Alleged DiscrepAncies And The Flood

150 such cars (p. 69), which is less than30% of the ark’s total capacity. Sufficeit to say, “[T]he dimensions of the Arkwere sufficiently great to accomplishits intended purpose of saving alive thethousands of kinds of air-breathing creatures that could not otherwise survive ayear-long Flood” (Whitcomb, 1988, p.25). [NOTE: God likely allowed Noah totake young animals into the ark, insteadof those that were fully grown, in orderto save space and reduce the amount ofnecessary food. It also would have meantthat, on average, the animals would havelived longer and produced even moreoffspring after the Flood.]The “Window” of the ArkAfter informing Noah about anupcoming worldwide flood, andcommanding him to build a massiveboat of gopher wood, God instructedHis faithful servant, saying, “You shallmake a window for the ark, and youshall finish it to a cubit from above”(Genesis 6:16, emp. added). Uponreading about this window in Noah’sark, many have challenged its usefulness. Since, historically, windows haveserved two basic purposes (lighting andventilation), inquiring minds want toknow what good one window, about18 inches square, would be on an arkwith a capacity of roughly 1,400,000cubic feet, occupied by thousands ofanimals. Dennis McKinsey has asked:“How could so many creatures breathewith only one small opening which wasclosed for at least 190 days?” (1983a, p.1). Other skeptics also have ridiculedthe idea that sufficient ventilation forthe whole ark could have come throughthis one window (see Wells, 2008). Infact, anyone even slightly familiar withanimal-house ventilation needs is takenaback by the apparent lack of airflowallowed by the ark’s design. Unless Godmiraculously ventilated the ark, onelittle window on a three-story boat, thelength of which was approximately afootball-field-and-a-half long, simplywould not do.Questions regarding the “window”on Noah’s ark and the problem of ventilation have escalated largely becausethe Hebrew word translated window(tsohar) in Genesis 6:16 appears onlyhere in the Old Testament, and linguistic scholars are unsure as to its exactAdapted from an Image courtesy ofVance Nelson, CreationTruthMinistries.orgmeaning (see Hamilton, 1990, p. 282).Translators of the KJV and NKJV usethe word “window” to translate tsohar;however, according to Old Testamentcommentator Victor Hamilton, they“do so on the basis of the word’s possible connection with sahorayim, ‘noon,midday,’ thus an opening to let in thelight of day” (p. 282). Hebrew scholarWilliam Gesenius defined tsohar in hisHebrew lexicon as simply “light,” andtranslated Genesis 6:16 as “thou shaltmake light for the ark” (1847, p. 704).He then surmised that this “light” represented, not a window, but windows(plural). The ASV translators also preferred “light” as the best translation fortsohar. Still more recent translations,including the RSV, NIV, and ESV, havetranslated Genesis 6:16 as “[m]ake aroof ” for the ark, instead of make a“window” or “light.”Such disagreement among translations is, admittedly, somewhat discouraging to the person who wants adefinite answer as to how tsohar shouldbe translated. What is clear, however,is that the word translated “window”two chapters later, which Noah is saidto have “opened” (8:6), is translatedfrom a different Hebrew word (challôwn) than what is used in Genesis 6:16.Challôwn (8:6) is the standard Hebrewword for “window” (cf. Genesis 26:8;Joshua 2:18). Yet, interestingly, this isnot the word used in 6:16. One wondersif, in 8:6, Noah opened one of a pluralityof aligned windows that God instructedhim to make in 6:16.Another assumption often broughtinto a discussion regarding the “window”(tsohar) of 6:16 is that it was one squarecubit. Although many people have imagined Noah’s ark as having one small window about 18 inches high by 18 incheswide, the phrase “you shall finish it to acubit from above” (6:16, NKJV; cf. RSV)June 2008 Reason & Revelation 28(6):43does not give the Bible reader any cleardimensions of the opening. The text justsays that Noah was to “finish it to a cubitfrom the top” (NASB; “upward,” ASV).The simple truth is, the size of the lighting apparatus mentioned in this verse isunspecified. The text indicates only thedistance the opening was from the topof the ark, rather than the actual sizeof the window. Thus we cannot form adefinite picture of it. But, we do knowthat nothing in the text warrants aninterpretation that the “window” wasjust a “small opening” (as critics allege).A more probable theory, which alignsitself appropriately with the text, is thatthe opening described in Genesis 6:16extended around the ark’s circumference18 inches from the top of the ark withan undeterminable height. According togeologist John Woodmorappe, such anopening would have provided sufficientlight and ventilation for the ark (1996,pp. 37-44). [For further reading onthis subject, see Woodmorappe’s book,Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study.]It is important to remember thatmany details about biblical events arenot revealed to the reader. So it is withthe plans for Noah’s ark. As HenryMorris commented, “It was obviouslynot the intention of the writer to recordthe complete specifications for the ark’sconstruction, but only enough to assurelater readers that it was quite adequatefor its intended purpose ‘to preservelife on the earth’ ” (1976, p. 182). Truly,absolute certainty regarding the openings on the ark cannot be determined.We know of an opening mentioned inGenesis 6:16 (tsohar), as well as one mentioned in 8:6 (challôwn). And, sinceNoah, his family, and the animals on theark survived the Flood, it is only logicalto conclude that God made proper waysto ventilate the ark in which they livedduring the Flood. Although nothing in

