Noah's Flood - Universal? #1
Things that may surprise you
Written and Compiled
by
Keith Hunt
INTRODUCTION
I grew up like MANY believing that Noah's flood was world-wide,
covering the entire planet earth. I never really proved it,
though I thought at one time I did by reading books like "The
Genesis Flood" - but I never read the other side of the question.
I was challenged on the matter, when reading a book by Ralph
Woodrow. When I read his study on it all, in 1999, I was indeed
challenged. After much meditation, and not being able to answer
the main arguments put forth by Woodrow, I have to agree with him
that Noah's flood was REGIONAL and NOT universal. Others I have
discovered down through the last few hundred years have also
written on this subject, claiming Noah's flood was REGIONAL and
not all over the entire globe.
WAS THE FLOOD UNIVERSAL?
Many if not most "religious" people of different faiths have
grown up being taught about Noah's flood and that it was a flood
that covered the whole planet earth. Some books down through the
last centuries have been written by well meaning people, I'm sure
quite sincere, trying to prove and uphold the teaching that
Noah's flood covered all the surface of the earth and all the
mountains upon it, and that all present human life and animal
life are so descended from the eight humans and the animal
creatures on board that ship Noah built.
But was the flood universal, covering the entire globe? Or
was it regional, involving human and animal life in one specific
area of land on earth? There are, of course, dedicated Christians
on both sides of this question, and each side has its able
defenders. But looking at the main evidence, I believe the bulk
of that evidence favors Noah's flood as being REGIONAL, and not
universal, covering the entire planet.
If the flood was universal, then as stated before every
animal on earth today would have descended from those on that
ark. As Woodrow has stated in his book "This raises questions, of
course, as to how this many animals would be able to fit into
Noah's ark, how they were able to cross vast continents to get to
the ark, and how they managed, after the flood, to get back
home."
According to Ussher the flood was in 2,348 B.C. Does this
really give enough time for tiny creatures like the worm and
snail (and we all know how fast they travel) to get from Noah's
ark to the other side of the world.
The snail, some could argue got to North America by catching
a ride with the Indians, but could snails, or say worms, get to
cover North America in such a relatively short time (if we go
with Ussher's chronology of the Bible)? Then they say there are
more "species" of insects than any other living thing. Sure, as
the argument goes, all "flies" (fruit and other) come from the
same stock, but could Noah really have all "species" of insects
from around the whole earth come to him and be on the ark, and
then get back to all parts of the globe again, in such a
relatively short time (if we go with Ussher's chronology that
is)? As Woodrow says, that part of it is just the tip of the
iceberg.
Many will point to the verse in Genesis six, and say, "There
you are, this verse say Noah's flood was world-wide, for the
verse reads, 'A flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all
flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and
every thing that is in the earth shall die'" (Genesis 6:17).
The same people will then take you to Genesis chapter seven:
"The waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all
the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered
... and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved
upon the earth ... Noah only remained alive, and they that were
with him in the ark (verses 19-23).
Hummmm, does kinda sound like Noah's flood covered the
entire globe. But don't run off into the sunset too quickly, not
without taking a good long look at the Hebrew word used -
"erets." The Englishman's Concordance of the Hebrew Old
Testament, will give you every place where this word "erets" is
used. by looking at the context where this Hebrew word is found,
we can clearly see the word itself does not mean a dogmatic
"universal" aspect. many passages certainly within the very
context cannot mean, or cannot have, a GLOBAL meaning!
"Erets" (#776 in Strong's Concordance'), if you want to use
that popular concordance of the Bible, will show you it is
translated "country" 140 times, and 1,476 times it is translated
"land." Hence we can see the word "erets" is used with
LIMITATIONS!
The example of Abraham:
"Get thee out of thy country [erets]... unto a land [erets]
that I will show thee" (Genesis 12:1).
Was Abraham told to leave planet earth?
Later, "Abraham journeyed from there toward the south
country [erets], and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur" (Genesis
20:1).
Does this mean there are two planets being talked about?
Obviously that was not the case.
As Woodrow points out we also have these verses:
"the whole land [erets] of Havilah," "the whole land [erets]
of Ethiopia," "the land [erets] of Nod, on the east of Eden,"
"the land [erets] of Shinar," "the land [erets] of Canaan," "the
land [erets] of Egypt," "the Philistines' land [erets]," "the
land [erets] of Moriah" (Genesis 2:11,13,etc.).
No one would think of the entire earth, or the entire planet
from these verses.
Also as Woodrow discovered "erets" is used in the plural. We
read of Gentiles "in their lands [erets]," of "enemies' lands
[erets]," and of various nations called "lands [erets]" (Genesis
10:5; Lev. 26:36; 2 Kings 19:11,17; etc.). The word "every" is
used with erets: "I will get them praise and fame in every land
[erets] where they have been put to shame" (Zeph.3:19).
Again to think these verses mean entire planets is quite
rediculous and nobody jumps to so understand those verses.
Genesis 41:54,57. People from different planets are not here
being taught as coming to Egypt.
The reader can look at MANY more places from the above two
Bible Concordances aforementioned, and see for themselves that
the Hebrew word "erets" HARDLY EVER means the ENTIRE
GLOBE of this earth.
So, it is not then at all out of the question that this word
"erets" as used in the account of Noah's flood, was NOT meaning
the entire earth being covered with water. The word "erets"
itself and the context it is used in for Noah and the flood of
his days, does not automatically mean we are to understand the
account as a UNIVERSAL flood, covering ALL nations and ALL the
mountains on the earth.
