Thank you for your comment, Artemkiev. It is REALLY curious that flood stories with similar elements appear all over the globe, even with a similar name for Noah. They are found in as disparate places as Greece, Guatemala, Hawaii, China, Lithuania, and Egypt. At the same time there is no geological evidence of a flood—also very curious.

Our business is to present what is timeless in the particular language of our age. If we don't speak to the language of our audience, communication doesn't take place. 50 years ago, if I had told you I was I was gay, in that American culture, you would interpret that I was happy. Now, if I tell you I am gay, in this American culture, you would interpret that I'm homosexual. That's just a 50 year difference. Now let's drop back 20,000 years and punt. God says to Noah, I'm going to flood the world. What is the language of the age? The language of the age is that as far as Noah can see and even a little beyond is going to be wiped out. Yep, and that's what happened. Now fast forward "50" years. "World" means something completely different to us than it did to them. So if 50 years ago I said I was gay, did I get it wrong? No, the definition changed in a way that I couldn't foresee. But there was nothing wrong with me using that word. That's what it meant, and it was legitimate communication.

I'll make something up to try to make the point. Suppose "God" is talking to you about our solar system. Well, you know what our solar system is: 8 planets orbiting a yellow dwarf star. Has God communicated poorly to you? Of course not; you know exactly what he is talking about. But suppose 200 years from now an astrophysicist discovers that our solar system is actually a larger system including realities (of which we now know nothing) extending light years out beyond Neptune, which may include what will then be called clibuses and nicotrons and even celespheres. Should God have told you about those? Should he have included those in his message? Are you kidding? You would have been thoroughly confused, not had a clue what he was talking about, and it would nave been sheer nonsense. So is it "still wrong" for God to just talk to you about the solar system. No, if he uses that word, you understand him. Beyond that, and beyond your time is of no consequence to you or the judgment that God is bringing to your solar system (if that is the message). Because he doesn't bring the celespheres into the picture doesn't mean God was lying to you or that it's "still wrong." That's what I mean.

Still is wrong. So you are required to wonder what else they got wrong.

Yeah, I agree that it seems to imply global. But global to me doesn't make sense on every level. (1) That's not the way God works in terms of the kinds of miracles he does, (2) there are biblical indicators that "global" doesn't mean "global," but is hyperbole, and (3) it doesn't make any sense scientifically.

I would say that it isn't that they got it wrong, but they told it accurately based on their world view.

Yet the story clearly implies global.

Yeah, I'm aware that there is no evidence, but (not being a geologist), I'm not sure what evidence such an event would leave behind to be found 20,000 years later. Water submerges a continent for 40 days, maintains that level for 110 days (3.5 months), and then recedes. If we do all the math in Genesis, it is claimed that the water of the flood was around from the 17th day of the 2nd month of the 600th years of Noah (Gn. 7.11) until the 27th day of the 2nd month of the 601st year of Noah (Gn. 8.14), which ads up to 12 months and 11 days—the exact period required to equate the year of 12 lunar months, 354 days, with the solar year of 365 days. So the flood lasted one solar year. Seriously (and I'm not a geologist, archaeologist, or paleontologist, so I don't know), what evidence would that leave behind? Would it change the topography, leave a flood layer, or create archaeological remains that could be found? I honestly don't know. In ways it sounds too "minor", if I may use the term, to do that. It wouldn't level city walls or stone houses, even though it would kill the people in them. It would leave animal and human remains around, but not that we'd find 20,000 years later. Would it leave some kind of "flood layer"? I dunno, but I'm not sure it would.

And what about the mechanism by which it happened? If it was an earthquake (very common in that region), would we know about that 20,000 years later? Again, I'm not a seismologist. I just don't know if evidence of a mechanism is really as forthcoming as you expect, and until I run across information like that, I don't know whether or not that's warrant to doubt its veracity. Just being honest here.

But if this happened over an entire continent I think there would be evidence of it. Or at least some evidence of a mechanism by which it could have happened. Otherwise it is just as improbable as a global flood.

> we would also be talking about an event that is not possible.

It depends how fast it comes. If it's a wild rainstorm, the gradual rising of river water, and fast flooding, that's escapable. But even in that case we know a lot of people seem to get caught in it. But what of the nature of flood that come from things like tsunamis (for which there would be little warning)? We don't know the nature of the biblical flood except that the FIRST thing mentioned (Gn. 7.11) is that "all the springs of the great deep burst forth." We don't exactly know what this is trying to describe, but it sure sounds like it's coming from down below, not up above. Their scientific understanding is limited, so I'm not expecting a geological study, but the observation is something from earth, not from the sky. Whatever it was, it "burst forth"—a vast upheaval of some kind.

Some people and animals die in a normal flood. This is to be expected. But in any normal flood there is not going to be a mass extinction because people and animals move to higher ground as the flood waters rise. If you are saying that the waters covered an entire continent leaving no dry land to escape to then there would be mass extinction but we would also be talking about an event that is not possible.

Just to be clear, I am not putting the story of Noah's flood on the same plane with Aesop's fables. I believe Noah's account to be historical, just not global.

Were the people in the rest of the world as depraved as the Canaanites? I can't say that, but I would assume not. We know from history that the Assyrians armies were extremely brutal and barbaric, while the Persian ones were far more merciful and "civilized". We know that certain kings and empires were known for their cruelty and others for their justice. Were the populations of the world as sinful as the Canaanites? Sin affects us all. Were they as dissolute? I can't say. Even in modern times, there was a vast difference between, say, Stalin and Khrushchev. I'm not in a position to make that evaluation. But we do know, from Biblical witness, that the Canaanites were described as utterly wicked and unconditionally evil. That is the information we have to go by.

> Why let Noah live, when the flood did nothing about the "sin" and evil in his family and would spread again?

You're right that the flood didn't change the condition of human heart. Only Jesus can do that. But the flood did stop the momentum of sin in the region, speak a message of both judgment and grace for the rest of history, and judge a people whose time for judgment had come.