Kangaroos and Koala Bears (genesis, America, mythology, churches)

[GCSTroop]

Yes, that's right! Kangaroos and Koala bears. I just read a very informative article at another place asking the question why certain animals only exist in certain places. Particularly koalas and kangaroos. Koala's are an interesting creature because they only eat Eucalyptus leaves, a leaf of a tree that is only found in Australia. Now, if God created all of the animals and had Noah build an ark he must have obviously given Noah the foresight to pack some Eucalyptus leaves away right? Now, even if God intervened in the process and none of the animals ate on the ark it still doesn't solve the logistical problem of Noah dropping certain species of animals off at prescribe locations all around the world. Not only that, but if Noah landed at Mt. Ararat (this is where he landed, right?) then that would mean that all of the animals on the ship were downloaded and then dispersed throughout the rest of the world. This still doesn't solve the problem of koalas making it to present day Australia. Because even if you had a pangea type world in which everything was landlocked it would still take months for koalas to reach Australia and they would still need food and they only eat eucalyptus leaves. Not only that, but you'd think if all the animals were dumped off in one central location than you would have a much higher diversity of species in the Middle Eastern area than what is currently known. Anybody got any ideas?

I'll give some people a little hint. How could the writer's of the Bible fail to mention this? Because they were not divinely inspired and they had no knowledge whatsoever of Australia, America, or even China (where another bear lives that only eats certain vegetation)

[Padgett2]

I have no problem with Noah and The Flood if we confine it to all the world as it was known to the Jewish world of that time. They certainly didn't know of rivers like the Mississippi or the Amazon. To them, when THEIR two or three little rivers overflowed and drowned the entire world, that seemed to them to be everything and everywhere.

There have been floods all over the world at different times. Do you remember the amount of flooding that took place not too long ago on the Mississippi River? Suppose those people there knew only of that little part of the world.....no newspapers, no TV, no help from outsiders. Would they have thought it was the end? How many would have drowned without motor boats and cars escape the Great Flood of the Mississippi?

I can read the minds of some of the readers right now. They are thinking, oh, that's so silly.. It didn't happen that way. Really?

[kaykay]

Isn't it possible that certain animals became extinct in certain areas maybe because of something that occurred or because the conditions weren't as favorable to them as in other areas?

[jeffncandace]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Yes, that's right! Kangaroos and Koala bears. I just read a very informative article at another place asking the question why certain animals only exist in certain places. Particularly koalas and kangaroos. Koala's are an interesting creature because they only eat Eucalyptus leaves, a leaf of a tree that is only found in Australia. Now, if God created all of the animals and had Noah build an ark he must have obviously given Noah the foresight to pack some Eucalyptus leaves away right? Now, even if God intervened in the process and none of the animals ate on the ark it still doesn't solve the logistical problem of Noah dropping certain species of animals off at prescribe locations all around the world. Not only that, but if Noah landed at Mt. Ararat (this is where he landed, right?) then that would mean that all of the animals on the ship were downloaded and then dispersed throughout the rest of the world. This still doesn't solve the problem of koalas making it to present day Australia. Because even if you had a pangea type world in which everything was landlocked it would still take months for koalas to reach Australia and they would still need food and they only eat eucalyptus leaves. Not only that, but you'd think if all the animals were dumped off in one central location than you would have a much higher diversity of species in the Middle Eastern area than what is currently known. Anybody got any ideas?

I'll give some people a little hint. How could the writer's of the Bible fail to mention this? Because they were not divinely inspired and they had no knowledge whatsoever of Australia, America, or even China (where another bear lives that only eats certain vegetation)

I dunno. This gets into a can of worms I REALLY don't want to open because I'll just be confirming the depths of my heresy to my fellow Christians. But, here goes...

The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme among many cultural myths. Though it is best known by the Biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization.

Many orthodox Jews, Muslims and Christians, believe that the flood actually happened as recorded in Genesis. The latter say that the large number of flood myths between many cultures suggests that they originated from a common, historical event. Proponents of Flood geology contend that the myths from various cultures are corrupted memories of an historical global deluge. Flood geology is not accepted by geologists, both Christian and non-Christian, who consider it a form of pseudoscience. At one time even prominent workers in Biblical archaeology were willing to argue for a historical worldwide flood, but that view is no longer held.

Other scholars believe that the flood recorded in Genesis is actually a later version of the story, which was based upon earlier Mesopotamian myths (including the Epic of Ziusudra, the Epic of Atrahasis, and the Gilgamesh flood myth).

I say (as a Christian) this: many early civilized cultures lived in the fertile flood plains along river basins. These peoples would have deep memories of floods and have developed mythologies surrounding floods to explain and cope with an integral part of their lives. To these ancient cultures, a flood that covered their known world, from horizon to horizon, would likely be considered local flooding by First World standards instead of literally the entire planet. Scholars point out that most cultures living in areas where flooding was less likely to occur did not have flood myths of their own. These observations, coupled with the human tendency to make stories more dramatic than events originally warranted, are all the points most mythology scholars feel is necessary to explain how myths of world-destroying, cataclysmatic floods evolved.

In other words, I think this particular portion of the Bible is not telling the whole story, and/or is telling a person's archaic understanding of this event.

[kaykay]

Originally Posted by jeffncandace

I dunno. This gets into a can of worms I REALLY don't want to open because I'll just be confirming the depths of my heresy to my fellow Christians. But, here goes...

The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme among many cultural myths. Though it is best known by the Biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization.