When we understand "erets" as used with reference to Naoh's
flood, with our English words "land" and "country" we can readily
see that Moses (who most agree wrote the first five books of the
Bible) was NOT trying to teach us that the flood of Noah's time
covered the entire planet earth.
In other words, the use of the Hebrew word "erets" with
Noah's flood does NOT automatically prove THAT flood was
over the entire globe we call "earth." If you are going to try
and prove Noah's flood was a world-wide flood you will have to
do it another way entirely than from the argument of the word
"erets" and the context it is used for Noah's flood.
WITHIN THE CONTEXT
Why a flood to destroy? We are told the "wickedness of man
was great in the earth (erets)" Genesis 6:5. Did man inhabit
every single nation or land mass on the planet at this time in
human history? It is very doubtful that this was so. And even if
it was, were the reletively few, say in Alaska (if mankind was
all over the globe) so sinnful that they also had to be destroyed
together with obviously the sinful ones in Noah's land? and why
did God have to destroy the animals, creeping things, and fowls
of the air, say in Alaska, or Australia?
Genesis 7:17. The water were lifted above the "eret" -
earth or land. This again cannot by itself prove "above the hight
of the planet, or highest mountains anywhere on the globe.
"God made a wind to pass over the earth [erets -land]" and
the waters receded (Genesis 8:1). A wind picks up water (though
we do not see it happening per se) and the vapore water rises to
form clouds that float away (excuse the pun), but the water does
not DISAPPEAR into space. It moves on in those clouds to be
dropped as rain on another part of the globe. If the entire
planet was covered with water this would be like scooping out
water from a bath tub with one hand and putting it back in with
the other hand. The logic of the sentence does not make any
logic, unless you take these words to be telling us in a kind of
human way that God worked a miracle. But Moses knew all about
miracles, so he could have simply told us that the Lord worked a
miracle and "just made the water go away." But he put it the way
he did because it was a logical and human way to tell us what
happens everyday, wind or air evaporates water, carries it up to
form clouds and the clouds move on to later drop that wtaer in
other parts of the globe. So indeed the water that Noah and the
ark was floating on did recede in a natural way, for it was taken
by the wind and dropped on to dry parts of other lands at a later
time.
This I maintain is the normal logical sense of the sentence
here used in genesis 8:1 and 3.
"The waters were dried up from off the earth [erets - land]"
(Genesis 8:13).
If we understand this to mean the whole planet, in the
context of Noah's flood, then there is a large problem, when you
think of three-quarters or so of the globe is covered with water.
but if the context is talking only about a reginal flood then it
can be understood with normal logic.
UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN WAS COVERED?
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth
[erets]; and all the high hills, that were under the whole
heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters
prevail; and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:19,20).
Sounds like this is saying the whole globe was covered with
water, well if you again take the word "erets" to mean the entire
planet.
And "under the whole heaven" - surely some will say, that
phrase clinches it, the flood of Noah's day covered the entire
planet.
Once more, this expression and other very similar in the
Bible are there for all to read if they will but look for them,
and many times the context is clearly of a LIMITED nature.
Deuteronomy 2:25: "...the nations which are under the whole
heaven," is limited by the context. The nations and tribes of
people on the African continent or over in India or China are NOT
meant by this phrase.
Please note such passages as Isaiah 13:5,7. Did "end of
heaven" mean they came from Spain or Brazil? Cities that were
"walled up to heaven" (Deut.1:28) did not mean the walls rose
thousands of feet into the sky. The context limits the phrase
used.
Note the phrase "all the world should be taxed" in Luke 2:1.
Obviously such a phrase used in the context did not mean for us
to understand that it meant people from Japan were to come to
Palestine to be taxed.
The Bible uses MANY types of "figures of speech" just as we
use figures of speech today in our writings and in our
conversations. If we say about some great Olympic wrestler that
"he was as big and as strong as a bull" it is a figure of speech,
and not a phrase we should take to its literal end. It gets a
point across but no Olympic wrestler is as big as a bull, let
alone as strong as one.
Figures of speech are so numerous in the Bible that
Dr.Bullinger thought it important enough to write a 1,000 page
book on the subject. I have that book of his in my personal
library.
I agree with the conclusion Ralph Woodrow came to when he
wrote in his book on this subject, "the expression about all the
high hills 'under the whole heaven' is best understood as all
hills a person might see from one place - from horizon to
horizon. There is no reason to suppose this included hills
thousands of miles away on the other side of the planet!"
The "local flood" advocates try to argue that the waters
would have been just way to high to have covered Mount Everest,
way over 30,000 feet.
Then of course the argument put forth by the "entire globe
covered by water" advocates is that mountains like Everest, did
not form until AFTER the universal food of Noah's time - but that
is EVERY QUESTIONABLE indeed. It is more probable that mountain
chains like Everest is in and the great Canadian Rockies were
formed in Genesis chapter one, when God made the dry land appear
from the waters. The fact is there is no concrete proof for any
date as to when the largest mountain chains on earth were formed.
The natural logic to my mind is that the Genesis flood of
Noah's time is talking within a context of REGIONAL scope, and not
addressing the thought of vastly larger in height, mountain
ranges being covered than those in Noah's part of the world. But
again I know the "world-wide" flood advocates would like to say
those mountain ranges like the one where Everest stands, did not
form until after Noah's flood. But I say again, such an idea
cannot be proved.
We shall discuss later again, the idea that the waters did
cover Everest, if believing Everest was created in Genesis
chapter one. Which of course also cannot be positively proved to
have been created in that first chapter of Genesis.
