There’s
often a stark asymmetry between those who argue for the global flood
interpretation and those who argue for the local flood interpretation. Global
flood proponents usually focus on exegetical arguments whereas local flood
proponents usually focus on scientific arguments.
Some Bible scholars like John Walton and Ronald Youngblood
argue for a local flood on exegetical grounds, but that’s fairly rare. Another
exception is the late Arthur Custance. I think some of his arguments are weaker
than others. I’m going to quote and occasionally comment on some of his
arguments. I’m referring this monograph: The Flood Local or Global? (Zondervan
1979). Pagination is from my paperback copy.
His monograph is currently available online:
So we begin with a brief examination of the Hebrew word (eretz) which is translated
"earth," as in Genesis 6:4, 5, 6, 11, 12, etc. According to Young's
Analytical Concordance, the Hebrew word is translated "country" 140
times, "ground" 96 times and "earth" and "land"
frequently. It is also rendered "field" once and by several other
words in a very small number of instances. Assuming that Young's list is
exhaustive, actual count shows that the word is translated "earth"
about 677 times and translated "land" 1,458 times. Moreover, of the
677 occurrences, in at least one hundred instances the word may be equally, if
not more appropriately, rendered "land" rather than
"earth." Whereas in the cases where it is translated "land"
in the English, the instances in which "earth" would have been more
appropriate are rare. That is to say, the choice of "earth" or
"land" as a translation of the original in any particular instance is
a matter of context: and on the whole, if we exclude the account of the Flood,
usage elsewhere shows that the context favours the word land rather than earth.
To put this another way, Hebrew writers evidently employed the word with its
much more restricted meaning about four times as frequently as they employed it
with a broader meaning. Where they wished to make it absolutely clear that they
meant "earth" in the sense of soil, the word (adamah) was used, as
for example in Genesis 2:5, "there was not a man to till the ground."
And where they wished to convey the idea of the whole habitable earth, they
used the word (tebel), as in Psalm
24:1, "the world and they that dwell therein."
A good illustration of the inconsistency of the Authorized Version in
this particular context may be seen in Exodus 10:13, 14, where it is stated
clearly that there was a plague brought upon Egypt only (for the land of Goshen
probably escaped), and it is surely not intended by the writer that the whole
earth was in view. Yet in Exodus 10:15 the Authorized Version has left the
impression that the plague did indeed cover "the whole earth." My own
studies have convinced me that in many subtle ways the AV is to be preferred to
the Revised Standard Version. However, in this instance the RSV has translated
Exodus 10:15 more correctly, rendering the phrase in question "the whole
land."
Now, it is quite surprising what a change this substitution makes in
Genesis 6, 7, and 8. For example, in Genesis 6:11-13 the text would then appear
as:
The land also was
corrupt before God, and the land was filled with violence.
And God looked upon the land, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh
had corrupted its way upon the land. And God said unto Noah, The end of all
flesh is come before Me; for the land is filled with violence through them;
and, behold, I will destroy them with the land.
With this quite proper substitution, the view is contracted considerably
[ibid. pp15-16].
…it seems to me that the phrase "all flesh had
corrupted its way" must apply morally only to mankind, though in effect
animal life may have been badly disturbed as a consequence…Accordingly it seems
that the term "all flesh" in verse 12 means the entire human race at
that time. This race had corrupted itself and brought a judgment upon the land
in which all other flesh (i.e., the animals) suffered as a consequence (Genesis
7:21) [pp16-18].
One might object that in the same account, the scope of “all
flesh” clearly includes animal life:
And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two
of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and
female (6:19).
And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds,
livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all
mankind (7:21).
Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of
all flesh—birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the
earth—that they may swarm on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the
earth (8:17).
However, it’s not the “all flesh” phrase alone that includes
animal life. Rather, it’s these additional descriptors which unpack the scope
of the phrase within the narrative. The phrase itself is unspecific.
We can also see that in another Pentateuchal passage:
For who is there of all flesh, that has heard the voice of the
living God speaking out of the midst of fire as we have, and has still lived?
(Deut 5:26).
Here it clearly refers to humans. So the scope of the phrase
is delimited by the context, and not the import of the phrase itself.
We are told in Deuteronomy 2:25 that at this early period in
their national history God had put the fear of the Israelites upon "the
nations that were under the whole heaven." It seems doubtful if this
geographic range included any more than the Middle East, and probably only part
of this [p19].
