Why this story matters

(commentary on Genesis 6-9)

(Page 1 of 4)

Introduction

There has been so much written about the Noah’s Ark story in Genesis that it would be pretentious at best to try to analyze it fully here. However no critical assessment of the literalist perspective on the Bible can really ignore it. Besides, there have been so many illustrated versions done by the faithful that it's about time a version was done from a critical perspective. Illustrations done from this perspective help to underscore some of the most implausible aspects of the story. But there are so many problems with claiming this story is literal, much more needs to be said. I'll tackle the main problems in this article.

Caveats

Before dissecting the story itself, we need to deal with several common objections. First, some Christians take the position that certain Old Testament stories like Noah’s Ark are merely allegorical, but that all events in the New Testament are historically accurate. But this is being inconsistent, especially since Jesus, himself, spoke about Noah's time as if it was part of history:

"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.  People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark.  Then the Flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26–27)

According to Jesus, then, the story is historical.

Second, some believers who acknowledge the logistical problems in the story will contend that the flood was local. It didn't cover the whole earth. However the text is as plain and clear as it can be in stating that the flood was global:

“Finally, the mighty flood was so deep that even the highest mountain peaks were almost twenty-five feet below the surface of the water. Not a bird, animal, reptile, or human was left alive anywhere on earth. The LORD destroyed everything that breathed. Nothing was left alive except Noah and the others in the boat" (Gen. 7: 19-23 CEV; my emphasis).

And to suggest that the highest mountain peaks were 25 feet below the surface and yet the flood was contained in a relatively small part of the world is to deny gravity and conjures up some absurd images of sloping water levels. And if the Bible is to be taken literally then it should be taken literally when God stated He would destroy “all life under the heavens” and that “Everything on earth will perish” (Gen. 6:17). There's nothing ambiguous about that.

And third, in order to explain away the many practical problems, some believers claim there was a series of miracles. First of all, there's no point in debating belief in ancient miracles, since they can't be proved or disproved. Second, if it was all a series of miracles, then why do believers spend so much time trying to make sense of this episode in practical terms? Why not just say everything was accomplished by miracles? Animals in other parts of the world could have just appeared beside Noah as if they used a transporter like the one on Star Trek. And God could have made it so that none of the animals needed to eat or drink or excrete waist for a year, and so on, and so on. The problem with this is that it makes the story even more far fetched than it already is. If Christians are asking others to believe that animals from other parts of the world just magically appeared in the Middle East and that they magically stopped eating and excreting waste for a year, they're asking a lot.

Moreover, why would God perform miracle after miracle to deal with all the practical problems, when He could have just done one simple miracle and had all the wicked people drop dead or disappear? That way he wouldn't have had to kill all the animals. These excuses simply don't workl. The story is obviously told as if it could be accomplished in a literal, physical way without the need for a long series of miracles.

© IllustratedBibleStories.ca