THE WATER FROM WHERE?
Believing the flood covered every mountain on earth, we must
ask the questions, "Where did all this amount of water come from?
And what became of the water when the flood subsided? The classic
book "The Genesis Flood," (I have it in my library), a book
written to uphold the universal flood concept, admits:
"A global rain continuing for forty days, as described in the
Bible, would have required a completely different mechanism for
its production than is available at the present day. If all
the water in our present atmosphere were suddenly precipitated,
it would only suffice to cover the ground to an average depth of
less than two inches."
Yes, the Bible does say the springs of the deep also opened
up, water then under the earth came forth. And I guess if you
want to argue that with God nothing is impossible, you have an
answer as to where all the water came from to cover the entire
planet. Then add to that argument the argument that mountain
ranges like the Canadian Rockies did not exist or were not formed
until after Noah's flood, then you could come away believing
Noah's flood did cover the whole globe.
But, as we shall see in more chapters, there are many other
factors to consider and to answer, before we can come to a
dogmatic conclusion that Noah's flood did in fact engulf the
entire planet earth.
Continuing now to quote from The Genesis Flood:
"The process of evaporation could not have been effective during
the rain, of course, since the atmosphere immediately above the
earth was already at saturation level. The normal hydrologic
cycle would, therefore, have been incapable of supplying the
tremendous amounts of rain the Bible record describes."
Some of course would argue that, "Well with God anything is
possible. He just makes a miracle." Such arguing cannot
be answered per se. But the book "The Genesis Flood" at least
looks at the normal side of things, and admits it just could not
be possible in the world as we have it today.
It is really futile to try and argue as Woodrow does in his
book on this subject that in forty days "ex" amount of water
would have to come and rise on the earth (an amount per day or
hour that would amount to hundreds of feet) to cover Mount
Everest, for as stated above the universal flood advocates would
simply dismiss his reasoning with their teaching that Everest and
other mighty high mountains, did not exist until after the days
of Noah's flood.
Woodrow does argue this: "After it stopped raining and the
water began to go back down, the Bible implies the water receded
at the rate of 15 cubits in 74 days (Genesis 7:20; 8:4,5). A
number of recognized commentators have mentioned this point? If
we figure a cubit at about 18 inches, the water level would have
dropped 270 inches during this time or, to round it off, 4 inches
a day. If the flood depth was 29,050 feet (348,600 inches) and
the water level dropped 4 inches a day, it would take 87,150 days
to get back down to normal sea level. That would be almost 239
years! The whole time of the flood is normally figured at around
a year in duration certainly not 239 years! All of this argues
against the idea that the flood was thousands of feet in depth
and strongly suggests, rather, that it was a flood of regional
proportions."
A nice try on Woodrow's part, but once more the universal
flood advocates would answer with, "The mountain ranges like that
in which Mount Everest is found were not created until AFTER the
time of Noah's flood, so no need to be thousands of feet in
depth. And, with God anything is possible, He is a miracle
working God, and hence the waters could have receded in other
parts of the world MUCH faster than in the Ararat area where Noah
was in the ark."
And they do, I admit, have an argument with those arguments.
But there is more to this subject, we have to have the rest of
the story.
..............
Noah's Flood - Universal? #2
More on the rest of the story
Written and Compiled
by
Keith Hunt
CREATURES OF ALL KINDS
It is true, as the "world-wide flood" advocates say, only
one pair of bears, one pair of snakes, one pair of dogs etc.
would be needed, as all dogs can come from just one pair of dogs.
Science knows that animals of their kind can mutate. A well known
book in the 13th printing of 1958 (which I still have in my
library) was called "After Its Kind" - showing how indeed animals
after their kind can mutate to give us the variety of say the
domestic dog.
While this argument at first may seem to answer how all the
creatures got on Noah's ark. If we stop and think about even just
the insect world, I think the argument starts to fall. Science
tells us that there are WAY MORE insects on the earth than
humans. Their variety of kind is massive. Are we to suppose all
their variety came from two of a kind of each kind? And how did
some kinds of insect that are only found in a certain part of the
world, cross oceans to be with Noah? Yes, of course some will say
that that action of insects was all a miracle from God. And
naturally I have no answer for those who use at every turn the
"miracle of God" reply.
There are some creatures, like the Australian Platypus,
that only lives in Australia. How did they get to Noah? Somewhat
very puzzling I would say, unless you again use the "miracle"
reply, or the argument that maybe Australia was not an island
back in Noah's time.
Even with the size of the ark, which no one for sure really
knows for no one for sure knows exactly how long a cubit was in
Noah's time, there is I believe a large problem with believing
ALL the pairs of all the different kinds of animals, insects,
fowl, managed to fit on the ark.
Also remember that according to Genesis, we had SEVEN PAIR
of the CLEAN animals on the ark. Seven pair of cows would take up
a reasonable amount of space, even if Noah penned them together
in pairs of two. Sure I guess seven pairs of chickens could all
fit in one pen, and so also you could get seven pair of goats in
one pen. Yet, to think that one pair of all unclean animals and
seven pair of clean animals, birds, and insects, from ALL AROUND
the planet not only came to Noah, but all managed to be houses on
the ark, to me stretches the logic, unless again you answer with
the "miracle" argument.
