A Story: Surviving On Your Own

One day a great storm devastated an isolated village. Only one man and his small family survived. They decided to look for food and water in a nearby forest that, strangely, seemed untouched by the storm.

After days of hunting and gathering, they came upon a quaint, tidy cabin made of logs.

“What a wonder,” the man’s wife said. “A place where we can live away from the wild animals and the night frost.”

“It’s a little far from water, though,” the man said. “We’ll stay here for a few days while I scout out a better location where we can build our own house.”

A few days passed as the little family busied themselves with the necessities of survival. Early the first of the week, the man set out to scout for a place near a stream or river. Surprisingly, he returned in a matter of moments.

“Why did you come back so soon? Did you forget something?” his wife asked. “Are you hurt? Are we in danger?”

“Not at all,” the man replied. “I found a source of water, so there’s no need to look for a better place.”

“A stream we overlooked?”

“No. A well. It’s fairly new, as if someone dug it recently.”

“What good fortune! Unless they are planning to come back. Do you think someone owns this land? Maybe we should try to find out who built the cabin and dug the well. We could offer to rent from him. Maybe someday buy.”

“That would be a good plan,” her husband answered. “But I don’t think anyone actually does own the land, the cabin, or the well. We should just enjoy what nature has provided.”

When winter came, the man could no longer hunt as he had before, and his wife and children had no berries or nuts or roots to gather. The food that they had dried for the cold months became scarce.

After a particularly fierce storm, the man made his way to the well. There, off to one side, dug into the side of a small knoll, he discovered a cave. Carefully he peered inside. Hanging from meat hooks just inside the entrance were several boar carcasses. The cave was apparently a smoke house that they simply had overlooked.

Gratefully he took down the nearest slab of meat and returned to the cabin.

A day or two later he found a barn with a milk cow inside. Still another day he came upon a small silo filled with grain.

All winter his small family lived on the meat, milk, and grain from these outbuildings. Surprisingly, when they were low on meat, another wild boar appeared in the smoke house, along with a bin of roots and another of spices. They had all they wanted to live by.

One day as spring approached, the man’s oldest asked, “Daddy, where does the food come from?”

The man puffed out his chest and smiled. “I find it for you, my son.”

“But when we first came to the cabin, I didn’t see a smoke house or a barn or a well. No silo either.”

“I guess we didn’t look closely,” his mother said.

“Or perhaps we didn’t know the area well enough to know where to look or what to look for,” the man added. “Or maybe the things just happened. The storm might have caused them to form.”

“And the animals?” the boy asked.

“They may have wandered in to get out of the cold,” his mother said.

“I’m glad the cow wandered into the barn and not the smoke house,” the boy said. “I like her milk.”

Up on a hill overlooking his forest strode the king of the land with several of his attendants.

“How long do you want us to provide meat for the little family, Sire,” one of the servants asked.

“As long as they need it,” his royal majesty said. “They’re bound to realize soon that they have sheltered on my land, that I’ve supplied them with what they need. If not, I’ll send one of you to tell them.”

“I’ll go,” the prince said. “Surely they’ll recognize the royal robe and the crown. I’ll tell then you’ve been watching over them since they entered the forest, and that they can stay as long as they would like. I’m sure they’ll be happy to learn they are not alone, that you are generous and kind and that they have nothing to worry about.”

But the little family wasn’t glad. They didn’t know this king, they said, and they weren’t about to take the word of a so-called prince, that somebody else owned this land. Hadn’t they lived there now for six months? By right the place was theirs. They weren’t going to pay tribute or follow some imaginary king’s rules. Why, he’d probably say the man could only hunt certain animals and had to give away a portion of the milk.

When the prince turned his back, the man picked up the nearby pitchfork, and made his plan.

Published in: on September 23, 2019 at 5:02 pm  Comments (14)  
Tags: , , , ,


  1. Really amazing and inspiring story Rebecca! Thank you for sharing! God Bless 🙂


  2. That left me wondering and then musing. I thought at first God supplied the food, milk and even the water; then you mentioned a generous KIng. The man had benefited from his generosity but was sKeptical about his son. Fits with God too. A typical human being, with a narrow view, when he could have had much more!
    I’d love to know your viewpoint on this moral story, Is it one of yours?
    ( i thought of the parable of the vineyard too)


    • I’m glad the story caused you to look beyond the story events, Jane. On Facebook, I called it a parable because I had in mind just what you said. And yes, the parable of the vineyard was the inspiration for it. Thanks for adding you thoughts.



  3. Becky, everything that magically appears without logical reasoning is just too good to be true, that is why this could only be a story and so far from reality it could not happen.

    The hard reality and truth of life is the man builds everything from the ground up and they may live, if he fails they will die. There is no fanciful king watching over you.


    • Steve, I find your comment so interesting because “the hard reality and truth of life” is that mankind has done nothing to create this world. You say that man builds everything, but man didn’t build this planet that is uniquely fit for human life. Man didn’t build his DNA or any of the complex building blocks of the human body. So it really is ironic that you believe the “hard reality and truth of life” is that humans have done what they cannot do.


