Episode 132. The second approach to understanding the Biblical flood of Noah is the Local Flood Theory. This is the position of progressive creation. It claims that the flood was limited to the Mesopotamian plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Statements in the Bible to all the Earth being flooded, actually refer to all the Earth in the local region, and mention of the flood water above the highest mountains means the highest hills in the region. And, the Biblical word har, can mean either a mountain or a hill. A fine example of a local flood theorist is progressive creationist, Hugh Ross, who describes his view of Noah's flood in Navigating Genesis, A Scientist's Journey through Genesis one to 11. Let's consider some arguments for a local flood. First, it harmonizes scripture and science. A concordist hermeneutic is intuitively satisfying for many Christians. And it's worth noting that concordism is natural and reflects our epistemological category of correspondence. A second argument for a local flood is that there is geological evidence for local floods in the southern Mesopotamian flood plain. Please turn to page 28 in the class handouts. This region in southern Mesopotamia is one of the flattest places on Earth. It's about 40,000 square miles and has less than 150 feet of vertical elevation. Most notably, the shore line of the Persian Gulf 5,000 years ago was 150 miles further inland. This is clear evidence that there have been many significant floods and that they've deposited a lot of sediment. Archaeologists have also discovered numerous layers of flood sediment between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. And many of these layers are between archaeological sites of habitation, indicating that local floods have completely destroyed villages and towns. For example, at Ur, the sediment layer is 12 feet thick. It's worth noting that the radiometric dating of sediments is not far from the literal Biblical dates, ranging from 3500 to 2500 BC/BCE. And in particular, one massive flood sediment is dated at 2800 BC/BCE. Let's now consider a couple arguments against a local flood. The first simply asks, why would there be any need to build an ark? In quote 15, it states, in the Biblical flood account, that rain fell on the Earth 40 days and 40 nights. For 40 days, the flood kept coming on the Earth. If a local flood takes 40 days to cover the hills in Mesopotamia, then why bother building an ark. All Noah, his family, and the animals in the region would need to do is go to higher ground. Another problem with the Local Flood Theory is the identification of the mountains covered in the Biblical flood account. Quote 16 reads, for 40 days, the flood kept coming on the Earth. They lifted the ark high above the Earth, they rose greatly on the Earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than 20 feet. The ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The waters continued to recede until tops of the mountains became visible. The Ararat mountains are like the Rockies, being between 12 to 16,000 feet high. Therefore, these are not hills in the Mesopotamian flood plain. The Biblical flood is not local, but worldwide. End of episode.