Versión en Español


Alleged Discrepancies

Article Reprints

Audio Resources

Bible Bullets

Darwin Day Debate

Decisive Designs


“In the News”

Reason & Revelation

Research Articles

Scripturally Speaking

Sensible Science


Discovery for Kids

Examine the Evidence

Home Study Courses



A.P. Information

About AP

Contact AP

Copyright Statement

Help AP

Privacy Statement

Speaking Schedules

A.P. Scientists and
Auxiliary Writers

Usage Guidelines

Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
September 1998 - 18[9]:65-71

In Defense of...the Genesis Flood [Part II]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Printer version | Email this article

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the August issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

The Necessity of Constructing an Ark

According to Genesis 6:5, God “...saw that the wickedness of man was great...,” and declared His intent to destroy the Earth by water as a result of man’s willful rebellion. Approximately a century before the Flood, God chose to reveal and explain to a single human being, Noah, His decision. God then instructed Noah to make the necessary preparations for the coming judgment by building an ark that would serve as the instrument of salvation not only for his own family, but also for the seed of all land-living, air-breathing creatures. Alfred Rehwinkel has observed: “The word ‘ark’ seems to be derived from the Egyptian language and signifies ‘chest’ or something to float. The word occurs only twice in the Bible, here for the ark of Noah and again in Ex. 2:3-5 for the ark of bulrushes in which the infant Moses was saved from the cruel decree of Pharaoh” (1951, p. 58).

A fundamental question that must be asked in the biblical context is this: If the Flood was merely a local inundation limited to the known Mesopotamian region of that day, why would God have instructed Noah to build such an ark in the first place? Whitcomb has suggested that:

...there would have been no need for an Ark at all if the flood was local in extent. The whole procedure of constructing such a vessel, involving over 100 years of planning and toiling, simply to escape a local flood can hardly be described as anything but utterly foolish and unnecessary! How much more sensible it would have been for God simply to have warned Noah of the coming destruction in plenty of time for him to move to an area that would not have been affected by the Flood, even as Lot was taken out of Sodom before the fire fell from heaven. Not only so, but also the great numbers of animals of all kinds, and certainly the birds, could easily have moved out of the danger zone also, without having to be stored in a barge for an entire year! The Biblical record simply cannot be harmonized with the concept of a flood that was confined to the Near East (1973, p. 47, emp. in orig.).

This is a point that almost all advocates of the local Flood theory either seem to have missed or ignored. Speaking as co-authors of the classic volume, The Genesis Flood, Whitcomb and Morris opined: “The writers have had a difficult time finding local-Flood advocates that are willing to face the implications of this particular argument” (1961, p. 11). It is easy to understand why.

In attempting to support the concept of a local Flood, while simultaneously trying to provide a logical solution to why Noah would have been instructed by God to build an ark in the first place, Arthur C. Custance went so far as to suggest that the entire ark-building episode was merely an “object lesson” to the antediluvians. He wrote:

It would require real energy and faith to follow Noah’s example and build other Arks, but it would have required neither of these to pack up a few things and migrate. There is nothing Noah could have done to stop them except disappearing very secretly. Such a departure could hardly act as the kind of warning that the deliberate construction of the Ark could have done. And the inspiration for this undertaking was given to Noah by leaving him in ignorance of the exact limits of the Flood. He was assured that all mankind would be destroyed, and probably supposed that the Flood would therefore be universal. This supposition may have been quite essential for him (1958, p. 18).

Responding to this suggestion by Custance, Whitcomb and Morris asked:

But how can one read the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 with close attention and then arrive at the conclusion that the Ark was built merely to warn the ungodly, and not mainly to save the occupants of the Ark from death by drowning? And how can we exonerate God Himself from the charge of deception, if we say that He led Noah to believe that the Flood would be universal, in order to encourage him to work on the Ark, when He knew all the time that it would not be universal? (1961, p. 12, emp. in orig.).

