If we take a literal reading of Gen. 6:17, we see that God is indicating a destruction of ALL life other than that which is saved on the Ark. This would mean all plant life, all bacteria life, all fish (based on a literal reading, you can't get around that point), every insect, every arachnid, everything that was living, but not on the ark, is to be destroyed.
Now, would it not be true, then, that everything that IS in the Ark would, by the Scriptural description, come out into a life-less wasteland. Not just based on the possible effect of a global flood, but based on the fact that a literal reading of the text *requires* it: "everything on earth will perish." When, under literalism, is "everything" not "everything"?
That means that there would be nothing for any of the surviving creatures to eat except each other. And, of course, that would work for the meat-eaters, but what about the plant-eaters. They would all die off almost immediately without their diet.
And, how would all such plant life be restored without existing plant life? What about all those animals who eat insects or fungus or bacteria, etc, etc?
I will not even get into the fish problem other than to say that if they were on the earth, and not on the ark, a literal reading requires their complete and utter destruction.
So, if there was a global flood, there would HAVE to have been a second creation event to replace all that which was destroyed but which was not on the ark. But there is no mention of a second creation, and according to YEC's, it is not right to add this type of major detail into Scripture.
Of course, we have a clue in the text itself when the bird returns with an olive branch. All life was NOT destroyed. So, for those of us who believe that the Scripture is true and is the Word of God, it can not be that the Scripture is internally inconsistent. It must be that the verses describing the extent of the destruction can not be read literally.
And, since YECs argue that there is no clue in the text that these verses are NOT to be read literally, then the concept that we MUST read literally unless there is an indication not to do so is simply nonsense.
And, if we are required to read these Scriptures non-literally even without a marker or clue to do so, what is the problem with reading other Scripture (ie, other parts of Genesis) non-literally?
Now, would it not be true, then, that everything that IS in the Ark would, by the Scriptural description, come out into a life-less wasteland. Not just based on the possible effect of a global flood, but based on the fact that a literal reading of the text *requires* it: "everything on earth will perish." When, under literalism, is "everything" not "everything"?
That means that there would be nothing for any of the surviving creatures to eat except each other. And, of course, that would work for the meat-eaters, but what about the plant-eaters. They would all die off almost immediately without their diet.
And, how would all such plant life be restored without existing plant life? What about all those animals who eat insects or fungus or bacteria, etc, etc?
I will not even get into the fish problem other than to say that if they were on the earth, and not on the ark, a literal reading requires their complete and utter destruction.
So, if there was a global flood, there would HAVE to have been a second creation event to replace all that which was destroyed but which was not on the ark. But there is no mention of a second creation, and according to YEC's, it is not right to add this type of major detail into Scripture.
Of course, we have a clue in the text itself when the bird returns with an olive branch. All life was NOT destroyed. So, for those of us who believe that the Scripture is true and is the Word of God, it can not be that the Scripture is internally inconsistent. It must be that the verses describing the extent of the destruction can not be read literally.
And, since YECs argue that there is no clue in the text that these verses are NOT to be read literally, then the concept that we MUST read literally unless there is an indication not to do so is simply nonsense.
And, if we are required to read these Scriptures non-literally even without a marker or clue to do so, what is the problem with reading other Scripture (ie, other parts of Genesis) non-literally?
