I understand that from the perspective of those who take the Bible literally, the global flood took place about 2400 B.C. and that the world began about 4000 B.C., giving 1600 years of human population growth. So, what was the estimated population at the time of the flood? In other words, how many people incurred the judgment of God in the flood? Please answer according to the perspective of those who take the Bible literally and historically.

In [Genesis 5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+5&version=ESV) , a brief account of the lives of Adam's descendants is narrated. All of them had long lives, for instance, Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, etc. But in [Genesis 6:3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6%3A3&version=ESV) , God seems to shorten the lifespan of man to 120 years or at least that's what I understood reading that verse. **Did I understand it right? How is this fact explained by people who consider Genesis to be literal history?**

People don't seem to believe in the firmament as a literal barrier of water up in the sky that collapsed at Noah's flood. I want to say they don't believe in the firmament *anymore*, but I am doubtful most creationists did. Why? Is it because it is too fantastical? The problem is that such a notion seems to correlate with Genesis and seems to make a lot of other considerations more swallowable, such as the feasibility of centuries old lifespan, adequate conditions to sustain large animal life (dinosaurs, etc), and adequate water for a sudden flood. The only "scientific" model I've heard, coming from Dr Carl Baugh, asserts that waters from the deep under the earth came up and cracked open the firmament; his model is the only creation model that solves so many fundamental problems for creationism I am literally, truly perplexed as to how his model has been seemingly abandoned by the creationist community. I know of no direct arguments against this sort of firmament, except only alternative interpretations of its mention in Genesis. What am I missing? -- It is the "canopy theory", I believe, that I had in mind in posting the question. My own only exposure to this was from a presentation by Dr Carl Baugh and by reading his old book, Panorama of Creation. I have had difficulty finding *anyone* endorsing his model, and his model is the only one that answers several questions. My frustration comes out of watching modern depictions via illustrations, 3D graphics, and simulated film artwork, attempting to use fine detail to tell what Genesis earth was like but not filling in these gaps. Blue skies, clouds, rainbows, all post-Noah, all completely against Baugh's model. Does it matter? In an age when modern illustrations like Hollywood are referenced in dialogue with apologetics and truth seekers, yes, I believe so.

I've been studying how the biblical creation & re-creation in Genesis, from Adam to Noah, foreshadows the Exodus. For instance, Noah is of the 10th generation of mankind. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt for 400 years = 40 x 10 = 10 generations if we assume 40 years per generation. 10 generations of the righteous line appears to represent a certain fullness of time, after which God enacts judgement. Anyways, what I am interested in for this post is the year of the flood (beginning and/or end) and the significance thereof. Genesis is careful to document what year each person was born in, in terms of the age of their father, up through and including Noah. It also tells us that the flood began in Noah's 600th year - and even specifies the month and day. From my calculations, it looks like the flood began in the year 1656 (from creation) and ended in 1657 (from creation). Off hand, I don't see the significance of either number. Yet, why would the author of Genesis be so specific about these dates if there were no meaning to it? Please share your insights :)

I was reading a (rather sacrilegious) story the other day in which God walks from the location of Eden to the point where the Ark landed, and it got me thinking... Speculation about where Eden might have been is fairly common. However, Scripture says that "the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished" (2 Peter 3:6), and modern Scriptural science believes that the Flood scoured the world so completely that virtually no trace of the old remains, and that any attempt to correlate pre-Flood geography to post-Flood geography is futile. **When is the earliest known reference to the idea that the location of the Garden of Eden corresponds to some existing, post-Flood location?**

I am told that the New Testament is the New Covenant. If that is so, why didn't God remove the rainbow that He made for the Jews. If the Old Covenant has gone away, how does the Church explain the continuation of rainbows? Genesis 9:13 (NIV) > I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the > covenant between me and the earth

In [Genesis 5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%205&version=ESV) , some of the descendants of Adam are listed with their ages. The people listed lived very much longer than anybody does today. For example, Adam lived to be 930. The oldest age, 969 years, is listed for Methuselah. How did these people live so long? Does the Bible explain this at all?

The archaeological and geological record dates a a period of the earth approximately 11000 years before the appearance of jesus. Most records of the Christian religion date the covenant beteeen Moses with God to be 3000 BC. The acendents of Moses pre dated this. There are tales of a great flood that occurred before this in which noah was a recipentent of a prophecy and from that prophecy he created an ark to preserve the species of animal and human life into the future. At which timescale according to the jewish and Christian faith did this flood occur? The geology and archaeological record estimates from radiocarbon dating calculate that an ancient apocalypse happened called the younger Dryas approximately 11000 years BC. This apocalypse could have resulted in the ice formed before this event heating up and flooding the earth. Do the biblical accounts of Noah come before this younger dryas event, are they after, or concur with the geological evidence?

Young Earth Creationists believe in a young earth, followed by a literal global flood based on the belief that Scripture is written as history. Often, in comments, discussion forums, and discussions in general, they will refer to "overwhelming physical evidence" that backs up their theological belief. What phsyical evidence do they teach or believe can be interpreted as consistent with the idea of a global flood?

In its article on the decline of human life spans, [CreationWiki](http://creationwiki.org/Human_longevity) states, >Interestingly, Noah died only two years before Abraham was born. Unfortunately for readers they provide no biblical support. What is the biblical basis for this claim?

After the Flood abates, God reassures Noah that it was a one time event: Genesis 9:13 (ESV) > I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. The most obvious interpretation is that this is a rainbow, and that it was something new. But rainbows are a physical consequence of having rain and sun . God spells out the significance of the sight: the earth will not be flooded again. But should we interpret this as an already-familiar sight being used as a reminder, or did He somehow change things then, and rainbows had not appeared before the Flood? Or was it not actually a rainbow at all, but some other phenomenon with which we are no longer familiar?

