Was Noah and his family the only human survivors?

[AmericanChristian91]

In the context of a local flood (or floods) instead of a global one, were Noah and his family the only survivors of the human race?

Or was he and his family simply the only survivors of his "world" and all the rest of the people of his "world"/land died except him and his family.

Of course this goes into the question in whether humanity existed all in one area of the earth at the time of the flood, or humanity was spread out, and therefore there were areas of the world, in which human communities other then Noah and his civilization, were not destroyed by the flood.

I do think having Noah and his family being the only humans left bring up problems of genetic issues with the interbreeding within the family, and also problems with how homosapiens could have grown in large number's since then (present day, 7 billion) if there were not that many survivors of the flood. Also adding up all the natural disasters,wars,diseases, etc, that has happened since the flood, which has killed a lot of people if you add up all those factors and more, makes it hard for me to believe that Noah and his family were the only humans left which eventually led to 7 billion. Also i heard that there is historical evidence of the Egyptian civilization existing before the supposed date of the flood, and obviously they were not wiped out by it.

What are your opinions on this?

 

[Calminian]

In the context of a local flood (or floods) instead of a global one, were Noah and his family the only survivors of the human race?

Or was he and his family simply the only survivors of his "world" and all the rest of the people of his "world"/land died except him and his family.

Of course this goes into the question in whether humanity existed all in one area of the earth at the time of the flood, or humanity was spread out, and therefore there were areas of the world, in which human communities other then Noah and his civilization, were not destroyed by the flood.

I do think having Noah and his family being the only humans left bring up problems of genetic issues with the interbreeding within the family, and also problems with how homosapiens could have grown in large number's since then (present day, 7 billion) if there were not that many survivors of the flood. Also adding up all the natural disasters,wars,diseases, etc, that has happened since the flood, which has killed a lot of people if you add up all those factors and more, makes it hard for me to believe that Noah and his family were the only humans left which eventually led to 7 billion. Also i heard that there is historical evidence of the Egyptian civilization existing before the supposed date of the flood, and obviously they were not wiped out by it.

What are your opinions on this?

I would just say, why not trust scripture? Christ did!

Gen. 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Gen. 9:4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

Gen. 9:6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”

Gen. 9:8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

Gen. 9:12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

Gen. 9:17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”

Gen. 9:18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth. ​

I realize that somethings are hard to believe. Think of Abraham, and all the things God asked him to believe. He is the father of our faith, and could have easily reinterpreted God's words as metaphor, and not trusted him. Imagine the blessings he would have missed out on.

We all come from Shem Ham and Japheth. Out of Japheth came Javan (Greece) among many others who founded many nations. From Ham came Cush (Ethiopia), and Mizriam (Egypt) and many other nations. From Shem came Abraham and many other nations.

A good book to consider is After the Flood, by Bill Cooper. Another is Flood Legends by Charles Martin.

Now it's not like you're going to hell for disbelieving aspects of the Genesis accounts, but you're missing a tremendous blessing.

 

[Jb9]

In the context of a local flood (or floods) instead of a global one, were Noah and his family the only survivors of the human race?

Or was he and his family simply the only survivors of his "world" and all the rest of the people of his "world"/land died except him and his family.

Of course this goes into the question in whether humanity existed all in one area of the earth at the time of the flood, or humanity was spread out, and therefore there were areas of the world, in which human communities other then Noah and his civilization, were not destroyed by the flood.

I do think having Noah and his family being the only humans left bring up problems of genetic issues with the interbreeding within the family, and also problems with how homosapiens could have grown in large number's since then (present day, 7 billion) if there were not that many survivors of the flood. Also adding up all the natural disasters,wars,diseases, etc, that has happened since the flood, which has killed a lot of people if you add up all those factors and more, makes it hard for me to believe that Noah and his family were the only humans left which eventually led to 7 billion. Also i heard that there is historical evidence of the Egyptian civilization existing before the supposed date of the flood, and obviously they were not wiped out by it.

What are your opinions on this?

I'm pretty sure Noah and his family were the only humans that were pardoned when God punished the living things of the earth with the flood. And yea with the interbreeding among family members, during that time it was allowed. There have also been several other interbreeding that are told of later in the bible. Then at the latter part of the OT, the people of Israel were given laws from God restricting those behavior. The flood was also when dinosaurs became extinct. The meteor extinction is just a theory. They were killed by floods.

 

[Calminian]

I'm pretty sure Noah and his family were the only humans that were pardoned when God punished the living things of the earth with the flood. And yea with the interbreeding among family members, during that time it was allowed. There have also been several other interbreeding that are told of later in the bible. Then at the latter part of the OT, the people of Israel were given laws from God restricting those behavior. The flood was also when dinosaurs became extinct. The meteor extinction is just a theory. They were killed by floods.