In addressing this same point, Van Bebber and Taylor wrote that it would be strange indeed for God to require Noah to spend approximately 100 years of his life

...building a huge boat to save representative animals which really didn’t need to be saved. Most, if not all, of these animals were alive and well in other parts of the world. Dry land was just over the horizon all along. Despite the lack of necessity, God kept Noah trapped in this boat full of animals under these strange circumstances for over a year!... If only those animals in a specific geographic region died, it would have been unnecessary to protect pairs in the Ark for the express purpose of preventing their extinction. Surely there would be representatives of their kinds in other areas. If, on the other hand, there had been some unique kinds in the path of a local flood, then it would seem more logical to send representative pairs out of the area, rather than to the Ark, as God did. Certainly the birds could have flown to the safety of dry land. If the Flood had been local, God could also have simply sent Noah and family out of the area (1996, pp. 56-58).

Further, consider that Genesis 7:21-23 plainly states:

All flesh died that moved upon the earth, both birds, and cattle, and beasts, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was on the dry ground, died. And every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; and they were destroyed from the earth.

Once again, Whitcomb and Morris have sought to remind local Flood advocates:

These are exactly the same terms used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe the various kinds of land animals which God created.... The fact of the matter is that no clearer terms could have been employed by the author than those which he did employ to express the idea of the totality of air-breathing animals in the world. Once this point is conceded, all controversy as to the geographical extent of the Deluge must end; for no one would care to maintain that all land animals were confined to the Mesopotamian Valley in the days of Noah! (1961, p. 13, emp. in orig.).

One final point needs to be mentioned. Some today are fervent in their insistence that the ark has been found on top of the 17,000-foot-high Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Among that number is John Warwick Montgomery (1972). Dr. Montgomery, however, is an ardent proponent of the local Flood theory. How can a man claim to accept biblical and/or scientific evidence that he feels would point to the remains of Noah’s ark being on the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey, and then deny the biblical testimony to the global Flood that put it there? Does Montgomery understand what he is asking us to believe? To claim that the remains of the ark are on top of the 17,000-foot-high Mt. Ararat, while at the same time insisting that it was put there by a local flood, is to strain at the gnat and swallow the camel. [NOTE: I do not accept Montgomery’s claim that the ark can be proven to be on Ararat, but that is beyond the scope of this present discussion. See Major, 1994.]

The Construction and Size of the Ark

God told Noah to make “the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits” (Genesis 6:15). If we are to understand the size of the ark, we first must understand the length of the cubit. “The Babylonians had a ‘royal’ cubit of about 19.8 inches, the Egyptians had a longer and a shorter cubit of about 20.65 and 17.6 inches respectively, while the Hebrews apparently had a long cubit of 20.4 inches (Ezek. 40:5) and a common cubit of about 17.5 inches” (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 10). Rehwinkel has observed:

It is generally supposed that the cubit is the distance from the point of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Translated into our own standard of measurements, the common cubit is estimated at about 18 inches. But Petrie, a noted Egyptologist, is of the opinion that it measured 22½ inches. Whether or not Noah’s cubit was comparable to any one of the cubits now known to us, no one is able to determine.... But accepting the lower figures and placing the cubit at eighteen inches and then again at twenty-four inches, we get the following results: According to the lower standard, the ark would have measured 450 feet in length, seventy-five feet in width, and forty-five feet in height. According to the higher figure, the length would have been six hundred feet; the width, one hundred feet; the height, sixty feet.... The ships of the maritime nations of the world never approached the dimensions of the ark until about a half century ago (1951, pp. 59,60).

Using a conservative cubit of 17½ inches, the ark would have been 437.5 feet long, 72.92 feet wide, and 43.75 feet high. In its three decks (Genesis 6:16), it had a total deck area of approximately 95,700 square feet—the equivalent of slightly more than twenty basketball courts. Its total volume would have been 1,396,000 cubic feet. The gross tonnage (measurement of cubic space rather than weight, one ton being equivalent to 100 cubic feet of usable storage space) was about 13,960 tons (see Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 10).

Critics of the Flood account have argued that the ark simply was not large enough to handle its assigned cargo. Such critics, however, generally have not taken into consideration exactly how large the ark really was, or the cargo it had to carry. As Whitcomb has pointed out:

For the sake of realism, imagine waiting at a railroad crossing while ten freight trains, each pulling 52 boxcars, move slowly by, one after another. That is how much space was available in the Ark, for its capacity was equivalent to 520 modern railroad stock cars. A barge of such gigantic size, with its thousands of built-in compartments (Gen. 6:14) would have been sufficiently large to carry two of every species of air-breathing animal in the world today (and doubtless the tendency toward taxonomic splitting has produced more “species” than can be justified in terms of Genesis “kinds”) on only half of its available deck space. The remaining space would have been occupied by Noah’s family, five additional representatives of each of the comparatively few kinds of animals acceptable for sacrifice, two each of the kinds that have become extinct since the Flood, and food for them all (Gen. 6:21) [1973, p. 23, emp. in orig.].

