Re: [asa] (save the birds) Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical interpretation

From: <>
Date: Mon Apr 13 2009 - 19:14:01 EDT

 You are right there is no reason to "save" the birds in a local flood, but that doesn't mean there would be no reason to take them on the ark.  It was highly symbolic to take all kinds of animals on the ark.  The ark is a picture of God providing salvation, and all the animals speaks His saving all kinds of people---people from every tribe and tongue and nation, rich and poor, etc.  This seems to be the most obvious feature of the story, and what the author had in mind, or what God had in mind when (or if) He told a literal Noah to actually do it.  So there is a very good reason for Noah (whether a literal person or just a character in a story) to take a wide variety of animals onto the ark, including birds. 

Similarly, the scapegoat in the OT provided a picture of Christ taking away our sins, but the Jews didn't really "need" their sins to be carried away by a goat.  It was just a picture.  The birds didn't "need" to be saved on a boat, but it does provide a good picture.  Note that birds are used to represent the nations in one of Jesus' parables, too -- all the birds of the heavens will nest in the tree that grows from the mustard seed, representing all the nations coming to the gospel.  In another parable Jesus uses fish to represent people.  In other places, sheep.  Whether we take the Flood story as a literal event or as just a theologically-loaded story shouldn't hinge (IMO) on the inclusion of birds as
if that were a standalone proof.




-----Original Message-----
From: Dehler, Bernie <>
To: ASA Affiliation <>
Sent: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:21 pm
Subject: RE: [asa] (save the birds) Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical interpretation

In addition- if the flood were local,
there would be no reason to save the dove and raven as they can easily fly away
to escape the water.



From: Dehler, Bernie

Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 9:21

To: ASA Affiliation

Subject: RE: [asa] (save the
birds) Noah's Ark-
the debate over floods... and biblical interpretation


YEC’s (young earthers) say that
there were certain ‘kinds’ of animals on the ark and not all
species.  Example: a wolf rather than all breeds of dogs.  If all
birds were wiped-out, how many birds would they need to get us were we are
today? Was there a “base bird” they saved? The text may give a
clue- the raven and dove were sent out.  If ravens and doves were sent
out, does that mean other similar species-level birds had to be saved?  Or
are ravens and doves supposed to be some sort of ‘base kind’ from
which many other birds could be derived to get us the diversity we see today?





To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 13 19:16:04 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 13 2009 - 19:16:04 EDT