Australian animals and the flood (page 4)

JosephMalik

Gen 7:19,20 NWT: 19 And the waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered. 20 Up to fifteen cubits the waters overwhelmed them and the mountains became covered.

That is why everyone assumes that. Or why Biblical literalists do. And why people who make fun of Biblical literalists operate on that assumption.

under_believer,

I know but the verse is only discussing that part of this Globe where Noah and the sinful humans that died lived. Only the animals within Noah’s jurisdiction and immediate reach needed to be taken into the ark as he did not travel to what is now Australia or anywhere else so far away. The whole heavens represents such humans that sinned and not the planet itself. Yet most keep thinking the entire Globe was engulfed? There were endless discussions on this here on JWD years ago and AlanF argued successfully against such Global thinking. Why? Because words such as earth and heavens have many definitions other then the common ones we tend to use. Most choose to ignore this fact but take a look at the word earth for example:

1

) land, earth

1a) earth

1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)

1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)

1a3) earth (inhabitants)

1b) land

1b1) country, territory

1b2) district, region

1b3) tribal territory

1b4) piece of ground

1b5) land of Canaan, Israel

1b6) inhabitants of land

1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world

1b8) city (-state)

What ever happened to country, territory, district, and other such localized locations? Where in scripture does it force an interpretation that includes the entire Globe most of which was still uninhabited by humans? Why does everyone deviate from the context and circumstances in which the instructions were given to Noah? Even simple examples of animal life as given here in this thread refute the common teachings that prevail in our day that the flood was global. I just wanted to bring this into focus for the group under_believer and thank you for responding to it.

Joseph

under_believer

A localized flood is a great way of making the flood account make a bit more sense. It was one of the straws I grasped at a few years ago as a desperate JW trying to salvage his faith.

However this is not how the text reads and is not how the majority of Christian religions that espouse Biblical literalism interpret the text. Many of them require a global flood to support Flood Geology, so that they can explain the fossil record without using evolution.

When I floated this idea with a few Witness friends of mine (including a couple of elders) it was roundly denied and occasionally ridiculed.

And you know... even in absence of a global flood, there are still way too many problems with the account anyways:

* The Ark as described wouldn't be seaworthy
* There's no way that 8 humans could have taken care of the number of animals that would have fit in the ark as it was described
* Nor could they have stored the quantity of food required by that many animals
* Nor could they have kept the food fresh and edible for that long.
* The entire area covered by the flood (global or not) wouldn't have any vegetation left after being submerged for so long. Noah and his family could eat the animals. So could any carnivores he happened to bring. But what would the herbivores eat?

... and many more, I'm sure.

nvrgnbk

Thanks for the lucid response under-believer,

It's obvious that you've looked at all the angles. Very well-explained.

Grateful to be around thinking persons,

Nvr

Abandoned

another question that I would like answered is why there are no snakes in Ireland, New Zealand, Iceland, Greenland, and Antarctica?
Noah requested that any snakes who wished to live in any of those countries should raise their hand.

ROFLMAO!!! That's good.

funkyderek

Joseph Malik:

Only the animals within Noah’s jurisdiction and immediate reach needed to be taken into the ark

In that case, instead of spending a century building a 400-foot wooden boat and gathering dozens (if not hundreds) of animals and all their food, why didn't Noah simply move to higher ground? He wouldn't even need to bring any animals with him, except perhaps for some very localised species. I can't help but picture the people in surrounding areas laughing at this old man in a giant boat circling around in a lake for a year while they just got on with their lives. It's also difficult to see how the waters could have risen to cover mountains and still be contained in a small area.

Frankly the idea that the writers of the flood myth (or at least, those who copied it from the Babylonians) meant it to be read as a local event is quite ridiculous. They obviously thought of it as a worldwide catastrophe, but only because their view of the world was so primitive - no shame in that, they did live in the early Bronze Age after all! People living today really have no excuse for believing that such an event actually happened.

nvrgnbk

In that case, instead of spending a century building a 400-foot wooden boat and gathering dozens (if not hundreds) of animals and all their food, why didn't Noah simply move to higher ground? He wouldn't even need to bring any animals with him, except perhaps for some very localised species. I can't help but picture the people in surrounding areas laughing at this old man in a giant boat circling around in a lake for a year while they just got on with their lives. It's also difficult to see how the waters could have risen to cover mountains and still be contained in a small area.
Frankly the idea that the writers of the flood myth (or at least, those who copied it from the Babylonians) meant it to be read as a local event is quite ridiculous. They obviously thought of it as a worldwide catastrophe, but only because their view of the world was so primitive - no shame in that, they did live in the early Bronze Age after all! People living today really have no excuse for believing that such an event actually happened

Have a pint on me funkyderek! That's if it's not too early where you're at. In that case I'll have it for ya.

Loving the logic,

Nvr

tetrapod.sapien

nvr,

Tetra,
Thanks for the illumination. I gotta get out to B.C. one day to say hello. I hear it's beautiful.
New and Improved and now Cult-free,
Nvr

for sure man. any time. it is beautiful too. peace, tetra

nvrgnbk

Tetra,

Good to hear from you bro. Think of me next time you light one up (lamp that is ,of course)!

Peace,

Nvr

jeanV

what about an animal like the yak that is designed to leave at high altitude (if I am not mistaken he cannot survive below 3000meters)?

another question related to the flood. In the light of the great issues raised by Satan in Eden, Jehovah did not destroy the rebels allowing time to prove who was right. why then did he intervene by wiping out the whole humanity with the flood?

nvrgnbk

Great question jeanv!

You're shaping up into quite the little apostate.

Nvr

Australian animals and the flood

Share this