Hoops wrote: Also, there's no indication that an elephant had to be on the ark. All that the Bible tells us is that there were two of each "kind", not that there were specifically an elephant.
Logically, doesn't "two of each kind" mean two of EACH kind?
Asking from the point of view of your beliefs, if elephants had not been on the ark, would there be elephants today?
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Logically, doesn't "two of each kind" mean two of EACH kind?
Asking from the point of view of your beliefs, if elephants had not been on the ark, would there be elephants today?
The Bible doesn't specify what a "kind" is. It could be a classification that is much larger than how we've classified them. So all of these estimations about how many animals and how much food/water would have been required are just guesswork.
Again, from the Biblical record we know that there was a dramatic change in animals and humans. Some animals changed from vegetarians to meat eaters. Within a few generations human's life spans decreased significantly. From hundreds of years to 70. So given that, it's not unreasonable to assume that coupled with these changes, an elephant could be produced from within a larger classification of "kind". The Bible is slilent on the mechanics of that.
Hoops wrote:Again, from the Biblical record we know that there was a dramatic change in animals and humans. Some animals changed from vegetarians to meat eaters. Within a few generations human's life spans decreased significantly. From hundreds of years to 70. So given that, it's not unreasonable to assume that coupled with these changes, an elephant could be produced from within a larger classification of "kind". The Bible is slilent on the mechanics of that.
You sound like you believe the Old Testament is actually accurate.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Jason Bourne wrote:maybe they were all baby animals so there is less space needed, less food, water and all. Still a baby elephant is pretty big and eats lots. So do some other large mammals. Also what did the meat eaters eat?
Really the Noah and the ark story always seemed pretty implausible to me. I recall as a kid wondering how big the ark would have been to house all these animals. I wondered if it would be bigger than the ship The Queen Mary.
According to the biblical record, there were no meat eaters. AGain, I'm just explaining the biblical record for those who care to know it.
Also, there's no indication that an elephant had to be on the ark. All that the Bible tells us is that there were two of each "kind", not that there were specifically an elephant.
Elephants aren't kinds now? Really?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Do you have any Biblical evidence that they are? Or is your childish amazement supposed to be evidence enough?
In the real world elephants are definitely kinds. You couldn't have elephants today if there were a global flood and Noah left them behind. What the butt**** ignorant authors of the Bible thought were kinds, I couldn't say.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
That is simply a classification, a term, used to categorize species. They could have been called Ginsberg's or shoelaces or yard signs. It's up to you to show that the term "kind" is the same as the way its used in the Bible. Which you can't do, of course.
You couldn't have elephants today if there were a global flood and Noah left them behind.
I've given you the Biblical evidence that there was a dramatic shift in both animals and humans.
What the butt**** ignorant authors of the Bible thought were kinds, I couldn't say.
That's right, you can't. So you're saying: "I don't really know what the authors meant, I just know their wrong." Mmmmmkay.
That is simply a classification, a term, used to categorize species. They could have been called Ginsberg's or shoelaces or yard signs. It's up to you to show that the term "kind" is the same as the way its used in the Bible. Which you can't do, of course.
Either way, the Bible story suffers. If kinds includes elephants, how did they feed them? If not, how did they survive?
Hoops wrote:
You couldn't have elephants today if there were a global flood and Noah left them behind.
I've given you the Biblical evidence that there was a dramatic shift in both animals and humans.
You mean you've given me citations from the flood myth. Nothing there about rapid evolution, though.
Hoops wrote:
What the butt**** ignorant authors of the Bible thought were kinds, I couldn't say.
That's right, you can't. So you're saying: "I don't really know what the authors meant, I just know their wrong." Mmmmmkay.
You tell us, Hoops. What did they mean? :D
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.