Keith Hunt - Noah's Flood - Universal? #3 - Page Three   Restitution of All Things

  Home Previous Page Next Page

Noah's Flood - Universal? #3

More reasons it was not

               Written and compiled


                     Keith hunt


     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

     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
     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.     


     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
     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.


     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.


Entered on this Website December 2004

  Home Previous Page Top of Page Next Page

Navigation List:

Word Search: