How did all the animals of the Earth fit in Noah's ark? How did the animals fit into the ark? How many Noah's ark did the animals take

Many skeptics argue that the Bible cannot be trusted because the Ark could not contain all the different kinds of animals. This has led many Christians to abandon their belief in the Genesis Flood, or to believe that it was a localized flood that affected a relatively small number of animals. However, they usually don't even do any calculations. On the other hand, this issue was discussed in detail in the classic creationist book "The Genesis Flood" (The Genesis Flood) published back in 1961. A more detailed and updated technical analysis of this and many other issues is presented in the book by John Woodmorapp. Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study. This article is based on the materials of these two books, as well as on some of my own calculations. We asked ourselves two questions:

The Bible describes Noah's Ark as a huge, stable, seaworthy vessel - 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high.

How many kinds of animals did Noah need to take on the Ark?

The following Bible verses answer this question:

Also bring into the ark of all animals, and of all flesh, a pair, so that they remain alive with you; male and female let them be. From the birds according to their kind, and from the cattle according to their kind, and from every creeping thing on the ground according to their kind, two of them will come in to you, that they may live.

and take seven of every clean livestock, male and female, and of unclean livestock, two each, male and female; also from the birds of the air, seven each, male and female, to keep a seed for all the earth.

In these verses, the word "cattle" is translated from the Hebrew behemah, and applies to all vertebrates in general. The word translated "reptiles" in the original Hebrew sounds like remes, and it has several meanings in Scripture, but here it most likely refers to reptiles. Noah didn't need to take the sea creatures, because the Flood would not necessarily lead to their extinction. However, the turbulent torrents of the waters may have led to mass extinction, as evidenced by the fossil record, and many of the creatures that inhabited the ocean likely died out due to the Flood.

The average size of the animals on the Ark was about the size of a small rat, according to Woodmorapp's modern calculations, while only about 11% of the animals were much larger than a sheep.

Be that as it may, if a wise God decided not to save some of the inhabitants of the ocean, this did not concern Noah. Also, Noah did not need to take plants to the Ark - many of them could survive in the form of seeds, others - on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to also survive on these mats. The flood destroyed all land animals that breathed through the nostrils except those in Noah's Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through their nostrils, but through tiny holes in their outer chitinous covering.

clean animals: Biblical commentators disagree on whether the Hebrew says "seven" or "seven pairs" of each kind of clean animal. Woodmorappe chooses the second option in order to give Bible skeptics a head start as far as possible. But the overwhelming majority of animals were not pure and were represented by only two representatives. The term "clean animals" did not exist before the law of Moses. But, given that Moses was the compiler of the book of Genesis, following the principle "Scripture interprets Scripture", the definition from the law of Moses can be applied to the situation of the Ark. In fact, there are very few "clean" animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

What is a "genus"? God created a certain number of kinds of animals with a great capacity for variability within certain limits. The descendants of each of these different created genera, with the exception of man, are today most often represented by more than one species (according to the modern classification). In most cases, species descended from one created genus can be combined into groups that modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus ( genus).

One of the common definitions of a species is "a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species." However, most so-called species have not been tested as to who they can and cannot interbreed with (apparently this applies to all extinct species as well). In fact, not only hybrids between so-called species are known, but also many examples of trans-generic crossing, that is, a “created genus” can in some cases be at the family level (according to modern classification). Note that identifying the concept of "created kind" with the modern taxonomic kind is also consistent with Scripture, because when the Bible talked about genera, the Israelites should have easily distinguished between them without having to check the possibility of hybridization.

For example, horses, zebras, and donkeys appear to be descended from the same created genus of equines (some kind of horse-like creature) since they can interbreed even though their offspring are no longer able to reproduce (sterile). Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals seem to be descended from a canine (dog-like) created kind. All types of cattle (and they are all clean) are descendants of the tour (primitive bull, Aurochs), so there should have been a maximum of 7 (or 14) cattle on board. The tours themselves could be descendants of a created kind, which also includes bison and buffaloes. It is known that lions and tigers can produce hybrid offspring, which are called tigons or ligers, so they most likely descended from the same created kind.

On the Ark, most likely, there was dried, compressed and concentrated food. It is likely that Noah fed his cattle mainly on grain, with additional hay to provide fiber. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of feed should have been 15% of the total volume of the Ark. Drinking water could take 9.4% of the total volume.

Woodmorappe counted about 8,000 genera, including extinct ones, respectively, about 16,000 animals must have been present on board the Ark. Regarding extinct species, there is a tendency among paleontologists to assign a new genus name to each new find, but this is not justified. Therefore, the number of extinct genera is probably too exaggerated. For example, consider a group of the largest dinosaurs - sauropods - giant herbivorous pangolins, which include, for example, brachiosaurus, diplodocus, apatosaurus, etc. Usually 87 genera of sauropods are indicated, but only 12 of them are "precisely established" and 12 more are considered "relatively established."

