I Now Believe in the Regional Flood Theory Because I No Longer Care About Interpreting the Bible according to the Intent of Its Author.

I wish there were some scientific evidence to reject the Genesis account of a universal flood, but there is none. I wish I could believe in a regional flood based upon the arguments of those advancing the notion, but I find there is no substance to their position. Every claim, every argument, every justification advanced is refuted by the hard facts and sound principles of hermeneutics. So, unfortunately, I find I must base my rejection of God’s word upon something much more flimsy and subjective.

Instead, I reject the Biblical account of the flood because I have simply chosen to believe it is a myth. It doesn’t matter that Plato and all the ancients believed in a universal flood, that the church fathers affirmed the flood was universal, or that every culture in the world affirms the basic fact of a universal flood. I simply choose not to believe it because it no longer suits me and I find belief in the verbally inspired word of God uncomfortable; I chaff under its load.

And why shouldn’t I? If I can reject the creation account as a mere fiction, why should I put confidence in any part of the Bible? Universal flood, walking upon the water, giving sight to the blind, raising the dead; Posh! It is all the same. The opiate of the people, someone said. I choose to follow Thomas Jefferson’s example and simply redact those portions of the Bible that I am disposed to disbelieve. Besides, being hermeneutically bound to the intent of the author (which all reasonable people admit was to set forth a universal flood) gets in the way and is most inconvenient. It is much more to my purpose to apply a wooden hermeneutic that makes every occurrence of a word or phrase mean the same thing, regardless of the author’s intent or the fact that it occurs one time in highly charged book of prophecy and in another in a book of simple prose or historical narrative. Such distinctions are irksome and a burden to me. Therefore, tut, tut! Away with the author’s intent in composing the flood account! Since it is not God’s word and is merely the subjective impressions of unenlightened men whose record is unworthy of credit, I feel no scruple in rewriting the Bible as it suits me best.

Some urge that I not be so bold or outspoken about my rejection of God’s word; they say I should conceal my skepticism by putting forward new interpretations based upon dubious hermeneutics; that I should justify my opinions by appeal to novel translations of Hebrew words; they say I should argue forcefully for a regional flood by making the meaning of Greek words occurring in Revelation a justification for the novel translation of Hebrew words in Genesis; they urge me to employ these and similar artifices to make it more palatable to others. A little creative hermeneutics can rewrite the Bible completely, they say, and I will gain many adherents.

But I reject all such approaches as low and unworthy the true man of modern science and enlightenment. Since I reject the word of God, I should proclaim against it openly. Therefore, let no one bother me with “thus saith the Lord.” This is a brave new world. We are our only masters! Let us throw off the shackles that have so long bound us! From now on the Bible is a tool to use as we please; to bend to our will; to justify what we want; and ignore as we will. With the Bible no longer to bind us, there is no end to what we may do, no limit where we may go! Faith has suddenly become so comfortable and so much more convenient. I marvel I resisted for so long!

But if not, and the Bible really is the verbally inspired and inerrant word of God, if the intent of the author must govern our interpretation, then…well, don’t really want to go there, after all, do we? That would spoil all our fun.