Animals of the Flood

All I have to say to you, whatever, is "wow". I'm amazed at the amount of creativity and imagination you have. I salute your creativity, you should go to Hollywood, and become a writer.

Yes. Bob Ballard (of Titanic fame) was involved in the work. There is an article on the Nat Geog website.National Geographic - 404

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

"Veritable zoo" is an understatement. We're looking at the bulk of two complete kingdoms, not to mention a huge fraction of the others that were "excused" from Ark duty. It really does come down to a couple of dogs, a couple of cows, two sheep, seven pigs (they were unclean, right?), and two house sparrows. Looks like the Ark could've gotten away with being maybe the size of a tugboat.You're right - cheap entertainment. Pass the popcorn.

Not all that new, it's 8 years old.That theory's pretty dead, and even one of the original proponents of that theory (Ryan) has pretty much given up on it. Too bad. It was a cute idea while it lasted.See Noah's Flood Hypothesis May Not Hold Water and Why the Black Sea is not the Site of Noah's Flood.[This message has been edited by JonF, 04-02-2004]

As was most likely the actual incident behind the embellished story.[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 04-02-2004]

quote:

---

It really does come down to a couple of dogs, a couple of cows, two sheep, seven pigs (they were unclean, right?)

---

Pigs are definitely unclean so there should have been 2. Noah started with 7 each of clean animals, those that divide the hoof and chew the cud, but burned up one of each clean animal when he got off the ark.Randy

Thanks. I can never keep the clean and unclean stuff straight. So it was two of the unclean, and seven of the clean. Got it.

and yet birds were also in 7's -- where they clean or a special case?did they get included in the sacrifice?(and what about domesticated llamas?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

Thanks. I can never keep the clean and unclean stuff straight. So it was two of the unclean, and seven of the clean. Got it.

---

Well it is confusing. In Genesis 6 two of every sort of animal is supposed to go on but in 7 the clean animals go by 7's which may mean 7 of each or maybe 7 pairs of each. I have found the Biblical literalists to disagree on this point and they can't seem to agree whether every fowl of the air was taken by sevens (either 7 or 14) or whether only clean fowls were taken by sevens. i.e. did the owl and the bat which are unclean fowls of the air get taken by 7's or 2's? Then in Genesis 8 Noah burns up one of the clean beasts It seems to me that two versions of the myth were mixed here. The laws as to what was clean and unclean weren't even on the books yet at the time of Noah after all. I am sure the literatists have "back to the Hebrew" explanation as to why 2 is equal to 7 but the simplist explanation would seem to be two version of the myth or maybe an attempt to put a decidedly Hebrew stamp on the original Sumerian myth. In any case it is pretty clear that all breathing flesh was supposed to be on the ark however you interpret the myth.Randy

quote:

---

Have you guys ever heard of the new theory stating that the myth of the great flood may have come from the flood about 6 thousand years ago that created the dead sea?

---

Are you referring to the Black Sea? Anyway, it is much more likely that the myth comes from Sumerians which was an embellishment of a flood on the Euphrates or Tigris. These rivers flood every spring, so an especially large flood would have stuck with the culture. In fact, a flood story written by the Sumerians is very similar to the Noah story and the Sumerian story probably predates the writing of Genesis. For me, it seems that the Genesis authors adopted local mythis and incorporated them into their theology to help explain the attributes of their God.

quote:

---

For me, it seems that the Genesis authors adopted local mythis and incorporated them into their theology to help explain the attributes of their God.

---

Right. As I said above the differences between Genesis 6 and 7 probably have to do with merging of two myths or with the Hebrews trying make sure there was a Hebrew "stamp" on the Sumerian myth that they appropriated from the Babylonians. The burning up of one each of the clean animals probably serves this "Hebrewization" function as well. After all with such limited populations it seems pretty stupid to burn one up right away.Randy

quote:

---

and yet birds were also in 7's -- where they clean or a special case?
did they get included in the sacrifice?

​

(and what about domesticated llamas?)

---

Only the clean birds got one burned up. Lllamas and Camels are artiodactyl ruminatants, which means they divide the hoof and chew the cud, but I don't think the Hebrews considered Camels clean. The excuse I have heard is the Camel hooves have some sort of membrane across the bottom or something but I don't remember exactly.Randy[This message has been edited by Randy, 04-02-2004]

but which are clean and which are not. why have 7 of all birds or are there 7x7 of clean birds? consistence problem here.problem for whatever is getting those domesticated llamas (to and) from the ark to (only) S. America (or they are another swimmer survivor){{added "only"}}[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 04-02-2004]

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

but which are clean and which are not. why have 7 of all birds or are there 7x7 of clean birds? consistence problem here.

---

There are either 7 or 14 of all birds or 7 or 14 of all clean birds it depends on who you ask. Clean and unclean animals are spelled out in Leviticus. God must have told Noah ahead of time which was which. As to clean and unclean "fowls of the air", here is the list.

quote:

---

11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey,

​

11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

​

11:15 Every raven after his kind;

​

11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind,

​

11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,

​

11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

​

11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

​

11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

---

I suppose the fowls that creep going on all fours were things like Griffins and flying horses which would definitely be unclean.
Randy

quote:

---

Are you referring to the Black Sea? Anyway, it is much more likely that the myth comes from Sumerians which was an embellishment of a flood on the Euphrates or Tigris. These rivers flood every spring, so an especially large flood would have stuck with the culture. In fact, a flood story written by the Sumerians is very similar to the Noah story and the Sumerian story probably predates the writing of Genesis. For me, it seems that the Genesis authors adopted local mythis and incorporated them into their theology to help explain the attributes of their God.

---

Are you talking about the Epic of Gilgamesh?