There are two views among evangelicals as to the extent of the Flood.
1. A universal flood.Evidence:
a. The purpose of the Flood (6:5-7, 11-13).
b. The need for an ark (6:14).
c. The size of the ark (6:15-16).
d. The universal terms used in the story (6:17-21; 7:19, 21-23). Context must determine whether universal terms are truly universal or limited (cf. Luke 2:1; Matt. 28:19-20).
e. The amount of water involved (7:11, 20; 8:2).
f. The duration of the Flood: 371 days (7:11; 8:14).
g. The testimony of Peter (2 Pet. 3:3-7).
h. The faithfulness of God (8:21).
This view has been the most popular with conservative interpreters throughout history.
"By and large, the tradition of the Christian church is that the context requires a universal flood, and many Christian scholars have maintained this position knowing well the geological difficulties it raises."305
2. A local flood.Evidence:
a. The main arguments rest on modern geology and the improbability of a universal flood in view of consequent global changes.
b. Advocates take the universal statements in the text as limited to the area where Moses said the Flood took place.
This view has gained wide acceptance since the modern science of geology has called in question the credibility of the text.
"The principle concern of those advocating a local flood is to escape the geological implications of a universal flood."306
Basically, this controversy, like that involving the creation account, involves presuppositions about the credibility of Scripture or science and the possibility of supernatural occurrences. The scientific community is more open to catastrophism of some kind than it used to be.307
Some interpreters have understood the opening of the "floodgates of the sky"(v. 11) as a breaking up of a water vapor canopy that some say covered the earth before the Flood.308Advocates of this "canopy theory"believe that it may account for longevity before the Flood.
"The water for Noah's Flood came from the release of great underground sources of water (the fountains of the great deep which continued pouring forth for 150 days), and from the collapse of the waters above (presumably a vast water vapor blanket or canopy above the atmosphere), giving the 40 days and nights of rain. Psalm 104 indicates that after the Flood, the mountains were upthrust to their present positions, with associated deepening of the ocean basins, which now hold the waters of the Flood.
"These waters would not have been enough to cover today's highest mountains. Genesis indicates no rain or rainbows before the Flood, which is consistent with the absence of high mountains that are important to the triggering of rainfall. Also, the absence of large temperature differences between poles and equator under such a greenhouse blanket of water vapor would mean an absence of the vast winds which are also necessary (now, but not before the Flood) for the rainfall cycle. Genesis describes how the earth before the Flood was watered by mists and/or springs and geysers."309
"We have shown earlier that the flood narrative points ahead to Moses and the escape of the Hebrews through the Red Sea. This is evidenced again by the term dry land' (haraba) in our passage (v. 22) rather than the customary dry ground' (yabasa). This infrequent term occurs eight times, only once more in the Pentateuch at Exod 14:21, where it describes the transformation of the sea into dry land' by a strong east wind.' This exodus parallel is confirmed by 8:1b, which speaks of God's sending a wind' upon the waters. Later Israel identified itself with Noah and the tiny group of survivors who escaped the wicked by the awesome deeds of God."310
