An Old Topic Revived 

Sometimes a discussion from years ago comes alive. For example, this year's tsunami has a resonance with the Biblical Flood. The terrible destruction we have witnessed calls to mind the even more cataclysmic events recorded in Genesis 6 to 8. If taken seriously, these events raise questions.

How universal was `the flood'? What area did it cover? Did it have a natural cause, comparable to but greater than the tsunami? And the Ark, what of the problems of so many animals cooped together, some predators and some domesticated? What species were preserved? What habitats were destroyed?

The usual understanding of the story of the Flood includes the assumption that the wild beasts of the earth, the carnivorous, lions, tigers, etc., were taken into the Ark in company with the domestic and herbivorous (vegetarian) animals.

"In times past when it was universally believed that the Flood waters completely overspread the entire globe it was necessary to include all such animals in the Ark's company, otherwise none would have survived to continue the species. It is becoming increasingly accepted nowadays that the Genesis account does not demand a universal Flood; the Hebrew "erets" can mean either the earth as a whole or the local area of land which happens to be the subject of the passage."

One theory suggests "that the true cause of Noah's Flood was most likely a colossal tidal wave set up by the catastrophic descent to the planet of prehistoric aerial waters at the poles, in Noah's case sweeping in from the south and flooding the entire Euphrates valley in concert with other low lying areas such as that of the Indus in India, eventually receding into the ocean". This must be surmise, in the absence of scientific observations such as are available for the study of the tsunami.

Be this as it may, it is easy to conceive that "mountainous regions were relatively untouched, and here the wild species of animals could have survived unscathed. It is easy to see that what might be called the logistics of Noah's enterprise would be enormously helped by having only vegetarian animals to feed for twelve months; provision of fresh meat for the carnivores for that period would have been a real problem. It is often overlooked, also, that had the Flood covered all the mountains there would have been no olive trees with leaves for the dove to pluck off when all was over." But does the Bible account actually state that wild beasts were in the Ark?

The basis of the argument that they were not, lies in the words used in the account. There are two Hebrew words used to denote animals, quadrupeds. One is 'behemah' which denotes what we would call domestic animals such as sheep, goats, cattle, pigs and so on, together with the naturally wild herbivorous animals as camels, deer and the like. This word is usually rendered cattle, beast, or clean beast and usually in a domestic connection. The other word is 'chaiyah', which means literally a living creature and when used without qualification is also applied to domestic animals. When qualified with a descriptive noun or adjective it refers to wild, carnivorous animals; thus 'chaiyah erets' is "beast of the earth" or "beast of the land"; 'chaiyah sadah' is "beast of the field" and "chaiyah yaar" is "beast of the forest". There are also such terms as "evil beast", "noisome beast", "ravenous beast". Wherever these qualified terms appear the reference is to wild carnivorous animals.

With all this in mind let the narrative be examined. T he entire account of the sojourn in the Ark is contained in Chapters 6 to 8 of Genesis. There are fifteen references to quadruped animals in these three chapters. Of these ten are 'behemah' (beast, cattle, clean beast, unclean beast) and five are 'chai' or 'chaiyah' (living thing in 6.19 and 8.17, beast in 7.14, 21 and 8.19 but always meaning living creature). In no case do any of these instances refer to a carnivorous animal. A parallel instance is in the books of Leviticus and Numbers where in ten instances "chaiyah" is used to denote sacrificial animals used in the ceremonies, which of course were always bulls, goats, rams or lambs.

Reverting to the story of the Flood, the only reference to carnivorous animals occurs in the 9th chapter after Noah and his family had come out of the Ark. Said the Lord to Noah (ch. 9.2). "the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth" 'chaiyah erets' ‑ the carnivorous animals. It would seem hardly necessary for the Lord to give Noah such an assurance had they been with him in the Ark for the past twelve months. But the decisive verse is ch 9.10 and this enshrines a quite important point. The Lord told Noah He was making a covenant never again to destroy the earth by a Flood. The covenant was with Noah, his sons, every living creature that was in the Ark, and every beast of the earth, which by implication therefore had not been in the Ark. The full text reads in the AV, "and I, behold I, establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you, and with every living creature ('behemah-nephesh') that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle ('behemah') and of every beast of the earth 'chaiyah erets' with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth"'chaiyah erets'.

The plain meaning of this passage is that the promised covenant is to extend to all earthly creatures, from those that came out of the Ark to those that were never in the Ark, and this makes it evident that the chaiyah erets, the wild carnivorous animals, were not taken into the Ark .

This conclusion provides an answer to the oft-times mooted query as to how Noah was able to bring in to the Ark animals which are unique to lands far distant from his own country and separated by oceans. The kangaroo and the dingo of Australia, the armadillo and the iguana of South America, the giant tortoise of the Galapagos, how did he get these without trailing round the world after them and building a ship in which to bring them to the Ark. And how did he get them back to their own land afterwards without leaving some of their progeny on the way to breed and remain in other lands ‑ for such animals are still to this day unique in their own habitats. The short answer is, of course, that none of these were in the Ark. Sufficient of them survived in the higher reaches of their native lands to continue their species when the Flood had passed."

In this way we may argue and speculate about these events of long ago ‑ which, if we do it humbly and reverently is a good thing to do. More important for us is to keep short accounts with God. It does not require a universal Flood, it does not need a tsunami, it takes only the most everyday accident, to remind us that as mortal creatures our hope must be in God. He not only sustains the material order, but is the giver of eternal life

GC based on an article by AOH