Noah's Ark?

Over-analyzing the Bible probably isn't the best idea around.

Because you realize that it is impossible. The bible is analyzed in university in theoretical studies all the time, it is only when people come to the conclusion that it is just a storybook that people feel it has been "over- analyzed.

-Noah needn't have brought in two of every single species
found today. Remember, he lived closer to Adam than to the
later Biblical figures, to many of the species he brought on could
have gone on to evolve as they spread out over the world.

So what you are saying is that evolution is a reality, doesn't that make believing in the whole Bible moot?

-He didn't need top bring on water creatures, so that cuts down on the total number of species.

Actually I hadn't even put the number of aquatic animals in the equation, but come to think of it, if there was a world-wide flood, that would rais the salinity of all fresh water killing the fresh water species, therefore I guess Noah needed an even bigger ark with aquariums in it.

-God may have lent a helping hand. Keeping the animals alive
without food or intestinal activity.

Come on, that's a cop out, if animals don't eat for 40 days they die. That's just a simple fact.

If the Ark story is true, God could have made the animals sleep, or hibernate. Also if the story is true in the garden of Eden, then there were not any meat eaters, so it could be possible that they didn't eat meat at that time on the ark.

Carnivores not eat meat? Well if you believed that god made the animals in the first place why would he equipt lions to have all the tools that a carnivore must have to eat and digest meat, but not have the physical ability to sustain itself on vegetation?

I'll work on an answer to this one. And not from Google.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So what you are saying is that evolution is a reality, doesn't that make believing in the whole Bible moot?

yes and no.

Yes I believe that Evolution is real (see the "True or False"
thread), and no I don't believe that makes the Bible "moot".

Furthermore, the whole point of all this, was for God to
punish a sinful world, so just as He used His powers to
bring on the flood, He also used His powers to help out
the animals, who were not the main target of His wrath.

For me, the story of Noah is my favorite. Not only is it a
story about human pride and stubbornness, as well as
human faith and perseverance. But I also see it as a
message of love and compassion towards animals. God
tells Noah to save all the animals, not just the cute ones,
or the edible ones, or the useful ones, but all the
animals, big and small. That to me is a message that we
humans should take care of animals, and not just those
that we find useful to us, and not hunt them to extinction.

Originally posted by King Burger
For me, the story of Noah is my favorite. Not only is it a
story about human pride and stubbornness, as well as
human faith and perseverance. But I also see it as a
message of love and compassion towards animals. God
tells Noah to save all the animals, not just the cute ones,
or the edible ones, or the useful ones, but all the
animals, big and small. That to me is a message that we
humans should take care of animals, and not just those
that we find useful to us, and not hunt them to extinction.

Too bad God does not show the same love and compassion toward people in this story. Why not save all the people, not just the righteous ones, or the faithful ones, or His favorite ones, but all the people? What kind of message do you take from that?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Too bad God does not show the same love and compassion toward people in this story. Why not save all the people, not just the righteous ones, or the faithful ones, or His favorite ones, but [b]all the people? What kind of message do you take from that? [/B]

"righteou" and "faithful" don't apply to animals.

And who am I to judge God's decision?

I just said what I see to be one point of the story.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Too bad God does not show the same love and compassion toward people in this story. Why not save all the people, not just the righteous ones, or the faithful ones, or His favorite ones, but [b]all the people? What kind of message do you take from that? [/B]

Adam, the reason that God flooded everything and killed everyone was because a) they were evil and b), they were the "men of old, men of renown".

Originally posted by King Burger
"righteou" and "faithful" don't apply to animals.

Who said that it does?

Originally posted by King Burger
And who am I to judge God's decision?

You already made a value judgement when you stated how loving and compassionate it was of God to save not all of the animals but just two of every kind.

Originally posted by King Burger
I just said what I see to be one point of the story.

While completely ignoring another.

Originally posted by FeceMan
the reason that God flooded everything and killed everyone was because a) they were evil and b), they were the "men of old, men of renown".

Basically, God did such a poor job the first time around, He killed everyone, guilty and innocent, so that He could start over. However, God was too lazy to recreate all the animals so He had Noah round up two of each kind to repopulate the earth so He would not have to.

Actually is was 7 clean and 7 unclean animals that ended up being rounded up.

Basically, God did such a poor job the first time around, He killed everyone, guilty and innocent, so that He could start over. However, God was too lazy to recreate all the animals so He had Noah round up two of each kind to repopulate the earth so He would not have to.

The point is, for me, is that animals are not judged
by human standards, so they were not to be punished.
Obviously Noah couldn't save all animals, so God had him
save them as a species.

As for the humans killed or spared, as I said, I can not
know how and why God judged them. Maybe they were
sinners, maybe not but God had bigger plans.

