Where can I get one?
2007-05-24 09:06:26 · 12 answers · asked by Bipolar Bear 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Only the fresh water fish and crustaceans. The sea water would have killed them! Yeah he had a glass tank and filters, and an electric pump motor to oxygenate the aquarium and batteries and liittle shrimp food, and are all of you the products of crack heads or what?
Maybe your mothers had fevers during pregnancy or you were dropped on your heads. Do you have a mind to reason with or not?
Don't you just love the idiots who think that all of the river and lake aquatic life would have been okay! Jesus in Heaven we are doomed!
I truly hope that you are baiting the religious zombies and are not serious about actually getting a tank........
2007-05-24 09:14:48 · answer #1 · answered by eagleperch 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"In the original Hebrew, the word for ‘beast’ and ‘cattle’ in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles. Noah did not need to take sea creatures because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood."
2007-05-24 16:16:49 · answer #2 · answered by Deof Movestofca 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are most people ignorant of the fact that the entire world is not made up of fresh water? Do they not know what would happen to the fresh water fish during an entire world flood?
Wow.
2007-05-24 16:15:32 · answer #3 · answered by glitterkittyy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL.
Not to worry. The story of Noah's ark is a myth. Anyone with more than 2 braincells to rub together knows that.
Anyone who takes any bible story literally needs to try and have the lobotomy reversed.
2007-05-24 16:10:08 · answer #4 · answered by Yoda Green 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, Noah only took land animals on the ark.
He didn't have to take fish or anything which lived in the water.
Pastor Art
2007-05-24 16:09:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Are you daft. Why would he, the sea animals just had more places to roam. He only needed to save those creatures that live on the land.
2007-05-24 16:11:58 · answer #6 · answered by marriedw/children 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uhh, I'm thinking that gigantic ocean holding up the Ark probably sufficed.
2007-05-24 16:09:11 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He didn't need to, because sea animals could survive the flood.
2007-05-24 16:09:36 · answer #8 · answered by Double A 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Since it was supposed to be a flood, the fish would probably be fine in the water.
Since it was a myth, it's a moot point.
2007-05-24 16:09:11 · answer #9 · answered by Joe M 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He would need to take fresh water animals though...
2007-05-24 16:11:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