8.7 Million Species

[_Chap]

From this it is pretty clear that the earth was completely covered with water for five months - "an hundred and fifty days".

I'm not sure the text demands this.

If you wish you can maintain the position that the hundred and fifty days could have included time when not all of what was normally land was uncovered. No problem from me.

Every living thing on the surface of the earth was dead after that time:

Every living thing that has "the breath of life." This does not include plants or insects.

So: if there was anything alive on the surface of the earth AFTER the Flood, it must have been in the Ark.

No, not anything. Only those who have the breath of life.

Insects breath too - just not the way that creatures with lungs do.

See http://insects.about.com/od/morphology/f/breathing.htm

Anyway, you certainly don't believe that many insects can survive days or weeks (if not months) underwater, do you?

As for plants, if you feel able to believe in common plants surviving an immersion of the order of magnitude made necessary by it taking 150 days to abate, fine by me. I don't think many people not already committed for religious reasons will want to follow you, though.

What about this idea of Hoops that there were no carnivorous creatures in the Ark? I suppose that it must come from the double enumeration here in Genesis 6:

I don't have my Bible in front of me right now, but it comes from an earlier chapter where it states that animals and humans ate plants. I'll check it in a little while.

Hoops may perhaps think that because the only kind of mammal to be listed explicitly is 'cattle', that opens the door to saying that carnivores were excluded. That is pretty weak, given that:

Agreed. That's why that's not my position

(c) And in any case there are plenty of birds that are carnivorous, and plenty of 'creeping things' too. So even if there were no carnivorous mammals, the problem of some animals feeding on others in the Ark remains.

No, it doesn't. It isn't until AFTER the ark that we are COMMANDED to eat meat (for which I'm thankful for. Grilled burgers tonight)

I think you will find that the first definite references to the killing of animals and meat consumption follow the expulsion from Eden, and are therefore post-Fall, not post-Deluge:

Genesis 4

1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

It is a common-place of Old Testament sacrifice that the participants normally eat the majority of the animal sacrificed, and only parts are burned as an offering. The idea of a vegetarian sacrificing animals makes little sense in any case.

So I think you can safely deduce that the people who went into the Ark were meat-eaters (when they could spare an animal, that is), and I don't think there is any reason to think that the animals were more universally vegetarian than the humans. You will recall that Noah's first act when leaving the Ark was to conduct a large animal sacrifice. There are no signs that he was doing something new there.

[_Hoops]

If you wish you can maintain the position that the hundred and fifty days could have included time when not all of what was normally land was uncovered. No problem from me.

I don't think the Bible specifically states that the entire earth was coveredin water for that entire time. Am I wrong?

Insects breath too - just not the way that creatures with lungs do.

We're discussing the Biblical record, not what modern biology has to say. Biblically, insects and plants are not alive because they don't have the breath of life in them. Which is why animals had to be a sacrifice (distinguished from an offering)

Anyway, you certainly don't believe that many insects can survive days or weeks (if not months) underwater, do you?

Common ploy. "I don't know the Biblical record, and what I do know I haven't thought about it very much. And of what I do know, it just can't be true." I don't see why not. Shoot, mosquitoes are born in water.

As for plants, if you feel able to believe in common plants surviving an immersion of the order of magnitude made necessary by it taking 150 days to abate, fine by me. I don't think many people not already committed for religious reasons will want to follow you, though.

Plants can't survive on what must have been a whole lot of debris floating on the water? And don't forget that the mountains we see today - I think it's in Psalms - were created or formed at this time. It's reasonable that plants would have been thrust up with the mountains.

I think you will find that the first definite references to the killing of animals and meat consumption follow the expulsion from Eden, and are therefore post-Fall, not post-Deluge:

You're right. I was mistaken and often get the two stories confused.

It is a common-place of Old Testament sacrifice that the participants normally eat the majority of the animal sacrificed, and only parts are burned as an offering. The idea of a vegetarian sacrificing animals makes little sense in any case.

Be that as it may, the biblical record is clear: And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

So I think you can safely deduce that the people who went into the Ark were meat-eaters (when they could spare an animal, that is),

ABsolutely not.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

Contrasted with:


The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

and I don't think there is any reason to think that the animals were more universally vegetarian than the humans.

Except for the command I showed you above.

