Could the world have repopulated from 3 or 4 woman as is implied in the most literal way of reading the Noah’s ark story?

November 20, 2007

I got a confession to make: I started the calculations below with the assumption: “Genesis should in some places be read figuratively. Now what objective way can I proof that to other Christians? I know! I’ll show them how it is mathematically impossible for the earth to repopulate quickly enough after Noah!” Oops. When I finished the sums, the result did nothing to prove my stated objective. Here are my calculations:

Why these calculations will be inadequate:

a) Many believers hold that the flood in Genesis could be correctly understood as a local, instead of global flood. As such, it may not have been needed to repopulate the world from the few women on the ark.

b) The geneaologies of Genesis mentions very long life spans, and men who apparently still fathered children for a long part of those centuries. It don’t mention women’s ages in those geneaologies. It is very likely to assume, though, that if men in those times literally stayed reproductive for centuries, that women could have done the same. That means that each of them could have concieved many more children than in the calculations below.

c) Some Bible scholars also believe that the Hebrew word for “son” could also mean “grandson,” “great-grandson,” etc. In that case, the earth had even more generations to repopulate before the Tower of Babel or before Abraham encountered other nations.

However, here are calculations using my modern assumptions on how long woman can stay fertile, and assuming the fewest number of generations: These two assumptions are as strict as can be. If I assumed longer fertility times (argument b), or more generations (argument c), I would have made the job of proving the Genesis account a lot easier.

(It may seem strange to assume that a woman can have, on average, 3 or 3,5 daughters in a lifetime – thus 6 or 7 children. But in the times before birth control it was not rare for woman to have much larger families than that. One of my grandmothers married at 28, the other at age 30 – yet they each gave birth 6 times.)

The numbers below only represent the girls and women of the new generation. You could assume that there are still older woman too, and about as many men and boys as woman and girls.

SCENARIO 1: Each woman has, on average, 3 daughters who reach adulthood, and get her girls on average at age 25

From the ark comes 3 woman of child-bearing age =3

25 years later: 3×3 young woman/ girls of next generation.

50 years later: 3×3x3

100 years later: 3 to the power of 5

 200 years later: 3 to the power of 9 =19 683

350 years later: 3 to the power of 15 =14 348 907

500 years later: 3 to the power of 21=10 460 353 203 (More young woman and girls than there are people in the world now.)

 

SCENARIO 2: Each woman has, on average, 3,5 daughters who reach adulthood, and get her girls on average at age 25 (Rounded off to whole numbers.)

From the ark comes 3 woman of child-bearing age =3

25 years later: 3×3,5 young woman/ girls of next generation =10 or 11

50 years later: 3×3,5×3,5 = 37

100 yr.: 3x(3,5 to the power of 4) =450

200 yr.: 3x(3,5 to the power of 8 ) =67 556

 350 yr.: 3x(3,5 to the power of 14) =124 186 354

450 yr.: 3x(3,5 to the power of 18) =18 635 714 698
(More than double as many young woman and girls than there are people in the world now.)

 

 

The bible first mentions contact with other nations again, after the flood, at a time when Abram was older than 75 years. (Before that, it mentions nations in 2 ways: Mostly in the sense of “So-and-so was the forefather of this nation.” Secondly in the story “the tower of Babel,” an explanation why the one group split up into nations.)

Since the exact ages of Abraham’s forefathers are mentioned when they became fathers, it could be calculated that more than 367 years have expired from the ark until the date Abraham gets into contact with other nations. By either of my scenarios, there could have been more enough people on earth for different nations to exist.

The descendants of Noah could well have splattered into several large nations by the time Abram encounters other nations.

Conclusion: It is possible to believe that the earth could have repopulated from a 3 woman in a few centuries. It may not be necessary to assume that it happened (other options are mentioned in the “Why these calculations will be inadequate” paragraph), but it is possible.

Entry Filed under: Apologetics. Tags: , , .

