Kangaroos and the Flood

by Zechariah 66 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Zechariah

  Noahs descendants

  Genesis 10
  The Table of Nations
  1 This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons, who themselves had sons after the flood. The Japhethites
  2 The sons [1] of Japheth:
  Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.
  3 The sons of Gomer:
  Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.
  4 The sons of Javan:
  Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim and the Rodanim. [2] 5 (From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.) The Hamites
  6 The sons of Ham:
  Cush, Mizraim, [3] Put and Canaan.
  7 The sons of Cush:
  Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteca.
  The sons of Raamah:
  Sheba and Dedan.
  8 Cush was the father [4] of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD ; that is why it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD ." 10 The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in [5] Shinar. [6] 11 From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, [7] Calah 12 and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.
  13 Mizraim was the father of
  the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, 14 Pathrusites, Casluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites.
  15 Canaan was the father of
  Sidon his firstborn, [8] and of the Hittites, 16 Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, 17 Hivites, Arkites, Sinites,
  18 Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites. Later the Canaanite clans scattered 19 and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha.
  20 These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations. The Semites
  21 Sons were also born to Shem, whose older brother was [9] Japheth; Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber.
  22 The sons of Shem:
  Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram.
  23 The sons of Aram:
  Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshech. [10]
  24 Arphaxad was the father of [11] Shelah,
  and Shelah the father of Eber.
  25 Two sons were born to Eber:
  One was named Peleg, [12] because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.
  26 Joktan was the father of
  Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, 27 Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 28 Obal, Abimael, Sheba, 29 Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan.
  30 The region where they lived stretched from Mesha toward Sephar, in the eastern hill country.
  31 These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.
  32 These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.

  The problem of how kangaroos got to Australia is answered in this or at least presents the creationists explanation.

  One thing that needs to be clarified is that Noah did not take two of every species. He took two of every kind or classification. Cats, Dogs, Marsupials, horses, etc. covers thousands of species. There are only about 200 such classifications that represent the entire animal kingdom.

  I perceive after the flood Noahs family members divided up the pairs of animals and also the seven of the clean animals. Within a short course of time many descendants set sail for distant places along with animals of various kind. Obviously those that made it to Australia brought the kangaroos with them. Works for me.

  Zechariah
• 

  Gopher

  Maybe it's the late hour, but your kangaroo theory has me hopping mad! I keep jumping from idea to idea, but I cannot get any satisfaction!

  So Noah's immediate descendants took the ONLY TWO kangaroos that remained aboard a tiny ship, bound for Aussie-land? Um, how could they keep the kangaroos from leaping off into the vast ocean? Tying the poor animals down would have made them HOPPING MAD.

  But they had to take those kangaroos away, so that they would have some animal companionship (or a form of transport) in their new, but as of yet undiscovered home.

  Or...

  Noah's immediate descendants were able to build HUGE sailing ships right away. Yes they mastered that art before those kangaroos could multiply. Yes before any joeys were born, they built that 100-meter long ship -- big enough so that those hopping creatures would have room to exercise.

  Or....

  It wasn't Noah's immediate descendants who brought the kangaroos to Australia, but rather it was a later generation -- maybe about 150 years later, when humanity had time to multiply, people had time to form small societies, and then they decided to go on their mad dash to Australia. They built magnificent ships. BUT BY THEN -- the kangaroo population had multiplied into the thousands...

  What to do? Take all the thousands of kangaroos aboard your large ship to Australia, so that later peoples would believe the Bible's flood legend. OR... Kill all but about 4 or 6 of the damn hoppers, so that you could take the entire kangaroo population to the new land of Australia, so that you can have a monopoly on kangaroos!

  Really now, EVEN IF kangaroos did accompany some sailing folk to the far-off land of Australia from their mid-eastern point of origin, there would STILL BE some traces of a kangaroo population left in the middle east.

  SINCE THERE ARE NO KANGAROOS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, this "sailing kangaroo" theory doesn't work for me.

  Someone please give me a plausible scenario. (And thanks for allowing me to have some fun with the inmplausibilities!!)

  Could it be that some are so desperate to believe the flood legend that they will try to force implausible theories (and not facts) into their scenario? The scientific truth of any matter is verifiable, the flood is not. Of course we weren't around 4 millenia ago so nobody can say for certain. We can only examine the physical state of affairs on earth and try to trace back what REASONABLY can be supported. The kangaroo/Australia difficulty is only ONE OF MANY facing the literal flood legend , one which I formerly believed when I was a die-hard JW.