One of the most common questions is: “How could all these huge dinosaurs fit in the Ark?” First, of the 668 alleged genera of dinosaurs, only 106 weighed more than 10 tons (adults). Secondly, as mentioned above, the number of genera of dinosaurs is most likely greatly exaggerated. But Woodmorapp deliberately takes these numbers, giving odds to skeptics. Third, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the animals were to be taken to the Ark by adults. The largest animals may have been taken as juveniles. The average size of the animals on the Ark was about the size of a small rat, according to Woodmorapp's modern calculations, while only about 11% of the animals were much larger than a sheep.

Another question often raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is "how did pathogens survive the Flood?" This is an important question - it suggests that microbes were just as specialized and contagious as they are now, so all the animals on the Ark must have been infected with every infectious disease that exists on Earth. But the bacteria were probably more resistant and only recently lost the ability to survive in or out of different vectors. In fact, even today, many bacteria can survive in insect vectors, in corpses, in a frozen or dehydrated state, or live in a host without causing disease. After all, the loss of resistance to infection is consistent with the general degradation of living beings since the Fall.

Was the Ark big enough to hold all the animals?

The Ark had dimensions of 300*50*30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is approximately 140*23*13.5 meters, that is, its volume was equal to 43,500 m3. To put it better, this is the volume of 522 standard American railroad boxcars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages of an approximate size of 50 * 50 * 30 cm (volume 75,000 cm 3), then 16,000 individuals could occupy only 1200 m 3 or 14.4 wagons. Even if there were a million species of insects on board, this was not a problem because they do not take up much space. If each pair were kept in a cage with a side of 10 cm or 1000 cm 3, all insect species would occupy a volume equal to 1000 m 3, or 12 more wagons. This meant that there was room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah's family, and additional "territory" for the animals. In addition, insects are not included in the categories behemah or remes, which are mentioned in Genesis 6:19-20, therefore, it is likely that Noah did not take them with him to the Ark.

The calculation of the total volume is fair enough, because. it shows that the size of the Ark was large enough to accommodate all the animals, and there was still more than enough room to store food, free space, etc. Perhaps to fill the space of the Ark more efficiently, the cages were stacked on top of each other, and food was stored on top of or next to them (to minimize the amount of food that people would have to carry), while still leaving enough gaps for ventilation. We're talking about an emergency, not luxury accommodation. While there was enough room on the Ark for the animals to move, skeptics exaggerate the animals' need for movement.

Even assuming that it was impossible to put one cell on top of another to save space on the floor, there would still be no problems. Based on recommended animal housing standards, Woodmorappe shows that all of them together would require less than half the floor space of the three decks of the Ark. Such an arrangement of cages would allow placing the maximum amount of food and water on top of the cages - next to the animals.

food requirements.

In the Ark, most likely, there was dried, compressed and concentrated food. It is likely that Noah fed his cattle mainly on grain, with additional hay to provide fiber. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of feed should have been 15% of the total volume of the Ark. Drinking water could take 9.4% of the total volume. This volume could be even less if they collected rainwater, which fell through pipes into drinking troughs.

Perhaps the Ark had sloping floors or cages with holes in the floor: manure fell there and was washed off (there was plenty of water!) Or it was destroyed by vermicomposting (composting with the help of worms), while earthworms could serve as an additional source of food.

Waste disposal requirements

It is unlikely that people had to clean the cells every morning. Perhaps the Ark had sloping floors or cages with holes in the floor: manure fell there and was washed off (there was plenty of water!) Or it was destroyed by vermicomposting (composting with the help of worms), while earthworms could serve as an additional source of food. A very thick litter can sometimes last a year without replacement. Absorbent materials (such as sawdust, soft wood shavings, and especially peat) could reduce moisture, and therefore unpleasant odors.

hibernation

So the Ark met the requirements for space, food, and waste, even if the animals had normal sleep-wake cycles. But hibernation could further reduce those needs. Yes, the Bible does not mention hibernation anywhere, but it does not exclude it either. Some creationists believe that God created the hibernation instinct specifically for the animals on the Ark, but we cannot categorically state this.

Some skeptics claim that taking food on board eliminates the possibility of hibernation, but this is not true. Hibernating animals, despite the popular stereotype, do not sleep through the winter, so they would still sometimes need food.

Conclusion

This article showed that the Bible can be trusted in practical matters such as Noah's Ark. Many Christians believe that the Bible is only trustworthy in matters of faith and morality, not science. But we need to remember that Christ Himself said to Nicodemus (John 3:12): “If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I speak to you about heavenly things?”