Well not all of them as God would have spared representatives of the dinosaur kinds on the ark. But I think there is ample evidence that men hunted them to extinction soon after the flood. Dinosaurs, contrary to movie depictions, were probably slow and quite dumb creatures. It's doubtful T-Rex could run faster than 15mph and probably avoided running altogether given his massive size. A fall at 15 mph could have been fatal in most instances. He would have been an easy target for human hunters, and his ferociousness easily exaggerated for notoriety.

The smarter more agile mammal predators would have been much better at avoiding human hunters. This perhaps explains the plethora dragon slaying legends we have in some many ancient cultures.

 

[enlightened1]

The answer to the title question is yes, based upon the following scriptures:

GENESIS 7:21-23

And ALL flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and EVERY MAN: ALL in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and NOAH ONLY remained alive, and they that were with him in the Ark.


Now, if you want to believe the flood was some local event, or some others remained alive except those on the ark, then, quite clearly, it is evident you do not believe the WORD of GOD. Sorry, but you have little faith in GOD's WORD, and so you will always be 'in the dark'.

 

[Iosias]

I hold that the story of the flood is a myth, it never happened.

 

[RedRover]

In the context of a local flood (or floods) instead of a global one, were Noah and his family the only survivors of the human race?

There is substantial evidence for the "Out of Africa Theory". Clearly Bible Adam and Eve were not the only people alive 6,000 years ago. Modern Science has falsified that interpretation of the Bible. That does not change the fact that Adam and Eve were real historical people.

 

[ChetSinger]

I do think having Noah and his family being the only humans left bring up problems of genetic issues with the interbreeding within the family, and also problems with how homosapiens could have grown in large number's since then (present day, 7 billion) if there were not that many survivors of the flood. Also adding up all the natural disasters,wars,diseases, etc, that has happened since the flood, which has killed a lot of people if you add up all those factors and more, makes it hard for me to believe that Noah and his family were the only humans left which eventually led to 7 billion.

7 billion sounds is a big number.

But today's population growth rate is over 1% per year. In undeveloped countries it's higher, up to 3% per year.

To get from Noah's family to today's population in 4,500 years requires a growth rate of about 0.5% per year.

So from a population perspective it's quite feasible that Noah was the father of all of us. In fact, if he weren't, it would be fair to wonder why we aren't surrounded by skeletons.

More here: Where are all the people?

I thought this was interesting:

The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel). The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million. This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob. Since the Flood, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year. There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations. Is this just a lucky coincidence?

Hardly. The figures agree because the real history of the world is recorded in the Bible.

 

[sfs]

7 billion sounds is a big number.

But today's population growth rate is over 1% per year. In undeveloped countries it's higher, up to 3% per year.

To get from Noah's family to today's population in 4,500 years requires a growth rate of about 0.5% per year.

So from a population perspective it's quite feasible that Noah was the father of all of us.

It's not possible from a genetic perspective, however. If the human population expanded rapidly from a handful of individuals, that process would leave very clear genetic signatures behind. For example, almost all genetic variants would
be either common (because they were carried on the ark) or very rare. Instead, what we see looks like a more or less stable population size for a very long time (several hundred thousand years, at least), with a very large, very recent expansion (and with a population bottleneck for non-African populations about 50,000 years ago).

 

[Fascinated With God]

Cheetahs by comparison actually do derive from as few as 6 individuals about 10,000 years ago. As a result of so much inbreeding cheetah skin can be grafted from any cheetah to any cheetah without ever provoking an immune response. If we all came from Noah just 4,000 years ago then we should be the same as cheetah in this regard.

 

[Aman777]

In the context of a local flood (or floods) instead of a global one, were Noah and his family the only survivors of the human race?

Dear AmericanSoldier, Yes. The ONLY Humans who survived the Flood were Noah, and his family.

Or was he and his family simply the only survivors of his "world" and all the rest of the people of his "world"/land died except him and his family.

Noah and his family were the only survivors of the first world, the world of Adam, which was made the SECOND Day. Gen. 1:6-8

Of course this goes into the question in whether humanity existed all in one area of the earth at the time of the flood, or humanity was spread out, and therefore there were areas of the world, in which human communities other then Noah and his civilization, were not destroyed by the flood.

I do think having Noah and his family being the only humans left bring up problems of genetic issues with the interbreeding within the family, and also problems with how homosapiens could have grown in large number's since then (present day, 7 billion) if there were not that many survivors of the flood. Also adding up all the natural disasters,wars,diseases, etc, that has happened since the flood, which has killed a lot of people if you add up all those factors and more, makes it hard for me to believe that Noah and his family were the only humans left which eventually led to 7 billion. Also i heard that there is historical evidence of the Egyptian civilization existing before the supposed date of the flood, and obviously they were not wiped out by it.

What are your opinions on this?

Adam's world, where Noah was born, was totally destroyed in the Flood and Noah and his family arrived in the mountains of Ararat on our SECOND world which was made the THIRD Day. Gen. 2:4

Noah came to a world of prehistoric people who had evolved from the common ancestor of Apes. Like Cain, on Adam's world, there were NO other humans for Noah's grandsons to marry. They married some of the prehistoric people and produced today's Humans. That is WHY we have the DNA of prehistoric people AND the Human intelligence of Adam within our bodies.

