if Noah saved 2 of every unclean animal, and seven of every clean, did they store up animals for food?

Question

and what about saving the world's plants? wouldn't a global flood kill all those off,too? were they harvested for saving, as well?

Answer 1

The arc was roughly the same size as the Titanic. there was plenty of room for food and grain. Prior to the flood both animals and man were vegetarian.

When Noah was commanded to take the animals into the ark, God told him: “As for you, take for yourself every sort of food that is eaten; and you must gather it to yourself, and it must serve as food for you and for them,” (Ge 6:21)

After the Flood, God allowed man to add flesh to his diet, saying: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”—Ge 9:3, 4.

Answer 2

Plants are not so resiliant that they can survive underwater for 100 days. Most crops will fail if the field is flooded for more than a day. Any tree that is underwater for that amount of time will drown. If the flood happened, then there should not be any trees on the planet that are older than 4000 years. However, there are trees much older than that.

Also, how did the salt water fish survive? If the world was flooded then it was covered in fresh water. This would have destroyed the salinity of the oceans and the salt water fish would have died. If the world was flooded with salt water so the salt water fish could live then how did the fresh water fish survive.

How did the coral survive? For about 100 days the world was flooded. Coral needs to live at very specific depths. Too deep and they cannot survive. Also, with a flood there would be all sorts of sediment that would kill off coral.

Why did god have Noah save the animals anyway? If he was going to rebuild the world and put all the plants back and fix all the other stuff then why would Noah need to waste time collecting all of the animals?

In response to one of the posters above: Why should we believe that Noah and his clan were vegetarians? There is no mention of it in the bible. If there is, then please share the passage. What I can find is a passage where god made clothes for Adam and Eve using animal skins (Genesis 3:21). If Adam and Eve wore animal skins then I do not find it unbelievable that they and their future descendents ate animals.

Also Genesis 6:21 does not answer the question of how they were able to carry enough food for themselves and for the animals. Remember, we are talking about many animals and some have very healthy appetites. Elephants alone would require tons of food. How do you carry enough food for all the animals and people to last you over 100 days without it spoiling? Also, how did the very sparse crew of the ark keep the animals fed and their living areas clean? If you were to try to replicate this task today, you would find that it would first be impossible to gather the animals and second it would be impossible to take care of the animals you did have, unless you had a crew of a few hundred.

To Earthday: Geologists do not believe that there was ever a global flood. Yes, you can find fossils of fish and seashells on the tops of mountains. However, this is not evidence of a flood putting them there. It is evidence of mountain building, an activity that is still happening today and can be measured.

To Gigi: You might try reading the bible sometime. It does not say that all the animals on the ark were sacrificed. In Genesis 8:20 it says that Noah built an alter and sacrificed the clean animals. In Genesiss 8:17, god tells Noah to bring forth the animals so they may breed abundantly. That does not sound like the animals were killed off by Noah. In Genesis 7:4 it says that god is going to kill every living thing on the planet. In Genesis 8:1, it says that god remembers (did he forget them for a while there?) Noah and all the living things on the ark. The only life was on the ark. No where does it say that god repopulated the animals. The bible states that the animals came from the ark to repopulate the planet.

Christianity needs to rewrite the bible again and drop this absurd story out of it if they want christianity to last. Call up another Council of Trent.

Answer 3

For the food question- possibly. While God didn't give the formal go-ahead for eating meat until after the flood, it is possible that people may have turned to it already before this command was given. Although, it is also possible that they didn't. It might also be that he meant there to be more of them for food AFTER the flood. Since there were more numbers, the population would be higher after the flood, giving predators and humans something to eat without necessarily causing extinctions.

And in the case of plants, even if they all die, they have these nifty little things called "seeds". Perhaps, after the flood, the seeds leftover from pre-flood plants germinated, allowing new plants to grow. I'm not a botanist, and I'm only speculating on this, so I could be wrong, but I'm just trying to brainstorm possibilities that could be looked into.

Also, Noah did apparently take some seed on the ark, but mostly as food store. But the bird brought back a leaf from a growing plant BEFORE Noah and his family emerged from the ark, so it couldn't likely have grown from any seed Noah took on the ark.

Hope this helps you, and God bless!

Answer 4

There were two stories that were clumsily merged into one. One of the stories came from the priestly class which promoted the idea that the true priesthood of God didn't start until Aaron. Their story involved only one pair of each animal. The other story, told by a group that did not tie the priestly tradition to a particular individual, stated that seven pairs of clean animals were brought in order to have enough for sacrifices. Read the story carefully. You'll find many more examples that make it clear two separate stories were simply merged into one without changing conflicting details.

Answer 5

Ah, see what a little logic starts to dredge up. Your questions point out that the flood myth is a ficticious event rather than anything that actually ever happened. Just like all the other stories from the same book such as the Garden of Eden, Sodom and Gomorrah and the Pilar of Salt, the Tower of Babel, etc etc. All a pact of ancient middle eastern stories.

Answer 6

Noah's spaceship was the size of a small city, and the animals were all placed in cryogenic stasis, so food wasn't necessary. Actual plants did not need to be stored, since the ship's databanks held all the information needed to recreate them.

Answer 7

Yes, you are correct -- the entire story is highly implausible. That implausibility, along with NO evidence of any "global flood" at any time in earth's history (and certainly not at the time claimed by the bible) shows that it's simply a myth. A fable, a story told to illustrate a point. Not real.

It's been calculated that a "ship" large enough to hold just 2 of every species of animal alive today (and there are LESS species around today than 4000 years ago) would need to be the size of the state of Rhode Island. That's only, oh, 10,000 times larger than Noah's mythical ark. And that doesn't account for your questions about food, plants, 5 more of every "clean" animal, etc.

It didn't happen :)
Oh, and "earthday" -- no, there is NOT geological evidence for a global flood. And no, "evolutionists" do not believe that. Whomever has been telling you that has been lying.

Answer 8

I'd like to see 2 or more of every species of animal on earth stuffed into a boat built several thousand years ago. That would only be several million individuals. Seems plausible enough doesn't it?

Answer 9

There is geological evidence for a world wide flood, even some evolutionists believe that. And finding seashells on mountains?

Many people who say there isn't haven't done the're reaserch, or looked in the right places.

It is very mean to say that what someone truely based their life on is a fairy-tale. Let them belive what they want to believe.

I meant that my firends, that are evolutionists, by the way, beilieve in a global flood, but they don't beilieve in the "Noah Story". The bible is very reliable, actually. We have aging methods, right? Well there is one that says that stuff is like millions of years old. That is a very un-reliable method, since it is only good for dating things 3000 years and younger.

We have a very reliable one, and there are 352 predictions in the bible, very descriptive, and exact to every detail of what happened, the aging method used says that a lot of these prophies were predictied 200-300 years before they actually came true! Of course, science isn't always reliable.

And for evrey one who says there wasn't a world wide flood, I would just like someone to say why there isn't (just wondering, not to be rude or anything.) Like what is mistaken for a world wide flood, I would like to know why.

Answer 10

You may not believe it sweetie,but my boyfriend and i had this very conversation the other night.Back then they lived of berries and fruits as well as grains in which they did take on the ark. The animals were for replenishing the world after God destroyed it by water. The animals were used for sacrifice to the Lord. Read Geniuses and it will tell you the story. For those that don"t believe i feel sorry for you on judgment day.

Answer 11

As a professional geologist who has worked for thirty years on all continents except Antarctica, I can tell you there is no geological evidence for Noah's flood.