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
Noah's Flood - Universal? #3More 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
Noah's Flood - Universal? #4Still more reasons it was not
Written and compiled
by
Keith Hunt
THE ARK,
ITS SIZE AND PURPOSE
Woodrow in his book asks the questions if you can for
certain know how large the ark was, did it take 120 years to
build, and if the flood was REGIONAL were there some people in
other parts of the world who were not effected by that flood?
Genesis 6:15 gives the dimensions of the ark 300 cubits
long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Some say that was
proportionally ideal - being six times as long as wide.
The problem arises with knowing how many inches to the cubit
it was back in Noah's day, or Moses day, as it was Moses who is
held by most scholars as writing the first five books of the
Bible.
If we go with 18 inches to the cubit, then the dimensions
would be as Woodrow states, 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45
feet high.
Woodrow suggests that the door way would not have been over
13 feet high, because dividing the three levels would give 15
feet to each level. with this calculation Woodrow says there had
to be large supporting beams to hold the weight of each level,
hence the doors ways would be, or could be, about 13 feet in
hight. This would of course mean large Elephants and Giraffes
would not be able to go through the door ways as Woodrow
suggests.
But the problem with this reasoning is that the top floor
may have been open at first and a ramp may have been built to
allow these huge animals to ascend to the top of the ark and then
a ramp could have been built to have them descend to a floor that
did not have to have a doorway at all. After all the animals were
in that top shaft door closed tight, so no other humans could
have a way into the ark.
Now if as Woodrow suggests the cubit in past ages differed
and was smaller than 18 inches in length during Noah's time, then
of course a smaller ark would have been built, which if it was
only for a regional flood would have sufficed. Woodrow quotes
from Harper's Bible Dictionary these words:
"Metrology (the science of measurement of mass, length, and time)
presents a confused picture in Palestine ... and the peripheral
countries ... Not even well-grounded Babylonian metrology adhered
to the same standard throughout its history. In the matter of
weights and measures, the Hebrew people were influenced by
Babylonian, Egyptian, Canaanite-Phoenician, and Greco-Roman
systems ... With the coming of each new conqueror, and with every
fresh trend in trade, weights and measures continued to vary."
Woodrow gives proof from the Bible itself that a cubit may
have varied in length at times and in different ages. Esther
5:14; 7:9 shows the gallows which Haman was to be hanged on was
50 cubits, and so if we go with 18 inches for a cubit the gallows
was 75 feet high. Either it was built with a high foundation as
to make sure everyone from a far distance could see Haman get
hanged, or the cubit was much less than 18 inches during the time
of Esther.
Woodrow does SPECULATE with things in this section of his
study, but he does admit it is only "speculation." He wonders
that if the ark was 450 long how it could have been built as the
tallest tree in the world is a California Coast Redwood at 366.2
feet.
Once more I will say that looking at what is TODAY does not
mean if was that way in Noah's time. Maybe there were trees
taller than the tallest trees of today in existence during Noah's
life time, or there were ways of building ships back then that
are lost in building today. Science is still amazed at how the
GREAT PYRAMID of Egypt was ever built.
As Woodrow himself admits, this is all conjecture and
speculation for we simply cannot be certain as to the length of a
cubit in Noah or Moses' time.
And with all that said, we come back to the conclusion that
none of what we have talked about concerning the size of the ark
can prove a world-wide flood or a regional flood.
LENGTH OF TIME IN BUILDING THE ARK?
Most people have either been taught or have presumed from a
too casual reading of Genesis 6, that Noah was building the ark
for 120 years. Of course this also makes it easy to believe that
the ark was so large that it took 120 to build it. Genesis 6:3
says, "My spirit shall not always strive with man ... yet his
days shall be a hundred and twenty years."
This is talking about God allowing mankind to continue
living, doing "their own thing" for another 120 years, and then
JUDGMENT would come upon them, if they did not repent of their
wickedness. The "ark" of Noah is not mentioned here. It is not
till later verses AFTER God once more looked upon mankind and saw
their violence that God turned to Noah (who remained faithful to
the Lord) and told him He would destroy the evil doers, but save
him and his wife and three sons and their wives. Then Noah was
told to build the ark.
Ralph Woodrow has correctly seen that 120 years before the
flood Noah was 480 years old, for at the time of the flood
Genesis tells us Noah was 600 year old - see chapter 7:11. The
sons of Noah had not yet been born. They were born when Noah was
500 years old (Gen.5:32). It was AFTER his sons were born and
married that Noah was told to build the ark. Look what Genesis
6:14-18 says, "Make you an ark ... I do bring a flood of waters
... and you shall come into the ark, you, and your sons, and your
wife, and your sons' wives with you."
