The Biblical account of Noah’s Ark is clearly factual. Some have
advanced arguments saying that Noah could never have built the Ark, and
that the Ark would not have been big enough to hold all the animals.
Both objections are without foundation.

Some of the following
material has been published in “The Good News” magazine, February 1980,
and in “Exploring Ancient History–The First 2500 Years,” Imperial
Schools, 1967.

Based on the Holy Scriptures, God spoke directly
to Noah, telling him of His decision to destroy wickedness from the
earth (Genesis 6:13). He told him to build a great ship through which
his family and all birds and land animals would be saved alive, while
God covered the earth with a flood (Genesis 6:14-21). The building of a
gigantic sea craft presumes a knowledge of workmanship with brass and
iron–showing that all the fundamental crafts of culture and society
were known in that day. God said that Noah would not have to go looking
for the animals, for they would come to him (Genesis 6:20), but he
would have to provide quantities of food and grain.

Skeptics have
claimed the Ark could not possibly hold all those animals and
provisions, but simple fact proves otherwise. The physical dimensions
alone, as given in Genesis 6:15, stagger the imagination: “The length
of the ark shall be three hundred cubits [450 feet-based on an 18-inch
cubit, its commonly accepted length, compare the notes in the margin of
the New King James Bible], its width fifty cubits [75 feet], and its
height thirty cubits [45 feet].” Based on the 18-inch cubit
measurement, the figures show that the Ark was ocean-liner size in
cubic capacity. It had a volume exceeding 1.5 million cubic feet, and
virtually the entire capacity of the Ark could be used for storage, as
it had no engine room or fuel tanks. It had three decks totaling more
than 2-1/2 acres of surface. The Ark had a capacity equal to more than
500 standard American railroad freight cars! That was equivalent to 175
modern one-bedroom apartments! No ship of such size was again built
until the 19th century AD!

Building the Ark, then, was not a
simple undertaking. Considering that all the work was done without the
help of modern equipment, it must have taken Noah and his
sons–undoubtedly with the aid of hired laborers and craftsmen–decades
to build and outfit it with supplies. Some suspect it may have taken
the full 120 years that God had allotted mankind (compare Genesis 6:3).

Noah
also must have possessed considerable resources and wealth, as enormous
quantities of timber, building supplies and foodstuffs–plus labor–had
to be purchased or obtained by barter. Yet, his wealth shouldn’t
surprise us. God demonstrates time and again throughout the Bible how
He physically blessed those who humbly served Him, like Abraham,
Daniel, Job and Joseph whom God raised from prison to wealth and
rulership.

In addition to wealth and resources, Noah had to be an
engineer and an architect to direct the building of this enormous
vessel. He also had to employ thousands of servants–architects,
carpenters, craftsmen, contractors and sub-contractors (to use modern
terminology)–to fulfill all the details of this fantastic work! And
then, there was the task of collecting all the provisions for
sustaining them. Noah and his family may haven taken decades of
planning and preparation. All the zoological and botanical knowledge
necessary to carry this out took highly technical understanding and
information.

But could Noah get all those animals into the Ark;
that is, was the Ark big enough for all those animals? To quote from a
publication of the Worldwide Church of God, dated 1980, titled “In The
Beginning–Answers to Questions from Genesis”:

“God specifically
instructed Noah to select one pair of every ‘kind’ of unclean animal
and seven pairs of every ‘kind’ of clean animal. The Bible term ‘kind’
refers generally to a group of creatures, all of which interbreed. The
horse kind could be represented, therefore, by one pair of animals
having the genetic potential to produce after the flood all varieties
we have today. The same would be true also for dogs, cats, etc. Second,
only air-breathing, terrestrial animals were included in the Ark…
This excludes all sea creatures and simple forms of life which could
survive the deluge.
“… Only 40 percent of the animal kingdom lives on land, and 70
percent of all species of land animals are insects. The remaining 30
percent of the terrestrial animal kingdom are on a mean average the
size of a rhesus monkey [or a medium-sized dog]. Most animals can be
maintained in small confinement for long periods and remain healthy…
Estimates of the number of land mammal, bird, reptile, and amphibian
species on earth today total about 18,000.