If Scripture were wrong in areas that human experience can test, such as geography, history, and the natural sciences, how could we trust it in such matters as the nature of God or life after death, which are beyond practical verification? Therefore, Christians should follow these words of the Apostle Peter: “Hallow the Lord God in your hearts; be always ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you for your hope in meekness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15), when skeptics claim that the Bible contradicts known “scientific facts”.

Christians will be able to obey this command and effectively respond to skeptical arguments against the Ark if they read John Woodmorapp's book. "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Case". This remarkable book is the most comprehensive analysis ever published on the gathering of animals on the Ark, their care and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. For example, some skeptics argue that after the Flood the soil would have been too salty for plants. Woodmorappe shows that salt can easily be washed away by rainwater.

Woodmorapp devoted seven years to this scientific and systematic refutation of virtually all arguments about the unreality of the Ark and the alleged difficulties of biblical description, and other related issues. Nothing like this has ever been written before - this is a powerful defense of the story of the Ark in Genesis.

“Not only does it contain facts and details that children will find fascinating, but it will also be useful as an excellent source of information for Bible study projects and lessons about the Ark and the Flood. Anyone looking for answers to various questions about the Ark, especially those raised by skeptics, may be advised to read Noah's Ark."

Words (all) latest insert

Only 7 pairs of clean and 7 pairs of impure

Jonathan Sarfati

Translation: Irina Malcheva, edited by Alexey Kalko

Many skeptics argue that the Bible cannot be trusted because the Ark could not contain all the different kinds of animals. This has led many Christians to abandon their belief in the Genesis Flood, or to believe it was a localized flood that affected a relatively small number of animals. However, they usually don't even do any calculations. On the other hand, this issue was dealt with in detail in the classic creationist book The Genesis Flood,1 published as early as 1961. For a more detailed and updated technical analysis of this and many other issues, see Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study by John Woodmorapp. This article is based on the materials of these two books, as well as on some of my own calculations. We asked ourselves two questions:
How many kinds of animals did Noah need to take on the Ark?
Was the Ark big enough to hold all the animals?

The Bible describes Noah's Ark as a huge, stable, seaworthy vessel - 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high.

How many kinds of animals did Noah need to take on the Ark?

The following Bible verses answer this question:

Genesis 6:19–20

Also bring into the ark of all animals, and of all flesh, a pair, so that they remain alive with you; male and female let them be. From the birds according to their kind, and from the cattle according to their kind, and from every creeping thing on the ground according to their kind, two of them will come in to you, that they may live.

Genesis 7:2,3

and take seven of every clean livestock, male and female, and of unclean livestock, two each, male and female; also from the birds of the air, seven each, male and female, to keep a seed for all the earth.

In these verses, the word "cattle" is translated from the Hebrew behemah, and refers to all vertebrates in general. The word translated “creeping” in the original Hebrew is remes, and it has several meanings in Scripture, but here it most likely refers to reptiles.2 Noah did not need to take sea creatures,3 because the Flood would to their extinction. However, the turbulent torrents of the waters may have led to mass extinction, as evidenced by the fossil record, and many of the creatures that inhabited the ocean likely died out due to the Flood.

The average size of the animals on the Ark was about the size of a small rat, according to Woodmorapp's modern calculations, while only about 11% of the animals were much larger than a sheep.

Be that as it may, if a wise God decided not to save some of the inhabitants of the ocean, this did not concern Noah. Also, Noah did not need to take plants into the Ark - many of them could survive in the form of seeds, others on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to also survive on these mats. The flood destroyed all land animals that breathed through their nostrils, except those in Noah's Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through their nostrils, but through tiny holes in their outer chitinous covering.

Clean Animals: Biblical commentators disagree over whether the Hebrew says "seven" or "seven pairs" of each kind of clean animal. Woodmorappe chooses the second option in order to give Bible skeptics a head start as far as possible. But the overwhelming majority of animals were not pure and were represented by only two representatives. The term "clean animals" did not exist before the law of Moses. But, given that Moses was the compiler of the book of Genesis, following the principle "Scripture interprets Scripture", the definition from the law of Moses can be applied to the situation of the Ark. In fact, there are very few "clean" animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

What is a "genus"? God created a certain number of kinds of animals with great capacity for variability within certain limits.4 The descendants of each of these different created kinds, with the exception of man, today most often represent more than one species (according to modern classification). In most cases, species descended from one created genus can be combined into groups that modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (genus).