Secular History agrees and shows that Human civilization began in the valleys just south of the mountains of Ararat. Genesis 10 names the first Human cities which were built by Noah's great grandsons, and History AGREES. Odd man out is the False Theory of Evolution which is destroyed by the fact that Humans did NOT have their origin on our present Earth.

In Love,
Aman

 

[ebia]

In the context of a local flood (or floods) instead of a global one, were Noah and his family the only survivors of the human race?

Or was he and his family simply the only survivors of his "world" and all the rest of the people of his "world"/land died except him and his family.

Of course this goes into the question in whether humanity existed all in one area of the earth at the time of the flood, or humanity was spread out, and therefore there were areas of the world, in which human communities other then Noah and his civilization, were not destroyed by the flood.

I do think having Noah and his family being the only humans left bring up problems of genetic issues with the interbreeding within the family, and also problems with how homosapiens could have grown in large number's since then (present day, 7 billion) if there were not that many survivors of the flood. Also adding up all the natural disasters,wars,diseases, etc, that has happened since the flood, which has killed a lot of people if you add up all those factors and more, makes it hard for me to believe that Noah and his family were the only humans left which eventually led to 7 billion. Also i heard that there is historical evidence of the Egyptian civilization existing before the supposed date of the flood, and obviously they were not wiped out by it.

What are your opinions on this?

In the story, yes. But the story is a parabolic way of addressing a theological truth, not piece of academic but ultimately irrelevant history.

 

[miamited]

Hi AS91,

You asked: What are your opinions on this?

That you're wrong and the things you have been reading have not been the truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

It's not possible from a genetic perspective, however. If the human population expanded rapidly from a handful of individuals, that process would leave very clear genetic signatures behind. For example, almost all genetic variants would
be either common (because they were carried on the ark) or very rare. Instead, what we see looks like a more or less stable population size for a very long time (several hundred thousand years, at least), with a very large, very recent expansion (and with a population bottleneck for non-African populations about 50,000 years ago).

Someone with a good background in this area will have to answer this, but I've heard this before. I'm wondering what this is based on and what assumptions are being employed. Biblically all animal species alive today have come from an original ancestor on the ark.

Now if there were a 2nd global flood today, and another ark (thinking hypothetically for a moment), I can see where some concerns might arise. Let's say God chose the poodle as the new representative of the dog kind. I would think that would cause quite a drastic change in the dog population after this new flood. I doubt there were be very many large or medium dogs after that time. Probably just small dogs from there forth. Perhaps breeders would be able to create a few different colors and hair lengths.

But what if a different dog representative was chosen. What if for instance, the dog representative was the gray wolf? It's my understanding that the all domestic dog species come from the gray wolf. I would surmise (not knowing for sure) that many dog kinds could probably come from him, but perhaps not as many as we have today. For the modern gray wolf is also a descendent of the originals ones.

And now back to the real flood and ark. What kind of dog would have had to be onboard to produce the dog species we have today? Was it the dire wolf? Was it packed with genetic info that no modern dogs have today?

Just wondering. I don't know the answer, so I'm asking.

 

[sfs]

Someone with a good background in this area will have to answer this, but I've heard this before. I'm wondering what this is based on and what assumptions are being employed. Biblically all animal species alive today have come from an original ancestor on the ark.

See here.

And now back to the real flood and ark. What kind of dog would have had to be onboard to produce the dog species we have today? Was it the dire wolf? Was it packed with genetic info that no modern dogs have today?

No single dog breed would have enough genetic variation to generate all modern breeds in only a few thousand years -- there's a limited amount of genetic variation you can pack into each animal.

 

[Calminian]

See here.


No single dog breed would have enough genetic variation to generate all modern breeds in only a few thousand years -- there's a limited amount of genetic variation you can pack into each animal.

And what exactly is that limit? And is that limit based on animals we observe today? And were the original animals God created different, or superior in any way? The Bible seems to imply human ancestors were quite superior.

 

[sfs]

And what exactly is that limit? And is that limit based on animals we observe today? And were the original animals God created different, or superior in any way? The Bible seems to imply human ancestors were quite superior.

The limit is the two copies each animal has of their chromosomes.

 

[Calminian]

The limit is the two copies each animal has of their chromosomes.

So all dogs have the same limitations? A gray wolf has no more potential for change than a poodle? I find that hard to believe.

 

[ebia]

So all dogs have the same limitations? A gray wolf has no more potential for change than a poodle? I find that hard to believe.

Proof by incredulity?

Genetic diversity exists in a population, not in one or two individuals.

 

[sfs]

So all dogs have the same limitations? A gray wolf has no more potential for change than a poodle? I find that hard to believe.

A single gray wolf has more genetic diversity (i.e. differences between its two copies of the genome) than the poodle does, so it has somewhat more material to work with, but its still stuck with just two copies of every gene.