Evidence for God from Science

<Quote="Genesis 7: 8-9">Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.</quote>

<Quote="Genesis 8 19:20">Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.</quote>

So two of each clean animal went on to the Ark, and then Noah killed them 40 days later when the flood was over - and of course

<Quote="Genesis 7: 21-22">And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died"</quote>

so there were no more of them. In summary, there were lots of 'clean' animals, God drowned all but two of each type and then Noah killed those.

So how come there were any left to describe as "clean" in Leviticus? Between them, God and Noah had killed them all long before then. (And how did Noah which ones were "clean" and "unclean" before God had given the rules in Leviticus?)

simply because not all animals were on that boat.

neo-x wrote:simply because not all animals were on that boat.

But the ones that weren't on the boat drowned - the bible is quite clear on that.

"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died""

not really, the flood could not have been global, it must be local, and if such, then yes its okay to persume that the animals in a certain area died.

neo-x wrote:not really, the flood could not have been global, it must be local, and if such, then yes its okay to persume that the animals in a certain area died.

So you think the bible is wrong when it says "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died"

And when it says

"Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."

The passage above specifically states that God destroyed all living creatures. Not just locally.

no tom, land only means land, it does not mean the entire planet.

here is a snippet for you from an earlier discussion.
*****
"The word “earth” as is used in the account of Genesis’ flood and other parts of it, never actually means planet Earth. That is where most confusion lies. The Hebrew word used here is “Erets” (Strong’s Dictionary number H776) which means land, country, soil, ground. To my delight, there is indeed a word in Hebrew which when used means the whole world or inhabited world and that is tebel (Strong’s H8398). The important thing to note is that Tebel is never used once in the account of the Noah’s flood, not once. In-fact only Kol (meaning “all”)-Erets is used through out. Kol-Erets meaning “all land” or all ground. It is also treated a few times as ” specific number of people within a boundary”.

Here is how the account of the genesis flood starts:

Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. (Genesis 6:11)

And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. (Genesis 6:12)

Now use the Hebrew word in it and you will see what it really means:

Now the land (erets) was corrupt in the sight of God, and the land (erets) was filled with violence. (Genesis 6:11)

And God looked on the land (erets), and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the land (erets). (Genesis 6:12)

Makes some sense, right? So you can immediately see the account of the flood does not even has to begin with the entire planet scenario. It simply is not there. What is there, is the land which makes up the Mesopotamian flood plain.

Still not satisfied? Here is another one. In the story of the tower of Babel, it is written:

“The (Kol) whole (Erets) earth used the same language.”

You can see right there that earth, can not mean planet earth. It means, people who lived within that immediate region. The Hebrew here is Kol-Erets, again meaning the whole land. But it does not mean the whole planet. This is equal to saying:

There is famine in all the land.

If you say this to someone, they will ask you which land are you talking about? No one will assume that you meant the entire planet had famine on it. To the writers of the old testament, using the word land made perfect sense because in that case it was their own land which the Hebrew word Erets referred to. The word Erets is always used to describe land, local geographic piece of land, throughout the entire Old Testament. Not once, is it used to mean the whole planet.

It is similar to God saying “I will flood all the land”, but this does not mean “all the planet” or “all the earth”.

The problem is, since the early translators of English used “earth” as also meaning “land” or “ground”, they gave the old English translations a bit of a scholarly touch, more than it fairly merited. And thus we have an array of people trying to justify the global flood because the word “earth” is used in their English bibles, the true Hebrew word simply means “land“.

Though earth, in English does mean land. I think more people are so simple minded that they do not actually think about this mostly. The though immediately jumps to all of the earth rather than land. And the thing is the flood has been so long preached and understood as global that each English translation of the Bible seems to use words which tend to go toward a global flood theory. It surprised me to some extent when I first came to study this because even modern translations of the Bible treat the word “Erets” as land elsewhere just fine, consider this:

The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)

Right here they translate the word perfectly but in Genesis 6, they shift gears and use the word earth where they should be using land. However for those of you who like to know more, there may be a good reason for this too. You see, in Genesis 6 the word “earth” in a few lines also means “people“, and not land or planet. This is as typical as saying, the world has gone mad; now you really do not mean the land or the planet, you mean the people (not all people to be precise for all can not be mad). I think this may be one reason why the translations do tend to stick to the “earth” and not ”land”. Earth (as in land inhabited by humans) means that people are being referred, which the word land, alone does not address. In my opinion it may be that the use of both may have seemed inconsistent and that is why they chose to stick with “earth” even when it gave double meanings. However this use is also, more of a literary device than a specific.e.g.

Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 100:1). Obviously people can shout, not the planet and its burning core.

And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth [erets]. (Genesis 41:57) As you can see people from Australia did not come to buy grain from Egypt. Since the famine was in the “land” not in Australia.

As you can see above are two distinct different uses of the same words. One carries poetic metaphor, one is literal.
********

also consider this:

Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7,)

After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NIV)

Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NASB)

By the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NIV)

and in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. (Genesis 8:14, NASB)

By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry. (Genesis 8:14, NIV)

Please see these verses. If I go by your theory here, the entire water on the face of the “planet” just dried up? No. Obviously, it is the local flood water. But notice how the scriptures put this. “The earth was completely dry”. Can the planet be completely dry? not planet earth. Only land can be completely dry and that is what the text is saying.

neo-x wrote:no tom, land only means land, it does not mean the entire planet.

here is a snippet for you from an earlier discussion.
*****
"The word “earth” as is used in the account of Genesis’ flood and other parts of it, never actually means planet Earth. That is where most confusion lies. The Hebrew word used here is “Erets” (Strong’s Dictionary number H776) which means land, country, soil, ground. To my delight, there is indeed a word in Hebrew which when used means the whole world or inhabited world and that is tebel (Strong’s H8398). The important thing to note is that Tebel is never used once in the account of the Noah’s flood, not once. In-fact only Kol (meaning “all”)-Erets is used through out. Kol-Erets meaning “all land” or all ground. It is also treated a few times as ” specific number of people within a boundary”.

Here is how the account of the genesis flood starts:

Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. (Genesis 6:11)

And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. (Genesis 6:12)

Now use the Hebrew word in it and you will see what it really means:

Now the land (erets) was corrupt in the sight of God, and the land (erets) was filled with violence. (Genesis 6:11)

And God looked on the land (erets), and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the land (erets). (Genesis 6:12)

Makes some sense, right? So you can immediately see the account of the flood does not even has to begin with the entire planet scenario. It simply is not there. What is there, is the land which makes up the Mesopotamian flood plain.

Still not satisfied? Here is another one. In the story of the tower of Babel, it is written:

“The (Kol) whole (Erets) earth used the same language.”

You can see right there that earth, can not mean planet earth. It means, people who lived within that immediate region. The Hebrew here is Kol-Erets, again meaning the whole land. But it does not mean the whole planet. This is equal to saying:

There is famine in all the land.

If you say this to someone, they will ask you which land are you talking about? No one will assume that you meant the entire planet had famine on it. To the writers of the old testament, using the word land made perfect sense because in that case it was their own land which the Hebrew word Erets referred to. The word Erets is always used to describe land, local geographic piece of land, throughout the entire Old Testament. Not once, is it used to mean the whole planet.

It is similar to God saying “I will flood all the land”, but this does not mean “all the planet” or “all the earth”.

The problem is, since the early translators of English used “earth” as also meaning “land” or “ground”, they gave the old English translations a bit of a scholarly touch, more than it fairly merited. And thus we have an array of people trying to justify the global flood because the word “earth” is used in their English bibles, the true Hebrew word simply means “land“.

Though earth, in English does mean land. I think more people are so simple minded that they do not actually think about this mostly. The though immediately jumps to all of the earth rather than land. And the thing is the flood has been so long preached and understood as global that each English translation of the Bible seems to use words which tend to go toward a global flood theory. It surprised me to some extent when I first came to study this because even modern translations of the Bible treat the word “Erets” as land elsewhere just fine, consider this:

The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)

Right here they translate the word perfectly but in Genesis 6, they shift gears and use the word earth where they should be using land. However for those of you who like to know more, there may be a good reason for this too. You see, in Genesis 6 the word “earth” in a few lines also means “people“, and not land or planet. This is as typical as saying, the world has gone mad; now you really do not mean the land or the planet, you mean the people (not all people to be precise for all can not be mad). I think this may be one reason why the translations do tend to stick to the “earth” and not ”land”. Earth (as in land inhabited by humans) means that people are being referred, which the word land, alone does not address. In my opinion it may be that the use of both may have seemed inconsistent and that is why they chose to stick with “earth” even when it gave double meanings. However this use is also, more of a literary device than a specific.e.g.

Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 100:1). Obviously people can shout, not the planet and its burning core.

And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth [erets]. (Genesis 41:57) As you can see people from Australia did not come to buy grain from Egypt. Since the famine was in the “land” not in Australia.

As you can see above are two distinct different uses of the same words. One carries poetic metaphor, one is literal.
********

also consider this:

Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7,)

After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6-7, NIV)

Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NASB)

By the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:13a, NIV)

and in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. (Genesis 8:14, NASB)

By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry. (Genesis 8:14, NIV)

Please see these verses. If I go by your theory here, the entire water on the face of the “planet” just dried up? No. Obviously, it is the local flood water. But notice how the scriptures put this. “The earth was completely dry”. Can the planet be completely dry? not planet earth. Only land can be completely dry and that is what the text is saying.

All very interesting explanations - but they ignore the fact that the bible reports God as saying he killed all living things:

"The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."

I think you are overlooking the proverbial usage here, re read what i wrote, if the words mean land, then it automatically means that the flood is local and all living creatures refer to the immediate in the area.

neo-x wrote:I think you are overlooking the proverbial usage here, re read what i wrote, if the words mean land, then it automatically means that the flood is local and all living creatures refer to the immediate in the area.

So God was saying he'd never again destroy all animals in a "local" area you think?

That clearly is not the case. When a volcano erupts, all the animals nearby die. When a tsunami comes, all the animals drown. When a sinkhole appears, all the animals that fall in die.

Was God lying? Or is this bit of the bible wrong too?

God was saying that he will not punish the world with flood, its not the flood which is in question but God's justice. In other words, floods, earthquakes will of course come, as they have always been but it won't be because God's justice.

neo-x wrote:God was saying that he will not punish the world with flood, its not the flood which is in question but God's justice. In other words, floods, earthquakes will of course come, as they have always been but it won't be because God's justice.

So "never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." means he didn't destroy all living creatures, just a bit of localised destruction - and he will do the same again, but not because he's seeking justice (because he was mistaken in doing it that way?)

It's funny how it doesn't say anything like that, isn't it?

Tom, the only reason I am explaining this bit to you is because I wish for you to see what you are reading wrongly in the text. You think you have the bible because you can read an english version of it. PLease! step back take a deep breath and ask yourself if this is such an issue, why we are not seeing it? It only seems to be a problem for those who read everything literally. The whole world mourned lady diana, my kid can eat all the ice cream in the world. like every language has its hyperbole, its certainly is not any bother to me what you make of it, but on a friendly note I wanted to guide you. I even showed you the original meaning of texts. And how when you apply that you dont have to have a world full of water scenario. because if thats true then of course the story is wrong. The problem, is technically it does not say what you are claiming, it only looks like that because you are reading the hyperbole as in literary.

I am more than sure you won't agree with me, and neither am I going to agree with you, mainly because you are simply not qualified to offer critical insight to the text, you are not aware of the nuances of how ancients people wrote books. My attempt to show you the error in your thinking was to help you see it. From there its upto you, you can have your opinion and everyone has one so there is no big deal about it. We can each voice it and be done with it. But if you are going to convince me of the critical interpretation of text you would need more than a english bible and a plain reading of it.

Ignoring arguments about the extent of the flood (I hold to a global flood, by the way), the reason is simple enough and directly stated in Scripture:

• 2 You must take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, the male and its mate, two of every kind of unclean animal, the male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird in the sky, male and female, to preserve their offspring on the face of the earth. (Gen. 7:2-3)

There were seven of each clean animal, not two. That they went in "two by two" doesn't mean only two went in. It is emphasizing the way they went--in pairs.

Jac3510 wrote:Ignoring arguments about the extent of the flood (I hold to a global flood, by the way), the reason is simple enough and directly stated in Scripture:

• 2 You must take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, the male and its mate, two of every kind of unclean animal, the male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird in the sky, male and female, to preserve their offspring on the face of the earth. (Gen. 7:2-3)

There were seven of each clean animal, not two. That they went in "two by two" doesn't mean only two went in. It is emphasizing the way they went--in pairs.

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?

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?

I've already answered your question about the two by two bit. Reread my previous reply. As for clean animals, what makes you think the concept was original with Moses?