Quick question

[Gandhi]

And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Wouldn't adam and eve have to leave eden to fill the earth. An all knowing god would know everything past, present, future so wouldn't he have know that adam and eve would taken a bite from that apple before he even made them.

 

[Arkanjel]

Good question. And basically your answer is Yes. God does know everything past present and future. He dwells in what is we would call another dimension, or the spiritual realm. The easiest way for me do describe how He sees and is able to interact with all creation throughout all time is this analogy.
Time the way we see it is linear, kinda like a parade. You (person A) sit on the curb where the parade starts and watch the parade go by; someone else (person B) sits on the curb where the parade ends, but while you have sat through the whole parade and are leaving, person B has yet to even see the parade start. This is basically someone living in the past versus someone who is living in the future. BUT while this whole spectacle takes place in front of you, God has the view of the TV cameras from the blimp overhead. He can see the start and the finish of the parade and all points in the middle, all at the same time. Hope that didnt confuse you.
The section of scripture you quoted from Gen1:28 is basically God's quick overview of creation. In the next chapter he goes into a little more detail of creating Adam and then creating Eve. God also goes into some good detail as to the diet of EVERYTHING on the earth before the fall of man.

Gen1
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Note that he is also telling us what all the animals ate, GREEN HERBS! Yes, indeed every creature before the fall of man was a vegetarian! Hard to believe? Well have you ever seen your dog or cat go and chew on grass? There bodies need the fiber, they cant subsist on meat alone.
So the purpose of the garden of Eden was just that, a garden, here man did not have to work for his food, God provided it all for him, all he had to do was pluck it off the tree.
Gen1
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Note what control Adam was given over all the creatures of the earth, "have dominion" and "subdue". If you look those words up in the dictionary they mean supreme authority / absolute ownership, and to conquer and bring into subjection. God basically gave man control over every beast of the earth, to rule over them, that is why we are the dominant creature today, and you dont see any apes or dolphins keeping man in pens to use as they will.
So God put man in Eden so he didnt have to work for his food, man what a paradise that must have been! It doesnt ever say he couldnt leave, but when Adam sinned, thats when he got the boot.
Gen3
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Here God is telling Adam the repercussions of his sin. Note that God said he will now have to work the land for food. No more free lunch =(. But I think the biggest reson that God kicked Adam out was because of the tree of life.
Gen3
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
That was the biggest part of Adams sin, DEATH. If he was not able to eat of the tree of life, he would surely die, and thats why he put the angels there to guard against anybody from getting to that tree. Because when God first put Adam in the garden he said he could eat of any tree EXCEPT the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He didnt say anything about the tree of life. I find it interesting to think that God doesnt say anything else about the garden of Eden after Adam was forced out. Aparently the garden of Eden was still around up until the flood, and only then would it have been destroyed. Im sure that the tree of life was still growing in it then, but nobody could get to it because of the angels standing guard. Its really amazing to think what the world must have been like back then! Giants roaming around, angels guarding the garden of Eden, Adam and his stories of naming all the animals, Noah and his huge boat, dinosaurs roaming around. I can only imagine that is was pretty fantastic.
Sorry for making this so long, but i just wanted to make sure that I covered all the bases. O and one more thing for those who will surely point it out. Yes animals today, and dinosaurs then had some pretty sharp teeth, but Im sure they were made with these teeth because God knew they were going to need them in the future.
Gen9
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Here after the flood, God told Noah that it was okay to eat the meat from animals. Not until after the flood was man allowed to do this, also note that God said all the animals would now be afraid of man. And lastly, how did Noah fit all those animals on the boat?? Well for one it was a HUGE boat, and two, baby animals are much smaller (dinosaurs included) and make much less mess and eat a lot less. So i think I managed to cover everything. Hope this inspires you and give you the answer you seek!

 

[Jim]

Just a couple quickie nitpicks:

And lastly, how did Noah fit all those animals on the boat?? Well for one it was a HUGE boat

Which, incidentaly, is supposedly many times larger than any entirely wooden vessel built with modern techniques. Ships half the size of the ark would require metal bracing and technological assitance to keep afloat (Bilge pumps for example). Not to mention severe leakage and weight.

, and two, baby animals are much smaller (dinosaurs included) and make much less mess and eat a lot less.

Which would apply if it were true. The Bible speaks of the male and his mate [Gen 7:16] which shows they were at sexual maturity. So adult animals must have been on the ark, otherwise the Bible would have lied.

About the dinosaurs, were triceratops, stegosaurus, tyrannosaurus, velociraptor, brachiosaur and pterodactyl, not to mention plesiosaur among others on there too? I though macroevolution wasn't possible?