It should now be clear from putting these verses together
that Noah was NOT working on building the ark for 120 years. We
really have no teaching from the Bible any more than this. We
just do not know have long it took Noah to build the ark.
NO RAIN BEFORE THE FLOOD?
The Bible passage used which supposedly supports this idea
is Genesis 2:4,5.
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the
earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was
in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the
Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was
not a man to till the ground..."
I have heard this "no rain before the flood" teaching, MANY
times over the last 40 years. It is so used that it is taught
by many as something the Bible is quite certain and dogmatic
about. Many are certain that no rain fell before Noah's flood,
which they say would have made Noah the greatest laughing joke on
the earth, and especially as he was building this wooden ship for
120 years. The people believing and teaching this "no rain"
before Noah doctrine, say that the earth was covered with a type
of water vapor, I guess something like the heavy humidity that is
in Florida, but even more so, because Florida does get rain.
Maybe they think it was a really wet due every night. But
whatever they think the climate of the earth was like before
Noah's flood, they believe Genesis 2:4,5 is teaching that there
was no rain until it started to rain at Noah's flood time.
But a careful reading of this verse says no such thing. God
created the plants before they were in the earth, that is, before
they were seeded. They were created full grown and mature. And
they were created full grown because there was RILL THEN no rain
upon the earth. God did not create the seeds first and have them
grow up through the action of rain and sun. He created them full
grown plants before it had rained and before man was created.
This was done on the THIRD day (Gen.1:9-13). Yet on the 6th day
mankind was created.
All this passage says is that up to the creating of mature
plants and trees, it had not rained.
The Bible does not say when it first rained, but to try and
use this passage in Genesis 2 as teaching it did not rain until
the time of Noah's flood, is to me, reading into a few verses
things that are not meant to be read into them.
And another teaching that has often been a part of all the
story telling of Noah's ark is that Noah preached for 120 years
to others to come on board and save themselves. Noah we are told
in the New Testament was a preacher of righteousness, but there
is not one word in either the Old or New Testament that he
preached to others to save themselves by joining him on the ark.
God told Noah that it was he and his wife and his sons and their
wives that had been shown grace to be saved from death, but God
told Noah that He would destroy all the other wicked people, that
and "end" to them was coming (Gen.6:9-13). We are told that God
saw that all others on the "erets" - earth - land - had corrupted
their ways (verse 12). We are given no suggestion that with
Noah's preaching (by word or life) ANY would REPENT. There is
nothing in the Bible to suggest that Noah tried to persuade
others to come on board the ark and save themselves.
WERE ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE ON THE PLANET DESTROYED?
The writers of the Bible sometimes wrote in a way that would
make THEIR hub of the world seem like the WHOLE world. Certainly
we can know from the Bible that God worked with people that were
in a particular AREA of the MAIN HUB of a certain progressive
population of the planet. The part of the planet we know and call
as "The Middle East."
The Gospel of Luke chapter two, verse one, is a fine
example. What was happening in the Roman Empire in Palestine,
concerning "enrollment" (Margin of the KJV Bible), is written as
if ALL THE WORLD should be enrolled. So when Peter wrote in
1 Peter 3:20, "few, that is, eight souls were saved" in the
ark," it could be assumed he meant only 8 lives were saved from
off the entire planet, but it may have meant that in the context
of the "erets" or land, that Noah lived in, there were only 8
human lives saved from destruction from the flood of Noah's time.
Peter was possibly NOT trying to teach that Noah's flood
destroyed every single human life from the entire planet earth,
with only 8 person escaping that destruction with their lives.
If the flood was regional and not world-wide, though it
covered a very vast area, it then would not have killed people
thousands of miles away from the land where Noah lived.
The Indians in Canada have a recorded history that goes back
10,000 years. Now either the famous chronology of Usher is
completely way off the mark of true chronology, or Noah's flood
was no where near in the century B.C. where it is usually placed
(according to Usher's chronology, which would still mean Usher
was incorrect). Or, it would mean the Indians of North America
were not in the least effected by Noah's flood. Oh, they may have
"stories" about it in their history, but nearly all people have
stories of super magnitude from other parts of the world, in
their history telling. Huge physical tragedies on the earth do
have a way of getting around and becoming stories related in a
nations history files, passed on from generation to generation.
The Bible is not a history book on all parts of the planet
earth, and the nations of peoples in various parts of this globe,
but is mainly focussed on the area of the Middle East.