6 Comments Add your own

  • [...] Toe moet ek erken: Dis heeltemal moontlik om daardie deel van die verhaal letterlik op te neem. [...]

    Reply
  • 2. Ben  |  October 7, 2008 at 11:51 am

    Due to high mortality rates, the population did not grow exponentially until the mid 18th century. If you count the digits in scenario 1 and 2 the world population after 650 years would be 15 trillion and 3 quadrillion respectively.

    However, mathematically showing that the population could theoretically grow at a sufficient rate will only serve to allow the possibility that we all descended from 3 women 5000 years ago. It does not prove or disprove anything.

    What interests me more is this: where did all the diversity (Asians, Africans, Caucasians) come from if we all descended from one family?

    Reply
  • 3. Retha  |  October 7, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    Thanks for replying, Ben! That is a truly interesting question. I do not know much genetics (I have an interest in science, but no qualifications.) But genetics apparently confirm that we all descended from one woman. They call her mitochondrial Eve. “Eve,” for you-know-which Bible character.

    (If I spelled mitochondrial wrong, I plead that English is my second language.)

    Reply
  • 4. Retha  |  October 7, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    Oh, Ben, I wrote this post after reading – and believing for some time – that repopulating the earth after Noah would be impossible, even theoretically. My sums simply did not confirm what I heard.

    Reply
  • 5. Jscott1  |  September 27, 2009 at 12:32 am

    Mathematically possible and consistent with observed facts are two totally different things.

    A handful of women cannot possibly produce a world that we observe today with all the ethnic diversity. Instead there would be a huge mortality rate due to all the inbreeding and genetic defects. And it’s unlikely that there would exist an incest taboo in nearly every culture if the whole basis of the human race required incest to re-populate.

    It’s far simpler to consider that the Noah story is a myth.

    Reply
    • 6. Retha  |  September 30, 2009 at 10:07 pm

      Tell me, J Scott, is marrying a first cousin (what Noah’s grandchildren would have done, if the Noah story is literal and global) regarded as incest in your country? It is legal in mine.

      And if you believe that incest, if taboo for us, would have been taboo for all our ancestors – both evolutionists and most creationists believe that our ancestors would not always have found incest taboo.

      It seems “simpler” to you to consider the story a myth, but the simpler explanation is not necessarily true. You probably do not believe in a mitochondrial Eve or a Y-chromosome Adam either? Because a gene pool so small that everybody have the same mother’s, mother’s, mother’s, etc. …, mother, and more recently the same father’s, father’s, father’s, etc. …, father, would mean that incest was probably rife in the times of mitochondrial Eve/ Y-chromosome Adam. By your reasoning, genetic defects would also be rife with that base for humanity. Yet geneticists confirm that we all do share the same female and (more recently) the same male ancestors. In fact, some global flood supporters even claim that mitochondrial Eve lies further into the past than Y-chromosome Adam, because our shared female ancestor is really the Biblical Eve, while the shared male ancestor is Noah- much more recent than Adam and Eve. And your ’simpler” explanation have not even considered a local flood, with Noah’s descendants marrying people from outside the region either.

      Personally, I calculated this as a local flood supporter who wanted to show people that the simplest reading of the Bible (global, in this case) is not always right. I challenge you, too: look beyond what is the simplest, in order for you to understand more. Look at all the possibilities. Be willing to allow the Bible to change your pre-concieved notions if the facts warrant it!

      Reply

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Tags

Add new tag Anne atheists beautiful Bible Channing Pollock character child abuse Children Dawkins ethics for kids Good News Club highlights Hitchens hobbies integrity law Mella-Milloo morality my crafts Noah personal playing prejudice Pullman quotes random rationality reason safety Scandinavia sexual crime South Africa statistics steadfastness story sums The Golden Compass truth unbelief values Woman of the year

Recent Posts

Category Cloud

Apologetics Children For children my crafts South Africa statistics Uncategorized values