Ok, this was debated to some degree already i will post what answers were given already as i go along.

Questions:

how many of each kind of animal was taken into the ark? GEn.6 19 states 2 of each kind - 1 male and one female.

Gen: 7-2 states " of every CLEAN beast thou shalt take to thee by "sevens" [seven males, and 7 females]= 14? And the beast that are NOT CLEAN by 2 the male and his female." ??

these are to be of all animal kinds, cattle, creeping things [bugs,snakes,worms,etc..], birds.

No mention of oceanic or water animals?


Which is it guys??? - 2 of each kind - 6;19

or 16 of each kind -gen.;7-2????


Gen: cpt 9 vs 1 - " and god blessed Noah and his sons, and said, be fruitful and multiply and ""replenish"" the earth. [??]


well now this is bothersome to me - here's why -

In gen; 1-vs-28, god tells Adam and eve to be fruitful and multiply and >>replenish<< the earth also??

now i have alredy been told that the word "mahlaw" in hebrew means to to fill or be full and that it "does not" mean to resupply the earth as in regular english - replenish = plenish >>"again"??

to me before i had discussed this word i had accepted the fact that there was a previous race of mankind? but you tried to tell me that the meaning for that word was not correct within the text?

So now i approach it again on this basis:

The >>exact<< same word is used in the part in noah - and it most definitely means without question = to >> REPOPULATE<< the earth - it has to!!! there is no other choice!!! it CLEARLY states that all life has ceased to exsist except for noah and his family!! So now what? what will you tell me now??

3) - the aquatic life?

in my discussion with eljay on this - it was decided at that point that since it said nothing about all the aquatic life being destroyed but only earth bound [land] life to have been completely terminated, i let it go - now however on close examination i see a verse that says "everything under heaven? which i take to mean everything everywhere not just the land.

so were back to finding out this:

>IF< all the sea life was utterly destroyed, how did it return? if every living thing in the oceans and seas was destroyed - how could it have possibly come back?
noah had the land and air animals and that which creeped upon the land, but the SEA?? uh,uh,

so how then did the sealife again emerge? and if you say - well god probably brought it back again but there is no mention? Well then why did he not then destroy the other animals also and just start over again and mankind also? he seem's rather double minded in all his so called dealings with his creations on earth doncha think?

well i do!! ok explain all this please. and try to do it within the book as it stands not with untrustworthy exigesis of faulty concordences and other outside sources. thnx.

Oh, and were anything but through with this subject matter in genisis.

Sam,

Are you seriously considering that this doctrine might contain some inklings of twisted half-truths yet?

Clearly it's inconsistent in it's own descriptions. At the very best it is a distorted translation of an ancient story that has not been maintained in perfect detail.

At worse, it's a total fabricated myth, most likely inspired by a massive abnormal flood that actually occurred at some location on the earth. In fact, geologist have suggested several massive floods that have indeed occurred due to seismic activity.

Here's question for you. If the entire earth was covered with water, most of which would have been totally contaminated by ocean sea water. Then when the floods receded how were the fresh water lakes restored and how did the fresh water species of fishes and aquatic life find their way into the correct little tiny freshwater lakes?

Where did all the water drain off to? Where did it all come from?

It was supposed to be a miracle perform by an all-wise God?

Does that even remotely make sense?

An all-wise all-powerful God floods a whole entire planet just to get rid of sinning people?

If he can perform such grand miracles why not just give all those people heart-attacks, or cancer, or AIDS, or Chicken Pox?

The whole idea of flooding an entire planet to solve this problem is far from "wise". That would be a totally klutzy thing to do. That's the kind of solution you'd expect from a moron who's too drunk to think clearly.

It flies in the face of an all-wise all-powerful God.

Clearly the story was inspired by a local flood and the whole deal with the Ark was most likely made up after the facet to explain how the animals and a few individuals survived to carry on.

It's not even a very clever fable. But then most of what come of out of Mediterranean area during those times wasn't much better.

My answer to your questions is simple. The story makes no sense and flies in the face of a God who is supposed to be all-wise and capable of solving problems intelligently.

OK

this rabbit hole will be fun.

I'll bite.

first....

Noah spent 120 years building the thing.



second...

everyone was saying, "hey Noah, it ain't raining" every single day....



third....

everyone said to Noah, "hey Noah!. What are you building?" again, every single day.....

every day, mind you. reminds me of the kid in school that everyone teased all of the time.


fourth.....

I am a carpenter by trade, so I know that 120 years is a long time to stay focused on one project and wait to get paid.

every day he thought about that, too......


fifth........



anybody want to play with tribo's thread?

Absolutely not majik man, i dont hold to any of the stories in genisis. or really much of the old testament period except for archeology finds of any proofs of places or peoples that can be seen as pretty much irrefutable as of now, which is little. I just was reading and came across things that i found to be irrefutable as to what i had been told by others and decided to re-open the subject hahaha

So then, let's see. From the time of creations to the time of Noah HOW MANY YEARS do you suppose that is.

