Yes, it does seem a daunting task, just caring and cleaning up after so many animals. And what about the task of feeding all the animals that eat other animals? Now, someone noted that God could have put them into a state of "hibernation", but there's nothing said about this, so that's not a valid argument to me since MOST animals don't hibernate.

And I'm not trying to say it's impossible, the Bible says "ALL" things are possible through God, I'm just saying it is not feasible. While it is "possible" it's not "probable". And you can still take away the same message from the story, you can still love God, we can still be saved. But I don't find any real possibility in ALL life on earth being placed on one boat, and then the entire earth being re-populated with the wealth of life on it as we know it.


And one last point, I'm not sure people are taking into account the "infrastructure" of the ark. People keep giving neat numbers about how big is was based on outside dimensions. However, there would have to be an enourmous amount of internal walls and support structures for a "building" that size. And then incorporate the style of "building" the ark was, and the technology and resources of the time. For instance, how long of a span can the type of wood used in the ark actually span without support. And so thus, looking at things like this, walls, cages, internal support, plumbing, stairs, smoke stacks, refrigeration units (oh, sorry, those weren't invented yet), ummm, pantries, and such, how much room did that take up. And were those things taken into consideration when making these calculations? I don't see any mention of those things. I note these things, because, if you measure the outside of your house, then calculate the square footage, you will NOT have an accurate measurement of the internal USABLE square footage. You will have a number that is inaccurate for measuring the amount of room you can actually use.

Are there any other passages that we take as parable and not fact? Are all parable's noted to be such? Is it possible that this could be a story to help us learn a lesson, and yet not infact fact? I still love God, I still take Him as my saviour, and can't wait for His return, however, I do not take the flood to be literal, only a way to teach me something. This viewpoint does not make me a non-believer, nor a supporter of satan, nor someone who would deny God. I talk with God daily, and I've received no message that I'm wrong with this line of thinking and reasoning.

And then on top of it all, I still think it's ok to not agree on everything. There's rarely a time when all members of any group of people agree fully on all things. I think the thing to remember is that we must ask God for his grace, and though Him, we will be lifted up to Heaven. Praise be to the Holiest!

The all things are possible argument holds no water since it would make the building of an ark unnecessary.

Rosangela, the animals were not dead. They can't just fit on the deck.

Holds no water, hahaha, LOL, nice use of a pun.

But seriously, if you go with the logic of all things are possible, and thus not necessary, then that wipes us clean off the map. God had no "need" to create us, or do anything else. In fact, since God is omni-everything, nothing is "necessary".

Hi 'fun2believe'

In re-reading my post below, I see that my words could come across as rather sharp. Please realize ahead of time that they aren't meant that way. Imagine a friendly tone of voice, okay? (I was writing with a smile.)


Well, how would you expect people to survive a whole year in a huge boat if they didn't have anything to do?

As for "animals that eat other animals" -- are you sure that's what they did on the ark? We know that modern lions can survive on a total vegetarian diet. (Ever hear of "Little Tyke," the lion who refused to eat meat?)

Neither is the incarnation or resurrection of Jesus. So shall we do away with that too on the basis of improbability?Oh? So please explain "the same message" in your own words. And please don't forget the use the New Testament writers made of the story.Did you read the whole thread? (It seems to me you're ignoring some points already made.)

The Bible only records that representatives of all "kinds" of animals went into the ark. We don't know just how many "kinds" there originally were. As an example, wolves, coyotes, dingos all the breeds of dogs probably came from just one pair of young female doges. The mammoths and various elephants all probably descended from one young pair of 'mamephants' saved in the ark. (No that's not a scientific name.

Re-populations happens much faster than you may imagine. Think of one pair of rabbits taken to Australia, for instance.

And if you're only going to accept the portions of the Bible that you consider "possible," based on your experience in today's world, you will be left with a very small God -- one whose power is circumscribed by the conjecture of modern scientists and historians.


Good thinking on your part. However, it becomes a negligible objection when compared to other boats. They, too, need "infrastructure." As for what the timbers could support -- we are told that the trees were much stronger and harder than any known today. So the ark was not 1/2 solid wood. And by most calculations, less than 1/2 the space would be occupied by the people and the animals.
Good questions -- except that other Bible writers referred to the flood as fact, not parable. So did Jesus Himself. Do you suppose He was deceived as to the nature of the story?

