Do they have anything to say about how even if all the ice on Earth melted the global waterline would only raise a couple dozen feet at most and there's nowhere near enough water on the planet to submerge and sizable chunk of land?
Run on's FTW!
Cite your sources OMG! In religion vs science debates, it's hard to tell when the "science" is actually inaccurate data taken on faith.
Looks like I was a bit off. According to wikipedia (for what it's worth), the greenland ice sheet melting would raise it by 7 meters and the entirety of Antarctica looks to be about 70 meters. So about 250 feet. A lot more than a couple dozen but still not enough to drown the world.
Did it ever say that Noah circumnavigated the globe? As far as he knew, he had nothing but time. It's not like he was going around looking for land, he was just floating near where he started, waiting for the water to drop. And don't forget that almost all of the land formations were created by that very flood. The Earth was rather smooth by comparison back then.
JESUS! Even that scenario makes it sound stupid. How'd all of the fish survive the extreme change when the salt-water and fresh water mixed?
What about plant life? Even if he only needed one of each, how did he fit a redwood on his boat without completely killing it? How could he have saved deep water fish? I'm pretty interested in how big this ark would have to be since it apparently contained two of every organism ever.
Where'd the flood water go anyway? I'm assuming God just took it away but does the bible ever specificly say anything?
So according to this racism is good, gravity is a lie, and how to make cigars is in the bible? Wow...sad to think some people might actualy belive this crap.
Also, what did the animals eat? Did he bring a couple extra deer or something for the carnivores and have the herbivores just kind of chew on the walls? Or were they given some kind of holy oats or something that kept them from getting hungry for fourty days?
All right, I'm pulling up the original text now (New King James Version, available for reference at bible.com, bold emphasis within passages is mine). To answer the origin of the flood water questions:
According to wikipedia (for what it's worth), the greenland ice sheet melting would raise it by 7 meters and the entirety of Antarctica looks to be about 70 meters. So about 250 feet. A lot more than a couple dozen but still not enough to drown the world.
Where'd the flood water go anyway? I'm assuming God just took it away but does the bible ever specificly say anything?
And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.
That could easily be interpreted as bringing water where there previously was none, so that solves the problem of insufficient water to flood the world. And here's where it went:
Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided. The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.
Further evidence of the water coming from heaven, therefore not subject to the planet's normal water capacity. Then the waters receded "from the earth", as in left it completely. That was easy. Next question!
So it came to pass, at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made. Then he sent out a raven, which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth. He also sent out from himself a dove, to see if the waters had receded from the face of the ground. But the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, and she returned into the ark to him, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself. And he waited yet another seven days, and again he sent the dove out from the ark. Then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth.
Plants were not onboard the Ark, and presumably survived the flood, since they were not animals and therefore not subject to God's cleansing the Earth of the sinful.
The passages I'm reading don't talk about what those on the Ark ate, but that's a pretty nitpicky question to ask. God's not gonna leave Noah high and dry (pun intended). For the record though, there were, in fact, more than two of the "clean animals" (kosher, suitable for eating, what-have-you), and I can only assume their purpose was for livestock:
Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth.
Maybe not enough to sustain the T. rexes, but it probably helped repopulate cattle herds and the like a little quicker. Also, since this makes no mention of fish, we can only assume they survived the flood as well, as the flood passages only make reference to the beats of the ground and the air from being flooded out:
And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.
Not too shabby answerin', if I do say so myself, and devoid of any uninformed rhetoric or made-up shit about plant-eating Velociraptors! That's all straight from the Good Book! Any more questions?
Since we have (if I remember correctly) the exact dimensions of the Ark, and assuming that one who takes the story of the Ark literally also does not believe in so-called macro-evolution, is it indeed possible for Noah to have taken with him two of every single species, including, as mentioned earlier, the billions of species of insects, the many species of elephant, rhinoceros, etc? One would think that the sheer diversity of life would make such a goal impossible.
But millions of insects, one of each gender, are HUGEAMUNGUS. I think, anyway. Maybe I'm wrong.. maybe all land-dwelling and avian life on this planet COULD fit into the Ark. It seems unlikely, but I've never done the math. I'm allergic to math.
Maybe the math isn't as important as the message the story brings, and we shouldn't get all caught up with fact-checking the Bible or comparing it to scientific evidence because the only thing that matters is that it's a collection of stories meant to inspire.
Also I believe that there are many many many animals that reproduce asexually (including some insects), so they might only need one of each of those.
Well, of course I agree with you, Mario, and it would be wonderful if all Christians considered that a possibility. There are a lot of things in the Bible that SHOULD be considered as wisdom, or at least thinking material, even to non-Christians. But not everyone sees it that way... there are those who would throw away every lesson in the Bible, and there are those who would take it word for word.
Should we actively seek out holes in the word for word viewpoint, though? Hmm..
Until I learn Hebrew and Latin, and what ever else I might need, I'm not going to base anything on the exact words in the Bible. People can't even be trusted to properly translate the McDonald's slogan into other languages. How are they going to properly convey God's word into English?
See, behemoth, the problem is that the masoretic texts (the source of the hebrew bible, and thus the main bulk of the old testament) were written in about...200BC-ish, which was written in part aramaic and part classic hebrew. Either way, learning modern hebrew will be of no help, as any modern hebrew translation may also inaccurate.
Comments
Cite your sources OMG! In religion vs science debates, it's hard to tell when the "science" is actually inaccurate data taken on faith.
JESUS! Even that scenario makes it sound stupid. How'd all of the fish survive the extreme change when the salt-water and fresh water mixed?
Where'd the flood water go anyway? I'm assuming God just took it away but does the bible ever specificly say anything?
(reference)
That could easily be interpreted as bringing water where there previously was none, so that solves the problem of insufficient water to flood the world. And here's where it went:
(reference)
Further evidence of the water coming from heaven, therefore not subject to the planet's normal water capacity. Then the waters receded "from the earth", as in left it completely. That was easy. Next question!
(reference)
Plants were not onboard the Ark, and presumably survived the flood, since they were not animals and therefore not subject to God's cleansing the Earth of the sinful.
The passages I'm reading don't talk about what those on the Ark ate, but that's a pretty nitpicky question to ask. God's not gonna leave Noah high and dry (pun intended). For the record though, there were, in fact, more than two of the "clean animals" (kosher, suitable for eating, what-have-you), and I can only assume their purpose was for livestock:
(reference)
Maybe not enough to sustain the T. rexes, but it probably helped repopulate cattle herds and the like a little quicker. Also, since this makes no mention of fish, we can only assume they survived the flood as well, as the flood passages only make reference to the beats of the ground and the air from being flooded out:
(reference)
Not too shabby answerin', if I do say so myself, and devoid of any uninformed rhetoric or made-up shit about plant-eating Velociraptors! That's all straight from the Good Book! Any more questions?
Also I believe that there are many many many animals that reproduce asexually (including some insects), so they might only need one of each of those.
Should we actively seek out holes in the word for word viewpoint, though? Hmm..
Why is it called "The Good Book?" Shouldn't it be called the "Great Book," or perhaps even the "Perfect Book?" Or how about "The Bwst Book?"
Now all we need is the perfect Cliff's Notes.