In Genesis 41:57, "all countries" came into Egypt to buy corn,
for the famine was sore "in all lands." The story of those famine
years reads like a firsthand account -- not a revelation. The Egyptian
government would hardly have sold corn (i.e., wheat) to people in China who
lived on rice or to those in the New World who lived on maize. China's history
goes way back beyond this period, and certainly man was in the New World prior
to 2000 B.C., antedating this particular period of famine [p19].
There are certain figures indicated in the text which, if we
are rightly interpreting them, provide some rather surprising information about
the rate at which the waters receded. In Genesis 8:4 we are told that the ark
came to rest, i.e., grounded, on the seventeenth day of the seventh month. If
we are permitted to assume that the draught of the ark (that is, the distance
from the bottom of the keel to the water-line) was in the neighbourhood of
fifteen cubits, or about twenty-five feet, it means that the water was just
twenty-five feet deep at the spot on which the ark came to rest. It could
hardly have been much more for the ark to have grounded at all, but even if it
were twice that amount and the draught of the ark accordingly increased, the
picture is not seriously affected.
The record states then that the waters receded (Genesis 8:5) until the
first day of the tenth month, at which time apparently it became possible to
see dry land.(2) Before this, the raven released from the ark had not found any
resting place within easy flying distance so that we must assume that the peak
on which the ark was actually grounded had not appeared above the water up to
this time. Obviously, if land could be seen, the raven would have found a place
to alight instead of wandering to and fro as depicted in Genesis 8:7. In this
interval, therefore, from the seventeenth day of the seventh month to the first
day of the tenth month, the water level had fallen perhaps twenty-five or
thirty feet. It is clear that as soon as the level had fallen by the amount
equal to the draught of the vessel, dry land would appear (see Figure 1).
Thus the interval between these dates, a period of about seventy-three
days, was the time required for the water to leave the "water-line"
of the vessel and reach a level twenty-five or thirty feet below it. The
seventy-three days are made up of the thirteen days which remained of the
seventh month, the twenty-nine days of the eighth and thirty days of the ninth
month and the first day of the tenth month; and twenty-five feet in
seventy-three days is the equivalent of a drop in level of about four inches
per day (see Genesis 8:4,5).
I would say personally that anyone who takes the text wholly
seriously will be forced to conclude that the event had a quite limited
magnitude in terms of depth of water, simply because the run off was so slow.
This run-off can be shown from the figures given in the text to have been only
a few inches per day!
Now, this total is not much affected if the months were twenty-nine or
thirty days. For the present purposes, we have a period of perhaps
approximately seventy-three days for the water to fall from the water-line of
the ark till the ark was "high and dry," as indicated in Figure 1.
There does not seem to me any other way of reading these figures nor
interpreting their implication. So we have a rate of decline at a critical
period of the Flood of only four inches per twenty-four hours. Moreover, the
waters were only 324 days running off. . . . From the cessation of the rain to the time the waters were
fully abated -- i.e., from the twenty-eighth day of the third month (Genesis
7:11,12) to the twenty-seventh day of the second month of the following year
(Genesis 8:14) -- the total number of days, according to William Lowe's
calendar, is seen to be 324 in all. A very approximate estimate, at a run-off
rate of four inches per day, gives a total depth of water of about 108 feet
[pp22-25].
There are one or two observations which may be made at this
point regarding these traditions. First of all, they do not demonstrate that
the Flood was worldwide in the geographical sense, though this claim has often
been made for them. If such were really the case, it would mean that in every
part of the world there were a few local survivors who originated the local
traditions -- in which case the biblical story is in error in claiming that
only one family actually escaped: and so are all the other traditions that make
this claim! This brings us to a second observation. Not one of these traditions
puts the scene of the catastrophe in some other part of the world as an event
far removed from them in which they themselves did not share, but of which they
had knowledge. This can only mean that there was but one single Flood and all
mankind was involved in it, for they are evidently referring to the same event
in which their own forebears were involved [p33].
Worldwide traditions of a great flood are certainly
intriguing. But I wish I knew more about the sources, the dates of the sources,
and so forth.
