According to YEC, did all plants and trees survive the Great Flood? If so, how?

Upvote:-2

All the plants came from seed when the flood was over and the sun came out all seed germinated and grew from the ground as Jehovah said for them to do in the beginning. All plant life died in the flood.

Upvote:2

Are plants "living things"?

No. Biblically speaking, "living things" refers to organisms with "the breath of life". Plants do not engage in an O₂ → CO₂ respiration cycle and thus, Biblically, are not "alive". Moreover, "life", Biblically, is found in blood. Accordingly, insects and microorganisms are also not "alive" in the Biblical sense. Thus, we should be careful applying passages such as you cite to these sorts of organisms. Note also this question and its answer, as well as DJClayworth's answer here.

Did Noah bring plants on the ark?

Yes! Although you correctly note that Noah is not instructed to bring plants using the same language as he is instructed to bring animals, Noah was instructed to "take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up" (Genesis 6:21). Since animals and humans were created as herbivores (and certainly, as some remain remain herbivores even today), "every sort of food" would have included plants, fruits and seeds. Moreover, since living plants can grow and continue to produce food (even reprocessing animal wastes), it is highly likely that Noah would have brought living plants and not just dead plant matter.

Did plants die in the flood?

Yes! Many, many plants "died" and were buried and became massive coal and oil deposits. Others became petrified or fossilized.

How did plants survive?

There are numerous articles online ( 1 2 3 4 ) which address this question.

One point to keep in mind is that the oceans would not have been nearly as saline as they are today. In fact, the flood waters presumably would have started out fresh and only become saline as minerals were picked up from the ground.

Upvote:4

You are falling into a linguistic trap because of translation issues. The core of the problem is your statement "Now, even if the Jews did not consider plants to be living creatures, God knew that they are (because, well, they are)." The actual meaning of the passage is that all the living animals died, but not necessarily the plants.

You are assuming that when the Jews did not include plants in the term "living things" that was a mistake due to ignorance. That's not the case - instead it's about definitions.

Interestingly the KJV makes the meaning clearer than modern translations, saying that the flood will destroy "all flesh" rather than all living things.

The Jews used a specific word to describe animal life. It's defined in their language to include animal life, but not to include plant life. We translate it as 'living', because that's the closest word we have, but it doesn't change the meaning that the Jews assigned to it. The word is theirs, and just because our definition of 'living' doesn't quite match their definition of their word does not mean they are 'wrong', or cause a theological problem. The context makes it clear what the meaning of the original word is.

You might also note that the definition of 'living' is not as clear cut as you might think, even in our times. The question of whether viruses (for example) are 'living' is not definitely decided.

More post

Search Posts

Related post