Several Christian Bible scholars / theologians, for various reasons, want to interpret the flood in Genesis 6-9 as "not global" (see [various interpretation](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/56054/10672)) . Those who believe there was a **historical but regional/local** flood would also supply various ways to reconcile what the text is saying and the *fact* of that flood, to come up with the **theological message** that remains true for us today. That is, the telling in Genesis 6-9 was meant to be primarily a *theological* story of God's covenant with humanity *regardless* whether the description it provides (as details in the story) was scientifically and historically accurate. *One* of those ways (i.e. *NOT* the only way, see Note below) is to say that the author was using the Ancient Near East *hyperbole* literary technique we see in common use in contemporaneous non-Biblical texts. Examples of 21st century support for this way of interpretation: - John Walton and Tremper Longman in their book [The Lost World of the Flood](https://www.ivpress.com/the-lost-world-of-the-flood) . A summary can be read through [this interview with them about the book](https://biologos.org/articles/the-genesis-flood-through-ancient-eyes-an-interview-with-john-walton-and-tremper-longman) . - Gavin Ortlund in his 2015 blog article [Why a Local Flood?](https://truthunites.org/2015/01/03/why-a-local-flood/) and his recent 2024 *TruthUnites* video episode [Was Noah's Flood Local?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq5tUg4SWzs) But in at least 2 places there is reference to *everyone except 8* who are destroyed: Gen 6:17: > "Understand that I am bringing a flood—floodwaters on the earth **to destroy every creature under heaven with the breath of life in it**. Everything on earth will perish. and in 2 Peter 2:5: > ... and if he didn’t spare the ancient world, but protected **Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others**, when he brought the flood on the world of the ungodly; ... But with the flood being *regional* rather than *global*: - It seems God was *not* telling the truth in Gen 6:17. - The implication that only 8 people were alive in 2 Peter 2:5 would not be true either. - Consequently, we may have a problem with Biblical inerrancy. - The typology that **salvation is *only* for those in Noah's Ark** (as place of safety) may not work either. **How do proponents of Noah's flood as *historical but not-global* where not everyone died, solve the above problem?** ---- **Note**: (thanks to @TheodoreReinJedlicka) 1. Not all local flood proponents may agree with scientific consensus, and still hold to a local flood. 1. Several local flood proponents may not believe the account to be hyperbolic. 1. There is an ontological difference between saying that the flood is a hyperbolic story, versus saying that the story is told using hyperbolic language typical of the ancient world to communicate both historical and spiritual truth. Two very different positions – I don't want scientific consensus and the various ways to tell about the historical local flood to cloud this question. What matters is simply this: not every human died in that historical local flood. A related point is that there is a high probability that the historical local flood didn't affect several pre-historic human settlements far away from the Mediterranean, such as the aboriginal Australia or ancient China. If we find ***ungodly* people in those areas were not killed by God's action in that flood**, would we have a problem? I understand that an answer can be limited to hermeneutical analysis, but when integrating that interpretation to *theology* (this is a question to C.SE rather than to BH.SE) we want to at least address this anthropology / archaeology angle.

If the [Bible story of the great flood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative) is true, then unless the flood did not kill all human and animal life other than the occupants of the ark, is it Christian belief that all human cultures of the earth such as those in Mongolia, China, Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan and the West are also descendants of Noah and his sons? Making us *all* the chosen people of God? **How does the Christian faith reconcile this problem?** Or are we all descendants of the [Mitochondrial Eve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) as genetic science has determined?

Many creationist have beliefs concerning the pre-flood environment on earth. Are Jehovah Witnesses adamant about the water canopy being the source of flood waters? Do JWs believe the restored earth will have a restored canopy?

I feel humiliated when I ask people to explain Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, and the temptations of Christ in the desert and people say something like "I'm bored by questions about Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. Of course those stories didn't 'really' happen. Why do you ponder such things? They shouldn't be taken literally." But then, with equal fervor, they say, "Of course Christ was tempted by the devil in the desert! Don't you believe the Gospels?" So has the Catholic Church outlined specific Biblical passages which should not be taken literally? And if not, then why not?

There is no doubt that angels (both the Holy and the Fallen) had a strong influence in the antediluvian world. Satan was the serpent of Eden. But, during Noah's Flood, where was he, what was he and his angels doing. Are the apostate angels trapped in Hell of 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 1:6 the parents of the Nephilim of Genesis 6:1-4?

After the flood, in Genesis 9:2-3, God gives humans permission to begin eating animals. We are finding traces of human civilization going back tens of thousands of years for Native Americans, so they must have gotten to the Americas before the flood. If the flood was local and in the last 10,000 years, then when did the Native Americans and people on other continents switch to eating animal meat?

Some Christians (e.g., Young-Earth Creationists) believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. In particular, they believe in the historical occurrence of a massive worldwide flood that is supposed to have taken place just a few thousands years ago, as related in Genesis 6:9-9:17. What are reasons (scientific or otherwise) to disagree? Note: I found this similar question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2904/61679 , but little to no emphasis is given to the flood account.

How do those who understand Noah's Flood to be a global flood explain what the carnivorous animals ate after disembarking, if there were only 2 of all the other species left? Eating 1 would stop those species' reproductive lines, so what happened here?

The Great Flood of Noah is a classic Bible story - and a contentious one. Many would argue that traditional or literal interpretations cannot be squared with modern scientific thinking - others reject that science. I'm sure you also have an opinion. **I'm primarily interested in knowing what the main streams of interpretation are.** How, for example, do the major churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.) interpret this story — is there an official teaching? Beyond doctrinal arguments, what's the spectrum of belief in interpreting the Flood, and in reconciling it with later NT references and concepts of inerrancy?