Global Flood vs. Regional Flood

Henry Morris, Ph. D. portrays an aspect of the Noah's Ark flood argument that is quite literal. The title of his article is 'Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood'. He describes the 'subtle persecution' that modern creationists undergo due to their verbatim interpretations of Scripture. He stated that it would be a simpler affair if these people refuted their beliefs, but encouraged the refusal to do so. Morris provided a list of one-hundred reasons as to why it is vital for Christians to hold fast to the thought of a global flood. This is a positive aspect to his argument; he gives valid explanations to why he believes what he believes. A con to this would be the fact that the author appears a bit close-minded. As seen from the title, he seems to be set on the thought that Christians who don't believe in an international flood are not 'true believers'.

In the second article, written on biologos.com, the narrator seems to obtain a polar opposite perspective. He or she believes that the flood was regional, and it did not extinguish the human race. The author states that the 'global flood' interpretation of Genesis 6-9 is not supported by scientific and archaeological evidence. He expounds on his opinion through the description of location, geology, and contrasting flood tales. He, also, provides bona fide details to his reasoning. On the down side, he is a bit vague in his descriptions.

Both men are exceedingly educated and well spoken. So, what does this mean for Christians? What should we believe?

Here is my question; Why does it matter? Honestly, the argument regarding a regional or global flood seems a bit irrelevant to me. I do not intend to sound ignorant or as if biblical history is an unimportant concept to me. Despite this, the disagreement shouldn't exist between evolutionists and creationists, or collective groups. It is the individual's perception. There is no proper formula to correctly interpreting a passage of scripture. Everyone believes that they are correct in their understanding. Who is a human to say that they fully comprehend the way of God and the opposing person does not? Neither of the authors of these articles were particularly humble. As I was reading, I asked myself the question "How is God being glorified through this?". I believe that His intention for Christians was to reflect the love, knowledge, and joy that is Him. The predominant goal should not be achieving all of the 'right answers' to theological questions. Our minds are a wonderful tool, and I still believe that they should be used to explore Scripture and form foundational beliefs. For myself, I have been raised with the theology of a global flood. I have yet to study the subject independent from church or Bible study, so I am unable to delegate a definite opinion regarding the matter. I believe that the debate is somewhat insignificant when compared with the grand scheme of things.