I should have been more specific in my previous e-mail. One of the questions was regarding as to how Noah was able to feed all the animals on the ark. Some animals have special diets, such as koala bears. They eat eucalyptus leaves. Some animals eat meat or fresh fruit. I was just wondering if there was a theory or clue in the Bible about this that I was unaware of.
The flood during the days of Noah has been so clearly established by geology, archaeology, and paleontology, and proven by global flood strata and fossil records, and so completely embedded in the history of so many ancient cultures that one wonders why the debate still rages. In spite of the mountains of evidence, skeptics continue to snipe from the undergrowth. The question concerning the koala’s diet and the specialized diets of other creatures has been bantered about by the anti-God ranks and I see this has caused a question in your mind, too. The answer is relatively simple. But first, take note that the flood was supernaturally orchestrated.
The first record of rain in history is the 40-day and 40-night deluge in the days of Noah. The following statement found in Genesis 2:5-6 reads:
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
The rain was supernaturally induced. Noah was supernaturally forewarned approximately 100 years in advance of the world-destroying flood. God supernaturally gave Noah the blueprints to build an ark sufficient for the massive undertaking. It was a sea-going vessel that was impossible to capsize. God supernaturally gave Noah the phenomenal organizational skills to accomplish the colossal feat of saving representatives of all creatures with the breath of life in their nostrils—including Noah and his seven other family members. God supernaturally sent the creatures to Noah. God supernaturally closed the door on Noah’s Ark and safely shut up the parentage of all this present world’s land-dwelling creatures. All questions about this event will have "supernatural" as part of the answer because it was supernaturally orchestrated. Many challenges can be explained in a very natural, pragmatic way such as the koala issue, but be advised, the answer could just as easily be that God did it supernaturally.
Noah was commanded by God in Genesis 6:21-22:
21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
From the time God originally spoke to Noah to the beginning of the flood, there was a period of approximately 100 years that gave Noah and his family ample time to accomplish the task set before him. One must keep in mind that the average life span before the flood was 911 years.
Much research has been undertaken concerning the validity of the Bible’s record of Noah’s flood. One book in particular that addresses a myriad of Noahitic challenges, including the necessary food supplies, was written by John Woodmorappe. Its title is Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study. The following excerpts are from the book:
The koala is widely reputed to be the most specialized vertebrate feeder of all. It subsists on almost nothing but fresh Eucalyptus leaves, and then only from a very select number of species. In this section, I demonstrate that, assuming the koala had indeed been a stenophagic Eucalyptus-eater before the Flood, Noah could have maintained it on common foods. In the subsequent chapter, I show that, before the Flood, koalas may have subsisted on a broad range of feedstuffs. Morton (1995, p. 70) recounts the "obligation" of koalas to live on Eucalyptus leaves, and imagines the impossibility of its provision on the Ark. Some believers have suggested that Eucalyptus might have been cultured on the Ark. While this is unnecessary (see below), it would have been feasible. Eucalyptus seedlings could easily have been raised in the shaded recesses of the Ark (Jacobs 1955, pp. 120-1). Maintaining some (small) adult trees would also have been possible, as we know that ancient peoples used to ship whole trees with roots and soil still attached to them (Bostock 1993, p. 8).
And then again, Woodmorappe writes:
Have there been any instances where a koala was maintained a year or more on something other than fresh Eucalyptus leaves? The answer is a resounding "yes!" To begin with, when koalas are young they, like all mammals, subsist on milk. It is possible to keep a young koala on a milk-based diet for at least ten months (Irvine 1992, p. 96). A milk/farinaceous diet can also be used (Saville-Kent 1897, p. 27), as can a bread-milk diet (Wood-Jones 1924, p. 186). In fact, young koalas that have been hand-reared will accept a wide variety of common foods (Finnie, in discussion with Betts 1978, p. 82; Spinney 1994, p. 29). The first koala to be brought alive to Europe arrived in 1880 at the London Zoo, along with a voluminous supply of dried Eucalyptus leaves (Tegetmeier 1880, p. 653). It had arrived from Australia on ship (after all, airplanes were not to be invented for another 23 years!), subsisting on the dried Eucalyptus leaves for at least several months (Flower 1880, p. 356; Forbes 1881, p. 180; Grzimek 1967, p. 289).
