Cave paintings have been made since the Upper Paleolithic, 40,000 years ago. The oldest cave is that of Chauvet, and is 32,000 years old. How come in the Bible, man is not depicted as using stone axes and stone tools, with flint arrow heads etc?
Also, how can one explain the fact that since after the "flood", the population had to start over, which, one would presume, was some time after adam and eve, the variations in race in humans? Why are there people of all different colours and racial bone formations, especially of the skull?
Speaking of "the flood", Was Noah commanded to take one pair of each clean animal into the Ark (Gen 6:19–20) or seven pairs (Gen 7:2–3)? Did the flood last forty days (Gen. 7:17) or a hundred and fifty days (Gen 7:24)?
Also, would all the animals, including the extinct ones, have fit in the ark? And if all the land on earth was covered, where did that enormous volume of water go? seriously! It had to go somewhere! Where is it!?
2007-06-24
15:02:20
·
30 answers
·
asked by
irishcharmer84
2
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
It's just that in order for every inch of land on earth to be flooded, which would include, presumably, the summit of mount everest, which is seven miles high, that would take a hell of a lot of water. Now for all that to evaporate into a cloud.... That cloud would take up all of the earth's atmosphere.
And concerning the rain in the first place, WHERE DID IT COME FROM?!!?!? The water cycle — technically known as the hydrologic cycle or hydrological cycle — is the continuous circulation of water within the Earth's hydrosphere, and is driven by solar radiation. This includes the atmosphere, land, surface water and groundwater. As water moves through the cycle, it changes state between liquid, solid, and gas phases. Water moves from compartment to compartment, such as from river to ocean, by the physical processes of evaporation, precipitation, infiltration, runoff, and subsurface flow.
2007-06-24
15:03:01 ·
update #1
Telling me not to ask, and telling me that you don't believe me because of God...
DOES NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION
2007-06-24
15:08:33 ·
update #2
Dusty Scribe.... The himalayas used to be under water before continental drift caused the indian plate to crash into the asian plate, which caused the mountains to rise.
2007-06-24
15:15:18 ·
update #3
Please refrain from using logic and reason and, above all, ..proof...when challenging the great sky-marshal myth....
2007-06-24 15:07:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by conx-the-dots 5
·
2⤊
5⤋
"Speaking of "the flood", Was Noah commanded to take one pair of each clean animal into the Ark (Gen 6:19–20) or seven pairs (Gen 7:2–3)? Did the flood last forty days (Gen. 7:17) or a hundred and fifty days (Gen 7:24)? "
The Bible states "seven pairs of certain birds" and the rains lasted 40 days and 40 nights while it took the floods 150 days to go down.
I'm not claiming to be an expert so I have no idea how all the animals could have fit unless they were animals that have evolved into the multitude of what is on the planet now.
And for the water and where it went...what about all of the water in the glacier lake in Chile that disappeared this past month. Experts have no idea where all that water went.
2007-06-24 22:23:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by CareBeth 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
As a Pagan I don't buy into a lot of stories in the Bible, but I can say that if you apply modern thinking about something that happened a long time ago you might see how these stories became so "large."
The people and stories that make up the Bible are not like us today. We have instant access to every remote spot on this planet, so we could dismiss the idea of a flood that covers the world. But back then the people might know people up to say fifty mile around them. Huge flood hits, lots of deaths, strangers come to town and say that the flood was so bad that this old dude built an ark, put all the animals of the world into it. In a fifty mile radius how many animal species are there. If your whole world exists in a fifty mile radius, then there could be a boat/raft that some man brought all his animals on and they survived the flood. Noah and his ark are spread from town to town and each time the story is told it gets bigger and bigger till it becomes a supernatural story! This is why oral traditions often defy reality.
2007-06-24 23:50:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by humanrayc 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you read your science manuals as clearly as you read the Bible - no wonder you don't understand. Noah was to take one pair of every kind of animal "to be kept alive" and 7 pairs of the kinds for eating and sacrificing - the flood waters grew for 40 days and the flood lasted for 150 days. See the differences now? It's a matter of actually reading the text.
Do you remember the floods of the Mississippi River and the upped Red River (well, maybe not - it was a few years ago) - anyway the flood waters rose and filled whole towns up to the roofs of office buildings. There was more water than there had ever been in those areas - ever. Where did it go when it receded? The ocean levels didn't rise, new lakes didn't pop up, towns didn't suddenly turn into vast lakes, the rivers went back down to their normal levels - the water disappeared - where did it go - seriously! it had to go somewhere! Where is it!?
2007-06-24 22:18:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Patti R 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You wrote: "Speaking of "the flood", Was Noah commanded to take one pair of each clean animal into the Ark (Gen 6:19–20) or seven pairs (Gen 7:2–3)? Did the flood last forty days (Gen. 7:17) or a hundred and fifty days (Gen 7:24)?".
You didn't read the verses you even posted here, look at Gen 7:2 it answers your question. The reason it says by 2 and by 7 is they are talking about two types of animals, here is the verse: Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Now onto the flood: Gen 7: 17 (40 days) and Gen 7:24 -
The first part talks about 40 days of flood that it took to bare up the art. Verse 18, says the waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth and the ark went upon the face of the waters. Read the rest to verse 24: And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and 50 days.
Diane
2007-06-24 22:28:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Diane L 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
First...never spell please as PUH-LEASE...that's just embarassing to yourself.
Second, they are portrayed as that, think of the 2 tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain. They were rocks with the 10 commandments etched into them....just like cavemen did in the caves. And by the time of Moses, even before that, the Egyptians knew about papyrus(sp) so they could write on paper....before that, most languages did not have a written language.
third, If you would read the bible(i cant remember the verse) It talks about Noah's son seeing him drunk and naked. The son went back to tell the family and God made Noah's son's skin black. The son ran to clean it off, but only got the bottom of their feet and hands clean....
Fourth, he took 2 of every UNCLEAN animal, male and female, but 14 of every CLEAN animal...such a sheep.
Fifth, the flood only lasted 40 days and 40 nights, but if you would watch the news after an area is flooded, the flood only lasted a few days, but the water is there for weeks after.....High rivers, flooded run off areas, etc. If those run off areas weren't there the area would still be flooded. So back in the time of Noah, there were no run off areas, so where would the water go?
Sixth, yes, God made the ark large enough for all the animals to be on there, and for Noah and his family to keep their feed, and care for them.
Finally, that enormus volume of water froze...creating glaciers, the artic caps, etc.
2007-06-24 22:17:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Those are all secondary details which history is not really concerned with. For example there are two main sources which document Hannibal crossing the Alps. They are entirely different. One for instance says he took a north eastern route, the other says a more South western route. Because these contradict each other you do not throw the entire thing out and make Hannibal's crossing totally non-existent.
The fact that most ancient civilizations across the globe have a flood story is more important. The Asians. Mesopotamians. Greeks. Brazilians. Hawaiians. Humanity did experience a massive global flood. The secondary details will never agree.
2007-06-24 22:12:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Jesus spoke of the Flood as a historical fact. And there are aquatic fossils which have been discovered in the Himalayan mountains at high altitude.
Fossils have also been found in the coal deposits of Montceau-les-Mines near Autun in France. What could explain the sea, land, and lake creatures that have been found buried together in one massive fossil deposit? One of the richest fossil discoveries was found in the huge coal deposit of Montceau-les-Mines near Autun, France. Racing to beat the strip-mining machines, amateur fossil-hunters collected 7,000 slabs and more than 100,000 nodules before the mine was filled in.
Two paleontologists from the Museum of Natural History in Paris reported in Scientific American (September, 1988, p.70) that the evidence 'tells a contradictory story. They say this because some of the fossils are of marine (saltwater) creatures, some are definitely freshwater dwellers (e.g. amphibious), and some are definitely land creatures (e.g. spiders, scorpions, millipedes and certain insects and reptiles).
There are many other evidences that I could point to that support a global flood, but it looks as though your mind is made up, and nothing I could say here would change your mind.
I've enclosed a link (non-church) that shows sedimentary soil and aquatic fossils in the Himalayas.
2007-06-24 22:12:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
In the creactus period there was no ice at the poles, and most of the land was covered by water. Thats why you can find fossils of marine life in, say, the middle of texas, or on the tops of the appalachian mountains. Uh, anyway this is before human beings existed, or even primates of any kind, I think. Anyway of course the myth is ridiculous, but people who dont realize that by now probably never will, and trying to reason with them is futile. I say sterilize them instead, what you think?
2007-06-24 22:13:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes I do believe in it.
The cave man paintings the assumption has been made for you that they are millions of years old.
The flooding lasted 40 days. the waters receded enough to walk on dry land after 150 days.
How do you expalin fish fossils in the mountains?
Also they did not re populate from 2. Noah and his wife, his 3 sons and their wives. 8 were on the boat
2007-06-24 22:57:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Abbasangel 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wow, that is a lot of questions.
Yes, I ACTUALLY do believe it.
I wonder how you can believe some guy who tells you something is 40,000 years old or 32,000 years old. That seems perfectly logical to you.
Why is man not depicted in the Bible using stone axes...? 1. There are no pictures in the Bible. 2. I don't know that any "tools" were described in detail.
2007-06-24 22:10:22
·
answer #11
·
answered by Me 4
·
2⤊
0⤋