Then there was the time from the receeding waters that it would taken all the animals to go back to where they came, the earth time to re-grow and be suitable for planting. And what would they all live on.

The animals who were carnivors (sp?) had to eat something. The others had to have fruits, veggies, roots, including the humans.

The anteaters had to have ants, right?

ANYWAY, so how many years did it then take to replenish the earth.

Keep in mind here, that the earth is 6000 years old. It HAD to take thousands of years from Adam and Eve just to get to Noah. Then it had to be done all over again.

All that had to be accomplished in enough time for the rest of the bible to take place and THEN for 2000 more years to pass to get to today.

TIMING IS EVERYTHING, isn't it?

How could all of that have happened?

yup

and evolution has that covered allright.

with their inept timelines and in=maginary filling in of the gaps

so go ahead
tear it apart


I want to see this

Do christians hold that the dinosaurs died in the flood? if so what happened to leviathan a sea dwelling dragon creature, if as eljay said all was destroyed? can a sea/land creature drown? did the penguins drown also? were their penguins on the ark? to many unaswerable things?

Noah's Ark was around 2900 BC.

http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/populati.html

Let's say that from Adam and Eve's day until Noah started on the Ark is 1000 years. Let's assume a population growth rate of only 1.2% and a starting population of 2 (Adam and Eve). By Noah's days, there would be 303,069 people in the world.

Now let's be more realistic, let's say a population growth rate of 3% (about what most 3rd world countries are currently), that gives us a world population of 13,748,480,462,338 or 13.7 trillion people. Now that's simply births, not deaths, but I think you get the point.

The numbers game of "Young Earth" theory and/or Noah's Ark leans to the Christian side. It's not proof that the Bible is true, but it definitely doesn't disprove the Biblical account.

The story of Noah was a parable.

It was written to inspire the pure of heart. They are supposed to indentify with Noah, not the drown sinners.

The moral of the story is that nice people don't need to worry. God will take care of them.

Even in the face of an entire planet full of corrupt people, God saved the righteous ones. It's just a parable to convey to good people that they should never give up hope.

This story is then taken by the perverted sick minds of the fundamentalists who totally identify with the drown sinners, and they try to sell it off as what will happen to you if you are as sick and perverted as they are.

But they are suggesting that you'll be drown like them!

It's no wonder that they don't understand the story. All they can think about is their own wickedness. They see themselves as being the wicked people. And they are trying to point the finger at you accusing you of being like the wicked people too.

They have their minds entirely in the gutter. They can't identify with Noah because they can't imagine themselves being the worthy righteous person.

When you read the story of Noah and identify with the hero of the story instead of the villans, then you quickly see that it's a story of hope and encouragement. Just imagine that all the people who are being drown out are those nasty religious fundamentalists and the story becomes perfectly clear.

I'm glad that God decided not to do that anymore because I'm really not feeling up to building another Ark.

The Bible is full of parables. They make sense as parables to good natured people. It's only the people who are wicked to the core that imagine that the stories are true. They imagine that they are the villians in all of these stories and it scares them because they thing that God will really do those nasty things to them.

Maybe it's good that wicked people are terrified by these stories. It'll keep them in line.

The good natured people just don't see the need for all this foolishness.

Pantheism is God's religion for his good natured childern.

If your a bad person worship the Bible, if you're a good person then you're ready to move forward to pantheism.

Some of the dinosaurs would have died in the flood, but not all had to. Those which were on the Ark could have died off since then. The environment necessary for Dinosaur life probably doesn't exist anymore. They would need higher levels of oxygen and higher heat without the fluxuations we experiance.

Animals were loaded by kind, not species. There is no need to bring all Canines, when one pair will do nicely. Same way with most other types of animals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-392292/The-superlions-marooned-island.html

Lions trapped on an island for 15 years have changed so that now the females are as large as male mainland lions. Some of the lions hunt the swamps by travelling underwater and springing out of the water to pull down their prey. This is evidence that evolution is faster than Darwinists claim. This is an entirely new species of lion. They haven't developed anything new, but they have distinctly change in size and hunting tactics.

again and again the same mistake of principles trying to prove events in the Bible through scientific tools.
a scientist should not even discuss the Bible because the only function of the scientist is to see if certain phenomena can be proven under certain given circumstances, and that's it. It's not his/her job to find out the ontology of things, but their phenomenology.
the story of the ARK has one and just one purpose which is to give preview of what the baptism by water will become to be at some point after my Lord Jesus Christ established His Church.
What does baptism do? Clean the original sin of the baptized through water. In the same manner as the imagery of the flood was intended to clean the sin of the world.
Another important simbology or imagery of the flood is the number FORTY which also were the years that jews spent in the desert after leaving Egypt. And also the 40 days my Lord spent in the dessert before starting his public ministery.
Again metaphors, imagery, or simbology used by the sacred author in order to illustrate a theological principle.
Therefore, the study of the Bible is for the theologist under the light of faith, and not for the scientist under the light of science.

