CRST 290 Quiz 7: Noah's Flood
Questions and Answers | 2026 Update | 100% Correct
Noahic Flood Geology, Catastrophism, Biblical Hermeneutics,
Fossil Record Interpretation, Ark Feasibility, and Flood Evidence
Liberty University
School of Religion | CRST 290 Creation Conversation
August 2026
Abstract
This study guide and examination document supports students preparing for CRST 290
Quiz 7, which focuses on Noah's Flood. The 30 questions span four domains: the biblical
account and hermeneutics of the Flood narrative, flood geology and catastrophism, Ark
feasibility and baraminology, and post-Flood evidence with 2026 updates. Each question
includes a rationale demonstrating biblical and scientific reasoning for flood geology
concepts.
Keywords: Noah's Flood, Catastrophism, Flood Geology, Ark Feasibility, Baraminology, Polystrate
Fossils, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, CRST 290, Biblical Hermeneutics, Ice Age
, Section 1: Biblical Account, Hermeneutics, and the Scope of the
Flood (Q1-Q8)
Q1: The Hebrew word 'mabbul' is used in Genesis to describe Noah's Flood. What is the
significance of this specific Hebrew term for understanding the nature of the Flood?
A. A. Mabbul is a common Hebrew word for any minor flooding event, including localized river
floods.
B. B. Mabbul is a unique Hebrew term used exclusively for Noah's Flood, denoting a
cataclysmic, unique divine judgment that destroyed all air-breathing land life, distinguishing
it from ordinary Hebrew words for local flooding (such as sheteph) and indicating its
singular, non-repeatable nature in biblical theology. [CORRECT]
C. C. Mabbul refers only to metaphorical or spiritual flooding in prophetic literature.
D. D. Mabbul is borrowed from Sumerian mythology and has no distinct theological meaning in
Hebrew.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: Mabbul appears 13 times in the Old Testament and exclusively refers to Noah's Flood. Its
uniqueness distinguishes this event from ordinary local floods (sheteph). This linguistic evidence
supports the Flood's global and cataclysmic nature. Option A confuses terms. Option C misidentifies the
usage. Option D is factually incorrect.
Q2: Which of the following biblical arguments most strongly challenges the local flood
interpretation of Genesis 6-9?
A. A. The Bible does not specify the geographic scope of the Flood, leaving the question open to
interpretation.
B. B. The text states that 'all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered' (Gen. 7:19),
God's covenant with Noah included a promise never again to send 'a flood to destroy the
earth' (Gen. 9:11), and Peter describes the Flood as destroying 'the world that then existed' (2
Pet. 3:6), all of which are inconsistent with a merely local flood since local floods have
occurred repeatedly throughout history. [CORRECT]
C. C. A local flood is the most natural reading of the Hebrew text and requires no special
hermeneutical arguments.
D. D. The local flood view is supported by Jesus Himself in the Gospels.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: Genesis 7:19 describes universal coverage of high hills. God's rainbow covenant (Gen.
9:11-15) would be meaningless if local floods continued. Peter's reference to the Flood destroying 'the
world' supports global scope. Option A ignores explicit textual claims. Option C contradicts the text's
universal language. Option D is false.
Q3: A critic argues that the Genesis Flood account was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh
and therefore has no historical basis. Which response best applies CRST 290 methodology?
A. A. Concede that the Genesis account is entirely dependent on Gilgamesh and has no independent
historical value.
B. B. The similarities between Genesis and Gilgamesh are best explained by a shared
historical memory of a real global flood event, with Genesis preserving the theologically
accurate divine revelation while Gilgamesh incorporates polytheistic distortions, and the
significant differences (monotheism vs. polytheism, ark shape, flood duration, moral
Page 2
Questions and Answers | 2026 Update | 100% Correct
Noahic Flood Geology, Catastrophism, Biblical Hermeneutics,
Fossil Record Interpretation, Ark Feasibility, and Flood Evidence
Liberty University
School of Religion | CRST 290 Creation Conversation
August 2026
Abstract
This study guide and examination document supports students preparing for CRST 290
Quiz 7, which focuses on Noah's Flood. The 30 questions span four domains: the biblical
account and hermeneutics of the Flood narrative, flood geology and catastrophism, Ark
feasibility and baraminology, and post-Flood evidence with 2026 updates. Each question
includes a rationale demonstrating biblical and scientific reasoning for flood geology
concepts.
Keywords: Noah's Flood, Catastrophism, Flood Geology, Ark Feasibility, Baraminology, Polystrate
Fossils, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, CRST 290, Biblical Hermeneutics, Ice Age
, Section 1: Biblical Account, Hermeneutics, and the Scope of the
Flood (Q1-Q8)
Q1: The Hebrew word 'mabbul' is used in Genesis to describe Noah's Flood. What is the
significance of this specific Hebrew term for understanding the nature of the Flood?
A. A. Mabbul is a common Hebrew word for any minor flooding event, including localized river
floods.
B. B. Mabbul is a unique Hebrew term used exclusively for Noah's Flood, denoting a
cataclysmic, unique divine judgment that destroyed all air-breathing land life, distinguishing
it from ordinary Hebrew words for local flooding (such as sheteph) and indicating its
singular, non-repeatable nature in biblical theology. [CORRECT]
C. C. Mabbul refers only to metaphorical or spiritual flooding in prophetic literature.
D. D. Mabbul is borrowed from Sumerian mythology and has no distinct theological meaning in
Hebrew.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: Mabbul appears 13 times in the Old Testament and exclusively refers to Noah's Flood. Its
uniqueness distinguishes this event from ordinary local floods (sheteph). This linguistic evidence
supports the Flood's global and cataclysmic nature. Option A confuses terms. Option C misidentifies the
usage. Option D is factually incorrect.
Q2: Which of the following biblical arguments most strongly challenges the local flood
interpretation of Genesis 6-9?
A. A. The Bible does not specify the geographic scope of the Flood, leaving the question open to
interpretation.
B. B. The text states that 'all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered' (Gen. 7:19),
God's covenant with Noah included a promise never again to send 'a flood to destroy the
earth' (Gen. 9:11), and Peter describes the Flood as destroying 'the world that then existed' (2
Pet. 3:6), all of which are inconsistent with a merely local flood since local floods have
occurred repeatedly throughout history. [CORRECT]
C. C. A local flood is the most natural reading of the Hebrew text and requires no special
hermeneutical arguments.
D. D. The local flood view is supported by Jesus Himself in the Gospels.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: Genesis 7:19 describes universal coverage of high hills. God's rainbow covenant (Gen.
9:11-15) would be meaningless if local floods continued. Peter's reference to the Flood destroying 'the
world' supports global scope. Option A ignores explicit textual claims. Option C contradicts the text's
universal language. Option D is false.
Q3: A critic argues that the Genesis Flood account was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh
and therefore has no historical basis. Which response best applies CRST 290 methodology?
A. A. Concede that the Genesis account is entirely dependent on Gilgamesh and has no independent
historical value.
B. B. The similarities between Genesis and Gilgamesh are best explained by a shared
historical memory of a real global flood event, with Genesis preserving the theologically
accurate divine revelation while Gilgamesh incorporates polytheistic distortions, and the
significant differences (monotheism vs. polytheism, ark shape, flood duration, moral
Page 2
