Don't know why I didn't mention this sooner, but Noah could have very well had a bit of biological compost to process waste. A good one would last a long time.
I do this myself with my marine fish tank. No filtration. I don't have time for water change maintenance during the quarter, so I try to get the tank biologically balanced. The tank, with its bacteria and worms and other critters, cleans out its own waste. Converting waste to plant food. (Now, if I had more time, I could get the tank to produce its own food)
Noah probably had worms and bugs and bacteria to help out.
Whether it happened that way or not, every culture in the world, from Sumaria, to Babylon, India, China, the Hopis, Maya, etc. all have the flood story. Whether his name was Noah, Nu or whoever, he is remembered.
The word "earth" in the Gen. story is one of the few places in the OT where its translated "earth." The other times that word is used, it means land - an area. Could there have been a local flood? sure. There are some great articles on the net as to where it would have occurred and what caused it.
We know that mankind, was not "scattered" until Nimrod's structure he made to the heavens. It seems mankind was pretty content to stay in one area. It would have been pretty easy for a regional catastrophe to occur. If you like, I can find the links.
I believe the first flood (Noah's was the second) in Gen. 1:2 when the earth became barren and waste, is where we get seashells on top of mountains, many kinds of dino bones in pits like they were bowled over, species of trees and plants never seen before in deep mines, and other neat geological and palentological finds come from.
The earth's history and timeline is fasciniating if you look at geology and palentology. There were two "life" explosions - where all forms of life literally came from nowhere in a very short period of time. The second "explosion" - as science calls it, is the cambrian explosion, which is our life forms as we know them today - which, when you follow the progression, from seeds, to plants, ferns, trees, sealife, land animals, etc., fits in perfectly with the 6 day description of the progression of life in Gen.
The first life "explosion" (I forget the scientific name for it) I was believe was the Gen. 1:1 world, it was destroyed by water. Gen. 1:2 on is the re-formation of the earth to its present state (not re-creation - because it was already created).
So, I see no reason why there could not have been a cataclysm that wiped out the vast majority of mankind - the reason being Gen. 6:4.
Whenever you have a great destruction in the Bible, the reason is always spiritual. Gen. 1:2 - the result of Satan's fall and destruction of the earth. Noah's flood - mankind and animals genetics perverted via gen. 6:4 to thwart the savior from coming.
The next, is destruction of fire at the end and a new heaven and earth.
So, a destruction by flood and survivors is not farfetched to me. I think all the "legends" of worldwide cultures and religions have some fact in them. The fact that that flood made such a huge worldwide impression on mankind tells me it must have been something like we've never seen.
I wasn't talking about evolution before your post though, I don't care to rehash that because you're set in your ways and not open to changing your mind. I'm simply asking questions about the ark. If you wanted to be creative, you could have suggested that the penguins floated on top of a huge iceberg that was brought into the ark. You could even claim that the iceberg was used for supplying fresh drinking water too.
. . .
I gave a rational, scientific, and probably the best explanation for how penguins were saved using the Ark. I don't know why you're accusing me of being uncreative.
How could penguins float on a iceberg from the floodwaters to the Ark? Wasn't the Ark sealed? The flood killed all land flesh outside the Ark. Nothing from the artic needed to be on the Ark. It's a unneccessarily created problem.
Whether it happened that way or not, every culture in the world, from Sumaria, to Babylon, India, China, the Hopis, Maya, etc. all have the flood story. Whether his name was Noah, Nu or whoever, he is remembered.
So, a destruction by flood and survivors is not farfetched to me.
That's a good point about a flood story being told by several cultures. I've often compared such to the old analogy I call "The Phone Call" where you hear some story from someone and then call someone else up to repeat it and then that person calls another who in turns calls another. Eventually the story gets changed so much that by the time it gets back to the original story teller it only slightly resembles it. The foundation of it stays the same but the characters and certain specific details have been changed. Anyways, for anyone who might be interested -- this cite . . .
. . . covers the flood (chapter 14), as well as, many other subjects related to Evolution vs. I.D. The book written from it is called "The Evolution Cruncher." I highly recommend it to those wanting to understand the issues better.
The YECs are very bold in their literal interpretation of Genesis. They reject many beliefs of modern "science", the Gap Theory, and the local flood idea. They believe firmly that a global flood explains the data better than the common theories of today do.
The YECs are very bold in their literal interpretation of Genesis. They reject many beliefs of modern "science", the Gap Theory, and the local flood idea. They believe firmly that a global flood explains the data better than the common theories of today do.
You're welcome. If I recall (it's been awhile since I read the book) the authors are YECs. They make a strong case for it but, I wasn't exactly convinced. I don't see why the Earth couldn't have existed for eons of years and not contradict what the Bible says.
You're welcome. If I recall (it's been awhile since I read the book) the authors are YECs. They make a strong case for it but, I wasn't exactly convinced. I don't see why the Earth couldn't have existed for eons of years and not contradict what the Bible says.
If you're referring to Gap Theory, I don't for certainty either way.
But, I believe it started about the same time as the idea that slow erosion became popular to explain geological phenomena. It wasn't until Mt. St. Helens eruptions that some of this same phenomena was shown to occur form very rapidly.
If you're referring to Gap Theory, I don't for certainty either way.
But, I believe it started about the same time as the idea that slow erosion became popular to explain geological phenomena. It wasn't until Mt. St. Helens eruptions that some of this same phenomena was shown to occur form very rapidly.
I believe the cite/book covers the geological (and fossil) phenomena quite well. It's been awhile since I read it but I think they believe the earth is only 6000 years+ old. Whether it is or not probably won't make much difference to those who are convinced one way or the other. I don't think the Bible was meant to substantiate scientific facts even though one will find some of them substantiated anyways.
IMO, that it began just 200 years or more ago, makes me doubt it. Why didn't anyone notice it before?
Seems like a good explanation for the theory. I haven't really digested everything on the page -- it looks and feels about the same as the one from the cite I mentioned. This statement . . .
However, this undermines the gospel as it allows for death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering before Adam's sin.
. . . I think isn't very much of an argument though. Part of the gap theory would allow for death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering prior to it and still not contradict what follows after the gap.
. . . Whether it is or not probably won't make much difference to those who are convinced one way or the other. I don't think the Bible was meant to substantiate scientific facts even though one will find some of them substantiated anyways.
I agree.
Seems like a good explanation for the theory. I haven't really digested everything on the page -- it looks and feels about the same as the one from the cite I mentioned. This statement . . .
. . . I think isn't very much of an argument though. Part of the gap theory would allow for death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering prior to it and still not contradict what follows after the gap.
I was just referring to Gap Theory's origins. The circumstances surrounding its beginning.
(Just Curious) How does Gap Theory allow for death, bloodshed etc?
I was just referring to Gap Theory's origins. The circumstances surrounding its beginning.
(Just Curious) How does Gap Theory allow for death, bloodshed etc?
The author of the site you cited -- if I'm not mistaken -- disallows it because death, disease, etc. was the direct consequences of Adam's sin. I don't believe the Bible says anything about animals not dying from bloodshed and/or disease. In fact many animals spilled blood in order to live.
If you think about recent history -- American -- Europeans introduced a lot of disease to Indians which they never knew of/experienced before. I personally believe that Adam's access to the "Tree of Life" is what protected him from diseases and such. Without that "tree" (whatever it was) I think Adam would have been just as susceptible to diseases. And we all know that Cain introduced bloodshed -- after Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden. However, it's not unfathomable to think that if they weren't expelled and had Cain while in Eden that he still might have killed his brother.
So I don't know why the author would think that the theory contradicts anything the Bible says. It is interesting to read how the theory originated. I'm not sure if those concepts were entirely foreign prior to Chalmers but, someone has to get the credit.
In the Garden of Eden, they ate of fruit of trees.
After the Fall,
Gen 3:18 Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return to the ground. . .
After the Flood,
Gen 9:2
The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
These verses seem to indicate the eating of flesh began as directed by God after the Flood. God's instruction of what to eat changed, indicating unique progressions. (Maybe I missed some other reference of the eating of flesh by people or animals?)
God made coats of skins for Adam and Eve, and Abel offered animal sacrifice to God.
I thought it interesting because I eat a hamburger and don't think anything unusual about it. But it seems we were not originally intended to eat meat. And if not us, why not the animals also? Isn't there a reference in Revelation about a Lion and sheep sitting together?
Bolshevik, methinks I'm going to have to read the Bible more often thanks to you. :)
When it comes to the trees of "Life" and "Knowledge of good and evil" I think both are figurative. It's been awhile since I studied the subject so my understanding isn't what it once was.
The verses you cited are interesting for a number of reasons. If I recall Adam "worked" prior to the "fall" so I'm not entirely sure no sweat was involved. One usually perspires when they do because it's natural for the body to cool itself via perspiration when one exerts energy. So verse 19 of chapter 3 doesn't make much sense to me unless it is emphasizing something else. What that may be I don't know or remember.
I would have to agree with you that Adam & Eve weren't meat-eaters prior to their expulsion. Vegetarianism does seem to be a more healthier way to go. Don't know if I would make it as one though.
I thought it interesting because I eat a hamburger and don't think anything unusual about it. But it seems we were not originally intended to eat meat. And if not us, why not the animals also? Isn't there a reference in Revelation about a Lion and sheep sitting together?
I think certain animals just are suited (genetically) to eat meat. I don't recall anything in the Bible that disputes that. As far as what it says in Revelation -- well, I think that very well could just be emphasizing the peacefulness that will be found in the "new" Eden. It's a good way of making that point but, it's difficult to believe that it will be a literal fact. I guess we'll both have to wait to see though.
Just as Adam didn't sweat before maybe Eve didn't hurt as having children.
Other children before the fall. Cain and Able after. Maybe new tread?
Danny, I'm probably the guiltiest person on this board for side-tracking threads (or at least share much of the blame). It's rare that anyone ever objects because it's very simple to get it back on track if one really wanted to. But, yea, you're right -- this subject of Adam and Eve probably should have it's own thread. Would you be interested in jump-starting one? I'm sure I can say one or two things to contribute to it.
Recommended Posts
Bolshevik
Don't know why I didn't mention this sooner, but Noah could have very well had a bit of biological compost to process waste. A good one would last a long time.
I do this myself with my marine fish tank. No filtration. I don't have time for water change maintenance during the quarter, so I try to get the tank biologically balanced. The tank, with its bacteria and worms and other critters, cleans out its own waste. Converting waste to plant food. (Now, if I had more time, I could get the tank to produce its own food)
Noah probably had worms and bugs and bacteria to help out.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/view3.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Whether it happened that way or not, every culture in the world, from Sumaria, to Babylon, India, China, the Hopis, Maya, etc. all have the flood story. Whether his name was Noah, Nu or whoever, he is remembered.
The word "earth" in the Gen. story is one of the few places in the OT where its translated "earth." The other times that word is used, it means land - an area. Could there have been a local flood? sure. There are some great articles on the net as to where it would have occurred and what caused it.
We know that mankind, was not "scattered" until Nimrod's structure he made to the heavens. It seems mankind was pretty content to stay in one area. It would have been pretty easy for a regional catastrophe to occur. If you like, I can find the links.
I believe the first flood (Noah's was the second) in Gen. 1:2 when the earth became barren and waste, is where we get seashells on top of mountains, many kinds of dino bones in pits like they were bowled over, species of trees and plants never seen before in deep mines, and other neat geological and palentological finds come from.
The earth's history and timeline is fasciniating if you look at geology and palentology. There were two "life" explosions - where all forms of life literally came from nowhere in a very short period of time. The second "explosion" - as science calls it, is the cambrian explosion, which is our life forms as we know them today - which, when you follow the progression, from seeds, to plants, ferns, trees, sealife, land animals, etc., fits in perfectly with the 6 day description of the progression of life in Gen.
The first life "explosion" (I forget the scientific name for it) I was believe was the Gen. 1:1 world, it was destroyed by water. Gen. 1:2 on is the re-formation of the earth to its present state (not re-creation - because it was already created).
So, I see no reason why there could not have been a cataclysm that wiped out the vast majority of mankind - the reason being Gen. 6:4.
Whenever you have a great destruction in the Bible, the reason is always spiritual. Gen. 1:2 - the result of Satan's fall and destruction of the earth. Noah's flood - mankind and animals genetics perverted via gen. 6:4 to thwart the savior from coming.
The next, is destruction of fire at the end and a new heaven and earth.
So, a destruction by flood and survivors is not farfetched to me. I think all the "legends" of worldwide cultures and religions have some fact in them. The fact that that flood made such a huge worldwide impression on mankind tells me it must have been something like we've never seen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
One might consider also the destruction by water that have happened in recent years, - namely, the tsunamis which slammed the coasts on
the other side of the world in which thousands perished, and the catastrophe wrought by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I gave a rational, scientific, and probably the best explanation for how penguins were saved using the Ark. I don't know why you're accusing me of being uncreative.
How could penguins float on a iceberg from the floodwaters to the Ark? Wasn't the Ark sealed? The flood killed all land flesh outside the Ark. Nothing from the artic needed to be on the Ark. It's a unneccessarily created problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
That's a good point about a flood story being told by several cultures. I've often compared such to the old analogy I call "The Phone Call" where you hear some story from someone and then call someone else up to repeat it and then that person calls another who in turns calls another. Eventually the story gets changed so much that by the time it gets back to the original story teller it only slightly resembles it. The foundation of it stays the same but the characters and certain specific details have been changed. Anyways, for anyone who might be interested -- this cite . . .
http://www.evolution-facts.org/Handbook%20TOC.htm
. . . covers the flood (chapter 14), as well as, many other subjects related to Evolution vs. I.D. The book written from it is called "The Evolution Cruncher." I highly recommend it to those wanting to understand the issues better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Thanks for the link Larry!
The YECs are very bold in their literal interpretation of Genesis. They reject many beliefs of modern "science", the Gap Theory, and the local flood idea. They believe firmly that a global flood explains the data better than the common theories of today do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You're welcome. If I recall (it's been awhile since I read the book) the authors are YECs. They make a strong case for it but, I wasn't exactly convinced. I don't see why the Earth couldn't have existed for eons of years and not contradict what the Bible says.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If you're referring to Gap Theory, I don't for certainty either way.
But, I believe it started about the same time as the idea that slow erosion became popular to explain geological phenomena. It wasn't until Mt. St. Helens eruptions that some of this same phenomena was shown to occur form very rapidly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Here's some history.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c003.html
IMO, that it began just 200 years or more ago, makes me doubt it. Why didn't anyone notice it before?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I believe the cite/book covers the geological (and fossil) phenomena quite well. It's been awhile since I read it but I think they believe the earth is only 6000 years+ old. Whether it is or not probably won't make much difference to those who are convinced one way or the other. I don't think the Bible was meant to substantiate scientific facts even though one will find some of them substantiated anyways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Seems like a good explanation for the theory. I haven't really digested everything on the page -- it looks and feels about the same as the one from the cite I mentioned. This statement . . .
. . . I think isn't very much of an argument though. Part of the gap theory would allow for death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering prior to it and still not contradict what follows after the gap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I agree.
I was just referring to Gap Theory's origins. The circumstances surrounding its beginning.
(Just Curious) How does Gap Theory allow for death, bloodshed etc?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
The author of the site you cited -- if I'm not mistaken -- disallows it because death, disease, etc. was the direct consequences of Adam's sin. I don't believe the Bible says anything about animals not dying from bloodshed and/or disease. In fact many animals spilled blood in order to live.
If you think about recent history -- American -- Europeans introduced a lot of disease to Indians which they never knew of/experienced before. I personally believe that Adam's access to the "Tree of Life" is what protected him from diseases and such. Without that "tree" (whatever it was) I think Adam would have been just as susceptible to diseases. And we all know that Cain introduced bloodshed -- after Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden. However, it's not unfathomable to think that if they weren't expelled and had Cain while in Eden that he still might have killed his brother.
So I don't know why the author would think that the theory contradicts anything the Bible says. It is interesting to read how the theory originated. I'm not sure if those concepts were entirely foreign prior to Chalmers but, someone has to get the credit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
In the Garden of Eden, they ate of fruit of trees.
After the Fall,
Gen 3:18 Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return to the ground. . .
After the Flood,
Gen 9:2
The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
These verses seem to indicate the eating of flesh began as directed by God after the Flood. God's instruction of what to eat changed, indicating unique progressions. (Maybe I missed some other reference of the eating of flesh by people or animals?)
God made coats of skins for Adam and Eve, and Abel offered animal sacrifice to God.
I thought it interesting because I eat a hamburger and don't think anything unusual about it. But it seems we were not originally intended to eat meat. And if not us, why not the animals also? Isn't there a reference in Revelation about a Lion and sheep sitting together?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Bolshevik, methinks I'm going to have to read the Bible more often thanks to you. :)
When it comes to the trees of "Life" and "Knowledge of good and evil" I think both are figurative. It's been awhile since I studied the subject so my understanding isn't what it once was.
The verses you cited are interesting for a number of reasons. If I recall Adam "worked" prior to the "fall" so I'm not entirely sure no sweat was involved. One usually perspires when they do because it's natural for the body to cool itself via perspiration when one exerts energy. So verse 19 of chapter 3 doesn't make much sense to me unless it is emphasizing something else. What that may be I don't know or remember.
I would have to agree with you that Adam & Eve weren't meat-eaters prior to their expulsion. Vegetarianism does seem to be a more healthier way to go. Don't know if I would make it as one though.
I think certain animals just are suited (genetically) to eat meat. I don't recall anything in the Bible that disputes that. As far as what it says in Revelation -- well, I think that very well could just be emphasizing the peacefulness that will be found in the "new" Eden. It's a good way of making that point but, it's difficult to believe that it will be a literal fact. I guess we'll both have to wait to see though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
Larry
Just as Adam didn't sweat before maybe Eve didn't hurt as having children.
Other children before the fall. Cain and Able after. Maybe new tread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Danny, I'm probably the guiltiest person on this board for side-tracking threads (or at least share much of the blame). It's rare that anyone ever objects because it's very simple to get it back on track if one really wanted to. But, yea, you're right -- this subject of Adam and Eve probably should have it's own thread. Would you be interested in jump-starting one? I'm sure I can say one or two things to contribute to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...60608090207.htm
not everything had to be big.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.