Were termites aboard Noah's Ark?

Question

I'm asking this because termites eat wood, and Noah's boat was supposedly made of wood. So wouldn't the termites eat Noah's boat?

(waits for the Godfixedit explaination)

Miss Vegas: Thanks, but it was MorkandMindy at Christianforums.com that thought of it first. I thought it was a great point and just wanted to see the responses of it here.

Christians: It's not as if the termites would only be on there for a couple days. They were on there for MONTHS, although we can't be certain how long, the BIble contradicts itself on the matter. You would think that with all that time, the termites would do a large amount of damage to the Ark.

Oh and Christians, you can't just provide a POSSIBLE explaination. It needs to be PROBABLE. So far, I'm not seeing that. I see that "God could have done this" or "Noah could have done that", COULD HAVE doesn't cut it.

Tim H: Ah, I would love for you to explain how exactly you came to this conclusion. Any evidence would be helpful. Any at all. Put your money where your mouth is.

Answer 1

Insects were not around yet. They came into the picture later on, as a result of the plagues.

Don't try playing "gotcha" with stuff you don't understand.

Quite frankly, I neither know nor care about if termites were on the ark or not. Because I believe that the reason behind your question is that are trying to play a little gotcha game with Christians.

But to play along with your little game, insects were not mentioned in the first two chapters of Genesis. So it could be reasonable to suggest that insects and things of that nature came about because of the plagues. Whether or not they were already existence can be neither proven nor disproven. It can be proven, however, that they are not specifically mentioned until that point.

Now, to the real point.

You are doubting the flood and trying to poke little bitty termite sized holes in the biblical account.

You have probably been influenced by fundamentalists who cling to every little word as literally true and believe that God wrote the Bible, etc.

I am not a fundie, and do not believe as they do. I do not interpret the Bible literally, because it was not intended to be interpreted literally.

The Bible was not intended to be a history book or a science book. It was intended to be a "religion" book. It is a collection of writings telling about the relationship of God to humanity.

Since your question is about the flood, let's use that as an example.

In the ancient days, when the flood story was written, there were multiple flood stories being circulated at the time. Some of the other ancient religions believed that their gods and goddesses were responsible for the flood, and some gods and goddesses were always in conflict with each other, warring against each other and against humanity. Some religions believed their gods and goddesses required things like human sacrifice and sexual promiscuity as a part of their worship.

The God of the Bible, however is different. Israel held that Yahweh does not require human sacrifices or sexual promiscuity as a part of worship. God requires a contrite heart.

God is not always in conflict with other gods and goddesses, because there are no others.

God is God alone.

And God is a good God. He is a holy and loving God, not fickle like the other religions believed about their gods.

So the question you have to ask here is what is the point of what the writer is saying? Is this meant to be literally true to the letter?

Or is God revealing who he and what he is like is to humanity, while at the same time revealing to us who He isn't, and what He is NOT like?

So you see, I don't care about the "termites on the Ark" thing, because that question demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the intention of scripture.

Israel was faced with a decision. Which story do you believe? Which god will you love and serve?

They responded, "We will love and serve YHWH."

We have the same decision. Who do you love?

My response is "I love God".

Answer 2

Since God told Noah to bring food for the animals, he probably had a log like for the fireplace that lasted them until it was time to get off. Remember, there were only two of them.

Answer 3

Probably was plenty of driftwood floating around to save a few termites.

Answer 4

What miraculous way did Israel eat after leaving Egypt?

How many people were feed by the two fish and five loaves of bread in the NT?

What two miraculous ways was Elijah feed?

Apparently God is able to provide all that is required.

Answer 5

It would take a long time for two termites to eat a significant portion of an ark large enough to fit two of every animal.

Answer 6

The termites and the woodpeckers were actually kept busy making repairs. All the animals worked together to keep the ark afloat.

Answer 7

Well, if you're being sarcastic and you DON'T believe, then you probably believe in volution, and termites and ants evolved from bees.

so there.

and even if there were termites on there, God would command them NOT to eat the wood

Answer 8

I'm sure. But 2 termites couldn't kill a whole boat could they?

Answer 9

Yes, there were two. And they were kept in a special little magic vial and released only when the waters went down. Perhaps THEY ate the Ark, since we can't find the remains of it!

Answer 10

Noah brought wood to feed them.