Evidence for God from Science

A basic rule for interpreting just about any lengthy document or book - be it the US Constitution or the Bible or Fun With **** And Jane - is to take any part of it in context. The context for the story of Noah is Genesis chapters 6,7,8, and 9. If DTT lacked the respect for the Bible to spend the 10 or 20 minutes to read the entire story, where, as Jac pointed out, he would have found the answer to his question, who, until Jac, did any better?

But the part of scripture I quoted clearly says two of each kind (whether clean or unclean) If my bit is wrong, why is it in the bible?

DTT, the first two sentences in my paragraph above should not have been necessary, but obviously they were. Though not of modern styling (and you chose the KJV for your quote, which is early 17th Century English), Genesis 6-9 are the full account of the Flood. The writer of Genesis made clear in the two verses Jac quoted exactly what Noah was commanded to do. It may simply be that in writing the less complete and simpler accounts of the command given Noah and the embarking of the animals, the writer thought it unnecessary to spell out the exact details each and every time. IOW, the writer relied on the memory of those who would read it.

And if your bit is right, how did Noah know about clean and unclean animals, given that Leviticus - in which such things are described - hadn't been written?

That Leviticus has the first recorded definition of "clean" and "unclean" animals - the definition given to Israel - does not preclude Noah knowing what God meant. It just means the writer of Genesis didn't record how Noah acquired that knowledge.

Another point my daughter made to me, besides what Jac pointed out, is that Noah, his family, and the animals were on the ark for nearly a year. It is entirely possible that the ark's population at the end of that year might have been greater than it was at the start. Need I explain?

PeteSinCA wrote:A basic rule for interpreting just about any lengthy document or book - be it the US Constitution or the Bible or Fun With **** And Jane - is to take any part of it in context. The context for the story of Noah is Genesis chapters 6,7,8, and 9. If DTT lacked the respect for the Bible to spend the 10 or 20 minutes to read the entire story, where, as Jac pointed out, he would have found the answer to his question, who, until Jac, did any better?

But the part of scripture I quoted clearly says two of each kind (whether clean or unclean) If my bit is wrong, why is it in the bible?

DTT, the first two sentences in my paragraph above should not have been necessary, but obviously they were. Though not of modern styling (and you chose the KJV for your quote, which is early 17th Century English), Genesis 6-9 are the full account of the Flood. The writer of Genesis made clear in the two verses Jac quoted exactly what Noah was commanded to do. It may simply be that in writing the less complete and simpler accounts of the command given Noah and the embarking of the animals, the writer thought it unnecessary to spell out the exact details each and every time. IOW, the writer relied on the memory of those who would read it.

And if your bit is right, how did Noah know about clean and unclean animals, given that Leviticus - in which such things are described - hadn't been written?

That Leviticus has the first recorded definition of "clean" and "unclean" animals - the definition given to Israel - does not preclude Noah knowing what God meant. It just means the writer of Genesis didn't record how Noah acquired that knowledge.

Another point my daughter made to me, besides what Jac pointed out, is that Noah, his family, and the animals were on the ark for nearly a year. It is entirely possible that the ark's population at the end of that year might have been greater than it was at the start. Need I explain?

Do you think there would have been room on the ark for *more*animals?

Also, do you think that the animals would have been able to reproduce quickly enough to increase in number *and* to feed all the carnivores? If they were there for a year, they would have had to eat something. I can't being to guess what the vegetarian animals ate. Some of them are very specific about what they like to eat - take Panda's, for example. And hummingbirds.

And how did Noah manage to track down over 400,000 varieties of beetle?

And how did he get the insects to breed on the Ark? Some species of Drosophila can't be bred in artificial conditions now, but have a life cycle of a lot less than a year. Noah, somehow, found all the insects, got them all on the ark, prevented them being eaten or squashed *and* got them all to breed and so must have had some very specialised environments on board. To stop the insects being eaten, he must have kept them in cages of some sort, so goodness knows how he found time to actually feed all 950,000 + pairs. Or made room for them all.

DowTingTom,

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

Please do a search on the home site. All those questions are answered there.

DTT,

May I also point out that when you move from one answer directly to other questions, it doesn't sound at all like you are asking from a place of interest but rather that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing . . . I think your first question has been answered pretty thoroughly from two perspectives: both a local and global flood. I can't help but notice, though, that you then moved to attack the two perspectives on completely unrelated grounds.

Just fyi . . . do with it what you will.

I need to learn manners and courtesy from you, Jac, .

I can promise you, Pete, that there are people spitting their drink all over the screen as they read that.

Jac3510 wrote:I can promise you, Pete, that there are people spitting their drink all over the screen as they read that.

Pete, if you only knew the half of it!

What we have hear is a classic example of antagonistic elephant hurling. Jac, offered a concise explanation which answered the original question. The text states "seven" of every clean animal. The question was asked and answered with a perfectly legitimate explanation from the text. For no logical reason, the answer was rejected, and then a barrage of other objections are launched. This is a textbook example of an antagonist.

Do you think there would have been room on the ark for *more*animals?

The thought is that there was room enough for every livng person, if they had beleived God and sought salvation on board the ark.

Also, do you think that the animals would have been able to reproduce quickly enough to increase in number *and* to feed all the carnivores? If they were there for a year, they would have had to eat something. I can't being to guess what the vegetarian animals ate. Some of them are very specific about what they like to eat - take Panda's, for example. And hummingbirds.

Unlikely, in my opinion, that they would have reproduced on the ark. One theory is that a form of hibernation was in effect, which would of course reduce the amount of food required, as well as waste clean-up, etc.

And how did Noah manage to track down over 400,000 varieties of beetle?

Who says he had to track down any creature? Genesis 10:6 says, "two of every sort shall come unto thee."

Who says he had to track down any creature? Genesis 10:6 says, "two of every sort shall come unto thee."

Yet another example of not having the minimal respect for the text to actually learn what it says. Or minimal awareness that folks here might do (or have done) what he would not.

Per the text, the ark was to be, "300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high", with three decks. A cubit was 18"-24", so each deck could have been as much as 33,750 square feet, and the total volume as much as 1.5 million cubic feet. IOW, not the cute little boat of some children's Sunday School literature or comic strips.

As usual, it comes down to HOW the reader decised to take the text ( not so much how the writer(s) wrote it and to whom and why).
Is the text literal AND concrete?
Is it simply literal? ( in line with the literary genre).

If a person chooses to view the text as literal and concrete when all the evidence seems to point to it not being correct, the person has choices to make:
He/She can try to reconcile the text based on what is KNOWN and how/why it was written in its time.
He/She can "ignore" the evidence or simply view it as being wrong.
He/she can view the text as being wrong.

OK, I just looked at my post at the top of the page. I promise, promise, promise that what I underlined is the title of a First Grade Reader used in the US in the 50s and 60s!

PeteSinCA wrote: OK, I just looked at my post at the top of the page. I promise, promise, promise that what I underlined is the title of a First Grade Reader used in the US in the 50s and 60s!

Trying to circumvent the bad word filter are we?

Try this one on for size: **** Van [lesbian].

Anyone wanna guess?

RickD wrote:

PeteSinCA wrote: OK, I just looked at my post at the top of the page. I promise, promise, promise that what I underlined is the title of a First Grade Reader used in the US in the 50s and 60s!

Trying to circumvent the bad word filter are we?

Try this one on for size: **** Van [lesbian].

Anyone wanna guess?

Um, is it this guy?:

Wow, it looks like we've been straying off topic. XD

Yes, your FriedIntellect has served you well.

Chitty Chitty bang bang we love you.