Bible Answers: If Noah's Flood Happened, Why Did it Happen?

Noah's ark in preparation for the FloodIt remains an uncomfortable fact that no one has ever figured out why Noah’s Flood happened—not until now. All of the talk about wickedness and violence is pretty weak even under casual inspection. The Flood solved a problem. God was satisfied. He even recommended the rainbow as a symbol of His satisfaction and of His covenant with Noah that He would never again use such a force for worldwide destruction.

If humanity did something bad and God was satisfied with the Flood’s result, then ordinary human wickedness and violence could not have been the reason. That’s obvious! The Flood did not cure that behavior. So, the question remains, why did the Flood happen? What was solved?

No one’s interpretation of the Bible is equal to that of God. In fact, biblical scholars and believers alike are not in agreement on any one meaning for every passage. There are many differing opinions and only one can be right. It remains quite possible that no interpretation is right—not in the eyes of the Creator of the universe. And yes, that includes even the interpretation in this article. Imagine that!

The object here is not so much to give you any portion of Truth, but to get you to seek Truth more actively than you’ve ever done before. Such a search is a very personal journey and no two paths are exactly alike, because we all start from different locations—different experiences, different priorities, different attitudes.

What does this have to do with Noah’s Ark story? We each may have our own fixed ideas about this story, and the point of the introduction is to help us shed those fixed ideas for a few minutes. I want to share with you something I discovered.

Problems with Noah’s Flood

The skeptical scientist might say that there is no evidence for such a worldwide flood. And that would be an arrogant assumption. Perhaps they would be more accurate in saying that there is no known evidence for such a flood. But even that would be inaccurate. The Bible is one piece of evidence. Also, the fact that multiple ancient cultures have stories of worldwide floods gives us yet more evidence.

But some scientists have fragile egos. One need only look to the ‘Clovis first’ debacle to understand this. Science by intimidation and ridicule never was very effective. Plus, there seems to be an implied assumption that a lack of evidence proves the lack of existence, and that is entirely illogical—an argument to ignorance type of logical fallacy.

The threat of Noah's Flood, but was it a real event?

But Noah’s Flood, as described in the Bible requires so much happening that it would indeed have been an extraordinary event. The oceans of the world would have to have more than tripled in volume, and then would have to have shrunk to its current volume. Noah would have to have employed extreme magic to have attracted all species from every corner of the planet. Even today, more than 300 years after scientists started classifying species, we have not yet discovered them all—some years discovering 20,000 new species or more. And freshwater fish would not have survived months in the saline ocean. Coastal species would not have had a coast or a support ecosystem.

Some biblical apologists offer some pretty weak ideas to support the Flood story. I could write a book on that. One idea suggests that the ocean prior to the Flood was not salty, and yet we have evidence of salty oceans going back millions of years. The Messinian Salinity Crisis is only one.

Yet, despite all of these apparent problems, wouldn’t the creator of the universe have the ability to add a ‘drop’ of water to a tiny planet in the outskirts of a medium-sized galaxy of nearly a trillion suns? If God could create all of this—billions of galaxies—then why not Noah’s Flood and a solution to all of these apparent problems? If the purpose was important enough, then why not, indeed!

By the same token, not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. It is also quite possible that the Flood story is a metaphor for something else that really did happen.

And yet, perhaps scientists could find proof of the Flood if they could see past their own skepticism. For instance, would a salt water flood leave any traces in the Greenland ice cores? Could a GISP2 ice core contain a trace contamination of sodium chloride at the real date for the Flood? And would scientists look for such evidence?

Sargon the Great's conquest proves Noah's Flood did not happen at that time.In Search of a Real Date

In another article, I will go into greater detail on this, but Noah’s Flood did not occur when biblical literalists think it did. Perhaps the most popular biblical date for the Flood is that of Archbishop Ussher in his 1650 AD publication of his world famous timeline. His date for the Flood was 2348 BC.

What is really wrong with this date? Too much was happening! Too many people crowded the Earth at that date. Egypt’s sixth dynasty started three years afterward. Sargon the Great conquered Sumer thirteen years after this date. Where did all those other people come from if Noah and his family were the only ones on Earth?

