Ark Tales—10 Popular Misconceptions about the Flood

It Never Rained Before the Flood

Many creationists insist the Bible teaches that rain had never fallen prior to the Flood. This idea largely comes from a phrase in Genesis 2:5: “. . . before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground” (emphasis added).

Is this verse referring to all of the time between Creation and the Flood? Certainly God could have created a different hydrologic cycle than the one in place now, but what is stated?

Another way to understand this passage is that it refers to the conditions prior to the first man and his Fall. That is, before Adam was created, rain had not fallen and two particular types of plants had not grown but would appear after he sinned. The plants mentioned in Genesis 2:5, the “plant of the field” and the “herb of the field,” refer to cultivated plants and desert shrubs, respectively.1 These are not the same plants mentioned as being created on Day Three (Genesis 1:11). The reason these plants had not grown yet is that “God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.” These conditions would soon change.

So rather than describing Earth’s conditions throughout the pre-Flood world, this verse is likely just explaining the environment prior to Day Six.

The Ark Was Box-Shaped

Perhaps no concept of the Ark has drawn more negative reaction from Christians than the sleek vessel being proposed for the Ark Encounter, now under construction in Kentucky. Convinced the Bible specifies that the Ark was shaped like a box, concerned Christians have argued against the bow fin and stern projection depicted on the Ark Encounter’s vessel.

What does the Bible really say about the Ark’s design? “The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third decks” (Genesis 6:14–16).

The length, width, and height of the Ark are listed, but do these figures demand a box-shaped Ark? Not at all! If my car’s dimensions were 190 x 54 x 64 inches, we should not assume it is box-shaped, since cars have aerodynamic curves. Similarly, all boats sport various other structures that maximize strength, stability, and comfort. Most specifications are based on the longest dimension, and it is reasonable to assume that the 300-cubit length of Noah’s Ark was the longest bow-to-stern distance.

Another assumption has been that Noah did not have the time, tools, or technology to build anything other than a simple box-shaped boat. But Hebrews 11:7 reveals that Noah built the Ark in reverent fear, indicating he would have been very careful to build it in a way that honored the Lord. After all, every land-dwelling creature and the human race depended upon the Ark’s safety.

Does the Hebrew word for ark reveal the boat’s shape, as many supporters of the box-shaped Ark have claimed? Significant uncertainty exists over the word’s origin and precise meaning. The Hebrew term (תֵּבָה, tebah) is very likely an Egyptian loanword, which would make sense given its two appearances in Scripture. Outside of the Flood account, the only place this word is used is for the basket or chest in which the baby Moses was placed (Exodus 2:3). Both passages have to do with a floating object that preserved life, and both were written by Moses, a man raised and trained in Egypt (Acts 7:22).

Given the uncertainty of the term’s precise meaning, we should refrain from dogmatism about the Ark’s shape, except that we can rule out the cutesy bathtub toy look portrayed in countless children’s books. The streamlined look of the Ark Encounter’s vessel was designed to maximize strength, stability, and comfort in turbulent seas. Noah’s Ark may have looked different, but short of finding the actual Ark, we do not know for certain.

Not Enough Room for All the Animals

How could one guy fit a million species of animals on a boat for a whole year? Even Christians wonder about this question. They assume the Bible says two of every species went onto the Ark, and they envision an overcrowded boat like the ones they’ve seen in illustrated Bibles or films. We need to look more closely at the text, because several mistaken assumptions are tied up in this question.

First, many believers have a difficult time conceptualizing the full scale of the Ark, whose massive size is hard to imagine (enough space for over 500 rail cars). But the larger problem is the number of animals required to be on the Ark. Noah was not instructed to bring two of every species, as if he used our modern classification system. Instead, Noah needed to bring two of every kind of unclean animal and more of the clean animals. The biblical kind seems to line up well with the family level of taxonomy.

Noah didn’t need to bring marine organisms, and it’s debatable whether Noah needed to take insects on board (but there would have been space on the Ark for them). An exhaustive study of the land animal kinds, both living and extinct, is nearing completion. At present, it looks like the total will be approximately 1,000 kinds of animals, meaning Noah brought fewer than 5,000 individual animals. In an earlier detailed study using representatives from every genus, it was demonstrated that there would have been plenty of space for 16,000 creatures, along with their food and supplies.3

Dinosaurs Couldn’t Fit on the Ark

Related to the previous misconception is the claim that dinosaurs could not fit on the Ark. Skeptics reject the idea that dinosaurs and man lived together in the first place, but even if they did, how could these amazing creatures fit on the Ark?

Most people are surprised to find out that many dinosaurs were actually rather small. Just a few of the most popular “terrible lizards” were ginormous, and they were once small—the 65-ton Dreadnoughtus likely came from an egg about the size of a football. Moreover, each family usually had a smaller variety that could have represented the whole family. So if God brought juvenile animals or smaller varieties to Noah, then there was no need to squeeze enormous animals onto the Ark.

The Flood Was Only a Regional Event

Many Christians have heard arguments that the Flood account describes a regional or local event. In some cases, the Bible refers to “all” but the context indicates a narrower meaning. For instance, speaking of the famine in Joseph’s day, Genesis 41:54 states that “the famine was in all lands” (emphasis added), but we should not necessarily assume this famine covered the entire globe. The lands referred to here are all those nations that “came to Joseph in Egypt to buy grain” (Genesis 41:57 (NKJV)).

Yes, context does matter, and it often makes very clear what the Bible means. Genesis 6–9 describes a world-destroying global catastrophe, and not a regional flood.

• God said He would destroy “all flesh in which is the breath of life” and that “everything that is on the earth shall die” (Genesis 6:17; see Genesis 6:12, 7:21–23).
• The massive size of the Ark is much too large for carrying only regional flora and fauna.
• The Flood waters covered “all the high hills under the whole heaven” and covered the mountains to a minimum depth of fifteen cubits (Genesis 7:19–20).
• Why would God tell Noah to build an Ark when it would have been much easier to move out of the region?
• Why were flying creatures required to be on the Ark when they could easily fly somewhere else? The same is true for most land animals.
• The length of the Flood was much longer than any regional flood has ever been.
• The Bible unambiguously states that only eight people survived the Flood (Genesis 6:18, 7:23; 1 Peter 3:20), yet a regional flood would not necessarily have killed every other person on Earth.
• God explicitly stated that “the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh,” and He gave the rainbow as a reminder of that promise (Genesis 9:15–16). If the Flood were a local event, then God breaks His promise every time there is a major local flood.

The Oceans Do Not Have Enough Water to Cover the Earth

Another common concern is that Earth does not have enough water to cover the mountains. There are multiple difficulties with this misconception.

First, it is based on the assumption that the Flood needed to cover the mountain ranges we know today. However, the pre-Flood world was much different than today’s world. For example, it likely consisted of one continent (Genesis 1:9), and since the Flood destroyed that world, we cannot know with any certainty how high the pre-Flood hills reached. Our modern lofty peaks are formed out of sediments that were filled with animals killed during the Flood.

Second, the breakup of the earth’s plates at the start of the Flood would have heated the crust under the oceans, causing the seafloor to rise and pushing the water over the continents. Under these circumstances, the ocean (which is more than 6.5 miles, or 10.5 km, deep in some places) had plenty of water to cover the earth.

Third, there is tremendous evidence for a global Flood that deposited layers across continents. Many strata were laid down in rapid succession, and then these layers were crumpled while the sediment was still soft. Ocean fossils are now found on the earth’s highest peaks.

Finally, additional water may have come from deep in the earth. The mantle has a water-trapping mineral called ringwoodite, which researchers now think may contain as much water as the oceans.4

Ironically, most geologists believe Mars once had massive floods. If a planet with no known liquid water can have a flood of biblical proportions, then it should not be hard to accept that our blue planet, 70% covered in water and possibly containing far more water locked in the mantle, could have had a global Flood.

The Genesis Flood Account Was Copied from Ancient Myth

In the past two centuries we have discovered flood stories that predate Moses, so experts regularly claim the Flood account is just another myth borrowed from other ancient cultures. Christians who have bought into this line of reasoning underestimate the many differences between Genesis and these stories, while undermining the authenticity of Scripture.

The Bible gives us the true account, and any version that varies from this record must therefore be a distortion of the original history (or a complete fabrication). The Bible does not read like any of these myths; it relates a sober account of the righteous judgment a holy God sent upon a wicked world while sparing one family. Yet the Ancient Near Eastern myths include all manner of legendary details and trivial reasons the gods flooded the earth.

For instance, the biblical account is the only ancient record that has an Ark on which the people and animals could actually survive a global flood. The cube-shaped boat from the Epic of Gilgamesh was large, but it would have rocked so much in stormy seas that its passengers may not have survived. The circular boat described in a recently translated Mesopotamian tablet could not have endured such a flood. The dimensions of the biblical Ark, in contrast, are perfect for remaining afloat in a turbulent ocean.

Furthermore, the biblical account does not localize the event as do most of the flood legends. In many of these stories, the boat lands on a nearby mountain familiar to the people of the region. The biblical account has the Ark settle on a mountain far away from the land in which Moses wrote the account. This localizing tendency is seen in other features of the legends too, from the shape of the boat to the animals sent off to search for land. Yet the Bible consistently treats the account as something that was universal to mankind.

The Ark Has Been Found

Dozens of expeditions have searched the slopes and summit of Mount Ararat in hopes of making one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all time. A handful of explorers claimed to have seen the Ark or pieces of it. Photos and satellite images have shown formations that can be construed as being Ark-shaped, but they are not conclusive.

The Durupinar Site, popularized by Ron Wyatt, is often touted as the resting place of the Ark. Located about 15 miles (24 km) from the summit of Mount Ararat, this “Ark-shaped” formation even yielded artifacts supposedly found at the site. Yet qualified geologists, including creationists who would love to find Noah’s Ark, have traveled to the site and dismissed it as a natural formation, one of several like it in the area.5

Tim Chaffey, AiG–US, answers the most-asked questions about Noah and the Ark.

The Bible states that the Ark landed on the “mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4), not the modern Mt. Ararat. It appears that the modern mountain by this name is a volcano that arose after the Flood sediments had been laid, so it does not seem to fit the biblical description. Knowing this, investigators have searched other places in the region but without conclusive evidence. Ancient reports have told of people who claimed to have seen the Ark on Mount Cudi, for example, but these have not been verified in modern times.

Should we even expect to find the Ark? Even if frozen in ice, it is highly doubtful that a wooden structure would survive the elements for more than four millennia. As exciting as the Ark’s discovery would be for Christians, hardened skeptics who refuse to believe what Moses already wrote in God’s Word will refuse to believe even the most amazing of miracles (Luke 16:31).