Why were no sea creatures destroyed in the flood?

smiddy

All the animals on earth were destroyed in the flood of Noahs day apart from those in the Ark ,apparently no sea creatures were destroyed in the flood , why is that ?

This is not an issue that only affects jehovahs witnesses , it is one that affects all beleivers that accept the bible as Gods word.

Obviously sea creatures were not put on the ark , no whales ,no dolphins , no fish , no krill , no plankton etc. etc. you can fill in the rest .

So my question is , why were land animals / birds singled out for destruction ?, what wrong did they do to deserve this judgement against them . ? that their counterparts in the sea escaped .?

Wasnt it humans ? that offended God Jehovah / Yahweh, YHWH , or whoever you want to call him ?

Apologists are not expecting us to beleive that whales , dolphins , fish , krill , plankton , etc. were also on the ark ? do they ?

I would appreciate your input for this post , correct me if I am wrong in my assumptions .

smiddy

prologos

Consider the animals, and normal humans colleteral damage in the ravaging rage of the early God.

remember, the angels were only in training, still twirling their swords to guard the tree in Eden,

by the time The Exodus rolled around, they were able to read blodd messages on doors, sort out the all firstborn of woman and beast from Aswan to Cairo, and kill them with precision strikes of bio weapons (perhaps). so:

explain the indiscriminate carnage of the flood to bad timing, the troops were surprised by the too early appearance of the fallen angels, the hybrid giants; the Atlases, Herculesses, Achilleses of the other funny legends. and

He would have liked to kill the water animals too no doubt, but failed, so next time he will try fire.

stuckinarut2

As the waters were mixed with both salt and fresh water, it would be logical that ALL creatures living in water would have died!

A fresh water creature can not live in salty water, and vice versa?...

_Morpheus

I never saw this in print but various speakers over the years have tried to rationalize it by suggesting that various water based organisms can adapt to varying levels of salinit. They cite fish like salmon that go from salt to fresh water at different stages of their life.

This is of course stupid and ignores the countless species that are extremly sensative to such changes, that would have died quickly and had no oportunity to reproduce and be alive today.

I appreciate the comment above referancing the tenth plauge in egypt. It dosent make sense to flood the earth when you have billions of angels coild have easily handled matters. Add to the tenth plauge accounts like the angel that slew 185,000 on behalf of hezikia.... but then that dosent help ancient people explain the wrath of god for flooding them.

prologos

Morpheus, re: Egypt, that was I (one) angel in one night.

On the other hand, water stratisfies with different salinity, and a pair of eels and 7 Carp might have survived in such a niche. but the whole story was already discussed about air pressure, temperature.

The writers of that fable had no idea what they were talking about.

The endorsement by Jesus, Peter, does not help their credibility either, nor the WT writer's that prolong the agony.

rebel8

The rationalization is as follows.

Animals are soulless objects, like plants. Their suffering does not matter in the least. He created them and he can destroy them as he pleases. If he wants to make more, he can just blink them into existence (with 6 days' notice), like in Bewitched.

jehoopla did not want to go to the trouble of recreating the animals, but knew Noah's descendants would need them for their pleasure and to work for them. Hence, he had Noah save a few of them to procreate.

He had the sea creatures instantly evolve the mechanism to survive in salt and fresh water mixed together so he didn't have to teach stupid Noah how to build tanks in the ark.

AlphaMan

So many things to think about when you start reasoning on the Bible flood account. The 40 day change in water salinity would have been devestating to sea creatures. It's obvious the flood account was an embellished local flood event.

My favorite reasoning on the flood and no evolution belief is if all animals to reproduce were on the ark, and the ark landed in the Middle East, how come some animals are only found in Australia and nowhere in between the Middle East & Australia? Why would kangeroos only hop from the Middle East to Australia without any proof they existed in the lands between? After that it's a long kangeroo swim to Australia, and I guess the Australian great white sharks don't eat kangeroo. LOL

Phizzy

Don't forget the poor little cuddly Koala bear too. It only lives on Eucalyptus leaves, sleeps most of every 24 hours, and didn't have Quantas Airlines to travel on in Noah's day.

They did a wonderful job surviving, on no food, leaving no skeleton remains on the way, and as the Land Bridge had gone several thousand years before, the raft they constructed to float across the sea was a joy to behold !

The whole story is ridiculous if taken literally of course, but what is worse for Fundies is, it doesn't work as Metaphor either, if it were not a Global Flood, then what was the bloody point ?

Theredeemer

I always find it odd that God takes out his anger on innocent animal bystanders. It shoulnt suprise us since God also kills innocent humans including children for stupid reasons like someone taking a census.

Still Totally ADD

It was the flood story that woke me up totally. I had all the question answered for me and I came to realize it was not true. So if that was not true what about the rest of the Bible. I liken the flood story to a craftsman building a beautiful house only to find he had one little leak in a water pipe. So instead of fixing the leak he ends up burning down the whloe house to fix the problem and start all over. Makes no sense at all. Still Totally ADD

Why were no sea creatures destroyed in the flood?

Share this