Scripture demands that those living millennia after the Flood know how it wasventilated, lighted, etc., it is very likelythat God used the opening mentionedin Genesis 6:16.How Many Animals of Each Kinddid Noah Take into the Ark?Ask children who are even vaguelyfamiliar with the biblical accountof the Flood how many animals of eachkind Noah took into the ark, and youlikely will hear, “Two!” Most Bible students are familiar with the instructionsrecorded in Genesis 6:19 that God gaveto Noah: “And of every living thing ofall flesh you shall bring two of everysort into the ark, to keep them alivewith you; they shall be male and female”(Genesis 6:19, emp. added; cf. 7:15). Itseems that fewer people, however, areaware that God also instructed Noah,saying, “You shall take with you seveneach of every clean animal, a male andhis female; two each of animals thatare unclean, a male and his female; alsoseven each of birds of the air, male andfemale, to keep the species alive on theface of all the earth” (Genesis 7:2-3,emp. added). According to Bible critics, these verses are contradictory. “Areclean beasts to enter by 2’s or by 7’s?”asked skeptic Dennis McKinsey (1983b,p. 1). Michelle Andrews, writing for aspecial 2004 collector’s edition of U.S.News and World Report, was so botheredby the differences between Genesis 6:19and 7:2-3 that she claimed, “there aretwo versions of the story of Noah andthe flood” in Genesis, neither of whichsupposedly was written by Moses (2004,p. 28).The biblical text, however, is rathereasy to understand without giving upon the inspiration of Genesis, or theauthorship of Moses: the clean beastsand birds entered the ark “by sevens”(KJV), while the unclean animals wentinto the ark by twos. There is no contradiction here. Genesis 6:19 indicatesthat Noah was to take “two of everysort into the ark.” Then, four verses later,God supplemented this original instruction, informing Noah in a moredetailed manner, to take more of theclean animals. If a farmer told his sonto take two of every kind of farm animalto the state fair, and then instructed hisson to take several extra chickens andtwo extra pigs for a barbecue, wouldanyone accuse the farmer of contradicting himself? Certainly not. It was necessary for Noah to take additional cleananimals because, upon his departurefrom the ark after the Flood, he “builtan altar to the Lord, and took of everyclean animal and of every clean bird,and offered burnt offerings on the altar”(Genesis 8:20). If Noah had taken onlytwo clean animals from which to choosewhen sacrificing to God after departingthe ark, then he would have driven thevarious kinds of clean beasts and birdsinto extinction by sacrificing one ofeach pair. Thus, after God told Noah totake two of every kind of animal intothe ark, He then instructed him to takeextras of the clean animals. Similar tohow Genesis chapter 2 supplementsthe first chapter of Genesis by giving amore detailed account of the Creation(see Lyons, 2002), the first portion ofGenesis 7 merely supplements the endof the preceding chapter, “containingseveral particulars of a minute description which were not embraced in thegeneral directions first given to Noah”(Jamieson, et al., 1997).One translation difficulty, whichshould not trouble a person’s faith, revolves around the actual number of cleananimals taken into the ark. Throughthe years, various Bible students havewondered whether this number wasseven or fourteen (Genesis 7:2). TheHebrew phrase shibb’ah shibb’ah istranslated somewhat vaguely in boththe King James and American Standardversions. [According to the King JamesVersion, clean animals were taken intothe ark “by sevens” (Genesis 7:2). TheAmerican Standard Version has theclean animals taken “seven and seven.”]Newer translations are worded moreclearly, but there is general disagreement among them. The New King Jamesand New International versions bothagree that Noah took seven of eachclean animal into the ark, whereas theRevised Standard Version, the NewEnglish Bible, and the English StandardVersion all translate shibb’ah shibb’ahto mean “seven pairs” of clean animals.Although some believe that “there canbe no certainty on this point” (Willis,1979, p. 171), H.C. Leupold argued thatthe Hebrew phrase shibb’ah shibb’ah“would be a most clumsy method ofJune 2008 Reason & Revelation 28(6):44trying to say ‘fourteen’ (1990, 1:290).Comparing similar language withinGenesis 7, Whitcomb and Morris persuasively argued: “The Hebrew phrase‘seven and seven’ no more means fourteen than does the parallel phrase ‘twoand two’ (Gen. 7:9,15) mean four!” (1961,p. 65).Still another allegation skeptics makeconcerning Genesis 7:2 is that “[c]leanand unclean animals were not delineateduntil the eleventh chapter of Leviticus.The Mosaic law arose 600 years after theFlood. There were no Jews, Israelites, orclean/unclean animals in Noah’s time”(McKinsey, 1983b, p. 1). Thus, regardlessof how one answers the question concerning the number of animals on theark, this second allegation still lingersin the minds of skeptics. Supposedly,instructions regarding clean and uncleananimals were not given until hundredsof years after the Flood (see Leviticus 11and Deuteronomy 14).Skeptics refuse to see, however, thatsimply because Moses made laws concerning clean and unclean animals at amuch later time than the Flood, doesnot mean that such rules concerninganimals could not have existed prior toMoses—yes, even prior to the Flood. Ascommentator John Willis noted: “A lawor a truth does not have to have its originwith a certain individual or religion tobe a vital part of that religion or to bedistinctive in that religion” (p. 170).Jesus, for example, was not the first person to teach that man needs to love Godwith all of his heart (cf. Deuteronomy6:5), or that man must love his neighbor(cf. Leviticus 19:18), and his enemies(cf. Proverbs 25:21-22). Yet these teachings were central to Christ’s message (cf.Matthew 22:34-40; Matthew 5:43-48).Similarly, simply because God chosecircumcision as a sign between Himselfand Abraham’s descendants, does notmean that no male in the history of mankind had ever been circumcised beforethe circumcision of Abraham and hishousehold (Genesis 17). What’s more,Moses wrote in the book of Leviticusyears after Abraham lived: “If a womanhas conceived, and borne a male child,then she shall be unclean seven days;as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. And on theeighth day the flesh of his foreskinshall be circumcised” (12:2-3, emp.added). Moses, however, was not lay-

Creationism and Academia: Mutually Excusive?Will Brooks, Ph.D.were not opposed, but felt that because a[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was writtencreationist would likely encounter seriousby one of A.P.’s auxiliary staff scientists. Dr. Brooksproblems in their department, it would beholds a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from the University ofbest if they not support their hiring. OneAlabama at Birmingham. Having served previouslyadded that it would not be objectionable toas a Research Assistant in Clinical Immunologydefend creationism on philosophical grounds,and Rheumatology in the Medical School at thebut an attempt to do so using biology wouldUniversity of Alabama, Dr. Brooks presently servespreclude hiring (1995).as Assistant Professor of Biology at Freed-HardemanAre creationism and academia mutually exUniversity in Henderson, Tennessee.]We are truly a blessed people to live in a nation clusive? Not at Christian universities, where thefounded on Christian principles. Indeed, our reli- majority of faculty hold a creationist’s view regardgious freedom today is protected by a law that was ing the origins of life. But, this answer is differentestablished over 200 years ago. The first amendment when applied to state-funded universities, whereto the Constitution states: “Congress shall make I would dare say that the minority consider themno law respecting an establishment of religion, or selves creationists, even in the broadest sense. Thisprohibiting the free exercise thereof ” (U.S. Bill number drops even more with a more conservativeof Rights, 1791). In addition to this fundamental definition of creation. Is it possible for a creationistlaw, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly to teach basic biological concepts to undergraduateprevents employers from discriminating against or even graduate students in the setting of a stateindividuals based on religion. Section 703 states:university? The answer is yes!It shall be an unlawful employment practiceFrom high school to graduate school, Darwinianfor an employer to fail or refuse to hire orevolution is taught as fact, when, in reality, it is littleto discharge any individual, or otherwisemore than a hypothesis. A hypothesis is defined asto discriminate against any individual witha reasonable explanation for an observed phenomrespect to his compensation, terms, condienon. Evolution is just that—although perhaps nottions, or privileges of employment, becauseso “reasonable.” Why must we limit education byof such individual’s race, color, religion, sex,teaching only evolution to the complete dismissal ofor national origin (1964).creationism? What’s more, it is possible to teach suchThese documents protect millions of individuals concepts as human anatomy and disease, amongacross the United States from religious persecu- other