Good follow-up question, Greg. The significance in appreciating that there are multiple interpretations of the deluge is that Christians need not be backed into a corner when the nonbeliever trots out evidence against a global flood. It's a common diversion tactic designed to throw the believer off the trail so that the nonbeliever can blunt the reality of God's existence. On the flip side, some well-intentioned Christians have suggested that a global flood is necessary to explain why the world appears old when (as they allege) it is not. This view is very difficult to maintain, but nevermind. The idea that there is something worthy of the description "the Bible's account" is quite optimistic for any interpretive viewpoint. Theologically, it goes either way. But scientifically we must be committed to a regional/local deluge account (the most convincing to date is the Ballard expedition of 1999-2000 - http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/). And as a final note, the other accounts of a deluge do not signal that a global flood is necessarily warranted. These accounts that are concurrent with each other are relegated to the Mesopotamian and African areas (i.e. Babylon, Sumeria, Egypt, etc... - and even then some versions simply copy their neighbor's account and change the hero's name). The Australian, Polynesian, North American, and South American accounts come chronologically later and could be stories handed down through migration. Though no one should find "harm" in a global flood idea, we are not necessarily driven to this conclusion from the biblical account alone. | 
back to top
