I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone has ever come up with a solid picture of just how 'scarcely-populated' the Ark really was.
You're talking about an event that already defies our understanding of geology, genetics, evolution, etc., etc. Fitting and sustaining a large population of animals and plants doesn't seem any more difficult for an omnipotent being than making the water appear and reappear without what mainstream geology considers a trace. Where are you getting the notion that the ark was scarcely populated? If that notion makes the flood story easier to understand, what other extra-textual interpretations are you willing to make to make it even easier to understand?
I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone has ever come up with a solid picture of just how 'scarcely-populated' the Ark really was.
it was really scarce compared to the vast amount of animals that have ever existed.
but really that is what to expect from folks that have never seen a platypus
__________________ Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu!
I'm hoping to show that not nearly -- (not even close to...) -- as many animals had to board the Ark as some think.
Picture this as an oversimplified example:
The Ark comes to rest with just the aforementioned animals (plus Noah and his family) aboard.
The unicorns disembark -- go out -- get pregnant and give birth to another unicorn, a horse, a cow, a lion and a tiger.
They get pregnant again and give birth to a hippopotamus, a platypus, an aardvark, etc.
See where I'm coming with this?
A kind is an animal with DNA specially encoded for punctuated equilibrium; and because of them, you don't need the Ark crammed full of every living creature in existence at the time, and you don't need long explanations as to how tree sloths got from the Ark to where they're found today, etc.
Sure. Unicorns came out of the ark and gave birth to hippos, aardvarks and lions. Just keep making stuff up and call it "God's Word."
The point of the passages in question was that pairs of all the animals that the writers knew of, went on the ark, and then came out and repopulated the land. Period. Done. Finished. It really isn't very complicated. Youa re just making a perfectly nice story seem ridiculous.
__________________ "When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land."
-Archbishop Desmond Tutu
"The fables of so called science are gross darkness and evil."
-God's One True Prophet on Earth, dad
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
I'll call it what I called it in my post: 'an oversimplified example'.
An oversimplified example of.... what? Based on...... what?
__________________ "When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land."
-Archbishop Desmond Tutu
"The fables of so called science are gross darkness and evil."
-God's One True Prophet on Earth, dad
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone has ever come up with a solid picture of just how 'scarcely-populated' the Ark really was.
What version of the Bible are you reading?
Oh, wait! I found a version that says this: "Gen 6: 5.5 : God shrunk each animal down into the size of a pinhead and then just threw them all in a bucket and gave them to Noah."
Now I UNDERSTAND. Your Bible must also have 0.5 verses inserted between the other verses as well.
Also, did the unicorns give birth to all the bacteria too? All the microbes? All the species of dust mites?
Don't you see how ridiculous this sounds? You're talking about UNICORNS giving birth to AARDVARKS?
I sometimes think that AV is just messing with us to be funny....but then I remember he's serious.
(Why is it not ok to see that the flood story could be an allegorical exaggeration with a spiritual or moral meaning but does not indeed have to be literal?...)
__________________ -Happiness is not the reward for perfection.---I strongly support the faith that Jesus describes in the Gospels and strive to live the Christian life.----I am a skeptic of both faith and science. Neither is adequate to describe reality or truth.----"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Gandhi
(Why is it not ok to see that the flood story could be an allegorical exaggeration with a spiritual or moral meaning but does not indeed have to be literal?...)
Right -- that's what you want, isn't it?
Then what? Jonah in the whale's belly? Daniel in the lions' den? the virgin birth? the resurrection?
Linear Mode
