Noah's Ark

Can anyone tell me why, in the account of the directions to Noah, no animal is mentioned which is not indigenous to the Middle East? Why no mention of strange white bears, or birds in tuxedos, or any marsupials at all?In fact, there is no mention anywhere in the Bible, so far as I can tell, of any animal other than those one might expect to find in the region today. (Except, of course, for the mysterious and elusive leviathan and behemoth.)Does this tell us anything? I think it might.
-Shiloh

quote:

---

Originally posted by believer:
Response to Shilohproject-
All I can see is like in Genesis 6:19-21 commands to bring in every kind. Where does it mention specific animals? I can’t find it. By the way Behemoth is a Brontisorous it talks about him in Job:40 feeds on grass;what strength;what power;his tail sways like a cedar The leviathan is talked of in Job:41, I guess its another dinasour. If you’re implying that the flood was only a local flood you’re wrong. First of all logically it doesn’t make sence. Noah could have avoided the flood on foot, and the ark’s size to so enourmouse it only makes sence if all the animals of the entire earth were to be gathered onto it. Besides that there are sediment layers all of the earth layed down by the flood, implying that it was anything but local.

---

Believer,Note: all referances in this particulat post are from KJV. (Other translations differ quite a bit. Go figure.)Are you refering to the behemoth in Job 40.15-24, the one with a navel (v.16), the one who is "chief of the ways of God"(v.19)? If so, it does't follow that this is a reptile or that it would become extinct, does it?As to the leviathan, I believe vv. 19-21 require a literalist to accept that this was, in fact, a fire breathing dragon. Read it; I think you'll see what I mean.What about the unicorn, vv.9-12? Where does he fit into all this? Why save them from a literal, world wide flood, only to have them become extinct a short time later?And another question: how old is this notion used by Creation Scientists that the flood was responsible for all the geologic stratification we see? Did anyone hear of it before the Morris bunch came along? Same with the dinosaurs-were-on-the-ark thing. Growing up in a solid Southern Baptist churched home, I'd read all the tracts about how the fossils were lies placed by Satan to deceive man, or that God placed fully formed fossils around to test man's faith, or that evil scientists were all conspiring to force shammed data on us to promote their wicked humanistic thinking (which was proved, of course, by the peer review process so commen to scientific thinking which outted the frauds for what they were, just like the human-footprints-with-dinosaur-footprints farce).Still my question remains, why no mention of any animal in any book of the Bible which is not to be expected in the region? (Other than fire breathing dragons, brontosaurs with navels, and the lovely yet untamable unicorn?)A literalistic reading of these passages, along with the two intermeshed Noah stories, leads us to miss the value of scripture. Or so I fear.-Shiloh[This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-16-2003]

Earlier, I said:
A literalistic reading of these passages, along with the two intermeshed Noah stories, leads us to miss the value of scripture. Or so I fear. believer,You seem content to sqeeze God and scripture into a very small box. The notion that it's all-or-nothing when it comes to the Bible is one which you may feel forced to believe, but I don't. To accept it all as literally true and historically accurate is to become totally blind to the obvious problems with such a reading.When we accept it for what it is, rather than trying to bend it to fit our own particular theologies, it becomes a wonderful thing for personal spiritual growth and is much more accessible for the non-believers around us.-ShilohThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-28-2005 05:18 AM