Yet people have been taught by many well meaning and sincere
Christian writers and leaders that the New Testament and Jesus
Himself, were very dogmatic about "the truth" that ALL persons
except 8, on the entire planet were destroyed. The writers of the
book "The Genesis Flood" present the proof for this teaching in
saying that Jesus taught this was true in the passage found in
Luke 17:26-30.
But as Woodrow in his book on this subject has correctly
stated,"When we turn to this passage, however, it is far from
conclusive that "all" means all people throughout the
entire world."
The verse reads: "In the days of Noe...they did eat, they
drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the
day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and
destroyed them ALL. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot;
they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted,
they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it
rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them
ALL"(Luke 17:26-30).
Ah, did you notice it? Did you see that Jesus used the word
"all" in both Noah's flood and in the day that Lot went out from
Sodom. In Lot's situation, the "all" we know did not mean ALL on
the ENTIRE planet, for the fire from the Lord that came only
destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. "The Lord rained upon
Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire ... he overthrew those
cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities"
(Genesis 19:24,25). Obviously this "all" did not include the town
Lot fled to, or the other cities and people in the Middle East,
or in China, or the Indian people in North America.
This verse and these words by Jesus have a CONTEXT, and the
"all" is used WITHIN a CONTEXT of the thought Jesus was relating
to His listeners.
A newspaper headline may read: "Flight 103 has Crashed - ALL
are Dead!" The "all" here does not mean all people on the planet,
and we do not take it to so mean. We all know the "all" is used
within a certain CONTEXT.
We must all (pun on all is intended) be careful how we read
"all" as used in the Bible or other literature. The "all" for
Lot's time had a context of not being all people on the planet,
and Jesus used Noah's "all" in the same breath, without any
qualifying words to clearly tell us that Noah's time meant all
people on the whole planet, while Lot's destruction did not.
All then destroyed by the Noah's flood could very well be
the all on the "erets" - land - area where Noah and the hub of
the world of people God was dealing with, was located, and not
anything to do with the Indians of North America.
I must agree with Ralph Woodrow's examination of verses that
use "world" in connection with the flood; i.e. Hebrews 11:7 and 2
Peter 2:5. The Greek word is "kosmos" and Woodrow gives the
meaning from Strong's Concordance (#2889); "arrangement, i.e.,
decoration, and by implication the world (in a wide or narrow
sense)."
I believe as does Woodrow that in the case of Noah's flood,
it is best to understand this Greek word in a narrow sense - not
the entire world. There is a "figure of speech" often used in the
known as "synecdoche," - a whole is used for a part, and a part
for a whole (Bullinger's book "Figures of Speech in the Bible"
explains it all in detail) and so even words like "all" can be
used in a limited sense. I have already given you "all the world
was taxed" (Luke 2:1). Another would be Acts 2:5, "men out of
every nation under heaven" assembled on the day of the feast of
Pentecost. This surely did not include the Indians from North
America, or the native people of Japan.
NOAH A MISSIONARY TO AMERICA?
We learn from 2 Peter 2:5 that Noah was a "preacher of
righteousness" - if that means he was preaching the ways and
judgment of God to come, then did noah travel to the American
continent to preach the way of the Lord and His destructive
judgment to come, if we suppose the flood was going to be
world-wide? I really do not think many believe Noah travelled
outside his land.
And we do know, if we stay with Usher's chronology for the
creation of mankind, that people were living in China, India, and
North America before the time of Noah's flood, according to
Usher's chronology. I have already said that the Indians in
Canada have a history that goes back 10,000 years, a history way
before Noah' flood, if you stick with how Usher tried to figure
Bible chronology.
And this is one reason to me, as to why God did it this way.
He could have decided to destroy them a hundred different ways.
Noah was to be a witness to them, a preacher of righteousness and
a witness that destruction was coming to his civilization for its
great sins. This was the hub of the world at Noah's time, and
that hub of people had sinned mightily, but some other tribes in
other parts of the world had probably not degenerated in sins as
Noah's society. There is in Scripture no reference to Noah ever
having travelled to distant lands to preach destruction to them
for their great sins. A regional flood would be best fitted for
this context of Noah preaching of righteousness and sin.
As Woodrow says, some who believe in the local flood, say it
was in one sense universal, in that all mankind did perish,
because all mankind was still in that part of the earth. But
today the facts are in, and unless you are closing your eyes and
refusing to admit the facts that have been clearly found, mankind
had wandered to distant lands, including North America.
