Q: “So if Noah’s
ark had a male and a female of each species, then released to repopulate the
earth…many species eat other species to survive. How did they all survive long
enough to repopulate without nearly everyone starving or being eaten
immediately? Is “pairs” to be taken figuratively then?”
This is a great question! There are several ways it
could have happened, but we are not told specifically how it happened, but only that it did happen. So beginning with faith and seeking understanding we
can ponder this question. In regards to your last question about whether we
should interpret the Bible “literally” or “figuratively” the answer is “yes.”)
The Bible uses both figurative and concrete language. So we need to interpret
it literarily—when it is intended to be
figurative we interpret it figuratively, when literal or historical we
interpret it literally/historically. In this passage we are reading narrative
that has no need of a figurative interpretation to help out it believability. So
I would see “pair” in its natural sense of one male and one female.
However, I do need to clear up an
inaccurate assumption in your question. Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible
makes it clear that there was actually more than one pair of many of the “kinds”
of animals on board the Ark.
“Take with you seven pairs of all clean
animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean,
the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male
and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth. (Genesis 7:2-3)
There were seven pairs of all of
the “clean” animals…and this wasn’t so that Noah and his family would have an
easier time cleaning the ark! “Clean” and “Unclean” refers to how the people of
Israel (Moses’ original audience) were taught by God to determine which animals
were good for food and for sacrifice. (For more information on which animals
were clean or unclean see Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14) This category of
animals would have included all livestock and many of the non-predatory mammals.
It seems that God was concerned
with this same question of the survival of the animals after the flood (7:3).
Let’s consider several possible explanations that would serve to answer your
question:
1.
The predatory
animals were not solely carnivorous at this time.
The animals had originally been created
vegetarian and there most likely would not have been enough loss of genetic
material via mutation by this time (from Creation to the Flood) to have made
vegetarianism physically impractical or impossible. While some animals began to
develop carnivorous tendencies at some point after the fall of man, it would be
reasonable that they were still mostly vegetarian at this time. According to
the Biblical narrative, they had been fed from the stored food on board the Ark
for over a year and so would not have immediately needed prey to survive (see
#5).
2.
Very
fertile plants and animals after the flood
Plants:
Noah, his family, and the animals remained in the Ark for about 7 ½ months as
the land dried (and as the plants grew) until God instructed him to leave the
Ark. There was an Olive that had sprouted into leaf before they left the ark (8:11)
and certainly the grasses grow even more rapidly having quite a head start in
that warm sun and soft soil. It should also be noted that the soil would have
had many water-borne nutrients deposited in it as a result of the flood. I can
testify to how tall the grass in my neighbor’s backyard grew after 7 ½ months
of not being mowed, even despite the bad soil!
Animals:
As far as the animal population goes, I would assume that because of the length
of time on the ark, and the animals being coupled in breeding pairs, it is
likely that many either gave birth on the Ark or at least were pregnant upon
leaving the zoological Love Boat! The command of God upon Noah’s family and by
extension all of the animals was to, “be fruitful and multiply, teem on the
earth and multiply in it.” (9:1, 7)
3.
There
were other sources of protein available
The Bible does not say that all the fish
and aquatic life perished in the flood, though much sea life would have been
trapped in sediment (in fact this is the source of our fossil fuels today). Also
as the waters receded and the land rose there would have been many fish, etc.
trapped in lakes and shallow pools. So it is likely that there would have been easy access
to aquatic species as a source of animal protein for land based predators, and
aquatic plants for the herbivores as well. In addition, it is also possible
that there would have been a lot of flood-kill carrion deposits that were not
covered by sediments that may have temporarily supported post-flood carnivores.
4.
The “fear
of man” placed on the animals.
Up until this time it was not lawful for
man to eat the animals, but given the moral conditions before the flood I am
pretty sure that most did it anyway. I am not sure that this is now a new survival
mechanism for the animals or simply the result of man now hunting them for
food. In any event, this fear would make it harder for mankind to find and kill
them.
5.
Remaining
food supply in the Ark.
It is also reasonable to assume that the
resources stored in the Ark had not been exhausted. Noah had no idea how long
he was going to be on the Ark and certainly would have not only collected food
for his family and the animals for as long as possible, but also to be able to
plant crops following the flood.
I hope these five possible (but not exhaustive) solutions I
have provided serve, if not individually, then collectively to answer your
question. For further reading, the story of the world-wide flood is found in the
Bible in Genesis 6:1 – 9:17. There are also a great number of scientific and
theological treatments of the flood that are more comprehensive than I would
attempt. Thanks again for your question.
Posts