One of the common definitions of a species is "a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species." However, most so-called species have not been tested as to who they can and cannot interbreed with (apparently this applies to all extinct species as well). In fact, not only hybrids between so-called species are known, but also many examples of trans-generic crossing, that is, a “created genus” can in some cases be at the family level (according to modern classification). Note that identifying the concept of "created kind" with the modern taxonomic kind is also consistent with Scripture, because when the Bible talked about genera, the Israelites should have easily distinguished between them without having to check the possibility of hybridization.

For example, horses, zebras, and donkeys appear to be descended from the same created genus of equines (some kind of horse-like creature) since they can interbreed even though their offspring are no longer able to reproduce (sterile). Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals seem to be descended from a canine (dog-like) created kind. All types of cattle (and they are all pure) are descendants of the aurochs (primal bull, Aurochs), so there should have been a maximum of 7 (or 14) cattle on board. The tours themselves could be descendants of a created kind, which also includes bison and buffaloes. It is known that lions and tigers can produce hybrid offspring, which are called tigons or ligers, so they most likely descended from the same created kind.

On the Ark, most likely, there was dried, compressed and concentrated food. It is likely that Noah fed his cattle mainly on grain, with additional hay to provide fiber. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of feed should have been 15% of the total volume of the Ark. Drinking water could take 9.4% of the total volume.

Woodmorappe counted about 8,000 genera, including extinct ones, respectively, about 16,000 animals must have been present on board the Ark. Regarding extinct species, there is a tendency for paleontologists to assign a new genus name to each new find, but this is not justified. Therefore, the number of extinct genera is probably too exaggerated. For example, consider a group of the largest dinosaurs - sauropods - giant herbivorous lizards, which include, for example, brachiosaurus, diplodocus, apatosaurus, etc. Usually 87 genera of sauropods are indicated, but only 12 of them are "precisely established" and 12 more are considered "relatively established.”5

One of the most common questions is: “How could all these huge dinosaurs fit in the Ark?” First, of the 668 alleged genera of dinosaurs, only 106 weighed more than 10 tons (adults). Secondly, as mentioned above, the number of genera of dinosaurs is most likely greatly exaggerated. But Woodmorapp deliberately takes these numbers, giving odds to skeptics. Third, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the animals were to be taken to the Ark by adults. The largest animals may have been taken as juveniles. The average size of the animals on the Ark was about the size of a small rat, according to Woodmorapp's modern calculations, while only about 11% of the animals were much larger than a sheep.

Another question often raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is "how did pathogens survive the Flood?" This is an important question - it suggests that microbes were just as specialized and contagious as they are now, so all the animals on the Ark must have been infected with every infectious disease that exists on Earth. But the bacteria were probably more resistant and only recently lost the ability to survive in or out of different vectors. In fact, even today, many bacteria can survive in insect vectors, in corpses, in a frozen or dehydrated state, or live in a host without causing disease. After all, the loss of resistance to infection is consistent with the general degradation of living beings since the Fall.6

Was the Ark big enough to hold all the animals?

The Ark had dimensions of 300*50*30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is approximately 140*23*13.5 meters, that is, its volume was equal to 43,500 m3. To put it better, this is the volume of 522 standard American railroad boxcars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages of the approximate size 50*50*30 cm (volume 75,000 cm3), then 16,000 individuals could occupy only 1200 m3 or 14.4 wagons. Even if there were a million species of insects on board, this was not a problem because they do not take up much space. If each pair were kept in a cage with a side of 10 cm or 1000 cm3, all insect species would occupy a volume equal to 1000 m3, or 12 more wagons. This meant that there was room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah's family, and additional "territory" for the animals. In addition, insects are not included in the categories of behemah or remes mentioned in Genesis 6:19–20, so it is likely that Noah did not take them with him to the Ark.

The calculation of the total volume is fair enough, because. it shows that the size of the Ark was large enough to accommodate all the animals, and there was still more than enough room to store food, free space, etc. Perhaps to fill the space of the Ark more efficiently, the cages were stacked on top of each other, and food was stored on top of or next to them (to minimize the amount of food that people would have to carry), while still leaving enough gaps for ventilation. We're talking about an emergency, not luxury accommodation. While there was enough room on the Ark for the animals to move, skeptics exaggerate the animals' need for movement.

Even assuming that it was impossible to put one cell on top of another to save space on the floor, there would still be no problems. Based on recommended animal housing standards, Woodmorappe shows that all of them together would require less than half the floor space of the three decks of the Ark. Such an arrangement of cages would allow placing the maximum amount of food and water on top of the cages - next to the animals.

food requirements.

In the Ark, most likely, there was dried, compressed and concentrated food. It is likely that Noah fed his cattle mainly on grain, with additional hay to provide fiber. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of feed should have been 15% of the total volume of the Ark. Drinking water could take 9.4% of the total volume. This volume could be even less if they collected rainwater, which fell through pipes into drinking troughs.