It also begs the question I have never recieved an (satisfactory) answer for: What, exactly, is a kind? Even a very generous estimate of the numbers of reproductively distinct species would have the number of ancestor species at the time of the supposed flood in the millions of millions. I can't really see eight people feeding, or even storing, as well as caring for that many animals. How many zoos and wildlife preserves, places which don't come even a fraction of a fraction of being close to the number of animals required on the ark, feed and care for all their animals of various habitats, food requirements, temperature/humidity and water (if amphibian/reptilian) alkalinity and temperature...

 

[Gandhi]

Jims right Noah's boat would have to be bigger than the Titanic to fit everything in it. But its impossible for a person to build a boat of that size in that period of time.

And u didn't really answer the question.
If god knows past present and future, he would of known when he created adam and eve that they would go against his wishes. SO god knew they were going to eat from the tree before they were even created. Plus he put the tree in the centre of the garden. He made sure it was there to tempt them. If u were making a garden and u had a tree u didn't want anyone to touch would u put it in the centre of the garden or in some far corner somewhere.

What I'm thinking is god wanted them to eat from the tree, he knew they would. He could of made it harder for them to get at, but he knew they would get to it and take that bite. Then he makes them feel guilty about it and kicks them out of paradise. Thats what I get from the story of the garden of eden.

 

[SLNT_FIR]

Actually, no. I remember reading some book, I think one of Lee Strobel's books. Only like >10% animals are big like Giraffe - Dinosaur - Elephant --- size'ish. The rest would be like insects *bazillions*, small animals such as dogs and such. I have a mental picture. I'm not saying this may be 100% right, but just giving you an idea. Sure he would have to fit, but they wouldn't necessarily need to be ub3r big right?

Dinosaurs? Noah

Noah -

 

[Jim]

Well, this is Ghandi's thread- after this I'd better not get further into the Noah stuff since I already derailed it.

but they wouldn't necessarily need to be ub3r big right?

Correct, but that isn't what is under contention; it is the numbers. Size don't matter if you have several hundreds of millions of specimens of creatures all under one roof, so to speak. To repeat my last point, how would eight people feed, excercise, clean up after and otherwise care for a few million animals. And that doesn't even cover the problems involved for getting their habitats right. Proper aquariums for aquatic species, specific food sources for certain animals (Pandas, I believe, require a very specific diet of eucalyptus leaves), temperature, ventilation and so on. This is 150 days in a wooden floating zoo.

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

Just a couple quickie nitpicks:



Which, incidentaly, is supposedly many times larger than any entirely wooden vessel built with modern techniques. Ships half the size of the ark would require metal bracing and technological assitance to keep afloat (Bilge pumps for example). Not to mention severe leakage and weight.



Which would apply if it were true. The Bible speaks of the male and his mate [Gen 7:16] which shows they were at sexual maturity. So adult animals must have been on the ark, otherwise the Bible would have lied.

About the dinosaurs, were triceratops, stegosaurus, tyrannosaurus, velociraptor, brachiosaur and pterodactyl, not to mention plesiosaur among others on there too? I though macroevolution wasn't possible?

It also begs the question I have never recieved an (satisfactory) answer for: What, exactly, is a kind? Even a very generous estimate of the numbers of reproductively distinct species would have the number of ancestor species at the time of the supposed flood in the millions of millions. I can't really see eight people feeding, or even storing, as well as caring for that many animals. How many zoos and wildlife preserves, places which don't come even a fraction of a fraction of being close to the number of animals required on the ark, feed and care for all their animals of various habitats, food requirements, temperature/humidity and water (if amphibian/reptilian) alkalinity and temperature...

Firstly, the ark was not a ship. It was not ment to travel any were. Basicaly it was a huge floating zoo/house. Another thing is that you guys are forgetting that God is all powerful, He has no need for metal braces or the like. I'm not usre about the dinosaurs, but I think God destroyed them along with the first time he flooded the earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sojourner52
so would you say that the universe is that old? werent the heavens and the earth created at the same time? I am not questioning God's Word - just wondering if the science of light and "time" are a little off.



Actually the heavens and the earth are millions of years old. If you look at Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 you will see a gap there. How big that gap is the Bible does not say.

Ge 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gap….

Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The word “was” here is “Hayah” in Hebrew which means;
be or become, come to pass

Then the phrase “without form” is “Tohuw” in Hebrew, which means;
to lie waste; a desolation

Now if you reread that with the true meaning, Gen 1:2 would read as such.

And the earth become without form, and a desolation, and darkness was (was here had been added to help the reader) upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now without going into great detail here, something happened in-between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 which caused the earth to be destroyed. This was the first flood on earth that most scientists believed happened before Noah’s flood. From here you will want to read Job. 38 to see that after the fall of Lucifer God destroyed the earth with a great flood and froze it over, our ice age if you will. This is where the disembodied deamons come from. The Daemons are what was on earth then when Lucifer ruled the earth at that time.

