Noah's Ark, a biblical fact? If so,?

Question

aren't we all related through Noah? Aren't we all his great-great, ever-so-great grandchildren? Including the folks from Sweden, Nigeria, China, Puerto Rico and the Australian Aborigines?

Answer 1

Which means every racial characteristic - i.e. skin colour, hair, etc - evolved from just four couples in a period of a few thousand years.

Which isn't likely, is it?

Answer 2

According to the Bible, all people today descended from the survivors of a great Flood - Noah's family, who in turn descended from Adam and Eve (Gen 1:11). There are many stories, from many parts of the world, of a great Flood that only several people survived to repopulate the earth.
But today we have many different groups, often called "races" with what seem to be greatly differing features. The most obvious of these is skin color. Some see this as a reason to doubt the Bible's record of history. They believe that the various groups could have arisen only by evolving separately over tens of thousands of years. However, this does not follow from the evidence.
The Bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah's family had one language and were living together and disobeying God's command to "fill the earth" (Gen 9:1, 11:4). God confused their language, causing a break-up of the population into smaller groups, which scattered over the earth (Gen. 11:8-9). Modern genetics shows how, following such a break-up of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. And there is good evidence to show that the various groups of people we have today have NOT been separated for huge periods of time.
One could say there is really only one race - the human race. The Bible teaches us that God has "made from one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26. Scripture distinguishes people by tribal or national groupings, not by skin color or physical features. Clearly, though, there are groups of people, who have certain features (e.g. skin color) in common, which distinguish them from other groups. We prefer to call these "people groups" rather than "races," to avoid the evolutionary and racist connotations that have become associated with the word "race."
All peoples can intermarry and produce fertile offspring. This shows that the biological differences between the "races" are not great. In fact, the DNA differences are trivial. The DNA of any two people in the world would typically differ by just 0.2%. Of this, only 6% can be linked to racial categories; the rest is "within race" variation.
This genetic unity means, for instance, that white Americans, although ostensibly far removed from black Americans in phenotype, can sometimes be better tissue matches for them than other black Americans.
For more information on this check out this link
"http://www.answersingenesis.org"

Answer 3

not a problem
there is one race, the human race
it comes in one color, melanin, one color with many shades

it is both Biblical and historical and the flood of Noah was followed by the scattering of the nations and the development of languages at Babel. The one ice age the earth went thorugh was in the centuries following the flood and happened as the earth cooled and ended when the artic seas froze

clearly we can all be descended from the 8 people on the ark. Noah, his three sons and the unamed wives of each... that provides the genetic variation to produce the races we see today after God scattered the nations from Babel and they divided into people groups.

After the nation groups divided, they would tend to have less genetic variation and not be able to produce the range of peoples with in themselves. Eskimo for example live near the pole yet have dark skin and cannot produce light skinned children

but I see no problem and not sure your specific
question.

Marrying close relatives would eventually become a problem as genetic defects would increase in later centuries as the original good creation would become marred but not be a problem in the world before the flood but would become one in the centuries following

Answer 4

No. Noah's Ark is a fairy tale to explain away a natural catastrophe in the region. People did that sort of thing as a sort of verbal history, and they get a bit more adventurous in the telling each time. The story was taken up by the men who wrote that part of the Bible, because it's a good entertaining yarn. It's as real, of course, as hobbits.

Answer 5

The "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" (Vat. 11, Ch. 3.11) of the Catholic Church says that "all that the inspired, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to be confided to the sacred Scriptures." This is the Church's teaching on the matter after twenty centuries of Christian discernment.

Biblical inerrancy, then, is the Bible's privilege of never teaching error. Does this mean that every statement in the Bible is divine teaching? Of course not. The Bible does not always teach. There are many statements in its various books that are there for historical, geographical, poetic or other reasons. However, whenever a biblical author intends to teach us something, then the Holy Spirit intends that too. Everything that the Bible teaches is without error, but everything in the Bible is not meant as teaching. Each author was left free by the Lord to express himself according to the ideas of his own day. It is the revelation contained in the Scriptures that is important.

There are also many accounts in the Bible, which employ a literary device used by Jewish Old and New Testament writers called Midrash. Midrash is the substantive of the Hebrew word darash which means to search, to investigate, to study and, also, to expound on the fruits of the research. The aim of Midrash is to draw from Scripture a lesson for the present.

Midrash could also be defined as a "reflection on Scripture in the light of the actual situation of God's people and of the developments of God's action on its history. It proposes to explain the meaning of Scripture in the light of the later historical experience of God's people. This kind of interpretation often opened the door to embellishments of the sacred accounts, anachronisms, and a freedom in handling and maneuvering the data of tradition that were at times a little too candid and certainly very imaginative."

A good example is the Midrashic story of Noah and the flood. It is the divine message, which is important, (God saves his children from evil) not the literal account of the story.
Peace and every blessing!

Answer 6

And all the animals were dumped in one place, yet the polar bears made it all the way to the Arctic and the marsupials trekked to Australia and none of the animals ate each other at any point......

Biblical fact - oxymoron, I'm afraid...

Answer 7

Studying the genetic evolution of mitochondrial DNA (which is passed from mother to offspring), scientists have deduced that there was a bottle neck (almost a mass extinction event) 200,000 years back in human evolution. At this time, virtually all human diversity was extinguished.

Answer 8

Yes

Answer 9

YES

We are all related to Noah, so was Abraham and the land pirates that he was surrounded by, but did they act like relatives, then 430 years after in the Exodus, did the Egyptians act like relatives, and the 7 nations of land pirates in the Promised Land, could Moses buy a drink of water from any of them?

Answer 10

No need for long drawn out nonsense.

The answer is a simple no.

Answer 11

And since fundamentalists don't believe in evolution, they've no way of explaining how all the different races can arise from one person.