The people who wrote the "Genesis Flood" book arguing with
with a certain framework of certain inches to the cubit, say
about 522 railroad stock-cars would fit on the ark, and so argue
from the position of every kind of pairs of animals, fowl, and
insects, could be put on the ark. Be that as it may (no one
really knows what the length of a cubit was in Noah's time), and
allowing them that side of their reasoning to be correct, we
still have the problem of some creatures and insects crossing
water masses or oceans. And then we have not yet come to the
space and volume of FOOD needed to feed all those creatures. We
shall look at that aspect closer later on in this study.
But if we take the word "erets" - earth - to mean what it
usually means in a lot of other places in the Bible, as "land" -
then the whole animal, fowl, insect, situation takes on quite a
different set of proportions.
To argue as Woodrow does that some crocodiles are 14 to 16
feet while others are 20 feet, and certain lizards in some parts
of the world are about 8 feet in length, and there are about
3,000 species of lizards in the world, is no argument to be used
by the "local flood" advocates, as the "world-wide flood" people
answer that all lizards come from one pair, and that pair on the
ark may have been quite small. They would answer with the
"mutation" reply, which could be a very reasonable argument -
a valid answer. And if God worked "mutation miracles" I will call
them, AFTER Noah's flood, then that would account for the 3,000
species of lizards on earth today. And so with the species of
dogs, cats, horses, etc.
As to the argument that Woodrow tries to use about the
peacock having a plumage spread of 7 feet, and the albatross of
the southern oceans having a wing span of over 10 feet. This is a
very weak argument insomuch that for the length of time on the
ark, God could have worked His work by not having the albatross
needing to spread its wings, and the peacock not needing to
spread its plumage.
I do believe Woodrow has a valid point in his example of him
owning a house on a lot slightly larger than 100 feet by 100
feet, all lots in that section being about the same, and putting
10 of those lots together would give an area within a fence of
318 feet by 318 feet, which would be about the area of ALL THREE
levels of the ark. And to think that all the pairs of animals,
fowl, insects, from around the world, got into that space, does
stretch the imagination.
And still remember we have not yet meditated upon all the
foods stuffs to be stored on the ark for about a year to feed all
those creatures.
As for the argument by some "local flood" advocates that
many of these animals needed to roam, to run around, keep fit,
fly, chase, jump, as they naturally do in the wild, can be
answered by the "world-wide flood" advocates reply that God
suspended those needs for those creatures during the stay on the
ark. Like turning a tap for water on or off. And certainly as all
things are possible with God, He could have done so. Hence I find
that argument of logic by some local flood people, no valid
argument for their position.
Then again some of the "universal" advocates will probably
come back with "God had all the animals go to sleep for the
year." And if people want to believe that, there is no more
debate, for how do you debate with such an idea, which is an idea
by the way, NOT found and NOT mentioned in the Bible. So people
can come up with all kinds of none-rational ideas of the
"miracles" God performed, but I say again, such "miracles" or
"special effects" [like they do in movies these days] like
falling asleep for a year, from God, are not mentioned as ever
being done in this whole account, EXCEPT that at the beginning
God did lead the animals to Noah.
The coming of water in the account is from heavenly rain,
and under-water springs, all VERY NATURAL things.
God simply used them all at the same time for that "earth"
or land area where Noah was, to be covered. I read the coming of
the waters as from natural things that God used and not some type
of Niagra Falls that would have been necessary to cover the
highest mountain on earth all over the globe, in such a
relatively short time as recorded in Genesis.
So overall, when we take ALL aspects of this flood so far
considered, the local flood is to me still the best thought in
keeping with the whole context of this passage of Scripture and
the context of the natural physical earth and all the creatures
upon it.
Let me state again, just think about, for starters, seven
pairs of cows, seven pair of sheep, seven pair of goats, and go
from there with all the "clean" animals (Gen.7:1-2). Think of the
space needed for just ONE pair of Elephants, even if lying down
in hibernation for a year. Even if arguing from an hibernation
point of invention [I say invention because the Bible gives no
evidence the animals on Noah's ark hibernated - the ones that
usually never hibernate that is], it still is beyond physical
reason that such a ship could contain pairs on all the unclean
animals, fowls of the air, and every creeping thing (fish of the
seas were not include), showing a proof that goes better with a
regional food than a WILD STRATA LAYING deluge that many
want to teach that Noah's flood was.
The vast and main strata laying deluge took place in the
UNIVERSAL food that DID actually happen on the ENTIRE globe,
the flood we see of Genesis 1:2, when the waters did indeed cover
the ENTIRE planet and everything on it [including fish in the seas]
was killed and wiped off the face of the earth. THAT flood and how
it came to be, I have covered in other studies on my Website.
There is the argument put forth by some who hold to a local
flood that says nothing is told to us that Noah separated the
animals and so reproduction could have taken place, hence the ark
would have been too crowded by the time a year had ended. This
cannot be used as any viable argument to support a local and not
universal flood, simply by the fact that God could easily have
"turned off the reproductive" tap in those creatures for a year
or so, after all doing such a thing for Him would be nothing,
He just has to speak and it is done.
Also as Woodrow argues there had to be reproduction on the
ark, because as he says some creatures (and he gives examples of
some, like the fly, and the grasshopper) do not live over a year,
much less in many cases.
But that argument presupposes that things were normal for
those creatures on the ark. If God did a miracle by having those
creatures that die under a year, live to over a year, then that
argument falls flat. It is just impossible to be dogmatic that
God did not intervene with certain miracles for that duration on
the ark for certain creatures.
We are given very few in-depth details in Genesis concerning
ALL the things God did or did not do, in the period Noah and the
creatures lived on the ark. We must try to build our case of a
regional or universal flood from what is told us, and not from
suppositions of "normal" conditions or "miraculous" conditions
which are not told us. We simply do not know all the details of
all those conditions during that year of living on the ark.