So the kicker which I love the most, the scientist keep looking for the answers and they are already there in the book that has been on earth for centuries, the Bible.

(this is one of my dad's post on another forum, if this intrestes you look up my Bermuda Triangle post)

 

[Jim]

Firstly, the ark was not a ship. It was not ment to travel any were. Basicaly it was a huge floating zoo/house. Another thing is that you guys are forgetting that God is all powerful, He has no need for metal braces or the like. I'm not usre about the dinosaurs, but I think God destroyed them along with the first time he flooded the earth.

Yup, but the point was never if the ark was supposed to sail around, function like a sailing ship, but to act as a sturdy vessel. In that size, It would have taken a lot more than wood and eight people without modern or even semi-advanced technology to keep afloat and intact.

In this case, I suppose invoking miracles would have to leave this as a difference of opinion- to each his own and all that- and I'm fine with that. But if this were about evidence and science, miracles wouldn't be feasible for obvious reasons. Miracles can't exactly be quantified or reproduced.


The rest... Is your dad a day-age creationist? I believe that is what that reasoning is called- a day can be an age, hence day-age .

I might just look it up, though. Sounds interesting.

 

[SLNT_FIR]

mmm... well, still my point is also there, I might have not made it clear. and I would think that they would NOT need to build an aqaurium... ocean? Sure salt may be an issue, but again we can't have everything figured out. And there is only a certian point where we can clarify things. But as I said, it is a misconception, that you would hve to fit a billion different species of animals. Most species would be fairly small, dog sized --- lion sized. around there. and yes, it should be a big boat.\


ps.

I think this argument is over, it's pointless and we have to make sure we do'nt get angry at people.

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

What is a ‘kind’? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).

One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic mating, so the ‘kind’ may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the ‘kind’ with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.

For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.

Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. With extinct genera, there is a tendency among some paleontologists to give each of their new finds a new genus name. But this is arbitrary, so the number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated. Consider the sauropods, which were the largest dinosaurs—the group of huge plant-eaters like Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, etc. There are 87 sauropod genera commonly cited, but only 12 are ‘firmly established’ and another 12 are considered ‘fairly well established’.5

One commonly raised problem is ‘How could you fit all those huge dinosaurs on the Ark?’ First, of the 668 supposed dinosaur genera, only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown. Second, as said above, the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated. But these numbers are granted by Woodmorappe to be generous to skeptics. Third, the Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown. The largest animals were probably represented by ‘teenage’ or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep.

Another problem often raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is ‘how did disease germs survive the flood?’ This is a leading question—it presumes that germs were as specialized and infectious as they are now, so all the Ark’s inhabitants must have been infected with every disease on earth. But germs were probably more robust in the past, and have only fairly recently lost the ability to survive in different hosts or independently of a host. In fact, even now many germs can survive in insect vectors or corpses, or in the dried or frozen state, or be carried by a host without causing disease. Finally, loss of resistance to disease is consistent with the general degeneration of life since the Fall.6
Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?

The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.

Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc. It would be possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is plenty of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals’ needs for exercise anyway.

Even if we don’t allow stacking one cage on top of another to save floor space, there would be no problem. Woodmorappe shows from standard recommended floor space requirements for animals that all of them together would have needed less than half the available floor space of the Ark’s three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals.
Food requirements

The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Perhaps Noah fed the cattle mainly on grain, plus some hay for fibre. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of foodstuffs would have been only about 15 % of the Ark’s total volume. Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4 % of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs.
Excretory requirements

It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around!) or destroyed by vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change. Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour.
Hibernation

The space, feeding and excretory requirements were adequate even if the animals had normal day/night sleeping cycles. But hibernation is a possibility which would reduce these requirements even more. It is true that the Bible does not mention it, but it does not rule it out either. Some creationists suggest that God created the hibernation instinct for the animals on the Ark, but we should not be dogmatic either way.

Some skeptics argue that food taken on board rules out hibernation, but this is not so. Hibernating animals do not sleep all winter, despite popular portrayals, so they would still need food occasionally.
Conclusion

This article has shown that the Bible can be trusted on testable matters like Noah’s Ark. Many Christians believe that the Bible can only be trusted on matters of faith and morals, not scientific matters. But we should consider what Jesus Christ Himself told Nicodemus (John 3:12): ‘If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?’

Similarly, if the Scriptures can be wrong on testable matters such as geography, history and science, why should they be trusted on matters like the nature of God and life after death, which are not open to empirical testing? Hence Christians should ‘be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you’ (1 Peter 3:15), when skeptics claim that the Bible conflicts with known ‘scientific facts’.