Perhaps the Ark had sloping floors or cages with holes in the floor: manure fell there and was washed off (there was plenty of water!) Or it was destroyed by vermicomposting (composting with the help of worms), while earthworms could serve as an additional source of food.

Waste disposal requirements

It is unlikely that people had to clean the cells every morning. Perhaps the Ark had sloping floors or cages with holes in the floor: manure fell there and was washed off (there was plenty of water!) Or it was destroyed by vermicomposting (composting with the help of worms), while earthworms could serve as an additional source of food. A very thick litter can sometimes last a year without replacement. Absorbent materials (such as sawdust, soft wood shavings, and especially peat) could reduce moisture, and therefore unpleasant odors.

So the Ark met the requirements for space, food, and waste, even if the animals had normal sleep-wake cycles. But hibernation could further reduce those needs. Yes, the Bible does not mention hibernation anywhere, but it does not exclude it either. Some creationists believe that God created the hibernation instinct specifically for the animals on the Ark, but we cannot categorically state this.

Some skeptics claim that taking food on board eliminates the possibility of hibernation, but this is not true. Hibernating animals, despite the popular stereotype, do not sleep through the winter, so they would still sometimes need food.

This article showed that the Bible can be trusted in practical matters such as Noah's Ark. Many Christians believe that the Bible is only trustworthy in matters of faith and morality, not science. But we need to remember that Christ Himself said to Nicodemus (John 3:12): “If I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I speak to you of heavenly things?”

If Scripture were wrong in areas that human experience can test, such as geography, history, and the natural sciences, how could we trust it in such matters as the nature of God or life after death, which are beyond practical verification? Therefore, Christians should follow these words of the Apostle Peter: “Hallow the Lord God in your hearts; be always ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you for your hope in meekness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15), when skeptics claim that the Bible contradicts known “scientific facts”.

Christians will be able to obey this command and respond effectively to skeptical arguments against the Ark if they read John Woodmorapp's Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Case. This remarkable book is the most comprehensive analysis ever published on the gathering of animals on the Ark, their care and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. For example, some skeptics argue that after the Flood the soil would have been too salty for plants. Woodmorappe shows that salt can easily be washed away by rainwater.

Woodmorapp devoted seven years to this scientific and systematic refutation of virtually all arguments about the unreality of the Ark and the alleged difficulties of biblical description, and other related issues. Nothing like this has ever been written before - this is a powerful defense of the story of the Ark in Genesis.

“Not only does it contain facts and details that children will find fascinating, but it will also be useful as an excellent source of information for Bible study projects and lessons about the Ark and the Flood. Anyone looking for answers to various questions about the Ark, especially those raised by skeptics, may be advised to read Noah's Ark."

Links and notes
1.C. Whitcomb, and H.M. Morris, The Genesis Flood, Phillipsburg, NJ, USA, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1961. Return to text.
2.J. Jones, ‘How many animals on the Ark?’ Creation Research Society Quarterly 10(2):16–18, 1973. Return to text
3. It's time for some skeptical atheists to show their open mind and read the Bible for real. Then they'd stop making jokes about whales paddling up the gangplank and aquariums on the Ark. Back to text
4. One of the common misconceptions of evolutionists is that variability within a genus allegedly proves evolution "from molecules to man." The examples they cite, such as the moth, or bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, are indeed examples of natural selection. But this is not evolution. Evolution requires the creation of new information, while natural selection sorts and can remove information through the loss of genetic diversity. Natural selection may explain variation, but it cannot explain the origin of moths or bacteria. In the case of the moth, natural selection has simply changed the relative abundance of black and light spotted moths. Both forms already existed in the population, so nothing new was created. [Following the publication of this article, it was revealed that the photographs of the butterflies were staged, which further undermines this "evidence" - see Goodbye, peppered moths: A classic evolutionary story comes unstuck] The same applies to dog breeds. Choosing very large or vice versa, very small individuals, the Great Dane and Chihuahua breeds were bred. But these breeds have lost the information that is responsible for certain sizes contained in their genes. See Dogs breeding dogs? Creation 18(2):20–23. [Cm. See also What is Evolution?] Return to text
5.S. McIntosh, Sauropoda, in Wieshampel, D.B. et al., The Dinosauria, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, p. 345, 1992. Return to text.
6. Wieland, 'Diseases on the Ark', Journal of Creation (formerly Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal) 8(1):16–18, 1994 their protein coats. As a result, it becomes more difficult for antibodies to identify them, but this does not increase the amount of information, that is, there is no real evolution. Back to text
7.Reason and Revelation

Atheists insist that representatives of all kinds of animals could not fit in the Ark in any way and, therefore, the Bible lies. Because of this, many Christians stopped believing in the story of the Flood; they now believe that the flood was "local" and very few animals entered the Ark.