Whitcomb and Morris have given extensive investigation to the numbers of animals that would have been on the ark (using highest possible estimates, and taxonomic figures provided by evolutionists), and have shown that the biblical account can fit known scientific facts regarding these matters (1961, pp. 65-69). John Woodmorappe has expanded on their work and provided an extensive, well-researched feasibility study dealing specifically with the ark’s construction and contents (1996). Some, however, have stated that an examination of such facts amounts to nothing more than “mental gymnastics” (Clayton, 1980, p. 8). This we deny. It is not “mental gymnastics” to examine the physical structure and size of the ark given by the Bible itself, as compared to known scientific facts regarding the animal kingdom.

The Testimony of Jesus Christ

It was not just inspired writers of the Bible who provided information on the extent, nature, and importance of the Genesis Flood. The Lord Himself addressed the topic of the Great Flood in Luke 17:26-30 (cf. Matthew 24:39) when He drew the following parallel:

And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed (emp. added).

The Lord depicted an impending doom that was to befall the Jews of His day who would not heed the Word of God. For the purpose of this article, however, note the context in which Jesus discussed the Flood destruction of Genesis 6-8. He placed the Flood alongside the destruction of Sodom, and He also placed it alongside the destruction of the ungodly at His Second Coming. Whitcomb has remarked:

This fact is of tremendous significance in helping us to determine the sense in which the word “all” is used in reference to those who were destroyed by the Flood. Our argument proceeds in the following manner: the force of Christ’s warning to the ungodly concerning the doom which awaits them at the time of His Second Coming, by reminding them of the destruction of the Sodomites, would be immeasurably weakened if we knew that some of the Sodomites, after all, had escaped. This would allow hope for the ungodly that some of them might escape the wrath of God in that coming day of judgment. But we have, indeed, no reason for thinking that any Sodomite did escape destruction when the fire fell from heaven. In exactly the same man- ner, Christ’s warning to future generations, on the basis of what happened to the ungodly in the days of Noah, would have been pointless if part of the human race had escaped the judgment waters.... Therefore we are persuaded that Christ’s use of the word “all” in Luke 17:27 must be understood in the absolute sense; other- wise the analogies would collapse and the warnings would lose their force. A heavy burden of proof rests upon those who would maintain that only a part of the human race was destroyed in the Flood, in view of the clear statements of the Lord Jesus Christ (1973, pp. 21-22. emp. in orig.).

The Rainbow Covenant and Its Implications

A point that often is overlooked by local Flood advocates is the rainbow covenant that God gave (Genesis 9:11-15). Three times (Genesis 8:21; 9:11,15) God promised never again to allow “everything living” to be destroyed by a flood. He set a rainbow in the heavens as a sign of that promise. If the Flood of Genesis 6-8 was merely a local event, then it is obvious to even the casual observer that God has broken His covenant repeatedly, since there have been countless local floods upon the face of the Earth in which multiplied thousands of people have perished. If the Genesis Flood was local, but God promised never again to allow another (local) flood, then why have local floods continued?

Advocates of the local flood idea have invented a theory that places God in the untenable position of breaking His promise, in spite of plain statements of Scripture which state that God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). S.J. Schultz stated:

Had any part of the human race survived the flood outside of Noah and his family they would not have been included in the covenant God made here. The implication seems to be that all mankind descended from Noah so that the covenant with its bow in the cloud as a reminder would be for all mankind (1955, p. 52).


