Skeptics of the Bible know that the Genesis account about Noah’s Flood clearly describes a Deluge which covered the entire earth, any sixth grader can read it and will say that is what is written, no argument there, unless you’re a Christian who wants to shoehorn billions of years of earth history (with Noah’s Flood being only a river-flood or the limited sea level rise at the end of the Ice Age) into the Genesis account.
Of course, Bible skeptics love that Christians feel compelled to accomodate the timeline proponed by Darwin, Lyell, and Hutton, because this surely erodes the credibility of the Bible in the public eye, these Christians are doing good work for those skeptics who seek to establish that the Bible is not real history, like pawns of the Darwinists to undermine faith in the Bible.
So what would Jesus say about the Genesis account? He referred to it often, as actual history, when He was physically on the earth 2,000 years ago, but now, would He say that science has busted the Bible, that those Bible stories were really old tired shepherds’ tales which are now outdated and proven impossible because of modern science?
Would He say that there really were not ten generations from Adam to Noah, saying too that God (He) was just kidding about Noah’s Flood, that it really was just a flooding of the Tigris or Euphrates Rivers, recorded as a global flood by ignorant grandstanding shepherds? And would He say that there really were not ten generations from Noah to Abraham, actually, more like a hundred?
I think any self-respecting preacher would contemplate this and say that Jesus would stand up for what is plainly written in Genesis, after all, He often referred to Genesis history, and never suggested that it’s mythology, dreamed-up by sun-stroked Middle Eastern nomads, so according to what is written, Jesus, the Word, supports Genesis history.
Jesus is the Word, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, so how could the Word lie about the Word? Where would the consistency then be?