As stated before, the Canadian Indians have a recorded
history that goes back 10,000 years. This was all brought out in
the large series of documentaries called "A People's History" -
about the history of Canada. Painstaking research was done for
MANY YEARS before this series was produced and aired on Canadian
TV.
Was Noah's flood BEFORE 10,000 B.C.? I doubt there is a
fundamental scholar that would be so daring as to claim it was.
A local flood would solve all these chronology questions.
Ralph Woodrow points out some of the passages written by the
Jewish Pharisee historian of the first century - Josephus. They
indicate he did not believe every person on the planet perished
in Noah's flood. It is worth recording those passages here.
Josephus writes concerning the words of Nicolaus of Demascus:
"There is a great mountain in Armenia ... upon which it is
reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved;
and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top
of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while
preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator
of the Jews wrote" (Antiquities of the Jews - 1957 edition, 1,
3:6).
Josephus goes on to say:
"Now the sons of Noah were three ... these first of all descended
from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation
there; and persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower
grounds on account of the flood, and so were very loth to come
down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples.
Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called Shinar."
(Ibid., 1, 4:1).
Who might have been those others who were persuaded to come
down from the high places?
Woodrow takes us back to Genesis 4 and 5.
EVIDENCE MOST HAVE NEVER NOTICED!
In the fourth and fifth chapters of Genesis two family lines
are mentioned descending from Adam, the line of which Noah was
part, the other line being Adam, Enoch, etc. and Lamech and his
three sons - Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain.
Most universal flood teachers would say all these were
destroyed in the flood, that is both lines, except Noah of course
and his three sons, were killed in the flood. As Woodrow points
out, that gives us a problem, for Moses who wrote Genesis speaks
of descendants of Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain, as STILL LIVING
when he wrote Genesis.
Note it: Genesis 4:20-22.
"Jabal ... was the father of such as DWELL in tents, and of such
as HAVE cattle. And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the
father of all such as HANDLE the harp and organ. And...
Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron
(Genesis 4:20-22).
Did you notice it? The writer says "DWELL" not "dwelled" and
they "HAVE" not "had" cattle. They "HANDLE" the harp not
"handled"
If they had all been killed in the flood, this tense of the
words used would be incorrect!
Woodrow then gives two quotes, one form the INTERPRETERS
BIBLE which say they were "nomads, musicians, and metal workers
existing at the time of writing." and HASTING'S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
RELIGION AND ETHICS, which states, "...this wording implies 'an
unbroken history of civilization' and that the writer of this
section did not, obviously, regard the flood as 'a universal
Deluge.'"
Were some of these descendants of this line of people, the
Indians of Canada and North America that claim they have been in
North America for at least 10,000 years? Or people closer to
home as when Moses wrote all this, but knowing that some people
in a different area of the known world at the time, had indeed
not been effected by the flood of Noah's day. From the tense of
the words he used it would indeed imply this was the case.
Genesis 10 tells us how the descendants of Shem, Ham, and
Japheth divided and migrated. or as the Hebrew word used for
"divided" can mean - "dispersed" (Strong's concordance #6504).
Woodrow's thoughts are that the descendants of the three
sons of Noah were dispersed among other nations that were not
effected by the flood. It certainly is food for thought when we
take everything else we have seen into consideration.
There are those who believe that there are great problems
with trying to claim all peoples of the earth descended from
Noah's three sons. One of those problems Ralph Woodrow brings out
in his study is the huge population of some parts of the earth
and its cities, in a very relatively short span of time after
Noah's flood.
LARGE POPULATIONS?
According to Genesis 10:8-12 we have only three generations
to a mighty area of the world by Nimrod.
A few generations later we have Abraham travelling among
large populations and well developed nations of people. We can
see from Genesis 15:19-21 that Canaan was populated by many
tribes of people. Woodrow points out that 26 cities in Canaan are
mentioned in Genesis at this time in history. He then talks about
what Genesis 12:15 tells us about Egypt and Genesis 14:1-16 about
certain kinds who had captured Lot.
Woodrow calculated for us the time from Shem becoming a
father in Genesis 11 to the time Terah, the father of Abraham,
and it adds up to 222 years.
No one is completely sure how old Terah was when Abraham was
born, but even allowing 75 years or so, say a total of 300 years,
from Noah's flood to the birth of Abraham, that time span can
hardly allow for the great nations and cities that we find in
existence at Abraham's time.
