If it rained that much wouldnt it dillute the saltwater and salt the freshwater killing most all water creatures? How did he collect electric eels?
2007-01-02 13:37:43 · 25 answers · asked by rock 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Some of the answers here are a source of amusement at least. Of course it didn't happen and many (deliberately?) ignored the point about saltwater fish living in freshwater. The best was that they adapted to survive in fresh water when they won't accept evolution.
And it hadn't rained before!!! Ridiculous!!! How do they explain fresh water and how did it get from the ocean to the inland areas to flow to the sea again. Perhaps the rivers changed their direction of flow at night when nobody was looking and removed the sale at the same time.
2007-01-02 13:58:41 · answer #1 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The flood was local. It extended from the Tigris to the Euphrates, destroyed much of southern Mesopotamia, and carried the ark north until it hit the Ararat mountain range. Noah brought two of every domestic animal, and seven of those that were fit for sacrifices.
The Hebrew text does not indicate that the flood was world-wide. The first rule of Bible interpretation is this: Don't look for a supernatural explanation for an event that can be explained naturally. If you have to contradict Scripture in order to apply a natural explanation, then go ahead and accept a supernatural explanation. But the Hebrew text describing the flood does not require a supernatural explanation.
2007-01-02 13:43:15 · answer #2 · answered by NONAME 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
3 issues with your good judgment. A) The water animals does not be stricken by technique of certainly one of those flood and can have the skill to proceed to exist, yet you probable already knew this one. B) The Islamic faith i've got self assurance makes use of the comparable tale. C) The Bible and different non secular texts are not consistently meant to be taken actually. the story of Noah's Ark and the super flood that wiped out all the different residing issues became maximum in all probability symbolism for an actually journey, yet a vast flood and an ark with 2 of each animal became probable purely for dramatic effect.
2016-12-15 14:17:15 · answer #3 · answered by donenfeld 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to the NIV bible:
"20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. "
It would take about 1.6 * 10^21 cubic feet of water to cover Everest to that height. That's 33 times more water than is on planet earth right now. That much water would weigh almost 1 * 10^22 pounds, roughly 6% of the weight of the moon. That's a lot of frickin' water.
I gonna go out on a limb and say that it's unlikely that this actually happened.
2007-01-02 14:24:36 · answer #4 · answered by marbledog 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bible isn't specific on this question....a good one...in the great flood I rec con aquatic species probably did not need to go in the ark as they had the water. The salt and fresh water mixed, so maybe it helped the fresh water and salt water species hang on to life until things got to normal or Settled down. Good question though, I do re collate that many aquatic species were fossilized in Montana proving that the flood was very turbulent, as these fossils of marine life have been found on land.
Rick
http://dogwoodsquotes.blogspot.com
2007-01-02 13:51:00 · answer #5 · answered by Richard D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He only took creatures that were land animals. Read the Bible! They all came to Noah he didn't have to capture any of them. The fish adapted to their environment. Before Noah it had never rained before. Things lived longer before it rained. After it did rain the climate changed.
2007-01-02 13:46:30 · answer #6 · answered by Roll'n Bluntz 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually the sea water wasn't nearly as salty back then as it is now. That's one of the proofs creation research scientists use to show that the earth isn't billions of years old. The ocean should have far more salt in it than it does if rain had been falling for billions of years and loading up the ocean with all of the mineral deposits that enter it through rivers.
2007-01-02 13:51:57 · answer #7 · answered by Martin S 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is a classic case of problems with hermeneutics: you are assuming that the ecology of Earth then was the same as it is TODAY. How valid is this assumption?
Incidentally, the Bible doesn't say anything about water creatures entering the ark.
2007-01-02 13:46:43 · answer #8 · answered by flandargo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And what about the insects? And lizards? How on earth did he ever get the Komodo dragon in next to the sheep? It must have been Hell on Earth, or should I say Hell over the Water? Did you know that a boat is a feminine symbol? And that water is, too. Hmmm.... what's goin' on here, eh?
2007-01-02 13:46:57 · answer #9 · answered by Hoolia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he built the ark with shitim wood...
so he caught the eels and fish with a crappy net
shockingly, he left the eels alone, that was the slippery line of reasoning the creators of the Epic of Gilgamesh didn't anticipate when Moses stole it from the stories he read as an Egyptian priest in training, then transfered his Kemetic laws and culture onto the unsuspecting nomads
2007-01-02 13:41:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