It usually turns out that the skeptics simply did not fully understand the situation. On the other hand, the classic work on creationism "The Flood from the Book of Genesis" ("TheGenesisFlood”)- a comprehensive analysis of the Flood - was published back in 1961. 1 New book by John Woodmorapp "Noah's Ark: Rationale" ("Noah'sArc:aFeasibilityStudy”) is an extended and updated study that sheds light on the history of the Flood and other related issues. 2 This chapter is based on material from these books and some independent calculations. We are faced with two main questions:

How many kinds of animals did Noah have to take into the Ark? - Could the Ark contain representatives of all kinds of animals?

How many kinds of animals did Noah have to take into the Ark?

The Bible says:

Also bring into the ark of all animals and of all flesh a pair, so that they remain alive with you: male and female let them be. From birds according to their kind, and from cattle according to their kind, and from every creeping thing on the ground according to their kind...(Gen. 6:19-20) And take seven of every clean livestock, male and female, and two of the unclean livestock, male and female. Also from the birds of the air, seven each, male and female, to keep a tribe for all the earth(Gen. 7:2-3)

In the original Hebrew text, the word translated in the Bible as "beast" or "cattle" is the same in these verses: "behemah", and it applies to terrestrial vertebrates in general. The word used for reptiles "craft", which has several meanings in Scripture, but here probably refers to reptiles. 3 Noah did not need to take the inhabitants of the sea into the Ark, 4 because the Flood did not threaten them with destruction. However, the turbulent streams of water, carrying with them a colloidal mixture of sediments, killed a great many living creatures, which was reflected in the fossil record. Many species that lived in the oceans did not really survive the Flood. But if God in His wisdom decided not to leave alive these or those inhabitants of the sea, then it was His will, and Noah had absolutely nothing to do with this.

Noah had no reason to take plants into the Ark. Some of them survived in the form of seeds, others - in the form of floating plant masses; we observe this even today after strong storms. On these natural "rafts" many insects and other invertebrates could escape. According to Genesis 7:22, the Flood destroyed all land animals that had "the breath of the spirit of life in their nostrils",- except for those who entered the Ark. Insects do not breathe through their nostrils, but through tiny openings (tracheae) in their exoskeleton.

Clean Animals: On the question of what is meant in the original text of the Bible - "seven" or "seven pairs" of each kind of clean animals - the opinions of the commentators were evenly divided. Woodmorappe insists on the second option, thereby making a concession to the atheists. However, there are many more unclean animals than clean ones, and each of their species was represented by only one pair. In general, the term "clean animals" is defined only in the law of Moses; however, since Genesis was also written/compiled by Moses, then according to the principle "Scripture is the best commentator on Scripture", the definitions of the Law work in the situation with Noah. In fact, there are very few "clean" land animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

What is a "genus"?
God created a certain number of animal species and endowed them with the ability to change within certain limits. 5 The descendants of these genera, with the exception of the human race, today are predominantly represented by more than one so-called view (species). A number of species came from one created kind, and modern taxonomy (the biological science of classifying living beings) in many cases combines them into a category biological type (genus).

One of the definitions of a species says: “A species is a group of organisms that freely interbreed with each other and give fertile offspring, and also do not interbreed with representatives of other species.” However, for most of the species of the same genus or even family, no interbreeding has been tested; it is even more impossible to carry out such a check for fossil species. In reality, the situation is as follows: not only are the so-called species capable of interbreeding, there are also many examples of crossing between biological genera. Thus, in a number of cases, the created kind could generally correspond to the systematic category of the family! But the identification of the created kind with the biological kind is also quite consistent with the Holy Scriptures, because when the Scriptures spoke about the “kind”, the people of Israel perfectly understood what was being said, without any need for crossbreeding.

Thus, the horse, zebra, and donkey most likely descended from the same equine family, since they can interbreed with each other - although their offspring are mostly sterile. The dog, the wolf, the coyote, and the jackal are also probably from the same genus, the canine genus. All varieties of cattle (clean animals!) are descended from the aurochs, 6 so that only 7 (or 14) such animals entered the Ark. The bison, in turn, is a descendant of that “large-horned” clan, from which the bison and buffaloes also came. We know that tigers and lions are capable of interbreeding, resulting in the so-called "tiger lions"; so, probably, these animals also came from the same created kind.

Woodmorappe counted about 8,000 genera, including extinct ones. Thus, about 16,000 animals were to enter the Ark. With regard to extinct genera, the tendency of some paleontologists to assign a new generic name to each find should be noted. Since this practice is highly controversial, the number of extinct animal genera may be greatly exaggerated.