“Recognizing that
only kinds, not species, were included, it would have been necessary to
have far fewer than 18,000 animals on the Ark… But let’s be liberal
and say 40,000 animals, whose average size is that of a rhesus monkey,
were on the Ark. How much room in the Ark would be needed for all these
animals? About 40 percent of the Ark’s 1.5 million cubic feet would
suffice! What about insects? Remember, the Ark had a storage capacity
of 500 freight cars. Two hundred cars would be occupied by mammals,
birds and reptiles. Giving every pair of known species of insects 16
cubic inches of space, another 21 such freight cars would be
required… [When] viewed from the perspective of simple arithmetic,
only about half of the space on the three decks would have provided
plenty of room to accommodate all those animals. That left the other
half of the ship for food and supplies and for Noah and his family.”

There
are no valid reasons to doubt the accuracy of the Biblical account
about Noah’s Ark and the Flood. We should take note of the fact that
Jesus Christ Himself confirmed its HISTORICAL accuracy. We read, for
example, in Matthew 24:37-39: “But as the days of Noah were, so also
will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days of Noah before
the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in
marriage, until the day THAT NOAH ENTERED THE ARK, and did not know
until the FLOOD CAME and took them all away, so also will the coming of
the Son of Man be.”

The early apostles accepted the account of
Noah’s Ark as HISTORICAL FACT. Paul wrote in Hebrews 11:7: “By faith
Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly
fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he
condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is
according to faith.”

Neither did Peter doubt the historical
accuracy of Noah’s Ark. He spoke about the “days of Noah” in 1 Peter
3:20, “while the ARK was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight
souls, were saved through water.”

Today, many who profess to be
“Christians,” neither believe in the historical accuracy of “Noah’s
Ark,” nor in the return–or Second Coming–of Jesus Christ to this
earth. Peter warned of such ignorance and denial of God’s Word, which
will have serious consequences for those who are guilty of it. He wrote
in 2 Peter 3:3-7: “… scoffers will come in the last days, walking
according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His
coming?… for they willfully forget: that by the word of God the
heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the
water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded
with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by
the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and
perdition of ungodly men.”

Lead Writers: Norbert Link and Bill Grams

In order to answer this question, we need to explain first what the two trees symbolized.

As
we read in the first three chapters of the book of Genesis, when God
created Adam and Eve, He placed them in a beautiful garden, called the
garden of Eden or Paradise. In that garden, God had planted two special
trees. Although these trees were literal trees, they also had specific
symbolic meaning and significance. The two trees were called the tree
of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

God said
that man could eat from all trees in the garden, including the tree of
life, but man was forbidden to eat from the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil. Therefore, God offered man to eat FREELY from the tree
of life. The Church of God has long understood and consistently taught
that the tree of life was symbolic of the Holy Spirit. If man had eaten
from the tree of life, he would have received the free gift of the Holy
Spirit of God, and with it godly understanding and wisdom as how to
live. Adam and Eve would have received, with the Holy Spirit of God, a
down-payment or a guarantee of eternal life, and they would have been,
in due time, upon continuously living the right way, changed to
immortal Spirit beings.

Adam and Eve did not eat from the tree of
life, but they did eat, instead, from the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil. In not eating from the tree of life, and in eating instead
from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, man decided to reject
God’s Holy Spirit, eternal life and godly wisdom, and to accept the
wisdom of this world, which leads to death. God had told them ahead of
time about the consequences of their decision. We read in Genesis 2:17
that God said that man would die if they were to eat from the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil. Correctly translated, God said: “dying
you shall die.” The Broadman Bible Commentary explains:: “Genesis 2:17b
may be read, ‘In the day that you eat of it, you shall proceed to die.’”

But
Satan told Eve something different. We read, in Genesis 3:5, that Satan
told Eve, in effect, that she would not die, but that she would be like
God knowing, or better, DECIDING for herself, what is good and what is
evil. Eve saw, as we read in Genesis 3:6, that the tree would make man
wise–but the reference is to human wisdom, not the wisdom from God
which can only come through the tree of life–the Holy Spirit. And so,
man has used his own wisdom ever since, by rejecting, generally
speaking, the wisdom of God (compare 1 Corinthians 2:1-7; 3:18-20).

