Noah did not take 120 years to build the Ark

 



Taken from: http://planetpreterist.com/content/beyond-creation-science-how-preterism-refutes-global-flood-and-impacts-genesis-debate-%E2%80%93-par-4

....

Why would God have Noah spend 120 years building a huge boat when, in a year, he and his family could simply have hiked out of the region with some supplies and camped out until the flood was over? This view makes nonsense of the story.

One bad habit Creation Science nurtures is turning speculation about the flood of Noah into assumed biblical fact. Repeated over and over enough times, people accept the speculative theories about the flood as the very words of God. Nowhere does the text tell us how long it took to build the ark. Genesis 6:3 mentions a period of 120 years, but says nothing to indicate Noah spent this amount of time to construct the ark. The flood occurred when Noah was 600 years old.^[3] According to the biblical text, Noah’s sons weren’t born until he was 500,^[4] but when God told him to build an ark, it was for the purpose of saving his household, including his sons’ wives.^[5] This would seem to imply that Noah’s sons were grown adults and married when they began to build, but it is impossible to know how long it took to build the ark from the text. The time has come to separate what our traditions tell us about the flood from what the Bible actually teaches.

The substance of this question seems to hold some merit on the surface. It is very popular in Creation Science literature. Why would God need to tell Noah to build an ark when Noah could have walked out of the region affected by the flood? Rather than presenting a problem for the regional flood view, this question exposes how Creation Science’s plain literal priority in reading the account entirely misses the biblical emphasis of the account . God planned the events to picture salvation by grace through faith. There is a spiritual need for the ark, because the ark is a picture of Christ in the midst of God’s judgment. What Creation Scientists often miss in their zeal to defend a plain literal reading is the story of Noah’s ark is not about the geological history of planet earth. It is about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In God’s plan it was important, as a picture of Christ, that Noah enter the ark as an “incarnation” of the gospel, resting in Jesus Christ for salvation. Noah was figuratively “in Christ” while he was “in the ark.” God has a plan whenever he gives his servant a mission, whether it is Noah, Abraham, Ezekiel, or Hosea. Any speculation that wanders from the redemptive purposes of God has lost touch with the biblical emphasis. Once we understand the redemptive purpose God has revealed, the answer to this question is clear. To tell Noah to hike over there where he would be safe from God’s judgment is to teach that man must get up and save himself by his own two feet. We ought to focus on the example of faithful obedience Noah sets rather than speculate on how God would have acted if the flood had been a localized event.

Question 2 also hinges on the escapism and retreatism so prominent in many forms of futurism. Noah did not need to escape from the evil culture of his day by some sort of proto-rapture scheme – beating a quick retreat. By faith, he was protected in the midst of a wicked civilization which reaped God’s judgment. Noah ultimately inherited the land through covenant faithfulness. The flood took the wicked away. Dispensational futurists will not appreciate this point, because they tend to be retreatists. Preterists committed to the first century victory of Christ over His enemies will recognize the escapism inherent in this objection to a regional flood which says that if the flood was not global God would have just had them walk out of the affected area.

There may be a physical need for the ark as well, even within a regional flood view. The flood was a long-term event spanning many months. Boats were used in biblical times, not only for travel, but also for transportation of bulky cargos. Is it possible to carry everything on a camping trip that will last many months? Could Noah and his family carry with them all that they and the animals would need for many months? On the ark, however, is plenty of cargo room for the things needed for Noah’s family and the animals for the duration of the flood. Question 2 is a very weak objection to a regional flood once the theological design and historical context of the flood are understood.

....