DISCOVERING MALE AND FEMALE
A valid argument I believe Woodrow does have is in stating
that it must have been very difficult if not impossible in some
cases to know male from female in some creatures, if he was to
take on board the ark pairs from all creatures of the world.
The wording in Genesis 7:2 and "THOU shall take to thee ..."
indicates it was Noah who had to pick and sort the male and the
female from all the beasts after their kind, the cattle after
their kind, every creeping thing after its kind, and every bird
after its kind (verse 14). The wording of "THOU" does NOT
indicate God did the sorting of male and female for Noah.
It would have been easy for Noah to find male from female in
animals like horses, cows and bulls. But in the case of other
creatures indeed very difficult and if not impossible at times.
How do you find the male and female in creatures like ants, or
flies, or snakes, or creeping things that can hardly be seen with
the human eye?
Unless you again argue that God miraculously told Noah which
was the male and female in some creatures, we have to face the
fact that sometimes it would have been impossible for Noah to
have known male from female in many of the living creatures and
insects on the entire earth, if Noah's flood was indeed a global
happening.
Once more the "universal flood" advocates would have to
resort to "the miracle" answer. God brought the pairs to Noah,
God knows male and female, so Noah did not have to. You cannot
debate with such "miracle" answers. So many miracles would have
to be done for a "universal Noah's flood" idea that it is really
not understandable by the human mind, though books like
"The Genesis Flood" and "After It's Kind" and "Deluge Story in
Stone" try to make it all humanly understandable. Just the
thought of God bringing to Noah all those TINY creeping things
that are practically INVISIBLE to the human eye, is enough to
blow my mind away. Remember, for those who think "erets" means
the whole globe of the earth, it is written that ALL living
things, on the land, in the air, and all things that creep, were
to be destroyed (life from off the earth was to be destroyed, so
that was vegetation life also) - only that which was in the seas
were to be spared from death, as life in the seas is not
mentioned as going to be killed or destroyed.
THE AMOUNT OF FOOD FOR ANIMALS
Some creatures eat creatures to live. This alone is mind
bending to think about in connection to keeping creatures alive
on the ark for a whole year.
Of course "miracle universal flood" advocates would respond
by saying God made a miracle and no animals would eat one another
during life on the ark. Or they would argue it was not the nature
of creatures to eat creatures until AFTER Noah's flood.
Okay, let's give them that, let's say either one of their
responses to animals eating animals was the fact. I want you to
notice carefully Genesis 6:17-22. Did you catch it? We cannot use
the argument that God put all the creatures into a hibernation
"sleep" for a year and so they needed NO food! Mark verses 20,
and 21. Noah was to take FOOD onto the ark for himself (his wife
and three sons and their wives) and FOOD FOR THE CREATURES, to
KEEP THEM ALIVE!! The food was FOR "THEE AND FOR THEM"!!
I am a horseman. The average principle for feeding a horse
is dividing the body weight by 100 and times it by 2.5, so an
eleven hundred pound saddle horse, NOT working, should be given
about 30 pounds of hay per day. Let's round it out at 25 pounds
of hay, which is half a bail of a 50 pound hay bail per day. And
that is three and a half bails (50 pound bails) of hay per week.
We have two horses (male and female - one pair of unclean animals
in the horse kind) on board Noah's ark, that is 7 bails of hay
per week. Now times that by 52 weeks for the year on the ark
during the flood, and we get 364 bails of hay needed just to
feed TWO horses!! You put 364 fifty pound bails of hay together
and it would amount to a fairly good size room on the ark, just
to feed two horses for a year.
Now that is for two horses. As Woodrow points out, consider
just ONE Elephant. His study showed him that one elephant ate
about 62,000 pounds of food a year. I will not question his
figure, for it should be very obvious to all that an elephant
would eat WAY more than a horse each and every day. The amount of
food needed to feed TWO elephants for a year would have been
mind-bending to imagine, going on to the ark, with all the other
food needed for all the other animals from around the world.
Woodrow gives the example of the domestic cow, with about 20
pounds of hay and 50 pounds of silage per day, or 25,550 pounds
for the year. And as he points out THERE WERE SEVEN PAIRS (God
commanded Noah to take seven pair of clean animals onto the ark),
7 bulls and 7 cows, a total of FOURTEEN! Multiple 25,550 pounds
by FOURTEEN. The amount of space needed on the ark just for the
storage of food to feed 7 cows and 7 bulls was huge.
Probably our "miracle flood" advocates would say "well God
worked a miracle and they did not need anywhere as near as much
food as usual" - but how much not as usual is the question -
maybe only a tenth as much or a one hundredth as much? Even a
one hundredth as much would still amount to a HUGE tonnage for
all the animals of the entire globe. Then the Scriptures say
NOTHING on any such miracle given by God as animals reducing
their amount of food eating by anything. Maybe because they did
not run around they needed slightly less food. I am a horseman
and saddle horses, even when not working on the trail or range,
still need about 25 to 30 pounds of hay per day.
Ralph Woodrow also points out that some creatures have a
specialized diet. He gives the example of the giant Panda of
China, which lives pretty well only on bamboo, and the Koala bear
of Australia feeds exclusively on the leaves of a species of
eucalyptus tree.
Did Noah travel around the world before the flood gathering
the food for these animals?
Our "many miracle" flood advocates would probably want to
argue that those animals just mentioned did not have this
"special" diet back then, but were given it later by God after
the flood, or God worked a miracle by changing their specialized
dieting during the year on the ark. But nowhere in the Bible is
such a miracle taught or even close to being mentioned.
