seek the text, not their MSWV version!

I’d suggest the OP not bother wasting time investigating what is said by people who lie about the scriptures.

2 Likes
11

Which is what Peter’s word choice – κόσμος (COS-mohs) – strongly suggests as it was used to indicate the orderly human world (when it didn’t mean the orderly entirety of Creation).

Hear, hear!

I only pay attention to the science I know, and only because the text does not contradict it.
Though I do insist that there is a historical core since early Genesis deals with mythologized/theologized history.

Which is best done by sticking to the text as what it was written as, not what our modern worldview thinks it ought to be.

In my case, it’s how they disregard the text “in order to protect their desired outcomes”.

3 Likes
12

Going back to Genesis 9:11 - if the flood is local, did the author understand it to be global and the subsequent covenants are based on the author’s worldview, not necessarily global geography?

Or would it be more accurate to say that the actual (regional) event was subsequently interpreted as having cosmic significance, and Noah as the representative of humanity at that time?

How would you exegete the passage? Thank you so much for your replies by the way, they have been helpful!

13

Quite a few layers to that onion.
I might ask," Who is the author?" first which also answers when it was written. Traditional answer in conservative/fundy circles is Moses, written 3-4K years ago. Many modern scholars would place it as written around the exile. Here is an interesting take on it:

So, even though the author had no concept of a global earth, I would hold that the theologic content is proposed as being universal from the author(s) viewpoint.

2 Likes
14

No – Moses had no concept of the world other than a flat disk under a solid dome, the flat disk surrounded by a sea and the dome resting on mountains. That was the OT cosmology all the way through.

That would be faithful to the text. In context, there are two “bookends” that frame what is meant by the “earth”: the heavenly rebels having sex with women, and the Table of Nations. The first tells us that at the least all the world where that was happening and was considered acceptable was wiped out, and the second telling us that those descendants are all that the writer was concerned with – i.e. no Incas or Aborigines or Nahuatl or Chinese.

Though I would say that Noah was not just “representative of all”, he was the only representative within the above-framed world that fit the bill – one could say God was down to the last man in a whole region that made the coming Sodom and Gomorrah look like a Sunday School classroom.

note: the implication at the start of Genesis 6 is that the wickedness of offspring of these unsanctioned mixed unions were incapable of being anything but evil all the day long with no weekends; the reference to “mighty men” links to ANE literature & culture where the offspring of heavenly beings (deities, in their eyes) and human women (often by rape, which the Genesis text also suggests) were worshipped. Given that, it wouldn’t have been a society where rape happened and no one batted an eye, it would have been one where men competed to see how many women (and/or men) they could rape and how fast, where much of life was essentially a drinking game . . . think a high-security prison with no interior guards and the prisoners could have anything available on the dark web.

One strain is old enough, the other later, the final editing Exilic or possibly post-Exilic.
I read a fascinating article once that tied each of the two stories that are woven together to the two kingdoms, north and south.

Yes – in context it almost certainly indicates “known world” (a term which itself has been written on extensively; I was just reminded the other day that – assuming the Noah character’s point of view, and that Noah was someone of sufficient substance to undertake a survival vessel’s construction, that it would have meant “the world known to Noah and to anyone he knew or knew of”.

Which would have been mind-stretching even though that area seems small to us (exercise in comparison: think of hiking across it without a map).

1 Like