The account of the Great Flood in Genesis 6-8 entails the overruling power of an Almighty God in what undoubtedly were supernatural (i.e., miraculous) events. Critics of the account, however, have objected to the introduction of the miraculous. Byron Nelson, in his classic text, The Deluge Story in Stone, called attention to this fact when he wrote:

What is called “modern” geology has eclipsed Flood geology because of a dislike for those supernatural elements which are the backbone of Christianity. The Flood theory of geology has not been abandoned because it does not satisfy actual geological conditions. There is nothing known about the earth’s geological state today which makes the Deluge theory any less satisfactory an explanation of the fossiliferous strata than in the days when the leading scholars of the world accepted it. Rather the contrary—there are facts known now about the geological conditions of the earth remarkably supporting the Flood theory which Williams, Catcott, Harris and others never dreamed of. It is a disregard for God and the sacred record of his acts, and nothing else, which has caused the discard of the Flood theory to take place (1931, p. 137).

Theologian Bernard Ramm provides the perfect example of the “disregard for God and the sacred record of his acts” of which Nelson wrote. Ramm sneered: “If one wishes to retain a universal flood, it must be understood that a series of stupendous miracles is required. Further, one cannot beg off with pious statements that God can do anything” (1954, p. 165). Consistency, of course, is not the norm for those who defend error. The same Bernard Ramm who made the above statement militating against miracles also argued for miracles as an inherent part of the Bible when he said: “The miracles are not warts or growths that may be shaved or cut off, leaving the main body of the gospel record untouched” (1953, p. 174). So which is it? Is the miraculous to be accepted, or not? Apparently Ramm and his cohorts wish to answer in the affirmative in regard to certain portions of the Bible, but in the negative in regard to others—so long as they are are the ones allowed to pick and choose.

What does Dr. Ramm mean when he says that “one cannot beg off with pious statements that God can do anything”? God can do anything that is not inconsistent with His own nature. And He does not need Bernard Ramm, or others like him, to tell Him what He can or cannot do. God made it clear in these chapters that He was in complete control. From the bringing of the animals to Noah (Genesis 6:19-20), to the shutting of the door of the ark (Genesis 7:16), it was a miraculous situation from beginning to end. As Whitcomb and Morris have observed: “The simple fact of the matter is that one cannot have any kind of a Genesis Flood without acknowledging the presence of supernatural powers” (1961, p. 76). Furthermore, many of those who try to minimize the miraculous eventually end up returning to it anyway. Dr. Ramm, for example, was forced to admit that the animals coming to Noah were “prompted by divine instinct” [i.e., a miracle] (1954, p. 169).

God miraculously superintended the entire Flood process, and Bible believers should not be ashamed to admit it. Whitcomb has listed at least six areas in which supernaturalism is required in the context of the Genesis Flood: (1) divinely-revealed design of the ark; (2) gathering and care of the animals; (3) uplift of oceanic waters from beneath; (4) release of waters from above; (5) formation of our present ocean basins; and (6) formation of our present continents and mountain ranges (1973, p. 19). There may be other areas where the presence of supernaturalism is required, but the fact remains that certain aspects of the Flood record cannot be accounted for on the basis of purely natural processes.

Nevertheless, it is not necessary to appeal to an “endless supplying of miracles to make a universal flood feasible,” as Ramm has suggested somewhat satirically. Whitcomb noted: “Apart from the specific miracles mentioned in the Scripture which were necessary to begin and to terminate this period of global judgment, the flood accomplished its work of destruction by purely natural processes that are capable of being studied to a certain extent in hydraulic laboratories and in local flood situations today” (1973, p. 67). The fact of the matter is that both natural and supernatural phenomena worked side—by-side during the Flood. It did not require an “endless supplying of miracles.”


It has not been the main thrust of this article to present scientific evidence that supports the concept of a global Flood. As I said earlier, since it is the biblical Flood under discussion, the truthfulness of the Genesis record dealing with the Flood must be determined by an appeal to the Bible. However, there is ample scientific evidence available to indicate the presence of a global Flood in the distant past. In fact, entire volumes have been written documenting such evidence.

The classic volume The Genesis Flood, although now somewhat dated, is a good beginning point for such material. John Whitcomb’s two sequels, The World That Perished and The Early Earth, contain valuable additional material, and responses to critics. Harold Clark also has written a book dealing with such matters (Fossils, Flood and Fire). Similar books (The Flood, by Rehwinkel; Speak Through the Earthquake, Wind & Fire, by Fisher; Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, by Austin) are readily available, and speak to the fact of the cumulative amount of scientific evidence that supports the concept of the Genesis Flood.