The humans who drowned, drowned on purpose. The
animals who were drowned, drowned just because they
couldn't all be saved.

One should look at the fact that God bothered to order
Noah to save these animals, instead of just saving the
usefull or edible ones. This can be taken as a message
to Bible readers that God wants us to preserve and care
for all animals. That is the point I'm making.

Understand? Confused?

Originally posted by King Burger
The point is, for me, is that animals are not judged
by human standards, so they were not to be punished.
Obviously Noah couldn't save all animals, so God had him
save them as a species.

As for the humans killed or spared, as I said, I can not
know how and why God judged them. Maybe they were
sinners, maybe not but God had bigger plans.

The humans who drowned, drowned on purpose. The
animals who were drowned, drowned just because they
couldn't all be saved.

One should look at the fact that God bothered to order
Noah to save these animals, instead of just saving the
usefull or edible ones. This can be taken as a message
to Bible readers that God wants us to preserve and care
for all animals. That is the point I'm making.

Understand? Confused?

I have no confusion about the point you are trying to make. My point is that you are proclaiming this to be a wonderful story of love and compassion for animals and overlooking the fact that it is also filled with human suffering. It is as if you are being confronted with the fact that God drowned innocents including children and are saying "But look at all the good things He did for the animals," as if that is some kind of justification.

Basically, God did such a poor job the first time around, He killed everyone, guilty and innocent, so that He could start over. However, God was too lazy to recreate all the animals so He had Noah round up two of each kind to repopulate the earth so He would not have to.

Do you know what is being said to have happend then? If he choose not to recreate, I dont see the relevance in that.

Who was innocent?

Originally posted by clickclick
Do you know what is being said to have happend then? If he choose not to recreate, I dont see the relevance in that.

Who was innocent?

He could have chosen not to reform humanity instead of destroy it.

Who was innocent? What about the infants and the children and those who were not wicked? They were drowned along with the guilty.

He could have chosen not to reform humanity instead of destroy it.

Who was innocent? What about the infants and the children and those who were not wicked? They were drowned along with the guilty.

Granted but God knows the kind of people who were being destroyed. I dont think most people pick up on on the stated reason for the flood. It wasnt simply because men were wicked or doing wrong. It was because the sons of God were marrying the daughters of men and even having children with them. This was a very serious thing and God would not tolerate it.

It was because the sons of God were marrying the daughters of men and even having children with them. This was a very serious thing and God would not tolerate it.

I've kinda favored inbreeding.

I've kinda favored inbreeding.

Originally posted by King Burger
For me, the story of Noah is my favorite. Not only is it a
story about human pride and stubbornness,

So let me get this straight, you are praising Noah for his pride (which is the first of the seven deadly sins which is said to interfere with the individual's recognition of the grace of God and has been called the sin from which all others arise) and his stubbornness, which is a pretty huge character flaw? That doesn't sound quite right.
😑

Originally posted by FeceMan
Kharma, unfortunately, I cannot produce an answer for you without too much reliance on God. I assume you'll dismiss this, so I won't bother posting it unless you really want that I do so.

I appreciate your candidness with your answer. If you are going to answer me with "it's all a matter of faith, then please don't bother to answer the question for I have heard that until my ears bleed. However, if you are going to offer me a new perspective I ask, and encourage you to answer,

Originally posted by debbiejo
Actually is was 7 clean and 7 unclean animals that ended up being rounded up

Actually it was one of every beast and it's mate in addition to the 7 clean and 7 unclean animals. In laymens terms that's a pair of wild animals each and 7 of each domesticated animal.

Originally posted by clickclick
It was because the sons of God were marrying the daughters of men and even having children with them. This was a very serious thing and God would not tolerate it.

So god killed everyone because they were gay and committing incest only to make it so that Noah's family had to commit incest in order to repopulate the world? That being said, if evolution does not exist then how do we have so many different races of people if we all descend from Noah's family?

Originally posted by debbiejo
I've kinda favored inbreeding.

I have no idea what would posses you to say that 🤨

So god killed everyone because they were gay and committing incest only to make it so that Noah's family had to commit incest in order to repopulate the world? That being said, if evolution does not exist then how do we have so many different races of people if we all descend from Noah's family?

No, not because of incest or homosexuality. And ive never said that micro evolution doesnt exist either. Even macroevolution isnt entirely out of the question, the matter is whether or not it did take place.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So let me get this straight, you are praising Noah for his pride (which is the first of the seven deadly sins which is said to interfere with the individual's recognition of the grace of God and has been called the sin from which all others arise) and his stubbornness, which is a pretty huge character flaw? That doesn't sound quite right.

No, those were the bad traits in the story, the good being
faith and preseverance.

Capisci?