A local flood for the time of Noah would solve many of the
above staggering facts on just the amount of food needed to be
taken onto the ark.
WATER WATER EVERYWHERE - BUT FRESH?
Woodrow shows in his book on this subject that WATER,
drinking water, would also be a MASSIVE problem to solve for all
on the ark.
Sure "fresh" water poured onto the land from springs and
from the clouds of heaven, but it would still have been mingled
with salt water from the oceans, and unless God once more worked
a miracle, the water all around them would not have been "good
water" per se. And if we take the idea from some "universal
flood" advocates that the high mountain ranges of the Canadian
Rockies and those in Alaska, and other mighty mountain ranges of
the world, did NOT exist until AFTER Noah's flood, then no where
near as much fresh water from springs and the clouds was needed
to cover the earth, and so the salt water of the oceans was even
more present in all that water now covering the planet. But yes
of course our "miracle" flood people would say God made all the
water "fresh" for that particular situation and for that
particular year that the globe was covered with water.
The universal flood advocates must argue with such arguments
because they know how much fresh water would be needed per day
for creatures like Elephants. Horses alone if not grazing on
pasture (which contains water) but only eating dry hay, would
require a good big jug of water per day. And TWO Elephants,
dozens of gallons of water per day is what they drink.
The fresh water problem alone would have been a HUGE
problem for Noah if all creatures from around the world was on
the ark. Unless Noah had a way of making all that water around
him fresh and drinkable. Maybe he did have a way, or maybe the
Lord worked another miracle.
FOOD FOR THE HUMANS
Food just for the humans aboard that ark would have been
significant. Yes, the SEVEN pairs of "clean" animals were
probably indeed intended for food for the eight people on the
ark.
Yet MUCH other food varieties would be needed to keep the
physical body healthy during that year floating around only on
water, water everywhere and no land to spare.
You can figure what your family eats in a week. If you have
two or three teenage children, then you will get an even better
idea of the food needed for a whole year to feed 8 adult people,
who would indeed be getting a pretty good amount of exercise each
day from just looking after all those small to massive creatures
on the ark from around the world, if Noah's flood was indeed a
global flood.
Yes, the food and water supply and STORAGE would have taken
up a very large part of the ark, for the humans and all the
creatures on it, from around the world, if THAT flood covered the
entire earth. Even if you want to reduce everything normally
needed by all to HALF the usual amount for the year-long stay on
the ark, the space required to store even that amount would have
been very considerable.
...............
Noah's Flood - Universal? #3
More reasons it was not
Written and compiled
by
Keith hunt
CARE AND MANAGEMENT
An argument put forth by those who hold to a local flood is
that it is hard to imagine how all those animals from around the
world were cared for, as some animals need mud and water to live
in. Some live in trees, some under ground, and others need this
or that physical environment to exist.
The counter argument by the "universal flood" advocates
would be that God "worked miracles" and the animals, for a year,
were just not "themselves" but completely different, or they did
not have this type of living nature before Noah's flood - only
after Noah's flood did they live and act the way they do today on
the earth.
Yet surely if such miracles were done by God, Moses would
have mentioned a few at least, or just told us that God worked
many mighty miracles for all the animals to survive out of their
natural habitat for a year - nothing by Moses comes close to
stating such a thing.
But again our "universal flood" advocates would dismiss such
thoughts as "none-essentials" because God worked miracles, or the
animals did not do these things until after Noah's flood. They
would say wood-peckers did not peck wood until after Noah's day
or that God made them not to want to peck wood while on the ark.
Yet Moses recorded no such miracles being done by God while the
animals were on the ark for a year.
As Woodrow points out, we also have the huge problem of all
the manure from all these world-wide animals while on the ark for
a year. We have only EIGHT people to feed and care for and remove
manure. Those eight people also have to feed themselves and
sleep.
Well, as the animals were sleeping, so our universal Noah's
flood people would say, little manure was made by them. But we
have already seen, from the Scriptures, that Noah was told by God
to take food enough for the humans and FOR the animals. So
the animals DID eat and did NOT sleep for a year. Even if some
followed their hibernation nature, that would still only account
for a VERY SMALL animal population on the ark, and hibernation is
only for a number of months, not a year. Elephants do not
hibernate - think of the feed needed and manure produced just
from ONE pair of Elephants. I know what a horse eats and how much
manure it produces in ONE day, then double that. For a pair of
Elephants - eating as much as they do each day, the manure is
LARGE to say the least. Then we have all the other large animals
of the world - seven cows and seven bulls for a while (until some
were killed for human food), and the food and manure to move
would have been reasonable, maybe not that much manure to remove
for eight people, but we have to add ALL the other large animals
of the world also, under the universal flood teaching.
As for the various climates that some animals live in, and
even survive in only certain parts of the earth; i.e. the
Platypus of Australia only survives in Australia. Have you ever
seen a Platypus in a zoo outside of Australia? It is one of the
strangest creatures to see and surely would be in any large zoo
in any country IF it could survive outside of Australia.
Yes, the global flood advocates would reply with "miracle" -
God performed miracles with these world-wide animals. Of course
God could do miracles with them so none of their way of living
today, their specialized environment, was needed on the ark. But
if such miracles was done by the Lord, it is not recorded in the
words of the book of Genesis.