Keep seeking Tribo and you will find. I believe in Noah's Ark as actually happening. If you want to know more check out why seashells are found all over the world. In the mid west of the USA and all over the world. I don't worship the Bible, I worship God. Moses is credited to have written the 1st 5 books of the Bible as inspired by God. I believe. Faith can move mountains.

**Abra..I hope, for your sake that you are right, because whoa to you if you are wrong. I'd rather believe in my faith and be right, than not believe and be wrong.

Miguel,

if that is the spiritual purpose of the story i cant comment on it because it is for other faith in such matters as to its symbolism.

but explain why, if this is the case, all the rest of what i state and much, much, more to come is even there in the symbolic story? why bother?

is this just something for christian parents to tell their children? Being serious here my friend, really looking for your answer.

For if it is just a story to awe children as they grow i still don't see why all the detail of the story is necessary, it could have been written just as well without all the absolutes it states within? A child's story i believe would have been much simpler,shorter, and to the point don't you agree?

one thing is being children today.
another thing is humanity in its infancy which is the case in the time when this section of the Bible was written.
context my good friend, context.
remember there are 4,000 years between abraham and Jesus. And who knows how many years before Abraham all these allegories started.
Also remember that first eleven chapters of Genesis are a collection of several oral traditions (call it a myth if that makes you happy) common in the semitic tribes of the mediterranean.
The inspiration of the author was pedagogical. He was tryng to convey a God's revelation through an easy language that the man of those days with his culture and naivity could understand.

A lot of people treat religion like it's a gambling casino Donnar.

"Better safe than sorry", they say.

But any faith based on that principle is empty faith.

Do you honestly think that a God wouldn't see through that like a plate glass window?

You can't fool God Donnar. You either truly believe it, or you're living a lie. You might be able to kid yourself but if a God exists it won't fool him for a second.

You can't force yourself to believe anything. You either do, or you don't. It's really not even a choice.

You can't choose to believe in something that you don't truly believe. All you could possibly do is pretend to believe in it. But pretense is a lie.

I'm afraid I can't do that Donnar. The religion is totally absurd to me. The idea that the creator of this universe would demand blood sacrifices to appease him for disobedience is absurd to me. The idea that the creator of this universe would tell people to judge other and stone sinners to death is absurd to me. That's my God's honest truth Donnar.

If God can't handle honesty, then there's no place for me in God's heaven, I can assure you of that.

I go to God just as I am Donnar.

No pretense, no lies, no gambling bets.

Just as I am.

I believe that God is nicer than me.

If that turns out to be false, then will it really have mattered in the end?

abra says,

"Better safe than sorry", they say.

But any faith based on that principle is empty faith.




so, why do you bother, abra?

one must eat and live and do what one teaches and preaches.

as you wish.

that middle ground of yours in all of its charming ambiguity will not remove that which you teach from being your reward.


behold yourself in a mirror




you make absolutely no sense at all.

Preaching again Wouldee?

Like you say, one must eat and live and do what one teaches and preaches.

I've got to give you credit my friend. You certainly do practice what you preach.

yup.

and you are my student.

and I keep it simple for you abra.

you need it.


you need much more but you must be tired.

get some rest.


you can do some more kicking and screaming tomorrow when you feel better.

good night, abra.

The length and beam of Noah's ark compares with that of a 14000 ton Tanker.

The ark resembled a huge barge.
It was built just to float - it had no sails, oars, propellors or rudder.
It consisted of 3 decks and a 0.5 metre ventilation gap just below the roof, running it's full length.

It would have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed.

Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood.

The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.

Assuming an 18-inch cubit [45.72 centimeters], Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars.

Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?

John Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

There is an awful lot of questions to be garnered from that little lot. (Which is a google-led search)

IF it existed then physically the ark could have held that number of animals ....

Who the hell cleaned up after all that lot is beyond me.

So you're passing judgment on me eh?

What would the man from Galilee have to say about that Wouldee?

Owl bet he'd be real proud of you passing judgments on the spiritual status of other men.

In another thread you said,...



The best way to spit in the face of Christ Wouldee is to ignore what he taught and use his name to judge other men.

The shame of it all all Wouldee.

Just for your writing pleasure allow me to suggest a new word for the day,...

Hypocrite - a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold to in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives.

Yup.

It's a interesting word Wouldee.

Have a good day.

Let me know tomorrow if I should bring a lawyer to defend myself against your judgments. I think full discloser is only fair don't you?