The Flood

[Suzanne Sutton]

The Flood

Nita said that when she came into the SDA church many years ago, the Bible instructor said that the fish of the sea were not destroyed during the flood. As a long-time SDA, I was somewhat taken aback because I always assumed that every living creature died during this terrible event.

Indeed, looking at Genesis 6 (the whole chapter) and especially verse 17, it says: "And behold, I even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die."

That settles it for me...even though some point out that variouis other verses in Gen 6, while mentioning all other creatures fail to mention the fish. I say we have to consider all the text that pertain to a particular subject in order to get the complete, correct picture.

Thoughts?

Suzanne

[cricket]

One thought: not all flesh died. Noah and his brood survived. So did the animals on the ark. I'd have to imagine that there were clean fish in the sea that survived as well.

[Amelia]

I always read that to mean, destroy all the flesh that was "on" the earth. Not in the water. Noah didn't have fish and whales and crabs etc on the ark. So where did all the sealife come from that we have today? God didn't recreate them so they had to already be there. Right?

[Suzanne Sutton]

Of course,...I should have mentioned that the only ones that survived were those--animal and humans--who were in the ark. I still say the fish outside of the ark perished, along with all other life outside of the ark. Read Genesis 6.

Suzanne

[Suzanne Sutton]

Amelia, in the strictest sense, the oceans are on the earth. Consider the fact that the deepest place in the ocean is the 7 mile deep Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean. (Without looking it up at the moment), the earth is 4,000 miles deep (please correct me if I'm wrong) or somewhere in that range. So the 7 mile deep oceans are on the earth.

Anyway while the text doesn't say, Noah could have built aquariums that housed certain sea life. Or the oceans could have been repopulated after the flood.

Again, my understanding is that every living thing outside the ark perished.

Suzanne

[cricket]

Well, if the text doesn't say, then the text doesn't say. My opinion still stands: I think there are some fish that survived.

[Suzanne Sutton]

The text doesn't mention fish in particular, but says "and Noah only remained alive and they that were with him in the ark." Gen. 6:23.

Suzanne

[Planey]

Some texts that may address the issue:

Quote:

Genesis 6:7

So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

Specifically mentions animals ('move along the ground') and birds. No mention of fishes or other marine inhabitants.

Quote:

Genesis 6:19,20

You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

Again, the living creatures to be takan aboard the ark appear to be restricted to the categories of land-based animals and birds.

Quote:

Genesis 7:2,3

Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

Genesis 7:8,9

Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

And again, this is what actually went on to the ark.

Quote:

Genesis 7:21-23

Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth.

IMHO, it is abundantly clear that land-based animals and birds were on the ark - marine life (vertebrates and invertebrates) were expected to survive outside.

Graeme

[Gerr]

Whales & other marine animals in the ark? I don't think so.

"Then God said, 'Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear'; and it was so. And God called the dry land earth, and and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas." Gen 1:9,10 NKJ.

"And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man." Gen 7:21 NKJ.

No mention of water creatures dying.

Gerry

[Ron Lambert]

First of all, the idea of destroying all the fish of the sea by drowning them seems a bit ludicrous. But even if you interpret Scripture in such a way that you claim all the fish were killed too, fish eggs could still have survived. Obviously insect eggs survived.

[Suzanne Sutton]

My, my, this subject is not as simple as it first appeared.... Regarding the fish: Most of the fish in the ocean as salt-water creatures cannot survive for long in fresh water. The waters of the flood--rain water and the fountains of the deep, being fresh water would preclude their surviving. Besides, this cataclysmic event was of such magnitude that no living creature outside of the ark could survive. Various texts in Genesis chapters 6 and 7 say as much.

Then too, the spiritual significance of the whole situation cannot be overlooked. Indeed, in the last days those outside of the ark of safety will perish. Our work is indeed to spread the gospel message.

Suzanne

[Naomi]

Thank you Suzanne

[Robert]

Indeed, in the last days those outside of the ark of safety will perish. Our work is indeed to spread the gospel message.

Huh...that's not the gospel. That's fear and it makes good legalists....The gospel is what Jesus did in our humanity 2000 years ago. The gospel reveals God's selfless love.

I know...off subject.

Rob

[Suzanne Sutton]

You are certainly right Br. Robert. The gospel is the "good news" of Jesus Christ and what he did and is doing for us. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Suzanne

[cricket]

Quote:

The waters of the flood--rain water and the fountains of the deep, being fresh water would preclude their surviving.

I think a lot of assumptions are being made here. Who are we to understand the creative/destructive powers of God? To say that the waters of the flood "preclude[d] their surviving" is to say that God does not have the power to prevent their demise.

[Dr. Shane]

We also don't know if the seas were salty before the flood. There could have been only fresh water animals. Salt water animals could have evolved after the flood as the oceans became salty due to all the run off into them.

It is all speculation.

[Naomi]

Quote:

It is all speculation.

Excellent Shane,

Sometimes I think that the evil one sits back and laughs as we ponder the things which have no relevance to our relationship with our Lord or no influence on our eternal life.

There are many things which we do not know the answers, yet someday it will all be made clear. We shall have eternity to seek answers.

Our Mission, Should We Decide To Accept it: Is to live each day so that we can reach the Promised Land.

Farther along, we'll understand why .........

[bevin]

It is interesting how many issues there are, both mentioned here and not addressed, with having a world-wide flood.

/Bevin

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Then too, the spiritual significance of the whole situation cannot be overlooked. Indeed, in the last days those outside of the ark of safety will perish. Our work is indeed to spread the gospel message."

I will suggest that the spiritual significance is most appropriate as applied to humans. Humans, are Biblically the object of salvation, neither fish nor elephants.

The Biblical record is clear that it says nothing directly about sea life. There is no indication that such were taken into the Ark.

[Ron Lambert]

Following is an excerpt from an article titled "How Did Fish Survive the Flood" from the following link: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html

Quote:

Saltwater/Freshwater Adaptation in Fish Today

Many of today's marine organisms, especially estuarine and tidepool species, are able to survive large changes in salinity. For example, starfish will tolerate as low as 16-18 percent of the normal concentration of seawater.

There are migratory species of fish that travel between salt and fresh water. For example, salmon, striped bass, and Atlantic spurgeon spawn in fresh water and mature in salt water. Eels reproduce in salt water and grow to maturity in fresh water streams and lakes. So, many of today's species of fish are able to adjust to both fresh water and salt water.

There is also evidence of post-flood specialization within a kind of fish. For example, the Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon (a different species of the same kind) lives only in fresh water.

Many families of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species. These include the families of toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and flatfish. Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh and saltwater representatives. This suggests that the ability to tolerate large changes in salinity was present in most fish at the time of the flood. Specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then.

Hybrids of wild trout (fresh water) and farmed salmon (migratory species) have been discovered in Scotland, suggesting that the differences between freshwater and marine types may be quite minor. Indeed, the differences in physiology seem to be largely differences in degree rather than kind.

The kidneys of freshwater species excrete excess water (the urine has low salt concentration) and those of marine species excrete excess salt (the urine has high salt concentration). Saltwater sharks have high concentrations of urea in the blood to retain water in the saltwater environment whereas freshwater sharks have low concentrations of urea to avoid accumulating water. When sawfish move from salt water to fresh water they increase their urine output 20 fold, and their blood urea concentration decreases to less than one-third.

Major public aquariums use the ability of fish to adapt to water of different salinity from their normal habitat to exhibit freshwater and saltwater species together. The fish can adapt if the salinity is changed slowly enough.

So, many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes.

Aquatic air-breathing mammals such as whales and dolphins would have been better placed than many fish to survive the flood because of the turbidity of the water, changes in temperature, etc. The fossil record testifies to the massive destruction of marine life, with marine creatures accounting for 95 percent of the fossil record.[3] Some, such as trilobites and ichthyosaurs, probably became extinct at that time. This is consistent with the Bible account of the flood beginning with the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep" (i.e., beginning in the sea; "the great deep" means the oceans).

There is also a possibility that stable fresh and saltwater layers developed and persisted in some parts of the ocean. Fresh water can sit on top of salt water for extended periods of time. Turbulence may have been sufficiently low at high latitudes for such layering to persist and allow the survival of both freshwater and saltwater species in those areas.

Conclusion

There are many simple, plausible explanations for how fresh and saltwater fish could have survived the flood. There is no reason to doubt the reality of the flood as described in the Bible.

[John317]

The Flood

Nita said that when she came into the SDA church many years ago, the Bible instructor said that the fish of the sea were not destroyed during the flood. As a long-time SDA, I was somewhat taken aback because I always assumed that every living creature died during this terrible event.

Indeed, looking at Genesis 6 (the whole chapter) and especially verse 17, it says: "And behold, I even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die."

That settles it for me...even though some point out that variouis other verses in Gen 6, while mentioning all other creatures fail to mention the fish. I say we have to consider all the text that pertain to a particular subject in order to get the complete, correct picture.

Thoughts?

Suzanne

Why would the fish die? The flood was brought to destroy people, not drown the fish. Fish don't usually drown. And the fish were not evil, as people are. There is nothing in the Bible about God's having Noah take fish on board the ark because God knew the fish would live in the water.

[Ron Lambert]

Please note the words: "destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life" Is the "breath of life" in fish, in the same sense it is in land animals? Fish do not breathe the way we do, their gills take oxygen out of the water.

[Morning Glory]

If the flood was as horrific as Ellen White describes, then I would assume that there WERE some sea life that did not survive. But, I would also assume that there were a lot who did survive. Just my thoughts and take on the whole subject.

MG

[Ellen]

Suzanne I also believe that Moses only wrote what was pertinent and didn't go into so much detail regarding which fish lived and which other water creatures survived. We know whales couldn't likely have entered the ark, think about it.

However true it is that fish don't usually drown, we don't have an inkling just how horrific the conditions were during the deluge. It wasn't just rain, it wasn't just wind and and volcanoes or earthquakes, even the earth's orbit was affected during that awful time.

We find many fish skeletons as fosils in rocks so many died somehow, electrocution or battered around during the shaking. We must approach the bible story in a practical and open minded way, the individual letters written were not inspired, it was the writer and the thoughts that were inspired and the prophets put to "papyrus" the message as he/she saw it.

[Gerr]

If the fishes could not survive in the water, how could they have survived out of the water? I don't think all the bodies of water before the flood were fresh bodies of water.

Gerry