You wrote: Why were the birds taken along in the supposed ark if it were just a local event? (Good question, Gweedo)
Well, rem. Credit where credits due...I'm just repeating whats already been said. See Janh's article.
Achristian
Genesis 7:3 plainly states that the reason Noah took all the various kinds of birds on the ark was to keep their kinds alive throughout the land. The Bible tells us that while Noah's land was being flooded it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, presumably quite hard. It is doubtful that any kind of bird would have tried flying through such a downpour. They would have waited for the storm to let up before taking off in search of a dryer place to live. However, before that storm let up Noah's land was completely flooded. Though Noah's flood was not global, it probably looked that way to those on board the ark. From what I have read most advocates of a local flood believe the waters covered well over 3,000 square miles, an area about 60 miles from west to east and about 100 miles from north to south. If Noah had not taken the birds of his land onto the ark and somehow some of them managed to avoid drowning until the rain let up enough to fly away, how many of them would be able to fly those distances without taking a rest on dry land? With such things in mind, I tend to believe it was necessary for Noah to take birds onto the ark in order to preserve alive all the different kinds of birds in his land.I knew you'd answer like this!
However, it may be asked, "Why was it necessary for Noah to take any kinds of animals onto the ark to preserve their 'kind' alive in his land?" After all, few, if any, species of animals were then indigenous only to Noah's small part of the world. Certainly once Noah's land dried somewhat, it soon became populated with the same kinds of animals coming from other lands which Noah took onto the ark. So then, why was Noah instructed to take all of the different kinds of animals in his land onto the ark? (Hebrews 1:3)Exactly
You beat me to it!
Again, I can only repeat my belief that Noah did so because God intended him to prefigure Jesus Christ, who the Bible tells us "sustains all things."See, I dont get it. This flood killed many people. Both people who rejected Noahs message, and heaps of innocent children who appear to be rather expendable. Also on the fringes of this flood and distasterous meteor impact(one of those articles you put up says was the equivalent of many nuKes) I'm assuming there must have been many people who didn't die, so obviously didn't deserve Gods punishment, but nonetheless would have suffered greatly. Their Crops would have been destroyed, so there would have been horrible starvation. And Floods bring disease too BTW...thats not very nice. And God did all this just to complete some bizarre symbolism. Why didn't he just snap his fingers and strike those people undeserving down with lightning bolts. But no, he had to get all fancy and creative about killing people just so he could have this bizarre symbolism and prefigure Jesus's future actions. It just seems like Gods priorities are around the wrong way. He's putting symbolism ahead of human suffering!
Also, if he wanted to flood the place for symoblic reasons, and there was no real point taking animals on board. He could have taken the kids that otherwise died in the flood. They were innocent!!! He could have turned the Ark into a giant floating orphanage or something, instead of a zoo...It would have been better than letting kids die horrible deaths in some flood!!!!!!!!!!
sorry, I dont get it.