We
are now prepared to answer the question posed in this Q&A. After
both Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and to eat from the forbidden
fruit, God confronted Adam and Eve. He saw from their reaction that
they refused to repent of what they had done. Rather, they proceeded to
excuse or even justify their wrong decision. As a consequence, God
said, as recorded in Genesis 3:22-23: “‘Behold, the man has become like
one of Us, to know [or better, to decide for himself what he thinks is] good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the
tree of life, and eat, and live forever’–therefore the LORD God sent
him out of the garden of Eden…”

Would Adam and Eve have lived
forever, if they had eaten from the tree of life, after having already
eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Realize that the
tree of life was symbolic of the Holy Spirit. So, even if they had
received the Holy Spirit by eating from the tree of life, God could
always take away from Adam and Eve the Holy Spirit, preventing them
from becoming immortal.

Some commentaries feel that the tree of
life symbolized more than just the receipt of the Holy Spirit. They
reason that it actually symbolized the immediate receipt of immortality.

For instance, the Ryrie Study Bible writes:

“Driving
Adam and Eve from the garden was both a punishment and an act of mercy,
lest they should eat of the tree of life and live forever in a state of
death and alienation.”

The better view, however, is that Adam and
Eve would not have changed into immortality, even if they had partaken
of the tree of life. Remember that God had already told them that they
would DIE, since they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil.

Matthew Henry’s Commentary writes:

“‘Behold, the
man has become as one of us, to know good and evil!…’ this was said to
awaken and humble them, and to bring them to a sense of their sin and
folly, and to repentance for it. God thus fills their faces with shame,
that they may seek His name…The reason God gave why He shut man out of
paradise; not only because he had put forth his hand, and taken of the
tree of knowledge, which was his sin, but lest he should again put
forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life and FLATTER HIMSELF
WITH A CONCEIT THAT THEREBY HE SHOULD LIVE FOR EVER.”

Jamieson,
Fausset and Brown agree with Henry’s conclusion that Adam and Eve would
not have become immortal, even if they had eaten from the tree of life:

“‘And
God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us’–not spoken in irony
as is generally supposed, but in deep compassion. The words should be
rendered, ‘Behold, what has become [by sin] of the man who was as one
of us!’ Formed, at first, in our image to know good and evil–how sad
his condition now. ‘and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take
of the tree of life.’ This tree being a pledge of immortal life with
which obedience should be rewarded, man lost… all claim to this tree;
and therefore, that he might not eat of it or DELUDE HIMSELF with the
idea that eating of it WOULD RESTORE WHAT HE HAD FORFEITED, the Lord
sent him forth from the garden.”

Man was made from the dust of
the ground. God said: “FOR DUST YOU ARE, AND TO DUST YOU SHALL RETURN”
(Genesis 3:19). For man to acquire immortality, God would have had to
change mortal man into an immortal being. Eating from the tree of life
and thereby receiving the Holy Spirit, would not have made man
immortal, all by itself. Even when we receive the Holy Spirit today, we
are not immediately changed into immortal Spirit beings. We still
die–physically–and need to be resurrected from the dead to
immortality. In addition, we can even still die spiritually, after
having received the Holy Spirit–if we lose the Holy Spirit and commit
the unpardonable sin, which cannot be forgiven.

We therefore hold
that Adam and Eve would not have been changed automatically to immortal
Spirit beings upon eating from the tree of life. Furthermore, God did
not want them to eat from the tree of life and receive the Holy Spirit,
as He did not see any repentance in them for their disobedience. God
does not grant His Holy Spirit to those who disobey Him–rather, we
read in Acts 5:32 that God gives His Holy Spirit only to those who are
obedient to Him. Revelation 22:14-15 confirms that only those have
access to the tree of life–the Holy Spirit–who “do His
commandments… But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral
and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.”

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

The question addresses a seemingly difficult passage in Exodus 4:24-26, which reads:

“And
it came to pass on the way [to Egypt], at the encampment, that the LORD
met him and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and
cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses’ [literally: his] feet, and said, ‘Surely you are a husband of blood to me!’ So He let
him go. Then she said, ‘You are a husband of blood!’–because of the
circumcision.”