Christians would be able to follow this command and answer skeptics’ anti–Ark arguments effectively, if they read John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study. This remarkable book is the most complete analysis ever published regarding the gathering of animals to the Ark, provisions for their care and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. For example, some skeptics have claimed that the post-Flood ground would be too salty for plants to grow. Woodmorappe points out that salt can be readily leached out by rainwater.

Woodmorappe has devoted seven years to this scholarly, systematic answer to virtually all the anti–Ark arguments, alleged difficulties with the Biblical account, and other relevant questions. Nothing else like this has ever been written before—a powerful vindication of the Genesis Ark account.

‘It has just the sort of facts and details that kids find fascinating, and would make an excellent source of information for enhancing Bible study projects and class lessons on the Ark and Flood. Anyone interested in answering the many questions about the ark, especially from skeptics, would be advised to read Noah’s Ark.’7

(I haven't had a chance to read all of this yet)

Look here also; http://www.worldwideflood.com/default.htm

 

[Genesis1315]

I am sure we could have an interesting discussion on Noah, I don't think that was the topic of this thread. Could we please get back on topic?

Thanks
Gen

 

[Jericho_falls]

Aww nuts... I was getting all riled up Gen... oh well... Ill just say three things:
(1) According to my previous calculations each animal would have 6 sq.' each on the ark.
(2) Jim, just because the bible says "its mate" does not mean they were mature, it simply means Noah didn't take two males.
(3) Also, those who are trying to refute the ark have what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery." How do you know that Noah did not have "superior" building techniques... for all we know, he could have made more sturdy ships out of wood than we ever have out of metal. Just because we are further along in the future does not mean we are smarter, more informed, more logical, ir more scientifically capable.

Now on to the question of the garden. Adam was one hundred and thirty years old when he had his third son. It is very possible He and Eve wandered in the garden for a good hundred years before the fall. Every gardener knows (my mother in particual) that you always expand your garden. The more people you have, the bigger a garden you can get. It is very possible that as the population grew (very, very slowly) they would have expanded the garden. If you had hundred years to make room for kids, Im sure you could expand the garden in that time.

 

[Eon]

Regarding your Chronological Snobbery argument.

I will contend that ancients know MANY clever things - often they know how to achieve a result using primitive means that amount to much less energy consumption than that required using modern means.

However where the difference in techonology is so great, it becomes possible for modern societies to wield such brute force that the advantage of "Craft" if you like, is rendered moot.

In particular we can discuss construction. There might be some way for an ancient civilisation to construct surprising artifacts or buildings - such as the pyramids. For us to authentically create pyramids today would be horrendously expensive - but we could very quickly create much larger structures using modern methods and materials.

We could, to this day, create a boat the size of the ark. I suspect that the larger aircraft carriers eclipse it in size. One day, no doubt, we will create starships similar to the Imperial Star Destroyers from Star Wars that will make modern carriers seem equally laughable. But we will not create the Nimitz out of wood and we will never create the Imperator from Steel. Because no matter how much more advanced we get, we cannot avoid the basic physics of the materials we work in.

Now with all deference to the scholarly mind that was CS Lewis, I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that his field was Literature and Philosophy and NOT engineering. Sophistry can often make a rainbow of a cloud and a thoroughbred of a nag. But it cannot change the laws of physics.

 

[Jericho_falls]

I offer a short and hopefully logical refutation.

Factors:
(1) The pre-flood world was far more accomodating than the post because of it's Edenic conditions.
(2) The population was also much smaller than our "modern" society.
(3) The human race was of much greater physical prowess.
(4) The human race was of much greater longevity.

Results:
(1,2,3,4) No inherrent need for mass transportation or even automatic transportation at all.
(1,3) Such things like plastics would have been laughed at when stone was readily availiable and far superior in durability, and because such things as plastic containers were useless in an envoronment designed to support human life.
(3,4) Medicinal advances were probably of much smaller priority than ours.

 

[Eon]

I see where you're going with this - and it's somewhat internally logical, I'll grant you.


1. Why would there be no need for transportation? Humankind makes journeys for no better reason than to see what's on the other side of the mountain. Holland contains everything I need for life, but I still travelled 12 hours on a 747 to visit Japan for three weeks. Our most primitive ancestors walked over the Alps on foot to visit the communities on the other side - and not to escape a natural disaster or famine.

2. Stone is nice - but it has its drawbacks. In fact, in a world far more suitable for h'uman habitation (without storms, freezing winters, fires etc) one wouldn't use stone for ANYTHING, as it's difficult to work and heavy. Things that could be moulded into pleasing shapes easily would be far more popular.

3. This makes the most sense. A society that never gets sick never develops medicine. Mind you, whilst I know the section that says mankind lived longer then, I can't remember the one that says he didn't get sick. And even if he didn't get sick, one would imagine that traumatic injuries and childbirth would STILL demand the creation of a medical infrastructure.