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 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 Entered on this Website December 2004 |
No comments:
Post a Comment