Let's say Shem, Ham, and Japheth each had 76 children
between them, that gives us 76 people on earth, plus Shem, Ham,
and Japheth and their wives (6 of them) - a total of 82 people on
earth for one generation. But pairs for reproduction would be 38
pairs, rounding it off. Say those 38 pairs all had 30 children
(being very generous here for sure), that gives us 1,140 people
plus the 76, and if Shem, Ham, and Japheth and their wives were
still alive, we can add them in also. But let's just take the
1,140 - that gives is 570 pairs for reproduction. If they all had
30 children we would have 17,100 people plus the 1,140, plus the
76, plus the 6, if still all alive back to just after Noah's
flood.
We could go on like this for a few more generations until
Abraham was born.
Not that many people on earth by the time of Abraham, and I
have been very generous I would say with how many children each
couple had, and I did not include some children dying as
children, or from death in other ways.
The way Genesis reads at the time of Abraham the population
of even just that part of the world reads like a MUCH LARGER
population than could EVER have come from just 8 people left
alive on Noah's ark.
But the universal flood advocates are at this point very
willing to agree that the chronology in the Bible and that used
by Usher as about 400 B.C. for the creation of mankind, is
FLAWED, or just is not what we should understand as it seems to
read.
WHEN WAS NOAH'S FLOOD?
As Woodrow says the writers of "The Genesis Flood" book
suggest there may be "gaps of an undetermined length in the
patriarchal genealogy of Genesis."
They would claim the flood of Noah's time was many centuries
before what appears in the chronology of Genesis. Some hold to an
Hebrew way of saying things, that saying "son of" or "so in so
begat" could mean generations are missed out and only certain
names are mentioned. A kind of "short hand" for what otherwise
would be more pages of boring names and lists of chronology.
To use such "gap" chronology here and not think of using it
from Abraham to David or David to Christ, is to say the least
inconsistent and the worst, trying to make your "theology ideas"
fit the Bible as you choose and when you choose.
As Woodrow has said in his book on this subject, "The
regional flood viewpoint, on the other hand, can leave
the years from the flood to Abraham exactly as they are - without
gaps or guesses - allowing that only part of the world's
population was destroyed. This provides a satisfactory
explanation for the existence of developed civilizations only a
few generations after the flood at the time of Abraham."
Yet, some Christian scholars, in the last 100 years or more,
with all these difficulties of a universal Noah's flood teaching,
have come to say and write that Noah's flood was REGIONAL and not
universal or world-wide.
The land that came to be know as Mesopotamia, mainly now
within the country called Iraq, is the largest lowland of the
Middle East, about 45,000 square miles. Some scientists do admit
that there is evidence there to believe at one time a huge
inundation did take place on those plains of Iraq.
Woodrow quotes from HARPER'S BIBLE DICTIONARY and the old
well recognized work of M'CLINTOCK AND STRONG to add support that
it is correct to understand this part of Iraq was covered with
water at some time in the past, and probably that time was event
of Noah's flood.
There are a number of ways God could have flooded that
Mesopotamia region, as Woodrow points out. With earth upheaval
acting as a dam, or with the command of His voice and will as
water "upright as an heap" (Exodus 15:8).
As the Scriptures say, nothing is impossible with the Lord.
OVERVIEW
With this chapter and the previous ones, it is to me beyond
reasonable doubt to conclude that there was only ONE VIOLENT
UNIVERSAL flood of the entire earth, and that is the one that WAS
OVER AND DONE WITH AS WE ARE BROUGHT ON THE SCENE IN GENESIS 1:2.
This one universal flood destroyed the age of the world of
the Dinosaurs and the huge vegetation that lived in that age. An
interesting point to note here is that scientists say that some
of the great Dinosaurs had such an appetite that they would have
consumed today's elephant for a mid-morning snack. It was so
violent that even all the sea creatures were destroyed. All upon
the earth at that flood was destroyed, hence God had to create
all that we read about in Genesis chapter one. It was the time
when seams of coal, oil, natural gas, were created by the
violence and pressure. It was the time when diamond seams were
formed. It was the time when through much violence the strata we
often see in rocks, such as evident in the great Canadian
Rockies, was formed. So quick and violent was this flood (that
was upon the earth as Genesis 1:2 tells us) that some mighty
animals of that age have been found preserved in some parts of
the world, still with the grass and vegetation in their mouth,
that they were eating when the violent flood covered them.
What many have tried to attribute to the flood of Noah's
time, was in actual fact done by the violent flood that came upon
the earth through the battle Satan the Devil and his angels had
with the Eternal God and His righteous angels. The scares of this
battle can still be seen on places like the earth's moon and the
planet Mars.
I have covered this battle and that ancient age in other
studies on this Website.
................
TO BE CONTINUED
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment