No Lions and Tigers were on Noah’s Ark

[ArtieE]

Hmmm, I hear you. So maybe emanationism requires that G-d be immanent, and the typical Christian understanding of Creationism requires transcendence. But both are describing ways that the universe was created by a First Cause.

I tried to read and understand this link... https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_05915.html ... and I think my brain imploded... if you can make any sense of it you're welcome to it!

 

[Tumah]

I tried to read and understand this link... https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_05915.html ... and I think my brain imploded... if you can make any sense of it you're welcome to it!

I've never seen that article, but from quickly scanning it, it looks like an overview of what I was referring to without going into any detail and only discussing the philosophical aspect of it.

 

[metis]

I was under the impression that Tumah took it literally... was it meant to be taken literally when it was written?

Yes, he does take it more literally.

It is impossible to know how the author(s) may have taken it, but based on the fact that the Babylonian epic predates the writing of Genesis, plus the fact that the reach of that empire and its influence was significant, it is my guess that the author(s) took that epic and reworked it. However, even with that approach, it still doesn't answer the question whether the author(s) believed in a general flood with some hero involved.

 

[metis]

I disagree since science has evidence which contradicts a global flood narrative. A local flood seems plausible when looking at the Epic, the Sumerian Kings list and the nature of the Tigris and Euphrates

But the people back then would have no idea whatsoever of any "global" concept as we would use that term, but a localized flood in Sumer/Babylon would probably seem "global" to them, if you know what I mean.

 

[ArtieE]

It is impossible to know how the author(s) may have taken it, but based on the fact that the Babylonian epic predates the writing of Genesis, plus the fact that the reach of that empire and its influence was significant, it is my guess that the author(s) took that epic and reworked it. However, even with that approach, it still doesn't answer the question whether the author(s) believed in a general flood with some hero involved.

Yes, I am aware of all the different flood myths such as Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis version and the Hindu versions and on and on. I suppose different gods are responsible for different floods according to where you are geographically located on the planet.

 

[metis]

The biggest singe problem that I have with the Flood narrative if taken on a literal scale is not the science that it pretty much negates but that it puts God in the position of being a genocidal maniac. IOW, we would have to assume that there were many people killed, including infants and young children, so could God just drown them when at least many cultures find doing that to an animal is abuse and a crime? Some have tried to say that God would allow them to live another time, but that still doesn't make sense in the context of God being moral. If I justify killing someone on the basis that (s)he's a good person and, therefore, what I'm supposedly doing is speeding them on to heaven, does that make me a moral person if I'm standing in front of a judge?

 

[metis]

Yes, I am aware of all the different flood myths such as Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis version and the Hindu versions and on and on. I suppose different gods are responsible for different floods according to where you are geographically located on the planet.

Who's to say.

 

[Skwim]

FWIW, if we're starting with the assumption that the Noah's Ark story is true, then we're already conceding that magic is real. Once we do that, we lose all grounds to say that anything is implausible.

It's like critiquing the plausibility of events in any work of fiction. You don't have to buy into it as real, just go along with the premises.

 

[Skwim]

I'm not sure how that follows. The animals were brought by angels to the ark. How many animals and what type? As many as would be necessary to give us the amount of species we have today, that's how many.

That was ArtieE's comment, not mine.

 

[Skwim]

I tried to read and understand this link... https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_05915.html ... and I think my brain imploded... if you can make any sense of it you're welcome to it!

Please note that emanation is only a theory, not a stated fact.

"EMANATION, a theory describing the origin of the material universe from a transcendent first principle. According to this theory. . . . "
source​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's like critiquing the plausibility of events in any work of fiction. You don't have to buy into it as real, just go along with the premises.

... and one of the premises of this story is that there's a god watching over everything, magically poofing whatever he wants into existence whenever it suits him, and poofing it away when he's done with it. He's described as manipulating every situation to meet his desired ends.

I get the concept of working withinthe framework of the "rules" of a fictional setting, but one of the rules of this setting is that no rules apply to God, and he's not afraid to get directly involved in anything and everything.

... so like I said: this means everything is plausible.

 

[Demonslayer]

The biggest singe problem that I have with the Flood narrative if taken on a literal scale is not the science that it pretty much negates but that it puts God in the position of being a genocidal maniac.

Yeah haven't you heard? Perfect God created the human race and messed it up so bad the first time he had to kill everyone and start again.

Perfect God and his imperfect creations. What a silly goose this God fella is. For someone so perfect He sure seems to botch stuff a lot.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

To say nothing of all the creepy crawlers and fish that had to be saved.

Fish needed saved from a flood? Are we thinking fresh vs. salt water maybe?

Not trying to defend the ark story here - I was honestly hoping for something more substantial in the whole cat "kind" discussion - but as others have said, I also don't see the reason to tie the "kind" to "species" or "genus", etc. Those distinctions didn't even exist at the supposed time of the flood, nor during the time of the writing of the story, and so have no bearing on what one would have called a "kind" during those times. Heck - a brown squirrel vs. a black squirrel could have each been figured as a "kind" - who can know?

 

[Skwim]

Fish needed saved from a flood? Are we thinking fresh vs. salt water maybe?

With a few exceptions like the euryhaline fish, such as salmon, freshwater fish cannot live in salt water and vice versa.

Not trying to defend the ark story here - I was honestly hoping for something more substantial in the whole cat "kind" discussion - but as others have said, I also don't see the reason to tie the "kind" to "species" or "genus", etc. Those distinctions didn't even exist at the supposed time of the flood, nor during the time of the writing of the story, and so have no bearing on what one would have called a "kind" during those times. Heck - a brown squirrel vs. a black squirrel could have each been figured as a "kind" - who can know?

But this was the whole point of the OP. In order to save Noah from having to take aboard the estimated 3-30 million species of life now on earth* Ham and others contended that "kind" in the Biblical story did not refer to species but some other form of life that was more in accord with one of the other taxonomic ranks such as family---there are far, far fewer animals that stand at the family juncture of taxonomy than species. Previously, Ham and others said "kind" was equivalent to the family rank, but now Ham is equating it to the genus rank. Yet even if one took this as "the way it was" it's still problematic, which is easily seen in the evolutionary tree I posted in post 38.

* Five Kingdoms by Margulis and Schwartz

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

With a few exceptions like the euryhaline fish, such as salmon, freshwater fish cannot live in salt water and vice versa.

But this was the whole point of the OP. In order to save Noah from having to take aboard the estimated 3-30 million species of life now on earth* Ham and others contended that "kind" in the Biblical story did not refer to species but some other form of life that was more in accord with one of the other taxonomic ranks such as family---there are far, far fewer animals that stand at the family juncture of taxonomy than species. Previously, Ham and others said "kind" was equivalent to the family rank, but now Ham is equating it to the genus rank. Yet even if one took this as "the way it was" it's still problematic, which is easily seen in the evolutionary tree I posted in post 38.

* Five Kingdoms by Margulis and Schwartz

Got it, and that all makes sense then. Even at 1 million "kinds", a pair each, you're talking a boat with space and provisions beyond any construction known to man. And even considering those 2 million animals only - and assuming only 15 seconds per animal to board, you're looking at a year to board them.

 

[Skwim]

Got it, and that all makes sense then. Even at 1 million "kinds", a pair each, you're talking a boat with space and provisions beyond any construction known to man. And even considering those 2 million animals only - and assuming only 15 seconds per animal to board, you're looking at a year to board them.

Absolutely. And when one considers providing food, feeding the animals that food,cleaning up after they poop that food, it's more than an immense job for eight people, and for what I imagine to be at least a few years--the water just doesn't go down The Big Drain after forty days and forty nights. And, after taking care of all the animal life,, including the thousands of insects and spiders, there's all the plant life to oversee.

 

[Shad]

But the people back then would have no idea whatsoever of any "global" concept as we would use that term, but a localized flood in Sumer/Babylon would probably seem "global" to them, if you know what I mean.

Understandable. However I am talking about people claiming a global flood in modern times in comparison to a more plausible local flooding

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, there's no problem if we think of the ark as TARDIS......


It's bigger on the inside.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Absolutely. And when one considers providing food, feeding the animals that food,cleaning up after they poop that food, it's more than an immense job for eight people, and for what I imagine to be at least a few years--the water just doesn't go down The Big Drain after forty days and forty nights. And, after taking care of all the animal life,, including the thousands of insects and spiders, there's all the plant life to oversee.

I hadn't even considered all the drowned plant life before now! Duh. I suppose that the excuse could always be made that "God fixed whatever needed fixing, when it needed fixed" at any given moment throughout all of His creation being, basically, broken by the flood. However, one of the best arguments against the flood I ever heard was simply a question:

"Why would God choose a flood?"

That is to say, being infinitely powerful, He would have easily had a method of killing off the vast majority of humanity without also killing off so many animals (and plants). He could have simply made our brains explode within our skulls, for example. From my perspective the flood is like the "Disney" way to kill off "the bad guy" (in this case, millions of humans) and come through it fairly "clean". Like the evil witch falling off a cliff because she was being naughty during the battle with the protagonist. The protagonist didn't really kill her. It was her own fault in the end. But in this case, no argument can really be made that drowning millions of men, women and children is really any better than making their brains explode. In fact - instantaneous brain explosion would be arguably more "humane" than flooding/drowning people. God just wouldn't be as much "removed" from it at that point.

 

[Skwim]

However, one of the best arguments against the flood I ever heard was simply a question:

"Why would God choose a flood?"

That is to say, being infinitely powerful, He would have easily had a method of killing off the vast majority of humanity without also killing off so many animals (and plants). He could have simply made our brains explode within our skulls, for example. From my perspective the flood is like the "Disney" way to kill off "the bad guy" (in this case, millions of humans) and come through it fairly "clean". Like the evil witch falling off a cliff because she was being naughty during the battle with the protagonist. The protagonist didn't really kill her. It was her own fault in the end. But in this case, no argument can really be made that drowning millions of men, women and children is really any better than making their brains explode. In fact - instantaneous brain explosion would be arguably more "humane" than flooding/drowning people. God just wouldn't be as much "removed" from it at that point.

I suggested pretty much the same thing back in post 27, and was told in post 29 that god simply doesn't work that way.