You will recall that Noah's first act when leaving the Ark was to conduct a large animal sacrifice. There are no signs that he was doing something new there.

[/quote]Quite right. The first sacrifice was clothes for Adam and Eve. But there's no indication that they ate the sacrifice, particularly when they were told that plants were their food source.

[_Chap]

I am reaching the stage where I am content to leave others to make up their mind about which one of us is more persuasive.

A few closing remarks on parts of your post:

Anyway, you certainly don't believe that many insects can survive days or weeks (if not months) underwater, do you?

Common ploy. "I don't know the Biblical record, and what I do know I haven't thought about it very much. And of what I do know, it just can't be true." I don't see why not. Shoot, mosquitoes are born in water.

That part of your post was neither polite nor clever.

On politeness: it seems to be characteristic of certain types of EV Christians that they assume that anyone who comes to a different conclusion than them on biblical matters is simply ignorant about the Bible. I do not think anyone reading our posts would conclude that was obvious. Why waste time attacking stereotypes rather than real opponents?

On cleverness: certain insects such as mosquitoes lay their eggs in water, and go through an aquatic larval stage. Adult mosquitoes, however, like other flying insects, have to breathe air to live. Try immersing some mosquitoes in water to see what happens. Most insects have a larval phase, but for many important insects that larval phase is, like the insect itself, air-breathing and terrestrial. A flood that covered the earth for no more than a few days would ensure the death of whole tranches of insects - including important pollinators such as bees, vital to plant reproduction.

I don't think either that many will see a lot of sense in your comment on how plants survived the flood:

Plants can't survive on what must have been a whole lot of debris floating on the water? And don't forget that the mountains we see today - I think it's in Psalms - were created or formed at this time. It's reasonable that plants would have been thrust up with the mountains.

I leave aside highly implausible 'they all survived on floating debris' point.

The Bible specifically says in Genesis 7:

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

No sign of protruding mountains there to 'bear up' plants.

How long did the flood effectively last? Well, it started in the second month:

Genesis 7

11 ¶In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the afountains of the great deep bbroken up, and the cwindows of heaven were opened.

It rains for forty days and night, until the mountains are covered.

It is not until eight months later that we even reach the stage where the mountain tops re-appear:

Genesis 8

5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

On any reasonable calculation, most of the surface of the earth was under water for several months. You may have no problem with that, but unless the laws of nature were grossly different at that time in respect of the abilities of normally terrestrial creatures to survive under water, the earth as an ecosystem capable of supporting human and terrestrial animal life was effectively dead when Noah and company left the Ark.

[_Milesius]

If the Noachian flood occurred, then it was regional, not global.

[_Chap]

If the Noachian flood occurred, then it was regional, not global.

Roma locuta est. What more need we say?

I'll stick with saying, as that article effectively does, that it certainly can't have happened as the Bible said it did, unless we read the Bible in some really rather special and ad hoc senses, or abandon all scientific understanding of biology and geology.

If all there is to save from the tradition is 'there was once a flood sometime, someplace', I'm really not very interested.

[_Hoops]

On politeness: it seems to be characteristic of certain types of EV Christians that they assume that anyone who comes to a different conclusion than them on biblical matters is simply ignorant about the Bible.

I prefer to take the Bible literally when possible or, as should be expected, when the text warrants it. That's a reasonable position, I believe. Any other reading voids the Bible of much of its meaning

On cleverness: certain insects such as mosquitoes lay their eggs in water, and go through an aquatic larval stage. Adult mosquitoes, however, like other flying insects, have to breathe air to live. Try immersing some mosquitoes in water to see what happens.

I'm not an entomologist (and I'm not even sure that's what they're called) so I don't know. All I'm doing is explaining a literal reading of the Bible to my best. The Bible does not consider insects or plants "alive" because they do not have the breath of life. I asume this has something to do with how we/they exhale, though I don't know.
However, I'm optomistic that there are varied insect species that could survive several day/weeks flood.

A flood that covered the earth for no more than a few days would ensure the death of whole tranches of insects - including important pollinators such as bees, vital to plant reproduction.

I'm not sure how you've arrived at this conclusion.

I don't think either that many will see a lot of sense in your comment on how plants survived the flood:

Why not?

I leave aside highly implausible 'they all survived on floating debris' point.

Of course you do. Nonetheless, I didn't say "all", but I did say it's quite reasonable that some plants could have survived on floating debris. You've given me no reason to disbelieve this.

The Bible specifically says in Genesis 7:

No sign of protruding mountains there to 'bear up' plants.

Which is why a careful, honest reading of the Bible requires that you take it in its entirety. I'm sorry, I don't have the reference in front of me, but Psalms speaks of mountains being "thrust up" during this time. So one would assume, reasonably, that the topography pre-Noah vs. post-Noah was quite different.

It is not until eight months later that we even reach the stage where the mountain tops re-appear:

To Noah. It's says nothing about when mountains were revealed that were not witnessed by Noah. However, I'm perfectly willing to accept that all the earth was covered for 150 days.

On any reasonable calculation, most of the surface of the earth was under water for several months. You may have no problem with that, but unless the laws of nature were grossly different at that time in respect of the abilities of normally terrestrial creatures to survive under water, the earth as an ecosystem capable of supporting human and terrestrial animal life was effectively dead when Noah and company left the Ark.

I'll give that. However, I have already shown you that "nature" as we know it today was vastly different. Animals and humans were both vegeterians and came from the ark and began to eat meat. That seems a rather significant shift in the natural order.

[_Chap]

Me, I agree with you that one has to try to work out what the Bible is saying, and let it say that even if what it says is uncongenial to one's personal prejudices or preferences. However, there are two possible reasons for doing that:

1. Because one thinks the biblical text embodies an authoritative utterance by a deity, which must therefore be accurately deciphered before one can decide how to act in accordance with that utterance.

2. Because one believes that the biblical text is an important piece of writing that can reveal interesting things about an ancient culture that has played a great role in the formation of the rich tissue of human culture, and one wants to find out what the ancient writer was really saying

I am basically (2); I don't pretend to read your mind, but I suspect you are basically (1).

Now as to the business of 'taking the Bible as a whole':

(3) If one believes that the whole of the present biblical text is composed of divine utterance (let's agree for the moment not to go into problems of different versions of what is to be called 'the Bible'), and if one believes that the deity in question is consistent through time, then it follows that:

(4) One is obliged to assume that somehow it is possible to make consistent sense of the whole biblical text taken together, and that no part is to be understood as contradicting or being inconsistent with another part.

Since I don't believe (3), I am not obliged to follow (4). Just to be clear, I don't believe there are any deities, and so I don't believe that any text contains divine utterances. I therefore see the biblical text as a tissue of human writings, edited by human editors for reasons that were wholly of their time and place - which is why (in the view of people like me) one seems to find different and sometimes not wholly consistent accounts of the same events woven together or repeated in different places.

As you will be aware, there are theists who see the biblical text as a human response to an encounter with their divinity, not as simple divine utterance. That leaves room for them to dissent from (4), much as I do. I gather however that you are not that kind of theist. That's fine by me. but I hope you will manage to find the charity and humility to concede that those who differ from you may be (in your view) mistaken, but are still neither dishonest nor stupid.

To go back to your point about the Psalms having a reference to mountains being thrust up at the time of the Flood, and therefore providing a refuge of plants (and presumably insects and other animals): I think you are referring to Psalm 104 'in the order of the Hebrews', in particular verse 8.

The key question here is whether what goes up and down is the mountains and valleys, or the water that flows into the mountains and valleys. Here are two early English translations which differ in that respect, with one version of each verse following the other (note that the Douay-Rheims version - what some people think of as 'the Catholic Bible' - has a different Psalm numbering). As you can see, the KJV makes the up and down refer to the waters, whereas Douay-Rheims makes it refer to the mountains themselves:

Douay-Rheims (RHE)
King James Version (KJV)

1 (103-1) Bless the Lord, O my soul: O Lord my God, thou art exceedingly great. Thou hast put on praise and beauty:
1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great ; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.

2 (103-2) And art clothed with light as with a garment. Who stretchest out the heaven like a pavilion:
2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

3 (103-3) Who coverest the higher rooms thereof with water. Who makest the clouds thy chariot: who walkest upon the wings of the winds.
3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:

4 (103-4) Who makest thy angels spirits: and thy ministers a burning fire.
4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

5 (103-5) Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.
5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever .

6 (103-6) The deep like a garment is its clothing: above the mountains shall the waters stand.
6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

7 (103-7) At thy rebuke they shall flee: at the voice of thy thunder they shall fear.
7 At thy rebuke they fled ; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

8 (103-8) The mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which thou hast founded for them.
8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

9 (103-9) Thou hast set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth.
9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

From a source such as THIS ONE, you can easily see that different translators still differ on this point:

New International Version (©1984)
they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Mountains rose and valleys sank to the levels you decreed.

English Standard Version (©2001)
The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
The mountains rose and the valleys sank to the place you appointed for them.

King James Bible
They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

American King James Version
They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys to the place which you have founded for them.

American Standard Version
(The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them.

Bible in Basic English
The mountains came up and the valleys went down into the place which you had made ready for them.

Douay-Rheims Bible
The mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which thou hast founded for them.

Darby Bible Translation
The mountains rose, the valleys sank, unto the place which thou hadst founded for them; --

English Revised Version
They went up by the mountains, they went down by the valleys, unto the place which thou hadst founded for them.

Webster's Bible Translation
They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys to the place which thou hast founded for them.

World English Bible
The mountains rose, the valleys sank down, to the place which you had assigned to them.

Young's Literal Translation
They go up hills -- they go down valleys, Unto a place Thou hast founded for them.

The last translation in the list is one that tries to stick as closely as possible to the Hebrew:

iolu erim irdu bqouth al-mqum ze isdth
they-are-ascending mountains they-are-descending valleys to place-of this you-founded

I think you can see why two different kinds of translation suggest themselves here.

It may not interest you much, but some scholars see this Psalm as talking about the creation, when the primal waters were cleared from the earth. You won't accept this, since obviously there is a problem of consistency when v.9 (KJV) says:

9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

For you, I suppose that cannot be a pre-Flood reference on grounds of consistency. Others without that commitment may legitimately see things differently.

[_Tarski]

However, I have already shown you that "nature" as we know it today was vastly different. Animals and humans were both vegeterians and came from the ark and began to eat meat. That seems a rather significant shift in the natural order.

This is so obviously ridiculous. Why can't you see that, for example, a lion is what it is in shape, size, musculature, and dentition exactly because it is a hunter and meat eater. In its defining gross structure it is adapted to a specific type of prey (large and quick moving etc.)

Its teeth are adapted to tearing flesh and its muscles and skeleton are adapted to hunting, chasing and overpowering game.

Form follows function in the biosphere!

We can even see the evolution of this carnivorous adaptation for many animals in the fossil record.

Again, form follows function and if a lion were not the sharp toothed, flesh tearing, powerful beast that we all know, then it would hardly look like a lion (internally or externally). Indeed, it wouldn't be a lion.


You can keep on imaging silly things like sabre tooth tigers munching on grass and leaves but this is clear nonsense to anyone not driven to intellectual blindness by biblical literalism.

[_schreech]

I prefer to take the Bible literally when possible or, as should be expected, when the text warrants it. That's a reasonable position, I believe. Any other reading voids the Bible of much of its meaning

1 - Which translation are you talking about here?

2 - Did dinosaurs not eat meat AND were there any alligators on Noah's ark?

[_Hoops]

This is so obviously ridiculous.

Well, you constantly ridicule, so it's a match made in heaven.

Why can't you see that, for example, a lion is what it is in shape, size, musculature, and dentition exactly because it is a hunter and meat eater. In its defining gross structure it is adapted to a specific type of prey (large and quick moving etc.)

Really? Why can't you see that that is exactly my point?

Its teeth are adapted to tearing flesh and its muscles and skeleton are adapted to hunting, chasing and overpowering game.

Indeed they are.

Form follows function in the biosphere!

Yes it does.

Again, form follows function and if a lion were not the sharp toothed, flesh tearing, powerful beast that we all know, then it would hardly look like a lion (internally or externally). Indeed, it wouldn't be a lion.

What is it you think I'm not getting? I'm simply explaining the Biblical record.

You can keep on imaging silly things like sabre tooth tigers munching on grass and leaves

You can keep imagining that ... oh never mind.

but this is clear nonsense to anyone not driven to intellectual blindness by biblical literalism.

What, exactly is clear nonsense? Let's see if you've been listening at all. Of which I'm highly dubious, given your clear Biblical contempt driven by your imaginary intellectualism.