It is sometimes argued that the Flood must have been worldwide or God
would merely have advised Noah to migrate beyond its geographic limits. At
first sight this seems a reasonable argument. Moreover, animals and birds could
surely have migrated under God s direction by themselves, thus sparing Noah and
his family a great deal of labour.
There are several responses to these points. To begin with, God intended
to exterminate the whole race except for Noah and his family -- but not without
fair warning. The labour of Noah in constructing the ark was to serve as a
continuing and forceful testimony against the rest of mankind, who in spite of
the magnitude of the undertaking evidently paid no attention to it [pp33-34].
There is much evidence to show that the domestication of
animals was first undertaken somewhere in this general area. Assuming that such
species as had been domesticated in the centuries between Adam and Noah were
confined to the areas settled by man and had not spread beyond this, any Flood
which destroyed man would also wipe out these animals. The process of
domestication would then have to be begun all over again and probably under far
less ideal conditions.
We have already considered the reasons why the migration of Noah was not
suitable for God's purposes. It is almost certain that domesticated animals
could not have migrated alone. Although such animals do turn wild upon
occasion, they survive in this state only when they are not subjected to
predators -- and in the world outside of human settlements at that time, such
predators were probably numerous. Domesticated sheep, cattle, pigs, fowl,
goats, perhaps camels, and possibly asses -- to mention only the more common
ones -- might not have fared too well in a natural environment still quite
outside man's control. For this reason, if for no other, some animals at least
would have to be taken on board -- but these were probably of the domesticated
varieties [pp35-36].
Here Custance seems to be limiting the animal cargo to
livestock. That’s interesting, and that’s a consideration which is often
overlooked. However, the flood account isn’t that discriminating. Rather, it
distinguishes between clean and unclean animals.
Moreover, even if we think the animal cargo was more
restricted, it would make sense to include game animals as well as domesticated
animals–not to mention sacrificial animals.
There were only four men in the ark. These men represented
the crew. They did not have sails or other ship's gear to attend to, but they
did have animals to care for. Any farmer would tell you that thirty or forty
head of cattle requiring feeding, watering, and cleaning out daily could occupy
considerable time. The record states that there would be seven pairs of each of
the clean animals; this means fourteen head of every clean species. Besides
this there were to be two of all the others, however many this may have been.
Even if there were only two species of clean animals (e.g., sheep and cows)
this would mean quite a bit of work [p36].
That’s a stock objection to the global flood interpretation.
However, it’s been argued that ancient people had laborsaving devices for mass
feeding. Cf. John Woodmorappe, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (ICR 1996).
The dimensions of the ark are given in Genesis as 300 cubits
long, 50 cubits across, and 30 cubits deep. This is generally interpreted as
meaning that the vessel was 450 feet by 75 feet by 45 feet. This is an immense
structure. It may be that the ark really was of such proportions: but it may
also be that the terms of measurement are no longer correctly known. The cubit
may not at this early period have been equal to eighteen inches [p37].
Custance doesn’t offer any justification for this claim. But
there are scholars who agree with him. Cf. K. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26 (B&H
1996), 364n26.
Many primitive people use birds for navigation purposes, and
it happens that the two types most frequently used are the raven and the
pigeon. Both these birds have long been found in close association with human
settlements, and the history of early navigation could not be written without
reference to the use of these animals. It was customary to take on board a
certain number of birds of either kind which, once the vessel was some distance
out to sea and out of sight of land, were released one at a time. Some of these
birds -- the pigeon variety in particular -- would head directly back home,
thus giving the mariner a proper sense of direction. This was particularly
important when the sun was not visible and prior to the use of the magnetic
compass. The raven type was often used to locate land other than the point of
departure: If no land was sufficiently nearby, the birds would return to the
ship and would be released later only after traveling some further distance.
According to James Hornell, this system was used by the Vikings in the
re-discovery of Iceland in A.D. 874. (9)
Homing pigeons were carried on board to be used on the return trip in a
similar way. The Polynesians used much the same method to re-locate
comparatively small islands in the vast Pacific [pp39-40].
This is interesting because it corroborates the realism of
the flood account in one of those incidental details. This is consistent with
ancient maritime navigation.
Also, keep in mind that the Israelites were not a seafaring
people, so we wouldn’t expect them to make this up.
Back when Jason Stellman was beginning his unwinnable fight with “the Church”, reflecting upon Reformed ecclesiology as presented by Michael Horton in People and Place, Jason asked this question:
