Did God send insects onto the ark?

[one.opinion]

This question came up on a different thread recently, and I didn't want to take up all the conversation on something that was far wide of the OP. As I see it, this question is theologically insignificant, but I just don't read the Genesis 7 account as others here do. Granted, I don't know ancient Hebrew, so I have to rely on English translations. But reading the English translations really don't seem to indicate what many have concluded, starting with Henry Morris. Here is the Genesis 7 passage in the NKJV relevant to the question:

¹³ On the very same day Noah and Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark— ¹⁴ they and every beast after its kind, all cattle after their kind, every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, every bird of every sort. ¹⁵ And they went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh in which is the breath of life. ¹⁶ So those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and the Lord shut him in. ¹⁷ Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. ¹⁸ The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. ¹⁹ And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. ²⁰ The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. ²¹ And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. ²² All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit^[a] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. ²³ So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. ²⁴ And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

The primary argument I have seen against the God-ordered inclusion of insects is from verses 15 and 22, that have the phrase "breath of life". Is this the same "breath of life" that is used in Genesis 2, when referring to the creation of Adam? I could not find any sources indicating that the same Hebrew is used, so that would be helpful.

I would argue that there is no Biblical reason to assume that "breath of life" requires human-like lungs and could refer to anything that breathes, or respires at an organismal level. The ancient Hebrews were certainly smart enough to understand what lungs did in humans, but I don't think they took a great deal of time (or had the necessary equipment) to study insect anatomy and physiology to see detailed similarities and differences in breathing apparatuses. It seems as though the requirement for lungs is artificial, and not part of the Biblical text.

Additionally, verses 14 and 21 include birds, cattle, beasts, and "creeping things". I would definitely include insects in "creeping things". Some translations also use terms indicating "every flying thing" and not just birds, again suggesting insects should be included.

One last point is that the surviving plants would include those that needed pollinators and although some other animals can carry out plant pollination, this role is predominantly filled by insects. So these insects would have had to survive the flood.

All thoughts appreciated, thanks!

 

[Tristen]

Hey One,

The general Hebrew word for life is chayyah – relating to activity/movement/animation etc. But when God refers to humans and higher animals in scripture, He usually describes us by the Hebrew word nephesh (English: life or soul). Sometimes we are called chay nephesh or nephesh chayyah (English: “living creatures” for animals, “living souls” for humans). Nephesh is a derivative of the primitive root word naphash (English: to breath or inhale). When written without the vowel sounds (as Hebrew was originally written) you would only know the difference by the context.

When describing the creation of humanity (Gen 2:7), God used the following Hebrew terms;

Naphakh – to blow or exhale

Aph – nostrils (i.e. breathing apparatus); and by extension, the face

Neshama – another word which means breathe; from the root word nasham (meaning to struggle for breath; i.e. to pant)

Chay – from chayyah (defined above)

And chay nephesh (also defined above)

So Genesis 2:7 reads; “And the LORD God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and naphakh into his aph the neshama of chay, and he became a chay nephesh”

So it is very difficult to disassociate nephesh life from the concept of breathing.

 

Nephesh is never used to describe plants. Insects do not breathe in the mechanical sense of inhaling and exhaling (the most likely understanding of the ancient Hebrew audience). And so are likely not included in the “creeping things” of Genesis 1:24 (which are described as chay nephesh).

Scripture also strongly associates nephesh life with blood (see Gen 9:4, Lev 17:11). Whilst insects carry a substance which is homologous to blood (hemolymph), they don't have any actual blood. I think it's fair to suggest that the ancient Hebrew audience would have understood blood to mean the crimson substance that flows through higher living creatures – and out of their ritual sacrifices. So by this standard, insects are again disqualified as nephesh life.

It should also be noted that whilst lungs are not specified for those entering the ark, nostrils (Hb aph) are explicitly cited as characteristic of those drawn to the ark (Gen 7:22). Insects do not have nostrils on their face, but exchange gases through holes around their bodies called spiracles.

Otherwise, the implications for the Noah account are negligible – since millions of insects could have easily hidden away on such a large vessel. It only becomes an issue for the ark when someone finds an estimate of current extant species number, and asks, “How did so many species fit on the ark?” - not realising that 98-or-more percent of those species are insects (nor understanding the creationist understanding of Biblical kinds).

The main theological implication of this point is for the doctrine that their was no death before Adam's sin. So in that context, the definition of life is important. It couldn't refer to the modern biological definition of life – since before Adam sinned, God gave plants for food (which involves the destruction of biologically living cells). By the above argument, insects may also have been destroyed without compromising the doctrine of no death before Adam's sin. Under this paradigm, insects may be thought of as God's worker robots.

It may also, by extension, also have implications for philosophical arguments about the nastiness evident in the insect world (e.g. wasps laying eggs in caterpillars; eating them alive from the inside out) – but if it is just a case of one robot using another robot for resources, the philosophical implications are less stark.

 

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

So Genesis 2:7 reads; “And the LORD God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and naphakh into his aph the neshama of chay, and he became a chay nephesh”

So it is very difficult to disassociate nephesh life from the concept of breathing.

 

Nephesh is never used to describe plants. Insects do not breathe in the mechanical sense of inhaling and exhaling (the most likely understanding of the ancient Hebrew audience). And so are likely not included in the “creeping things” of Genesis 1:24 (which are described as chay nephesh).

Thanks, Tristen. I appreciate the inclusion of the Hebrew words since the English translations can easily be misunderstood. Although I only conducted a cursory internet search, I was unable to find details like this. Is there a particular source you use to find the Hebrew word use?

[Guest shiloh357]

It's realistic to assume that insects simply stowed away on the animals as they entered the ark.   It really isn't necessary to over think this.   

"Breath of life" means exactly what it says.  It is also not necessary to insult people's intelligence as if they don't really know what that means.

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

"Breath of life" means exactly what it says. 

But "exactly what is says" in the English translation does not include lungs. That's why I appreciate Tristen's comments on the Hebrew.

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

It is also not necessary to insult people's intelligence as if they don't really know what that means.

Who is insulting anyone's intelligence? Not sure how that worked its way into the conversation...

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

It's realistic to assume that insects simply stowed away on the animals as they entered the ark.

Sure, many would naturally have stowed away if they were not individually directed by God in the first place. But there would have had to be an awful lot of stowaways to fill all the necessary environmental niches that would need to be filled afterward.

[one.opinion]

Found an interesting AiG article on the topic. It presents arguments on both sides, so an interesting read.

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/were-insects-on-the-ark/

[Guest shiloh357]

54 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

But "exactly what is says" in the English translation does not include lungs. That's why I appreciate Tristen's comments on the Hebrew.

 

Yes, and it pretty much confirms what I already said.

Quote

Who is insulting anyone's intelligence? Not sure how that worked its way into the conversation...

Acting like we can't really know what 'breathing'  is or what "breath" is.   It just starts getting silly at some point.   You are muddying the waters and manufacturing a problem that doesn't exist.

Quote

Sure, many would naturally have stowed away if they were not individually directed by God in the first place. But there would have had to be an awful lot of stowaways to fill all the necessary environmental niches that would need to be filled afterward.

The whole problem about insects on the ark  is that insects are viewed as doing some pretty nasty things that seem contradict the notion that there was no death prior to creation, and that has morphed into this silly conversation about whether or not God commanded Noah to bring insects on to the ark.   

That's what this is about, not some genuine curiosity about whether or not there were insects on the ark. 

 

[one.opinion]

19 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The whole problem about insects on the ark  is that insects are viewed as doing some pretty nasty things that seem contradict the notion that there was no death prior to creation, and that has morphed into this silly conversation about whether or not God commanded Noah to bring insects on to the ark.   

That's what this is about, not some genuine curiosity about whether or not there were insects on the ark. 

The topic on wasp parasitism led into the discussion about presence/absence of insects on the ark. Despite what you are erroneously attributing to me, I think the latter part is a topic for some interesting and neutral discussion. If you want to participate in this discussion only as an avenue to add insults, please look elsewhere.

 

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Thanks, Tristen. I appreciate the inclusion of the Hebrew words since the English translations can easily be misunderstood. Although I only conducted a cursory internet search, I was unable to find details like this. Is there a particular source you use to find the Hebrew word use?

Over the years I have collected a library of concordances, interlinear Bibles, lexicons and dictionaries.  When not at home, I sometimes find the Blue Letter Bible site brings a lot of this information together (though in only summary format). The site is sometimes slow to load. If you leave the scripture search on KJV, a Strong's button option is available which reveals the Strong's Concordance numbers for most words - linking to the relevant information.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/

PS - just noticed a link to the "classic" version - so it may have been recently updated.

If you know the Strong's number, I've also found this site to be helpful in the past (http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html) - though haven't used it in a while.

 

[one.opinion]

16 hours ago, Tristen said:

Over the years I have collected a library of concordances, interlinear Bibles, lexicons and dictionaries.  When not at home, I sometimes find the Blue Letter Bible site brings a lot of this information together (though in only summary format). The site is sometimes slow to load. If you leave the scripture search on KJV, a Strong's button option is available which reveals the Strong's Concordance numbers for most words - linking to the relevant information.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/

PS - just noticed a link to the "classic" version - so it may have been recently updated.

If you know the Strong's number, I've also found this site to be helpful in the past (http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html) - though haven't used it in a while.

 

I’ve been using biblegateway.com a lot lately because so many translations are easily available. I know there are translations other than English but I haven’t explored them. There may be useful tools there I haven’t taken advantage of.

The AiG article I referenced earlier indicates that the “creeping things” references in verses 14 and 21 use different Hebrew words - remes in verse 14 and seres in verse 21. Context with usage in other verses also indicates that these words can include insects. It also mentions what I previously observed in the ESV, that some translations translate verse 14 as an encompassing term that includes all flying things.

What are your thoughts on these arguments?