Such as?

Do you suppose that when God does not give you a direct message regarding your thinking and reasoning, that it means that it is correct?

Then why were the Bereans commended who went home to study whether the things God told them were true? According to your line of reasoning, they should have been able to tell directly by God's telling them. (Instead, Paul commended them for studyingand using the resoning powers God gave them.)

No argument there.

However, ther arebiblical interpretations that are consistent with the rest of Scripture, and there are interpretations that are not consistent with the rest of Scripture.

There are interpretations that reveal a great big God, and there are interpretations that picture a very small God.

And you are free to choose which to believe.

I can't believe anyone would suggest that Little Tyke, a carnivore raised in captivity, represents the carnivores that were taken on the ark. We should at least give a semblance of trying to be honest.

I don't know what to say about the suggestion that the incarnation or the resurrection are improbable. Are we just making arguments for the sake of arguments? Are we so enamoured of our doctrines that we will stoop to any level to detract from truth?

Inga,

Great responses, way to get us all using our critical thiking skills! That's what we should be doing, thinking, asking, testing, finding the true Light.

I'm also writing with a big grin on my face, just glad that we have such a great place to discuss our most passionate feelings.

Now, on to the nitty gritty. I don't have any expectations about someone would do for a year on a boat, but I do have questions about the reality of someone caring for so many animals, on a boat, with VERY limited resources.

As for "little tyke", she may have infact been vegetarian, but she was not vegan. She did infact and regularly eat eggs and milk, both containing the necessary building blocks for life in the form of protein, which came from other animals, not plants! But then you didn't say she was vegan, just vegetarian, but the implication was there that that type of animal does not need other animals for survival, which is clearly not the case. And these animals were clearly made/adapted for meat eating, look at the sharp teeth(they don't work well for eating grass), long claws(hmmmmmm,,,, used for taking down prey animals) and powerful jaws used for crushing cartilage and bone, not smashing up grass and leaves). And if they are decended from other animals as you suggest (modern dogs being from one set of parents, as well as elephants, and thus I assume you also would include big cats), then those animals would also have been meat eaters.

Possible and probable are all we have. We have NO way to actually measure, define, count, or in any other way scientifically prove or disprove(through research, that's reproducable by others under the same conditions, at any time, thus "making" proof as we know it) anything about the bible. There's no question it's taken on faith, I think that's what the whole bible is about, faith.

The same message is a personal messge, the way all things in the bible are. My point on this is proven by the people here. All members of the same church, yet see how we see the same things differently? Look how many "christian" religions exist, all based on the exact same bible that you and I read. So it has to be persoanal, there's no other way. Faith and religion is a completely personal journey, no one on earth can tell you if you are right or wrong, only God can do that! So for me, it is the same message, it may not be for you, or the writers of the new testament, not even Jesus. Jesus had a different experience, as we all do, thus making Him different, and NO two people are the same, not even identical twins. If it was the same lesson for everyone, there would be no difference between people, we would all be exactly the same, and I'm pretty sure that's not what God wanted, or made.

Yeah, I've read the whole thread, I started it. No, repopulations don't happen faster than I think. They happen only as fast as "nature" allows. All animals are capable of reproduction, but only when they mature [censored], and that is a known fact, and most all animals have a known time before [censored] matureation, thus meaning that it can only happen as fast as it can, it can't change. There weren't bunnies that got off the ark, and had baby bunnies, that then had baby bunnies right after birth! Sorry, not buying into that one.

Not sure how my question about infrastructure is negligable based on other boats? What other boats are you talking about? All boats would have to have infrastructure, something to hold the walls up, ever done any construction? Who told us the trees were stronger and better? And how can you say how much space was taken up if you don't even know how many or what types of animals were on the boat? You can't have the argument go both ways. You can't say how much space was needed for an unknown amout of stuff.

Deception is a part of human nature, starting with Eve. Here's a way to look at it. Up until a few years ago, it was a "fact" that peptic ulcers were caused by stress! Ah, but through research (testable, reproducable by others at any time, anywhere) we have learned they are in FACT caused by Helicobacter Pylori, a bug that grows in your stomach. Now, these other writers of the "facts" about the flood were not there. They didn't ride on the ark, they didn't help build it. They did not see it, or touch the walls, or walk within it's cavernous hollow belly. So "facts" have to be tempered with a little reason, understanding the limitations of the "fact".