      Liked by 1 person

      • Man struggles alone on this planet. Man nor God created the planet and the universe, but to suggest that you have evidence to claim that your God did is impossible, a fabrication and pure fantasy.

        On the contrary to your comment, humans have done more to destroy the world, especially with climate change. Even this most proven scientific issue for decades is something many theists including yourself Becky have a huge problem with. It is therefore no surprise the scientific methodology for the creation of anything is going to be rejected outright due to reasons of faith not facts.


        • Steve, I don’t think you hear yourself. You state that I have no proof, but where is your proof that man is alone and that God didn’t create the world? No “scientific methodology” can answer the origins of the universe since it was a one-time, unrepeatable event, that no one observed. No one except God, and as it happens, He gave us His eyewitness account of what He did. The specifics aren’t particularly important, but the fact that God created, is.

          Further, I have told you over and over: I. Have. No. Problem. With. Science. It is the erroneous conclusions that atheists draw from that which the study of science unearths. (See this article: https://rebeccaluellamiller.wordpress.com/2019/02/22/the-biblical-narrative-what-is-now-isnt-what-was-then-2/)

          I’ll offer again the evidence of Mount St. Helens. Did you ever watch the video I linked to and suggested you watch? All science. The whole video. But it happens to lead to a different conclusion than the current, atheist-favored view. The point is, science is neutral. It’s those who make inferences and use as a stating place, their absence-of-God view, with whom I disagree. What you do, in contrast, is call the kind of geological study in the video “no science.”

          Here’s a much shorter (3 and a half minutes) video by a biologist who uses science and arrives at a completely different conclusion from yours: https://youtu.be/2grcHPo8oDQ

          In essence, it is you, Steve, who hate science. If you did not, you’d have an open mind, like this biologist, but clearly you don’t. You have suppressed the truth, choosing to believe a lie instead.



        • Here’s the video to which I referred concerning Mt. St. Helen’s and the scientific investigation that has taken place since the volcano erupted in 1980.



          • I have watched that video twice now Becky.

            Dr. Pennilyn (Penny) Higgins is a Research Associate in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Rochester on September 26, 2007 had a few comments on this. I will briefly highlight some of them in my own words, but you can visit the site and read it in full.


            Mt St Helens deposits were sedimentary materials of fresh volcaniclastics from an eruption such as ash and pumice, whereas the Grand Canyon has limestone, sandstone and shales overlying metamorphic and igneous rocks.

            How can you compare the erosion time of unconsolidated and fused volcaniclastics to the limestone of the Grand Canyon? What about the unconformities and paleosols? Unconformities being a contact between two rock units in which the upper unit is usually much younger than the lower unit, and the paleosols that are soils formed long periods ago that have no relationship in their chemical and physical characteristics to the present-day climate or vegetation that are documented in the Grand Canyon. What about fossils and well developed soils? They exist in the Grand Canyon.

            She says, “had Dr. Austin addressed any of my points of query (sediment type, cementation, lateral extent, fossils, or soils) there may have been something of mainstream interest, but there wasn’t.”

            “I feel that the arguments made for catastrophic extinction of animals from the singular global Flood are pretty weak. What about all the other thousands of fossil localities out there? What about the continuous successions of unicellular microorganisms in marine rocks? What about isolated fossil remains when it’s just one or two individuals found together? How do you explain the 136 fossil localities that I found in my doctoral research field area?”

            The interpretation of science by creationism science compared to scientific reality. Science says this is curious, why and how, and is it possible the Earth could be that young? This however is not supported by other evidence, but we will do some more work on this, whereas creationist science would claim science is misled and based on these findings it is irrefutable evidence and proof of a young Earth that must have been created.


          • Steve, I dare say, the professor who did the video would have addressed those issues if they had been relevant to his point. It was not. He said he’ done his dissertation on the development of coal before the Mt. St. Helen’s eruption. Does he understand the objections this other scientist brings up? Undoubtedly he does. And he well might have answers to her questions. The key point here is that she did not address his main point: that a peat field which so many scientists believe could only develop over great numbers of years, is already in process, in just the short amount of time since the eruption. That’s a fact and raising other questions about a world-wide flood doesn’t make it go away. So if science is wrong about the time needed for this, what else is it wrong about.

            One more thing. I don’t know all the issues about the type of rock, but that seems non-relevant to me since the canyon the first scientist films, that was created in days by the flood caused from the melted snow, has nothing to do with the lava flow at all. The type of rock wouldn’t matter. It wasn’t the lava that made the canyon. It was water (just like scientists believe made the Grand Canyon), but it wasn’t slow erosion. It was sudden and cataclysmic, a result of a flood. So I find her objections to be off point, not addressing what the video actually said.



    • Hi Steve. 🙂


  4. Good start!


  5. The best allegories are the short ones.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: