Flood Question

[JSynon]

A question that I see asked often and I have no answer: How did two of each unclean animal and seven of each clean animal fit onto the ark?

 

[Bushido216]

They didn't. This is one of the issues that many people have with the Flood being a literal event.

It is more likely that the Flood Myth was a Sumerian (I think, possibly Babylonian, someone can correct me on this) myth exapted by the Hebrews to a) show a point and b) show a point using previously pagan / non-Hebrew myths to appeal to the non-Hebrews.

 

[Crusading_Ostrich]

They didn't. This is one of the issues that many people have with the Flood being a literal event.

I disagree. I believe the flood to be a literal event. From what I've read, (the very little of it), the ark was very big. As in huge. There was lots of room in it. It could be possible that the animals were not full grown, so you would not have two full grown elephants on the ark, but rather elephantlets.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

And the feeding and mucking out of this huge menagerie was achieved by Noah, his wife and their three sons how exactly?

 

[JSynon]

Ha, elephantlets.

The ark was very big... but was it big enough to hold all those animals, enough food for them and Noah's family, and all their waste? I suppose the waste could be disposed of in the water, but what of all the animals and their food?

 

[Bushido216]

All built by one family in less than a year I believe. And, for that matter, where in the desert did all of that wood originate from?

 

[mhess13]

All built by one family in less than a year I believe. And, for that matter, where in the desert did all of that wood originate from?

You are assuming it was a desert. The pre-flood world was much different. Also, provide scripture and verse to show that it was built in one year or by one family. The ark may have taken a hundred years or more to build and supposing the job was too big for one family,couldn't Noah have hired help????

 

[Vance]

If the flood was a literal event, it had to have been a local flood, and the animals were those used by Noah, which is entirely possible logistically.

 

[JSynon]

Why did it have to be local?

 

[mhess13]

Why did it have to be local?

Because that will accomodate his non-literal reading of Genesis

 

[Vance]

Why did it have to be local?

First of all, a worldwide flood has been scientifically falsified. That means that not only is there no valid evidence for a global flood, the evidence we have specifically disproves a global flood. There are a number of threads over in the Creation and Evolution forum which set out all this evidence. No creationist has ever been able to refute any of it.

In addition to the scientific evidence, we have the historical and cultural evidence. Most Creationist organizations (AiG, ICR, etc) set the flood based on a literal reading of the genealogies (they have to do this in order to maintain their consistency of literal reading). This places the flood right in the middle of at least four major early cultures, the Egyptian, Sumerian, Chinese and the Indus Valley (as an historian, I am only well-read on the Egyptian). These cultures were flourishing before the proposed flood date and after the flood date. Now, some Creationists assert that after the flood, these areas were just repopulated. This is simply not possible. There is no evidence of even a blip in the historical radar of such an event as the complete wiping out of the entire culture and replacement by a handful of foreigners. The culture, writing, language and (here is the kicker) RELIGION is all the same before and after the proposed flood date. Everything about the culture just continues right on as if nothing happened.

Lastly, there is the literal text itself. The term for "the whole earth" is "kol erets", which can mean the actual land, a people, a local area or, in a few instances, the whole planet as they knew it. This term is used hundred of times in the Bible. More than 2/3 of the time, it is used to mean a local area and NOT the whole planet. Further, there is a BETTER phrase in Hebrew which only means the whole planet, and that term is NOT used.

If we read "the whole of the land that we live in" (or a similar phrase, given the context) rather than the "whole earth", the story makes just as much sense.

So, with two different possible translations of the Hebrew, one referring to a local area, which matches with the scientific evidence and which is actually a more common use of the word, the other which has been shown to be not scientifically possible and is a less common usage in Scripture, why would you choose the latter?

 

[Remus]

Ha, elephantlets.

The ark was very big... but was it big enough to hold all those animals, enough food for them and Noah's family, and all their waste? I suppose the waste could be disposed of in the water, but what of all the animals and their food?

The ark was 450' wide and 75' wide and it had 3 levels. That gives us over 100,000 ft^2. To put that into perspective, that's more area than two football fields (without the endzones). This doesn't count any stacking that might have been possible. How many animals could fit in an area like that?

Check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-9403514-5783269?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I haven't read it myself, but I've heard good things about it.

 

[Andy D]

But for those who do believe in the flood being an actual event, this is an interesting thread to learn about the ark I'd love to see some good information/links posted.

 

[Remus]

Here's a few links:
Size problem:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm
http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta42.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

Time problem:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-136b.htm

Genesis Flood vs. Gilgamesh:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-285.htm

 

[United]

If the flood was a literal event, it had to have been a local flood, and the animals were those used by Noah, which is entirely possible logistically.

Right on the money Vance - exactly what I was going to add. We don't share all of the same beliefs, but I often find myself echoing your comments - and when I don't, I can at least admire the respect & manner in which you write your emails. Thanks.

 

[Micaiah]

First of all, a worldwide flood has been scientifically falsified. That means that not only is there no valid evidence for a global flood, the evidence we have specifically disproves a global flood. There are a number of threads over in the Creation and Evolution forum which set out all this evidence. No creationist has ever been able to refute any of it.

First of all, a worldwide flood has been scientifically proven. That means that not only is there valid evidence for a global flood, the evidence we have specifically proves a global flood. There are a number of threads here and on Christian sites which set out all this evidence. No evolutionist has ever been able to prove that a global flood did not occur.
Well there goes another elephant.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

First of all, a worldwide flood has been scientifically proven. That means that not only is there valid evidence for a global flood

Present it.

the evidence we have specifically proves a global flood.

It proves no such thing.

There are a number of threads here and on Christian sites which set out all this evidence.

And there are endless threads which show why the flood conclusion is wrong.

No evolutionist has ever been able to prove that a global flood did not occur.

Nonsense. There are threads full of refutations.

 

[Vance]

Yes, if you are going to claim that the entire scientific world which has studied these matters without a religious bias is incorrect, you must provide the evidence. The evidence falsifying a young earth and a global flood has been presented in excruciating detail in numerous threads, and that evidence has not refuted with valid science. If you have a link to a thread which sets out the scientific evidence which proves a recent global flood (ie, within the young earth time frame), then provide it.

Hint: we have reviewed all the psuedo-science presented on sites like AiG and ICR and their arguments just don't hold up in the least.

 

[Remus]

Main question is did all of mankind and animals, except what was on the ark, die in this flood even if it's local?

 

[mhess13]

If it was only a local flood why didn't God just tell Noah to move instead of spending several decades building this big boat. Moving would have been much more sensible, don't ya think?