However, I believe a word of caution is in order. In the past, extremes have been documented from those on both sides of the issue. Some have made indefensible statements like “...There is no way geologically of supporting the idea that there was a worldwide flood...” (Clayton, 1969). On the other hand, some have interpreted almost every shred of evidence as supporting a global Flood, even going so far as to identify a particular layer within the geologic column as the Flood layer—a posture that, in the end, proved extremely inadvisable (as well as embarrassing).

Both extremes should be avoided. Biblical evidence establishes the fact that there was a universal Flood. Knowing that, we then may be alert to evidence from science that possibly provides support for the Flood model. At the same time, however, we must realize that it is not always an easy task to interpret such evidence, for none among us has experienced or witnessed a global Flood. As Austin has warned: “The worldwide Flood recounted in Genesis has no parallel in today’s world” (1994, p. 192). Oard offered a further assessment when he wrote: “Small-scale local floods may not compare well with such a gigantic catastrophe as a worldwide Flood” (1997, p. 3). Therefore, whatever measurements we make must, by necessity, be made on a much smaller scale (e.g., using local flood information, etc.). This being the case, it behooves us to use great care, for we do not want to abuse, misuse, or overextrapolate the evidence from science.

Critics of what generally is referred to as “Flood geology” have been quick to point out what they view as flaws in the system that attempts to interpret Earth history in light of the global catastrophe of Genesis 6-8. Certainly, I know of none among us who would advocate that there are no difficulties with respect to the Flood theory of geology. Even those who are at the forefront in writing and speaking on these topics (e.g., Henry Morris, John Whitcomb, Steven Austin, John Woodmorappe, Walter Brown, John Morris, and others) are quick to admit that they do not have all the answers.

At the same time, however, neither should we be intimidated by, nor fall prey to, the false, unbiblical concept of evolutionary uniformitarianism. Truth be told, attempts to avoid any possible interpretation of Earth history via Flood geology, and to harmonize interpretations of Earth history via strictly natural processes, present more problems than they solve. As Cockburn stated the matter: “No man departs from the Flood theory upon pretense of avoiding any absurdity therein supposed, but that he ran himself upon the necessity of believing greater absurdities than any he pretended to avoid” (1750, p. 163).

While there may be some difficulty coming to a full and complete scientific, after-the-fact understanding of the geology associated with a global Flood, the arguments for a local flood (whether allegedly based on biblical exegesis or on modern science) are unconvincing—and more important, wrong. There are, however, overwhelming arguments in favor of a universal deluge. Henry Morris, for example, in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, has suggested 96 arguments (64 biblical, 32 non-biblical) that support the idea of a worldwide Flood (1972, pp. 96-100). While one may not agree with every single argument, it quickly will become apparent that it is impossible to dispose of each of the arguments in a nonchalant manner.

For example, vast animal graveyards and fossiliferous rubble shifts have been found worldwide. Evidence of a great, sudden, and recent watery cataclysm—followed by a deep freeze across the entire great north, accompanied by titanic hydraulic forces and crustal upheavals burying a host of elephants and other great beasts in a region that now is almost totally devoid of vegetation—has been documented. Vast numbers of fossil trees and plants, standing erect, oblique and even inverted while piercing through successive beds of water-laid stone (i.e., polystrate fossils) have been discovered.

Vast and numerous rifts, fissures, and lava beds have been discovered, scarring the world ocean floor and bespeaking some gigantic submarine upheaval of the Earth’s crust (as in the breaking up of the “fountains of the deep”). Geologic evidence suggests that most, if not all, of the world’s mountains have been under water at some point in the past—a conclusion demanded by the existence of sedimentary deposits and marine fossils at or near their summits. Much of the Earth’s crust is composed of sedimentary rocks (shales, limestones, sandstones, etc.) that generally are known to form under water.

Worldwide fossilization has occurred in vast quantities, including fossils of even many modern forms of life. These fossils are found in sedimentary strata, often at great depths and under great pressure. Yet as Morris has observed: “Fossils, however, normally require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidly—even catastrophically—and more and more present-day geologists are returning to this point of view” (1998, p. b). While it is not creationists’ intention to suggest that every instance of rapid burial and fossilization or mass destruction is attributable directly and specifically to the Great Flood, many may well be.

