Tim Maas Supporter Retired Quality Assurance Specialist with the U.S. Army

I would say that, given the magnitude of the Flood as described in Genesis 7:19-20, there would have been no way to obliterate all human life (God's primary objective) without similarly affecting animals. (This would also then have been the basis for God's command to Noah to build the ark to save a limited number of those animals to assure the continuation of each species.)

Also, in some way, animal life had apparently become corrupted along with human life. Genesis 6:13 states, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them.” The phrase “all flesh” is used throughout the narrative to include both human and animal life. Although the Bible does not elaborate on how animal life might have been corrupted, the use of animals in sinful, pagan sacrifices might have been the reason. Alternatively, perhaps the violence filling the earth was due, in part, to animals (which could also possibly correspond with the theory of large dinosaurs being destroyed by the Flood). Regardless of how the animals became corrupted, God viewed them as part of creation that needed to be recreated.

Another concern was Noah’s welfare. Perhaps the land animals were destroyed so that Noah and his family could live safely after exiting the ark. Eight humans living in a world of unchecked wildlife would likely have had a slim chance of survival. But with only the animals on the ark, the ratio of animal life to human life would make living together much safer. 

Elsewhere in the Old Testament, we see that a person’s sin can contaminate other people or animals at times (e.g., Joshua 7:24-25; Romans 8:19-22). In a ceremonial sense, perhaps, the animals that died in the Flood could be viewed as morally contaminated because of their association with humankind. They were part of that sin-infested pre-Flood world.

October 17 2023 • 1 response • Vote Up • Share • Report