Many orthodox Jews, Muslims and Christians, believe that the flood actually happened as recorded in Genesis. The latter say that the large number of flood myths between many cultures suggests that they originated from a common, historical event. Proponents of Flood geology contend that the myths from various cultures are corrupted memories of an historical global deluge. Flood geology is not accepted by geologists, both Christian and non-Christian, who consider it a form of pseudoscience. At one time even prominent workers in Biblical archaeology were willing to argue for a historical worldwide flood, but that view is no longer held.

Other scholars believe that the flood recorded in Genesis is actually a later version of the story, which was based upon earlier Mesopotamian myths (including the Epic of Ziusudra, the Epic of Atrahasis, and the Gilgamesh flood myth).

I say (as a Christian) this: many early civilized cultures lived in the fertile flood plains along river basins. These peoples would have deep memories of floods and have developed mythologies surrounding floods to explain and cope with an integral part of their lives. To these ancient cultures, a flood that covered their known world, from horizon to horizon, would likely be considered local flooding by First World standards instead of literally the entire planet. Scholars point out that most cultures living in areas where flooding was less likely to occur did not have flood myths of their own. These observations, coupled with the human tendency to make stories more dramatic than events originally warranted, are all the points most mythology scholars feel is necessary to explain how myths of world-destroying, cataclysmatic floods evolved.

In other words, I think this particular portion of the Bible is not telling the whole story, and/or is telling a person's archaic understanding of this event.

Then how do you account for the fact that Jesus mentions "as in the days of Noah..." Jesus obviously believed that Noah was an actual person. Are we just gonna start throwing out different portions of the gospels as well now?

[Jazzedforhim]

Originally Posted by jeffncandace

I dunno. This gets into a can of worms I REALLY don't want to open because I'll just be confirming the depths of my heresy to my fellow Christians. But, here goes...

The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme among many cultural myths. Though it is best known by the Biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization.

Many orthodox Jews, Muslims and Christians, believe that the flood actually happened as recorded in Genesis. The latter say that the large number of flood myths between many cultures suggests that they originated from a common, historical event. Proponents of Flood geology contend that the myths from various cultures are corrupted memories of an historical global deluge. Flood geology is not accepted by geologists, both Christian and non-Christian, who consider it a form of pseudoscience. At one time even prominent workers in Biblical archaeology were willing to argue for a historical worldwide flood, but that view is no longer held.

Other scholars believe that the flood recorded in Genesis is actually a later version of the story, which was based upon earlier Mesopotamian myths (including the Epic of Ziusudra, the Epic of Atrahasis, and the Gilgamesh flood myth).

I say (as a Christian) this: many early civilized cultures lived in the fertile flood plains along river basins. These peoples would have deep memories of floods and have developed mythologies surrounding floods to explain and cope with an integral part of their lives. To these ancient cultures, a flood that covered their known world, from horizon to horizon, would likely be considered local flooding by First World standards instead of literally the entire planet. Scholars point out that most cultures living in areas where flooding was less likely to occur did not have flood myths of their own. These observations, coupled with the human tendency to make stories more dramatic than events originally warranted, are all the points most mythology scholars feel is necessary to explain how myths of world-destroying, cataclysmatic floods evolved.

In other words, I think this particular portion of the Bible is not telling the whole story, and/or is telling a person's archaic understanding of this event.

Wow Jeff...I'm speechless! You can't have it both ways. Either the bible is true or it is not. If you don't believe it completely it might be better to label yourself something other then Christian. I'm not trying to flame ya, but I think this is critical to the Christian faith...complete belief in the Bible.

[jeffncandace]

Originally Posted by kaykay

Then how do you account for the fact that Jesus mentions "as in the days of Noah..." Jesus obviously believed that Noah was an actual person. Are we just gonna start throwing out different portions of the gospels as well now?

Who's to say he wasn't real and that there wasn't a flood? It's like the creation thread the other day. It is totally possible for the words describing creation to be figurative and for Adam to still be a literal, real person.

[I LOVE NORTH CAROLINA]

Originally Posted by Jazzedforhim

Wow Jeff...I'm speechless! You can't have it both ways. Either the bible is true or it is not. If you don't believe it completely it might be better to label yourself something other then Christian. I'm not trying to flame ya, but I think this is critical to the Christian faith...complete belief in the Bible.

I agree with Jazz and kaykay either you believe the Bible is God's Word (ALL of
it) or you don't. I don't understand how a Christian can question the Bible

[jeffncandace]

Originally Posted by Jazzedforhim

Wow Jeff...I'm speechless! You can't have it both ways. Either the bible is true or it is not. If you don't believe it completely it might be better to label yourself something other then Christian. I'm not trying to flame ya, but I think this is critical to the Christian faith...complete belief in the Bible.

Do you guys READ anything that I type? Even CHRISTIAN GEOLOGISTS AND ARCHEOLOGISTS agree that the arguments to support a world-wide flood are not sound!

I don't see things in black and white like you and many others do. If you want to stick your head in the sand (with your fingers in your ears yelling LA LA LA, deep within a cave on Mars) then you can, but I'm not going to ignore factual information in the name of faith. IMO, you might as well replace the word faith with ignorance if that is the case.

What seperates me from you all is that I see the Bible for what it really is--a flawed Book that was divinely inspired by God, and written by humans. FALLIBLE, IMPERFECT, OPINIONATED HUMANS. So if something doesn't line up, instead of throwing the whole Book out the window , I seek to understand the origins behind what has been written.

[Padgett2]

If it's necessary to have "Complete belief in the Bible" in order to be a Christian, then there is really very little point in keeping the doors of the Churches open. There aren't enough "Christians" in the membership to pay the preachers.