Animals on the ark

[Ian]

Hugh Ross believes that only "soulish" animals embarked (sorry for the pun ).

http://www.reasons.org/articles/which-a ... on-the-ark

It is hard to imagine the entire animal kingdom on the ark. It is a target of ridicule and scorn from sceptics.

Do you agree with Hugh Ross?

[TruthInLove]

Hi Ian,

Origins is a difficult subject about which I hesitate to be dogmatic in making any assertions. However, if I were to take the Genesis account of the flood as literal narrative of actual historical events, I think I would lean in a similar direction to Dr. Ross. Here's another link that makes a similar proposal to how 'nephesh' (H5315) should be understood.

"the language used in Geneis 6-7 further restricts the list to those nephesh creatures that had been in contact with humans, because only these creatures would have been damaged by the wicked behavior of Noah's contemporaries."

I do find this a little weak. I'm not sure how he would explain this corrupting influence and how that would be significant compared to the corruption that probably existed elsewhere in nature.

While these speculations are interesting, since becoming convinced of the partial-preterist view of Biblical prophecy, I believe apocalyptic and fantasy imagery may play a bigger part in other accounts in the Bible than I was formerly comfortable accepting. Now, I personally don't find it hard to believe at all that the flood account is really intended to be a "literary polemic, a written indictment, against the gods of ancient Near Eastern mythology." ("Creation Answer Book", Hank Hanegraaff). For example, the flood account may serve to recast such ancient myths as "The Epic of Gilgamesh" in a manner that clarifies who God really is and how he truly sees man. This would be in contrast to the views depicted in the ancient myths of other Near Eastern peoples. God may have done this through the retelling of a certain historical man's life (i.e. Noah), reframed as an apocalyse using similar imagery as Ancient Near Eastern flood myths. Just as the Book of Revelation largely deals with true, historical events of the 1st century, the book is largely written using images that never literally manifested themselves in reality. There are several Biblical indicators that suggest that the early chapters of Genesis are to be understood in a similar manner

Anyways, those are some my thoughts Ian. I'm interested to hear some of your own?

Blessings in Christ,
Carmine

[Ian]

Hi Carmine,

Thanks for your reply.

I can`t speak definitively for Hugh Ross but he is coming from an old Earth position and so is assuming I guess that the continents had parted ways before Genesis 6. I imagine he finds it impossible to conceive that the entire animal kingdom separated by oceans could practically find a way to the ark. So a limitation of the scope of "nephesh" would suit his position.

I also can`t speak to the meaning of the word myself, but thank you for the link.

[Timios]

Considering the immense size of the ark, I see no reason why the ark could not have held representatives of all basic animal species .

For example today's dogs of every breed, as well as wolves, jackals, and foxes may have all descended from a single dog-like species, ... and so with all other groups of modern animals.

[mattrose]

I'm pretty sure Young Earth Creationists have essentially proven that it would not have been impossible to have 2 of every 'kind' fit into the ark. The problem is mostly the creation of hyperbolic children's art. The debate about origins must be settled on other grounds.

[TruthInLove]

Hi Matt,

I agree that one's view of origins should not depend solely on the feasibility of the Ark. As you and Timios both point out, the saving of all animals on Earth via Noah's Ark may have been quite doable. However, despite how feasible the Ark situation is, it invariably leads to other questions regarding the pre- and post-flood situations. For instance:

• If the flood is responsible for rapid fossilization and animals diversified from their basic "kinds" after the flood, why do we find so many fossils of the diversified animal "kinds"?
• How fast can continental drift realistically be estimated to account for both a young earth and repopulation of isolated land masses?
• Did the entire earth need repopulated with animals (global flood) or was it merely a local flood requiring only localized repopulation?

I realize these aren't new questions and ideas have been put forward by many to answer all of them. Nor are they being raised as a particular challenge to anyone. I'm merely putting them forward as points for potential discussion.

I personally find it very difficult to make up my mind and choose which arguments about origins are the most valid. The number of factors that need to be weighed in each case are enormous. Yet, while I feel the discussions are very important and once felt pressure to choose one over the other, in the end it now seems to me that it should be of little consequence which is true, at least regarding one's relationship to God. Regardless of which theory of origins one feels drawn to, I don't think any of them absolutely rule out the existence of an honest, logical (generally speaking), loving, compassionate, merciful, Creator. Regardless of which theory of origins one adopts intellectually, it should not hinder ones view of man and God relationally.

Having said all that, the one thing I do find a little troubling about the typical arguments for a young earth is that there seems to be an inordinate emphasis on a literal interpretation of Scripture. While the consequences for this seem like they should be relatively minor in the origins debate, this same tendency when carried over to Eschatology seems to me to result in expectations that are far more difficult to square with history and theology.

[mattrose]

I think our approach to the topic is fairly similar.

I grew up (and still attend/work-at) a conservative Evangelical (Wesleyan) church. Young Earth Creationism was assumed, but not emphasized. When I got a bit older, we had a special speaker come in for a series of lectures. He was a YEC and made an excellent presentation, in my opinion. He was also a very kind and gracious man. Later, I invited him to speak at another church at which I was a pastoral intern and, once again, he made an excellent case in my view (though this church was near a Christian college where Old Earth Creationism is more common, so there were some detractors). I've since invited him to share at my home church again AND at an annual camp I'm the director of (probably 3 or 4 times). Each time I find his presentation very strong.

Meanwhile, however, I have increased my knowledge of theistic evolutionary views and old earth creationism views. I do think they have strong points too. I'm not a scientist, so the scientific arguments aren't what I find most persuasive. I do think there's a case to be made, however, for some of the fresh readings of Genesis that are being put forward by the non YEC position.

So I'm sort of in a spot where I'm historically inclined towards YEC, but I do not hold dogmatically toward that position. In fact, I'd probably guess that, at some point, I'll transition to something else. But I'm in no hurry and am willing to let newer approaches 'cook' for a while in my brain.

[TK]

I've always wondered what animals ate when they got off the ark- particularly the meat eaters. It would not do for the two lions to have immediately devoured the two pigs. If so I wouldn't be able to enjoy my Carolina pulled pork.

And of course the Apatosauruses were another problem- assuming they had to eat hundreds of pounds of vegetable matter per day, they would have decimated what minimal plant life was around in hours.

[Homer]

Hi TK,

You wrote:

I've always wondered what animals ate when they got off the ark- particularly the meat eaters.

You just moved the question ahead one step. What did they eat while on the ark? Perhaps when they got off they had more of the same.

[TK]

That's a good question too, Homer. I have heard they theory they were all baby animals so they could drink milk, but that's an awful lot of milk for a couple of cows to produce. And by the time the ark rested on dry land they could hardly be called babies anymore.

My impression has been that when the ark landed everyone scattered to fend for themselves ("so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth"), as opposed to hanging around Noah as pets of a kind. I still see food availability as a problem- i just read that elephants generally eat 300 lbs of vegetable matter per day. Of course God could have made forests and grasslands suddenly appear, but the text does not say that He did. And we are still left with the problem of the meat eaters.