Once again, lessons in life are very individual, and not always the same for everyone. And yeah, I think God and I are pretty close, we have an amazing relationship, we communicate very often. We speak to each other clearly, so yeah, I do believe that's what that means.

And we see very eye to eye on the right to have different beliefs. Sure, God is kind of who you make Himm out to be. If He's BIG in your life, that may be because you make Him that way. You search Him out, you obey and trust Him, you speak with Him, you bring Him into your life. And so if He's a small God, or not God at all, then that's because you chose to make Him that way. He will not force his way into your life, you have to invite Him. You have to want Him there, thus it's all what you make of it.

I think there are some very common threads with people that accept God in thier lives, but I don't think there are any two people on earth that have the same relationship with God. I don't think there are any two people who have the same experience, who have the same communication with God. Our relationship with Him is a personal relationship. Our relationship with other humans is a very different thing all together, as we are human and God is not.

I'm impressed with you ability to ask the tough questions, and look both at your own life and the life of Jesus for leadership. I think that's what God wants us to do. My reasoning for this is that if He wanted us all to follow the exact same rules, and know the exact same info, and be the exact same type of people, He'd have been much more specific. My reasioning goes that He would give each and every person a set of rules to follow, something reproducable, something tangable. Now, some will make the argument that that's what the Bible is. Well, then how does that apply to those before the Bible, or those who have lived and dies without ever even knowing of it's existance?

So yeah, I see this as a personal journey with God. Now, that's not to say we can't/shouldn't worship together. In fact, I believe we should worship together. We are much stronger in numbers than we are alone. Plus, we can hold up others when they have lost their strength, give support to those who need it. While it's a prive journey for me, I can and will, help others any way I can. If my own life can be a candle unto the Lord, I'll let Him direct my life, and follow His commands. Just like I'm doing here.

I'm glad to be here, how very healing this is.

The author's point was just that the ark was large enough to accomodate all the animals. If they could all be housed in one deck, but were housed in two (since the ark had three), this meant they had an extra space to move about.

I'm delighted to see that we have a mutual acquaintance in "Little Tyke."

Darius, the point is in the assumptions. Some (possibly including you) assume that the animals that we now see as carnivores were fed other animals on the ark.

Why do you assume that? How do you know that?

My point of bringing up Little Tyke was that another scenario is just as possible because carnivores can stay healthy on a vegetarian diet even in modern times. The "in captivity" part would certainly apply to the animals in the ark, wouldn't it?

And, by the way, do you believe God created animals carnivorous? Come to think of it, do you believe God created animals, or do you believe they evolved from a happenstance combination of organic molecules in primordial slime?

Another bit of food for thought: According to the biblical record, was the flood a "natural" event, or was it an instance of God doing a specific act on this planet, contrary to the usual ways of nature?

If it was a singularity (a one-time event), is it reasonable to apply today's experience to that event?


Just who is stooping to detract from truth?

And what is the basis of your "truth"? If you do not accept the historicity of the Flood, it is evident that you do not accept the straightforward reading of the Bible as the ultimate basis of your "truth." What else colors your judgment?

The "else" that tells you that a literal world-wide flood is improbable would also tell you that the resurrection and the incarnation is "improbable."

The resurrection lies outside the realm of scientific investigation. Indeed, I would assume that it is altogether outside the realm of scientific probability.

Ditto for the incarnation.

I repeat: If we reject the biblical historical account of the world-wide flood on the basis of improbability, to be consistent, we would have to reject all accounts of miracles, as well as the account of the incarnation and the resurrection.

On second thought, you're probably better qualified to comment on the probability of the resurrection and the incarnation. Care to explain the probability of the incarnation using the statistical analysis methods at your disposal?

Waiting expectantly for your reply to my questions above.

Inga

One thing I think is being forgotten is that, when God created the world, there wasn't to be any death in it, therefore all the animals were created as vegans. If after the sin some of them became carnivorous, this can't have happened at once, nor in a short time. Probably these animals remained as omnivorous during a long time before they finally adopted a meat diet. And maybe at the time of the flood most of the animals which today are carnivorous were still omnivorous.