Consider the largest of the dinosaurs - giant herbivorous lizards, such as brachiosaurus, diplodocus, apatosaurus, etc. Usually they talk about 87 genera of lizards, but only 12 of them are “precisely defined”, and another 12 are “determined quite accurately”. 7

Dinosaurs?
One of the most frequently asked questions is “How did Noah fit the huge dinosaurs into the Ark?” First, of the 668 alleged genera of dinosaurs, only 106 reached adult weights of more than 10 tons. Secondly, nowhere in the Bible does it say that adult animals were to be taken into the Ark. The largest animals were probably represented by "adolescents" or even younger individuals. Surprisingly, according to Woodmorapp's latest tables, most of the animals on the Ark were no larger than a rat, with only about 11% of animals larger than a sheep.

Microbes?
Another issue often raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is "How did disease germs survive the Flood?" This question is fundamental - it assumes that the then microorganisms were the same specialized carriers of infections as they are today - therefore all passengers of the Ark must have suffered from all the diseases that exist on Earth today. However, most likely, the microbes at that time were much healthier than they are now; they may have only recently lost the ability to survive in different hosts or independently of hosts. In fact, even now, many microbes persist in dry and frosty conditions, either in insect vectors or in the carcasses of dead individuals, without causing disease. Moreover, even today, many microbes cause disease only in a weakened organism, and in those days they could live, say, in the intestines of the host, without causing him any inconvenience. This loss of resistance to germs is probably related to the general decline of life after the fall. eight

How could all the animals fit in the Ark?

The Ark had dimensions of 300x50x30 cubits (Gen. 6:15), which is approximately 137x23x13.7 meters, that is, its volume in the end was 43,200 m 3 - the same as 522 ordinary cattle cars, each of which fits 240 sheep .

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size (some smaller, some larger) of 50x50x30 cm, that is, 75,000 cm 3, then 16,000 animals occupied only 1200 m 3 of space, or 14.4 cattle cars. Even if there were a million more insects in the Ark, this would not create a problem, since insects take up very little space. If each pair of insects were kept in cages with a side of 10 cm, that is, a volume of 1000 cm 3, then all types of insects would occupy only 1000 m 3 - that is, another 12 wagons. Thus, there would be space in the Ark equivalent to 5 trains of 99 cars each. Noah and his family, food and feed supplies could well fit there, and there would still be free space. But insects don't fit into the category "behemah", not under the category "craft" and therefore Noah, in all probability, should not have taken them on board.

The calculation of the volume of the Ark is most likely correct, as it shows that there was more than enough room for food, space for movement, etc. - which is to be expected. Cells could be placed one on top of the other, and food containers could be placed on top of or next to them; thus, it was easier for people to feed the animals, and space was freed up for normal air circulation. Note: we are not talking about a pleasure walk, but about the need to survive in difficult conditions. The animals had enough room to move around in space (especially since skeptics exaggerate their need for movement).

Even if one cell was not placed on top of another, there were still no problems. Woodmorappe showed that, based on modern standards of living space, all the inhabitants of the Ark could fit in less than half the space of its three decks. Such placement would allow placing a maximum of food and water supplies on top of the cages - closer to the animals.

Needs for food
Most likely, the Ark contained compressed and dry food and concentrates. Probably, Noah fed the animals mainly grain with hay additives. Woodmorapp calculated that the volume of food supplies was only about 15% of the total volume of the Ark, and drinking water occupied less than 10% of the volume; in addition, the passengers of the Ark could collect rainwater.

Waste collection
How did Noah and his family clean up after thousands of animals every day? This work could be optimized in different ways. Perhaps the Ark had sloping floors and/or cages with holes in the floor: manure fell there, and there was plenty of water around! Or maybe the worms composted the manure and thus became a source of food themselves; after all, a good bedding can not be changed during the year. Absorbent materials (eg sawdust, shavings, and especially peat) reduced the moisture content and thus the unpleasant odours.

hibernation
Even with normal sleep-wake cycles, the Ark adequately met the animals' needs for food and movement. But these needs could be significantly reduced during hibernation. The Bible does not mention hibernation anywhere, but it does not exclude it either. Some creationists speculate that God created, or enhanced, the hibernation instinct specifically for the passengers on the Ark, but of course we can't categorically state this.

Skeptics believe that the fact that there is food on the Ark excludes the possibility of hibernation; but it is not. After all, hibernation in animals does not last all winter, and from time to time they still need food.

Conclusion

We have shown that the Bible is a reliable source of information about Noah's Ark. Many Christians think that the Bible can only be trusted in matters of faith and morals, not science. But remember how Jesus Himself told Nicodemus (Gospel of John 3:12):

If I told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?