The local flood advocates mention the mighty changes of
climate, temperature, and so forth with the ark rising to a
height that was over the top of Mount Everest, to a height that a
lot of airliners fly, and say it just could not be possible for
humans and animals (maybe polar bears could if there was still
enough oxygen up there above Everest).
Our "universal flood" advocates will again dismiss this
and say that the mountains were not very high. They try to tell
us the Canadian Rockies did not exist until after Noah's flood,
and the climate was temperate all over the world until after
Noah's flood, and the animals did not live in a climate like they
do today. Or they will have God performing yet more miracles. But
Moses recorded no such miracles done by God for the year on
Noah's ark. I will not dogmatically try to claim those great
mountain chains like the Canadian Rockies existed BEFORE the days
of Noah, maybe they did and then maybe they did not. I know of no
way to prove either view. If those mountain ranges did exist
before Noah, then for most of the life, if not all of it, going
above Mount Everest would have meant sure death. I know of no
bird that flies over the top of Mount Everest.
But for local flood advocates to use all this to say the
waters would have frozen solid at such a height as to cover
Everest, and other arguments that go along with that supposition,
is rather silly to my thought. Why? Well IF indeed Everest
existed at Noah's time, and the waters did extend over its peak,
we know from the Scriptures that the water REMAINED as water with
the ark floating upon it. So what is the obvious conclusion? It
is simply that God CHANGED the climate, the air pressure, the
oxygen content and anything else needing to be changed to have
the Genesis Scriptures read the way they do. Once more with God
He only needs to speak and it is done.
If mountain ranges of today did NOT exist in Noah's time, if
the climate of the earth was different, if creatures then were
adapted for that different world climate (and many even today can
adapt - the horse left outside in the Canadian winter grows a
good winter coat and with some trees or shelter to keep out of
the wind, that horse can survive even in minus 30 or 40 degree
weather. The horse in warm Florida or southern California, never
grows a winter coat when left outside), then we have an
altogether different picture for the belief of a universal world-
wide Noah's flood.
I do have in my library two books that show you the various
objects, maps, drawings, inventions, etc. that have been
discovered in different parts of the world, discovered from the
distant past. Modern evolutionary science does not know where to
place them, so most of the time, such items are never shown to
the public at large. Those items smack in the face the concept of
gradual evolution of mankind. They show that sometime in the
distant past parts of the earth were VERY ADVANCED. There was a
time in the past when much of the world was NOT what evolution
would have you believe, it was way different than evolution wants
to portray to you.
The argument put forth by Woodrow and others that plant life
would have been totally destroyed under 800 tons of pressure per
each square inch of the earth's surface, is based on the waters
covering Mount Everest. But if such mountain ranges as what
Everest dwells in did NOT exist at Noah's time, if oceans were no
where near as large or as deep as they are today (salt water
damage argument) then again we have a totally different set of
circumstances for mainly fresh water from springs and from clouds
to come and cover the earth.
On the other hand the argument of universal Noah's flood
people that God did some RE-creating AFTER Noah's flood, is also
very weak in evidence, if not plainly NOT provable in any way.
They will try to tell you that God re-created again after
Noah's flood, and will try to show you a few verses in the Psalms
that they claim prove their point of re-creation once more after
Noah's flood. Such verses prove no such thing. They read INTO
those verses what they want to believe. God had Moses tell us
plainly about "creation" in Genesis chapter one. Surely if God
did more "creating" after Noah's flood it would have been
recorded in clear words for us such as the words we find in
Genesis one - no such words can be found anywhere in the Bible of
another re-creation after Noah's flood.
The argument by local flood believers about "fish" - that
some live in salt water and others in fresh, that some need warm
water and others cold, is also a pretty fishy argument. First, we
do not know how large the oceans were at Noah's time and how
salty they were. Second, we must take God's will and command into
consideration as how He would preserve the various fish. Thirdly,
we know that today there are "water" currents of cold and warm
water, where cold and warm water fish seem to natural know and
stay within the bounds they need to be in, to live and reproduce
and exist. It could well have been this way during the year of
Noah's flood. Fourthly, we have fish today like salmon that are
BOTH fresh and salt water fish. There may have been many more so
adaptable fish at Noah's time.
Even if many fish did die when fresh and salt water
collided, we know like many other creatures, nature is adaptable.
What they have now found in the North Pole and way down deep in
the blackest depths of the oceans, is truly amazing. Either such
water creatures were created for that environment or they
adapted.
It would have been nothing for God to have said the word
"adapt" and it would be done - in a second. He only has to speak
and it is done.
Also as being very weak is the argument by the local flood
advocates that animals coming from different parts of the world
with different climates, and food, etc. to Noah, would find great
danger in their new environment.
It is a weak argument, because it is based upon the climate
of the world THEN, as being what it is TODAY. And from the Bible
at least, there is no mention that what we have today for
climates in different parts of the world, were the climates in
those parts of the world in Noah's life before the flood.
Even in our time, the last 40 years, there has been a HUGE
climate change in Canada, and the far north even to the extent of
the North Pole. I can well remember in the 1960s on the prairies
of Canada we often got minus 30 and minus 40 degrees for 4 or 5
weeks at a time in the winter months. Today (as I write in 2004)
IF (and that is an "if") we get minus 30 or 40 for a WEEK on the
prairies, it is on NATIONAL news! The icebergs are melting! The
ice-fields all over the planet are melting! The polar bears are
in danger because their winter is shorter! What is happening in
the far north concerning climate changes is breath-taking! You
see all this reported in detail on various TV programs. And this
is all happening within the last 30 years.
Who knows what the climate of the earth in all its regions
was like in Noah's life. It may well have been vastly different
than the climate modern man has been accustomed to.