One should also consider that the ancient art of dehydrating foods for purposes of preservation could have been a viable option exercised by Brother Noah.
Let not your heart be troubled, Brother Wes, God is never wrong. God never loses.
This following question came from Tony:
Jesus came through the line of David to Joseph. How did this happen if Mary was a virgin and Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit? Joseph never had intercourse with Mary to have Jesus come through his bloodline. Didn’t Mary have to come through the line of David also? Please help me with this question. Thank you and may God richly bless your ministry.
Dear Brother Tony:
Direct lineage to King David, as you well noted, was the required pedigree of the prophesied Messiah. Matthew’s account in chapter one records the lineage of Christ through His adoptive father, Joseph. Matthew 1:16:
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
As Joseph’s adopted son and the first-born, Jesus carried the legal right of inheritance. Luke’s account in chapter three is Christ’s actual bloodline to King David via the Virgin Mary. The following excerpt is from Halley’s Bible Handbook:
The Genealogy as given in Luke is somewhat different. Matthew goes back to Abraham; Luke, to Adam. One is descending, "begat"; the other is ascending, "was son of". From David they are separate lines, touching in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. The commonly accepted view is that Matthew gives Joseph’s line, showing Jesus to be Legal Heir to the Promises given Abraham and David; and that Luke gives Mary’s line, showing Jesus’ blood descent, "Son of David according to the flesh," Romans 1:3.Mary’s genealogy, in accord with Jewish usage, was in her husband’s name. Joseph was the "son of Heli," Luke 3:23, that is, "son-in-law" of Heli. Jacob was Joseph’s father, Matthew 1:16.These genealogies, given more fully in I Chronicles 1-9, form the backbone of Old Testament annals. Carefully guarded through long centuries of epochal vicissitudes, they contain a "family line through which a Promise was transmitted 4000 years, a fact unexampled in history".
In the book The Bible Has the Answer, the following excerpt is found:
The Bible’s seeming contradictions and paradoxes are always harmonious and satisfying upon deeper study. This one finds its solution in another superficial discrepancy, the apparently contradictory genealogies of Christ in Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Matthew gives the legal and royal lineage from David through Solomon and Jechonias (the last man to occupy Judah’s throne) to Joseph, the foster father of Jesus. Luke gives the true biological line from David through Nathan to Heli, the father of Mary. To have the legal right to the throne of David, Jesus must be the legal son of Joseph, but he could not be the true son of Joseph because of God’s judgment on Jechonias. And yet he must be actually of the "seed of David" to occupy that throne. The Virgin Birth resolves this impasse.
Next, please note this excerpt from Grant R. Jeffrey’s book, Jesus: The Great Debate:
It is important to note that during Jesus’ life, and for two hundred and fifty years thereafter, no one questioned His genealogical right to David’s throne. If there was a real (rather than an "apparent") problem in the different accounts of His genealogy as recorded by Matthew and Luke, surely His Jewish enemies would have challenged the accuracy of the Gospel accounts. The Jewish people at the time of Christ had access to the genealogical records, which were available for legal examination in the Temple until A.D. 70. The silence of His critics on this score clearly suggests that they understood the two different accounts of His genealogy as being complementary, not contradictory.
This final note concerns Christ Jesus’ pedigree: The Jewish Babylonian Talmud refers to Christ and His crucifixion. The Jews were extremely careful about the judgment of the Lord. In these ancient writings of the Jews, Rabbi Ulla said, "It was different with Jesus, for He was near to the kingship." [End of quote]
King James Bible
Halley’s Bible Handbook
Jeffrey, G.R., Jesus: The Great Debate, Frontier Research Publications, 8/99
Morris and Clark, The Bible Has the Answer, Master Books, Fourteenth Printing, 3/01
Woodmorappe, J., Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, Institute For Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, Ca., 92021