If the Bible were wrong about things that human experience can do—geography, history, the natural sciences—why should we trust it about things like the nature of God or life after death? This is why Christians must be prepared “to everyone who asks you to give an account of your hope, to give an answer with meekness and reverence”(1 Pet. 3:15) when atheists tell them that the Bible is contrary to "scientific facts."

Unbelievers, seeing that the Bible can be trusted in verifiable matters, should understand that they are taking a big risk by refusing to believe in its warnings about the coming judgment.

Sergei Golovin. The Flood: Myth, Legend or Reality?

How did Noah put all the animals on the ark?

How did Noah place all the animals on the ark? Was the ark big enough to hold "every beast after its kind, and every beast after its kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, after its kind, and every flying thing after its kind, every bird, every winged" in pairs, and seven pairs of representatives of some individual species? What about food? It also required a lot of space to store enough food to provide for Noah and his family (8 people) as well as all the animals. And this is all for at least a year (see Genesis 7:11; 8:13-18) and possibly more, depending on how long it took for the vegetation to grow back. That's a huge amount of food! What about drinking water? Is it realistic to think that Noah's ship was big enough to hold all these animals and a year's supply of food and water?

The dimensions of the ark in Genesis are 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high (Genesis 6:15). What is an "elbow"? The cubit is an ancient unit of measurement, equal to the length of the forearm from the elbow to the longest finger. In Hebrew, this word is "ammam". Since everyone's arms are different lengths, this unit may seem a little inaccurate to some, but scientists generally agree that it is somewhere between 43 and 56 centimeters. It is known that the ancient Egyptian cubit was almost 56 centimeters. Thus, the following calculations can be made:

Thus, the ark could reach up to 168 meters in length, 28 meters in width and 16.8 meters in height. These are pretty realistic sizes. But how big are these numbers? 168 x 28 x 16.8 = 79,027.20 m3. (If we take the smallest cubit, 43 centimeters, we end up with 35,778.15 m3.) Of course, not all of this was available storage space. The ark had three levels (Genesis 6:16) and many rooms (Genesis 6:14) whose walls also occupied space. However, it has been estimated that just over half (54.75%) of the 79,027.20 m3 can accommodate 125,000 sheep-sized animals, leaving nearly 36,000 m3 still free (see http:// www.icr.org/bible/bhta42.html).

John Woodmorappe, author of the authoritative The Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the Ark were larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God could bring to Noah "young" animals, which could be much smaller than adults.

How many animals were in the ark? Woodmorappe has about 16,000 genera. What is a "genus"? The definition of genus is much broader than the definition of species. Even though there are over 400 breeds of dogs, they all belong to the same species (Canis Familiaris), just as many species can belong to the same genus.

However, even assuming that the genus is synonymous with the species, “there are not many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. Leading systematic biologist Ernst Mayr puts the number at 17,600. Considering that there were a pair of each species in the ark, as well as seven pairs of a few so-called “pure” animal species, plus a reasonable increase for extinct species known to us, it can be assumed that on there were no more than, say, 50,000 animals on the ark” (John Morris, 1987).

Some researchers have calculated that about 25 thousand species of animals were represented in the ark. This is the maximum score. With two representatives of each species and seven of some of them, the number of animals will exceed 50 thousand, although not by much. Whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 species of animals—even two of each and seven pairs of some of them—scholars agree that there was enough room in the ark for all the animals, as well as food and water supplies.

What about the excrement produced by all these animals? How did a family of 8 manage to feed all those animals day after day and deal with tons of excrement? What about animals with special diets? How did the vegetation survive? What about insects? There are thousands of other similar questions, and they all have a place to be. Many people think that it is impossible to answer such questions. But they are, in fact, nothing new. They have been asked over and over again for centuries. And all the while, researchers have been looking for answers. There are now numerous, extremely deep scientific studies concerning Noah and his ark.

With over 1,200 references to scientific research, Woodmorappe's book is "a state-of-the-art systematic assessment of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark" (John Woodmorappe, A Resource for Answering Critics of Noah's Ark, Impact #273, March 1996. Institute for Creation Research, January 30, 2005 g.: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm). Woodmorapp argues that after several years of systematic examination of all the issues raised, “all arguments against the ark will be found … untenable. In fact, the vast majority of the evidence against the Ark that at first glance appears to be irrelevant can be easily shown to be irrelevant.”

Copyright

When writing this answer on the site, materials from the got site were partially or completely used Questions? org!

Materials posted with the permission of the copyright holder.

The owners of the Bible Online resource may partially or not at all share the opinion of this article.