In my book, Noah’s Flood: Literal or Figurative?, I discuss four different scientific theories — none of them from Creationists — that propose an historical and scientific basis for the Flood of Noah. Each theory shuns an entirely literal reading of the Noah story, in favor of a partly literal and partly figurative interpretation. Each theory has a basis in scientific evidence, proving that an ancient flood did in fact occur, and suggesting that it was perhaps the Flood of Noah.

This type of approach is partly literal: a great flood did occur, there was a Noah and an Ark with animals on it. But it also implies that portions of the true story of Noah are to be understood figuratively. The whole world was not covered with water. The flood did not destroy all humans, nor all animals, outside of the Ark. The extent of the animals represented on the Ark was limited. Since the flood did not kill all animals, the Ark need not contain all species of animals. This approach allows a faithful reading of the Noah passage without any conflict with science or reason.

My book examines four theories:

1. The Black Sea Deluge Theory

The Black Sea Deluge theory is the best known scientific explanation for an historical great flood event, which is said to be the basis for the story of Noah and the flood stories found in other cultures. This theory does not propose that all land was covered with water, nor does it propose a flood that affected all inhabited lands on earth. Instead, the idea is that a great, but still relatively local flood occurred around the Black Sea, displacing many peoples and thereby initiating the many flood stories found in various ancient societies.

2. The Postglacial Flood Theory

The Postglacial Flood theory has a similar basis to the Black Sea Deluge theory. A colder and drier climate in the distant past lowered water levels in oceans worldwide and therefore also in the Persian Gulf, leaving the floor of the Persian Gulf exposed. The warmer and wetter climate at the end of the last glacial maximum (LGM) then caused a massive reflooding of the Gulf, displacing the peoples who had settled in that land.

3. The Youngest Big Impact Theory

The Youngest Big Impact theory proposes that the impact of a comet or asteroid had worldwide effects that became the basis for flood myths in cultures in every part of the globe. This idea solves the problems associated with the limited nature of a local flooding of the Black Sea or the Persian Gulf. And the use of a combined figurative and literal interpretation of Sacred Scripture allows for a great flood that does not cover all the land, nor kill all animals and humans outside of the Ark. Moreover, this theory is able to explain elements of various flood myths, such as tidal waves, wildfires, earthquakes, a sky darkened during the daytime, a year-without-a-summer climate effect, and the deaths of vast numbers of animals and human persons.

4. The Flood Comet Impact Theory

This theory begins with a comet impacting in the deep ocean. It proposes multiple impacts in different oceans, at least two or three, perhaps from a broken comet. Each ocean impact would splash immense amounts of water high into the atmosphere. Each would evaporate immense amounts of water because the comet heats up from friction with the atmosphere. Each would generate very severe weather and cause climactic changes. Each would result in mega-tidal waves, hundreds of meters high, striking coastlines in many places. All together, these effects would cause immense literal worldwide flooding, and would likely kill a large percentage of humanity.

I favor this theory over the other three, because the evidence is more substantial, and because the dating of this Flood event, 2807 BC, fits the apparent timing of the Flood of Noah given in the Bible.

My opinion is that the Flood of Noah described in the Bible was a real historical event. But the description of that event in the Bible is partly figurative and partly literal. There was a Flood, a Noah, and an Ark. The flood did not cover all land, nor kill all humans and animals outside the Ark. The Ark was not as immense as the Biblical figurative description, and it did not contain all species of animals.

More in my book: Noah’s Flood: Literal or Figurative?

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.