subjects, without ever mentioning evolution, but they are ignored with little or no reprise tion and creation. Even in subject matter such asby academia. In particular, the sciences blatantly genetics and biochemistry, concepts can simply beand arrogantly discriminate against any person given to students in an unbiased manner, leavingnot holding an evolutionary view of the origins of each student to determine what to believe by waylife and the universe. The problem is widespread of his or her own independent thought. After all,in American universities. Many examples have independent and critical thinking skills are keysurfaced in the past 20 years of scientist-educators objectives for students to master.who have been fired, denied tenure, or simply notAs citizens of the United States, we each havehired solely because they hold a creationist view the right to freedom from religious discriminationrather than an evolutionary one.in every form. No institution, no matter how manyAt one time during my own academic career, I terminal degrees its employees hold, has the rightwas oblivious to this phenomenon, but then was to deny any individual this right. Academia allegmade painfully aware of it at a recent job interview edly promotes “diversity” of culture and thought.when I, too, faced this form of persecution. After Unfortunately, however, this claim does not holda day of interviews and a teaching seminar, I met true for the study of origins. In this area, evoluwith the biology department chair of a state-funded tion holds absolute dominance, and diversity isuniversity in Tennessee. He, with at least some tact, suppressed, to the detriment of all those seekingtold me that I possessed all of the qualifications to education.teach for this department but would not be hiredbecause of a statement that I made: “I am a creationREFERENCESist.” This university’s biology faculty as a collectiveagreed that no one with this particular belief should Bergman, Jerry (1995), “Contemporary Suppressionbe allowed in an undergraduate classroom to teachof the Theistic Worldview,” Journal of Creation,the biological sciences.9(2):267-275, August.This opinion is not held by these individuals Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1964), The U.S. Nationalalone. In a survey conducted by Dr. Jerry Bergman,Archives and Records Administration, [On-line],28 university professors (out of 28 surveyed) agreedURL: http://www.archives.gov/education/leswith this stance. Bergman wrote:sons/civil-rights-act/#documents.All those interviewed stated that they doubtedUnited States Bill of Rights (1791), The U.S. Nationalvery much if their department would ever hireArchives and Records Administration, [On-line],an out-of-the-closet creationist for a facultyURL: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charposition. Some claimed that they themselvesters/bill of rights.html.July 2008 R&R Resources 7(6):25-R

QAWhen did Job live?Neither the book of Job nor any otherbook of the Bible indicates forthrightly when God’s servant Job livedupon the Earth. Furthermore, there are no biblicalgenealogies with chronological information, suchas that found in Genesis 5 and 11, that might helpin approximating the century in which Job lived.Nevertheless, various clues within the book of Jobseem to indicate Job lived sometime after the Flood,but long before the time of Moses.First, Job’s postdiluvian status seems apparentfrom a question Eliphaz raised in his final speech.While accusing Job of wickedness, Eliphaz asked:“Will you keep to the old way which wicked men havetrod, who were cut down before their time, whosefoundations were swept away by a flood?” (Job 22:16,emp. added). As Wayne Jackson noted: “That this isa reference to the Flood of Noah’s day is almost universally conceded by scholars” (1983, p. 58).Second, that Job was a patriarch who lived priorto the time of Moses, and probably closer to thetime of Abraham, seems evident from the following facts:Like other patriarchs of old (Genesis 8:20; 12:7-8;31:54), Job, as the head of his family, offered up sacrifices to God (Job 1:5; cf. 42:8). In the book of Job,there is no mention of the Levitical priesthood, thetabernacle, the temple, the Law of Moses, etc. Unlike Israelite law, where the family inheritance waspassed on to daughters only in the absence of sons(Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-13), Job gave his daughters“an inheritance among their brothers” (Job 42:15). Job’s material wealth was measured, not in money,but in the amount of livestock he owned (Job 1:3;42:12), which is more characteristic of patriarchaltimes. Finally, that Job lived long before the time of Mosesseems evident by the fact that the longevity of hislife is more comparable to the long lives of the patriarchs wh

Alleged discrepAncies And the Flood Eric Lyons, M.Min. it—Genesis 1-2), and just as He worked miracles after the Flood (e.g., confusing the language of all the Earth—Genesis 11:1-9), He performed wonders during the Flood. As John Whitcomb noted in his book The World That