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 albertross 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 albertross
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 this 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.
...............
TO BE CONTINUED
|
No comments:
Post a Comment