In addressing the well-known geologic column, Dr. Morris commented:

It is also significant that the types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in the rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately throughout the various “ages” supposedly represented in the column. To all outward appearances, therefore, they were formed in essentially the same brief time period (1998, pp. b-c).

Sedimentary fossil “graveyards” have been found worldwide in rocks of all “ages.” Various rock types (granite, shale, limestone, etc.) are found in all parts of the geologic column, and there exists a general disorder in the fossil record, which would be expected if a global Flood occurred.


The temptation undoubtedly exists, especially in today’s climate of extreme scientific prowess, to exalt science above Scripture. Such a stance, while obviously to be expected of those who do not profess a belief in either God or His Word, simply is not an option for the person who accepts the truthfulness and inspiration of the Bible. John Morris addressed this particular temptation, and what happens when Bible believers fall prey to it, when he wrote:

Unfortunately, many others now have begun to judge Scripture’s accuracy by its agreement with scientific dogma, and then to distort Scripture until the two seem to agree. In doing so, scientific opinions of some scientists are elevated to a level they don’t deserve, and Scripture suffers.

If such a method of interpreting Scripture is followed throughout, other doctrines will fall also. After all, miracles are “scientifically” impossible. Scientists know that virgins don’t give birth, men don’t walk on water, and bodies don’t rise from the dead. One may gain scientific credibility among the secularists by twisting Scripture to fit science, but it would be better to honor God by believing His word (1998, p. d).

Let us openly and fairly examine the biblical and scientific evidence that supports the Genesis Flood, and simultaneously urge others to do likewise. Let us be cautious as good students, but never willing to compromise inspired testimony. Indeed, “the main concern, as always, should be what do the Scriptures teach” (Jones, 1996, p. 61).


Austin, Steven A. (1994), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).

Clark, Harold W. (1968), Fossils, Flood and Fire (Escondido, CA: Outdoor Pictures).

Clayton, John N. (1969), Questions and Answers: Number 1 [taped lecture], (South Bend, IN: Privately published by author).

Clayton, John N. (1980), “The Flood—Fact, Theory and Fiction,” Does God Exist?, 7[7]:2-9, July.

Cockburn, Patrick (1750), An Enquiry into the Truth and Certainty of the Mosaic Deluge, quoted by Byron C. Nelson (1968), The Deluge Story in Stone (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).

Custance, Arthur C. (1958), The Extent of the Flood: Doorway Papers No. 41 (Ottawa, Canada: Privately published by author). [NOTE: This material by Custance also was included in his 1979 book, The Flood: Local or Global? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).]

Fisher, Graham A. (1982), Speak Through the Earthquake, Wind & Fire (Merseyside, England: Countyvise, Ltd.).

Jones, Edwin S. (1996), Studies in Genesis (Abilene, TX: Quality).

Major, Trevor (1994), “Has Noah’s Ark Been Found?,” Reason & Revelation, 14:39, May.

Montgomery, John Warwick (1972), The Quest for Noah’s Ark (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship).

Morris, Henry M. (1972), The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research).

Morris, Henry M. (1998), “Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood,” Back to Genesis, (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), 116:a-c, August.

Morris, John (1998), “How Does ‘Old Earth’ Thinking Affect One’s View of Scripture’s Reliability?,” Back to Genesis, El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), 116:d, August.

Nelson, Byron (1931), The Deluge Story in Stone (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Oard, Michael J. (1997), Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landslides? (Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society).

Ramm, Bernard (1953), Protestant Christian Evidences (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Ramm, Bernard (1954), The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Rehwinkel, Alfred M. (1951), The Flood (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).

Schultz, S.J. (1955), “The Unity of the Race: Genesis 1-11.” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 7:52.

Van Bebber, Mark and Paul S. Taylor (1996), Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross (Gilbert, AZ: Eden Communications).

Whitcomb, John C. (1973), The World That Perished (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed).

Woodmorappe, John (1996), Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).

Copyright © 1998 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print unless otherwise stated below, and will not be used for any commercial purpose, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original written content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. Further, documents may not be copied without source statements (title, author, journal title), and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as listed below.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
Phone (334) 272-8558

Web site engine code is Copyright © 2003 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
Page Generation: 0.090 Seconds