So there indeed could be a point of truth in what our
universal flood teachers say, in that in Noah's life, the world
was not anywhere near like it is today, that there was a
different climate, less oceans, or land masses joined together in
certain ways. Their view on this cannot be dismissed or lightly
thrown out. With the changes we have seen and are continuing
to see since about 1970, the physical world Noah lived in MAY
have been quite different from the physical world we know.
Going back to the Platypus of Australia. It is only found in
Australia. How did it get to Noah? How did it jump the ocean? And
why did it head back to Australia, and why can it not live
outside of Australia? At first these questions may seem concrete
arguments for the local flood advocates. But if we take the
possibility that Australia was not an island like it is today, if
we take of course God's guidance in bring the Platypus to Noah,
and if we take the hand and guidance of God to return the
Platypus back to the land of Australia. Then add to that God's
WILL that this creature only lives in Australia, just to throw a
curve ball at the evolutionists, the concrete argument above is
not so concrete at all.
I'm just going back and worth with all this, to show you
that the evidence for a local flood or the evidence for a global
flood CANNOT be built upon such argument reasonings as many
would like to cling to, to try and prove their side and their teaching
of the topic is the correct one.
And so in saying this, it is also true that Australia may
have been an island all along, the Platypus created there, meant
to stay there, and was not effected by Noah's flood because that
flood was local and not world-wide.
A PROMISE
Woodrow does point out an interesting phrase of words as
used in Genesis 9:8-10 " ...from all that go out of the ark, to
every beast of the earth" (Genesis 9:8-10). He says that some
people do recognize a distinction with the beasts that went "out
of the ark" and with "every beast of the earth" - animals not in
the ark, who were never in the ark. He admits this is only "a
theory" but then gives the Pulpit Commentary as saying it may
have been an idiomatic expression for the totality of the animal
creation, yet the same Commentary, Woodrow shows, goes on to say
that in all probability there were animals which never had been
in the ark.
It is an interesting set of words used in this part of
Genesis, and while it gives no concrete proof for either position
taken on the local or universal Noah's flood topic, it does show
that some have questioned before now, the thoughts that Noah's
flood was regional and not world-wide.
Woodrow does return to the "snail" example, and I believe he
has a valid point. I do indeed find it beyond my human mind to
think that a pair of snails could leave the ark, not get trampled
upon (unless they were the very last to leave) and multiply in
whatever numbers, and that "kind" make it all the way across to
the west coast of the United States of America, taking the speed
they travel. How many thousands of years would it take a snail to
walk from the middle east to California? How many thousands of
years would it take a snail to walk across North America, let
alone from the Middle East.
You may argue the snails got a ride on some Indian canoe or
wagon train that was going west (the Indians have been in North
America for THOUSANDS of years), but what about the worm, and all
kinds of other small creatures and insects, that are on the west
coast of North America (or South America for that matter)? Did
they all get rides on Indian boats or wagon trains?
It just seems too improbable that it could all happen that
way.
Maybe some would argue the tiny eggs or whatever of all
these small creatures were "picked up by the wind" and with God's
miraculous hand carried around the earth to be planted by the
Lord on all the lands He had created. And if the land masses were
closer together in Noah's time, than they are today, I guess such
a spreading abroad of all the small and tiny creatures and
insects of the world would have been relatively easy for the Lord
to do. But then anything is easy for the Lord if He so desires to
do it.
Woodrow gives the example of the "sloth" - with a ground
speed of 0.068 miles per hour, only twice as fast as a snail. As
he points out it is a South America animal. How did they get from
the ark to South America?
It may have been possible they also caught the wagon train
of the Indians and ended up in South America, in a much faster
time than Woodrow ever thinks of. The horse in North America did
not come with the Indians, it came via the Spanish as they moved
into America. It did not take that long to have THOUSANDS of
horses on this side of the pond.
Such arguments by local Noah's flood advocates do not
conclusively prove that Noah's flood was NOT universal. It is at
best a thought, but certainly no concrete proof they have the
correct belief on the subject of Noah's flood.
EVERY ANIMAL DIED?
Woodrow correctly points out that though Genesis 6:17 says
"every" animal in the earth died, the Hebrew word for "earth" is
"erets" which can often mean "land." He gives the example of the
plagues upon Egypt with the use of "every" herb of "erets" being
destroyed (Exodus 10:5-15). And as he points out no one takes
this to mean every herb of the planet was destroyed. Hence the
same can be said of the context of Noah's flood. Only the animals
and creeping things and fowls of the air, were destroyed in that
land area where Noah and Moses lived.
The universal flood advocates would probably reply to the
fowl being destroyed with, "If this flood was only local or
regional, the birds could have just flown away from that region."
But we must remember the skies opened up with rain, and probably
a rain not seen by mankind since, and continued with that rain
for 40 days. Such a storm of rain together with the waters of the
deep coming forth would have made it impossible for the birds to
have flown away to distant lands.
As local flood advocates like Ralph Woodrow say, if China
was NOT meant by the word "erets" then the giant panda that lives
there would not be on the ark. Same goes for the Platypus of
Australia, and the Giraffes and Elephants of central Africa were
not on the ark, nor the Buffalo of North America.
A local or regional flood would mean Noah was only saving
from extinction animals, creeping insects, and fowl of the air,
that were peculiar to that region, which would also make the
storage of food for them, and the care of them while on the ark
for a year, very manageable for only EIGHT people to supervise.
..................
TO BE CONTINUED
No comments:
Post a Comment