What biblical literalists, including Young Earth Creationists, seem to forget is that we have a civilization and technology built on the findings of science. If science was so wrong, then we wouldn’t have all this. Science studies reality and does a very good job of it. For biblical literalists and fundamentalists to disrespect science because it seems to disagree with their shallow interpretation of the Bible only indicates delusion. And what is the act of ignoring reality but one of delusion?

Science tells us that humanity is at least 200,000 years old. Only three decades ago, this figure was closer to 50,000 years. With new discoveries, that date keeps going back further. The seemingly outrageous ages of those early Bible patriarchs are far too short! If the biblical timeline is going to match those of reality, Methuselah would need to have lived far longer than 969 years!

Incredible? Hold onto your halos, it only gets better. Genesis 5:2 tells us that Adam was a group—male and female created He them and called their name ‘Adam.’ Could each of the early patriarchs be the name of an individual and a group? Could it be that Methuselah the man lived for only 60 years, but that Methuselah the tribe lived for many thousands?

What does this tell us about the Bible? Some scholars think that the Bible was never meant to be a literal gauge of our history. That is certainly a possibility. One other possibility is that the real timeline is hidden and requires us to dig for answers. In other words, it requires humility in the reader. And curiously, this remains the most important attitude in the Bible—humility before God—humility in the search for answers. And this attitude is something that ‘real’ scientists use, too. So, scientists and the faithful can have something in common, after all.

Well, I found such a timeline—one, at least. Is it the right one? The code which led to its discovery is simple and intuitively connected to an increase in the biblical timeline. There is biblical precedent for doing this, and biblical clues which lead us to this.

According to this new biblical timeline, Noah’s Flood occurred 27,970 BC. Could this be the date scientists need to keep in mind when looking for, or considering, Flood evidence?

Michaelangelo's creation of Adam, long before Noah's Flood.The Rescue of God’s Children

From my own research, it seems that the Bible (and perhaps every major religion) has the purpose of awakening the spiritual component of humans. The Bible’s Old Testament talks about this somewhat cryptically. It says in Genesis 1:26–27 that man was created in God’s image. This might indicate that man is inherently baby gods. Don’t laugh. Baby humans look like their human parents; baby birds look like their parents. Why wouldn’t God’s children look like Him?

The Bible also talks about the fall of man. Did Adam and Eve literally, physically die on the day they ate the forbidden fruit? No! But God said they would die on that day. Adam supposedly lived for another 800 years, at least.

They died spiritually. And couldn’t all of the description in Genesis of a physical place be only symbolism for a decidedly spiritual place—the Garden of Heaven, perhaps?

Then the ‘Tree of Knowledge’ of ‘good and evil’ was likely not a physical tree, just as the Kabbalah’s ‘Tree of Life’ is a conceptual matrix of attitudes and states like, kindness, severety, beauty, eternity and splendor. The poison of the forbidden fruit might merely be a matrix of dichotomies like the one mentioned in Genesis—good-evil. What are the others? How about right-wrong, generous-selfish, victim-perpetrator and compassion-indifference, to name a few? Only these could trap a baby god. Nothing physical would stand a chance. Such a trap would be created from moment to moment by the baby gods themselves. How would it represent itself? Could the selfishness of ego be the root of all evil—the ‘master’ of this world? Could that be the trap—our own selfish and separate point-of-view?

The founder of Christianity told his followers that they need to deny themselves. They need to let their selves die. This may not need to be a literal, physical death. He may merely have been talking about getting rid of ego—that sense of entitlement for being ‘right’ and making others ‘wrong’—the pride of the Pharisees. The Nazarene teacher says that those who enter Heaven first will be last, and that those who are last shall be first. And could he be talking about anything other than humility and its opposite, ego?

If God’s children are inherently baby gods, then they are non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation, albeit sound asleep and wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh. Could it be that Yehoshua of Nazareth talked of the need for being born again of the spirit—the exact same spirit which went to sleep in the Garden?