Please note that this incident occurred after God
had prophesied to Moses how Pharaoh would react to his demand to let
the people of Israel go (verses 21-23). It would therefore make little
sense to assume that God had changed his mind a few hours later to kill
Moses. Note that verses 22-23 record God’s words to Moses, which
immediately precede the above-quoted passage: “Then you shall say to
Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say
to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let
him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.”‘”

The
context of the passage in Exodus 4:24-26 shows that God did not intend
to kill Moses [whom He was sending to Egypt to free the Israelites],
but one of Moses’ two sons, who had not been circumcised. At the time
of Moses, there was in effect a temporary law that God had given to
Abraham, to circumcise every male child (Genesis 17:9-13). God
specifically stated that “the uncircumcised male child, who is not
circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off
from his people” (verse 14).

It is apparent that Moses and
Zipporah had neglected to circumcise one of their sons, even though
both knew better. God, true to His Word, was about to “cut off” or kill
the uncircumcised son, due to Moses’ and Zipporah’s disobedience–God
later killed the firstborn sons of Egypt, when the Egyptians refused to
be obedient to God. God could not use Moses to be His servant, as long
as he refused to faithfully obey God’s commands. Zipporah might have
influenced Moses not to circumcise their son; so she immediately acted
in obedience to God’s command, whereupon God ceased from attempting to
kill the son.

When reading seemingly difficult passages, it is
important to study the passage in context and in light of other
Scriptures. For example, we read about Noah’s curse of his
grandson Canaan for something that–so it might seem–Canaan’s father
Ham had done. We find this passage in Genesis 9:20-25. As in the case
of God’s attempt to kill Moses’ son, a careful study reveals that it
was not Ham, but Ham’s son Canaan, who disgraced Noah and was cursed as
a consequence. The passage reads:

“And Noah began to be a farmer,
and he planted a vineyard. Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and
became uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the
nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. But Shem
and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went
backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were
turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. So Noah
awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him.
Then he said: ‘Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to
his brethren.'”

The context of the passage shows, of course,
that more was involved than mere “nakedness” of Noah. Apparently,
somebody had violated Noah, while he was drunk. But who did? We read
that Noah awoke and knew what “his younger son” had done to him. This
is not a reference to Noah’s son Ham, but to Ham’s son Canaan. A
correct rendering of Genesis 9:24 states: “And Noah awoke from his
wine, and knew what his YOUNGEST son had done unto him.” But Ham was
not Noah’s youngest son–Japheth was–while Canaan was the youngest son
of Ham. According to Jewish tradition, Canaan either “castrated” Noah
or he “indulged a perverted lust upon him” (compare Soncino, page 47).
In any event, Ham saw on his uncovered father the terrible signs of
Canaan’s evil deed or perverted lust, and Shem and Japheth covered Noah
with a garment.

It is not that uncommon throughout the Biblical
narrative, that subjects, objects or pronouns might be referring to
another person other than what might be suspected at the first reading
of a particular passage. For a last example, let’s consider Exodus
34:27-28 (Authorized Version):

“And the LORD said unto Moses,
Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made
[better: I will make] a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was
there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat
bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tablets the words of the
covenant, the ten commandments.” The question is, Who wrote the words
of the covenant on the tablets of stone? A superficial reading might
suggest that it was Moses. But a study of other Scriptures reveals that
it was God, not Moses.

After Moses had destroyed the first
tablets of stone with the Ten Commandments, because of his anger over
the sin of the Israelites who had built a golden calf, God had Moses
cut two new tablets of stone (Exodus 34:1). But God also said, in the
same verse: “… I will write on these tablets the words that were on
the first tablets which you broke.” The fact that it was God–not
Moses–who wrote the Ten Commandments a second time on the tablets of
stone, is confirmed in Deuteronomy 10:4: “And He wrote on the tablets
according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments, which the LORD
had spoken to you.. and the LORD gave them to me.” Moses wrote these
words, including with other statutes and judgments, and even temporary
ritual laws, in a book–which became known as the “Book of Moses.” But
he did not write the Ten Commandments on the tablets of stone–God did
that.

In conclusion, it is important to read “difficult”
Scriptures in context and in conjunction with the rest of the Bible. A
correct understanding reveals that God did not try to kill Moses, but
Moses’ son, who was not circumcised. Noah did not curse Canaan for an
evil deed perpetrated by Noah’s son Ham, but for an evil deed committed
by Ham’s youngest son, Canaan. And it was not Moses, but God, who wrote
the Ten Commandments twice on two tablets of stone.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link