  Edited by - Gopher on 12 November 2002 4:41:36
• 

  Zechariah

  Gopher,
  Simmer down Gopher :)

  I wonder what classification the Gophers fell into. :)

  I never implied they immediately set sail. What I said was.
  Within a short course of time many descendants set sail for distant places along with animals of various kind.

  That fits perfectly into your own theory that it took place 150 years later. As to whether they left any kangeroos there and if so why they cannot find evidence of it. I don't know. I wouldn't believe that all the families cared to share their animals. Maybe after the flood climate had so changed that the Middle East wa not a good place to raise kangeroos. They might have been specifically looking for a place with a more tropical climate in order to save the kangeroos. It might have bee a specifically save the kangeroos and other tropical animals voyage.
  
  Zechariah
• 

  Navigator

  Zech

  Gee, those 200 "classifications" must have evolved pretty quickly to reach the myriad numbers that are present today. Perhaps the bible writers should have checked with the Babylonians they borrowed the story from in order to get it all straight.
• 

  hippikon

  One thing that needs to be clarified is that Noah did not take two of every species. He took two of every kind or classification. Cats, Dogs, Marsupials, horses, etc. covers thousands of species. There are only about 200 such classifications that represent the entire animal kingdom

  Do you think kangaroos are related to the Echidna and platypus - They are all marsupials. I wonder if Emus are related too - They all look the same to me?

  

  Quiz: Which of the above lay eggs?

  (What is the plural of platypus? Platypussies?)
• 

  Gopher

  Zechariah,

  What you said was interesting.

  I wouldn't believe that all the families cared to share their animals. Maybe after the flood climate had so changed that the Middle East was not a good place to raise kangeroos. They might have been specifically looking for a place with a more tropical climate in order to save the kangeroos. It might have been a specifically save the kangeroos and other tropical animals voyage.

  That's a lot of "maybes" and "might have beens". While it's fun to speculate, science demands verifiability. The "kangaroos in Australia" problem is more easily solved if they were originally created (or possibly evolved) IN AUSTRALIA and never were moved out by a theoretical global flood.
• 

  Gopher

  Hippikon -- I think the plural word for platypus is platypi. But I don't want any ice cream with my platypi, thank you very much!
• 

  JosephMalik

  Zechariah,

  This was discussed on the old h2o board by Alan F. to the point of exhaustion. He demonstrated that the flood was not global. Noah only collected animals in the area in which he lived. That seems clear enough. The problem is contextual. Words like world do not mean planet or should be contextually understood at the very least. They only refer to the humans involved and how this problem involving the area in which they lived was solved. It is very much the same in Johns gospel. There it says:

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  :2 The same was in the beginning with God. :3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. :4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

  Words such as all or all things in these verses do not mean the planet, stars, trees or even the animals. In context they only means mankind, human beings. So John continues:

  :5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. {comprehended: or, did not admit, or, receive} . . . :10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

  The beginning of John 1:1 therefore is not the same beginning as Gen. 1:1. Yet we now know that Christ personally created us (the world) while he was with God and identified as the Word during such early times and therefore had authority/responsibility over us. So John identified the Word as God to man (the world) for such reasons. Here we also see that words such as God identify no one personally and must also be understood in context and John points to the creation of man for the context in this introduction to his Gospel.

  There is therefore no reason to apply the flood to an area far greater than the people or animals involved in the account regarding the flood.

  Joseph

  Edited by - JosephMalik on 12 November 2002 8:7:48
• 

  Zechariah

  Of course your way requires no maybes at all.

  I'll stick with mine.

  Zechariah
• 

  Zechariah

  You're intentionallypretending not to understand. That 200 classifications more like 150. At least it was that 40 years ago. Theres no reason why the would arise any new classifications just new species.

  I think you understand the difference and are just trying to confuse the issue.

  If there were dinosaurs before the flood that were killed by it Noah was not obligated to take two dinosaurs into the ark. He fulfilled his obligation with smaller sized representatives such as the lizard, etc.

  Are you also rejecting the selected gene pool theory for the dispersment of the human population over the earth after the flood.

  I will be talking more about that.

  Zechariah