How could such sleeping spirit awaken? They certainly could not do it as ‘naked souls’ or ‘ghosts.’ Such sleeping spirit could accomplish nothing while in that state. Why? Well think about how much you can get done while you are asleep? In your dreams, what can you accomplish of any lasting importance? Can you balance your checkbook? Can you do your calculus homework? Of course not! Dreams are too indistinct and impermanent. The landscape of dreams is too uncertain and unsettled.

Could this be why God created Homo sapiens? Could it be that his children needed something more permanent with which to think out their escape? Could the waking consciousness of Homo sapiens bodies merely be the ‘chalkboard’ on which these baby gods needed to write? And could civilization have been the needed ingredient to maximize the efficient use of these physical bodies? Primitive hunter-gatherers likely spent 90% of their waking hours finding food. That didn’t leave time for philosophy.

What would a parent do to protect the plan for rescuing their children?

Would you crash a million cars if it meant you could save your child? Perhaps that’s what the Flood did. The Homo sapiens bodies prior to the Flood were not God’s children. The immortal souls—the true selves within—are God’s children. If He could rescue even one child, wouldn’t He destroy all of the bodies?

A Neanderthal model at Zagros Paleolithic Museum. Could he have been the reason for Noah's Flood?The Real Culprit Behind the Flood

Genesis 6 starts the story of the Flood. But even before the need for the Flood is introduced, we are told that men had ‘daughters.’ How curious! Didn’t they also have sons? And we are told that the sons of God took some of the ‘daughters’ as wives.

There are many interpretations of who these individuals were. Again, the possibility remains that none of the interpretations are right. So, here is another interpretation.

The ‘sons of God’ has far more to do with ‘type of being’ than gender type. The same applies to the ‘daughters of men.’

God created man twice. Yes, twice! In Genesis 1:26, God created the spiritual component of man. In Genesis 2:7, God created the physical component of man—Homo sapiens. So, the ‘sons of God’ are immortal spirit wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh.

In Genesis, a great deal of attention is being drawn to the difference between these two groups. If the sons are Homo sapiens, could the daughters have been a different species?

The mating of the sons with the daughters somehow resulted in a profound wickedness which sorely displeased the Heavenly Father. Could it be that this union threatened His plan for His children’s rescue?

Let us look at the evidence. The new Genesis timeline says that Noah’s Flood occurred 27,970 BC. Comparing this with events on the timelines of science, we discover that one species ceased to exist 28,000 BC. That species was none other than Homo neanderthalensis—Neanderthal man. Or perhaps we should say Neanderthal woman.

Reconstructions for what Neanderthals looked like show subtle differences between them and humans. And I suppose, if I were drunk enough, their women would look pretty hot.

Scientists remain uncertain whether or not Neanderthals could speak with very much clarity. It seems at last estimate that they could produce some speech, but that it would likely have been greatly limited compared to human speech. Could Neanderthals have had the capacity to create civilization? If not, then mixing the gene pools could have represented a clear and present danger to God’s rescue plan.

So, humanity was cured of flirting with Neanderthals. They are gone. That form of wickedness has been eliminated. In some modern humans, there remains only tiny traces of man’s dalliance with Neanderthals.

But sex with other species has not been cured. One of the laws of Moses prohibits sex with animals—an activity called ‘bestiality.’ The punishment is death for both the perpetrator and the animal victim. And one of the possible types of wickedness cited for Sodom and Gomorrah was that of bestiality. After thousands of attempts in institutionalized bestiality, could the impossible have been accomplished in Sodom and Gomorrah? Could a hybrid, human-animal creature have been born in one of those towns?

While the practice was highly local and the contamination restricted to those towns, God did not need to resort to a Flood to destroy the wickedness which would have threatened His rescue plan again. Divine nuclear strike? And Lot’s poor wife seems to have stayed behind to watch—vaporized by the unimaginable fire.

If one day, scientists decide to take up human genetic manipulation, I would not want to be living in their neighborhood. The forecast may call for heavy meteor showers.