Summations Only

I don't know what those things are, but I have noticed that there isn't much bestiality with Triceratops going on these days. Success!!

I don't believe you are being asked any such thing. CS is saying that the exercise has no point because magic can be invoked at any time.Besides that, I think you've already made quite an impression with your 'knowledge' of animals.

What is illogical is to assume a task is trivially easy when you know diddly squat about the details.

I think there is still room to argue the point.Fish do have nostrils, but the nostrils don't have the breath of life in them. Fish breathe without using their noses. I suspect that the writer of Genesis did not intend to include fish in this paragraph. It might not even have been apparent to the author that a flood would kill fish.

And you are sure that "the face of the earth" must include the earth? It cannot mean only things on earth's surface?I find your attempt to interpret the Bible literally, but then to say "I'm sure the writers meant to leave fish out" an impossible position to maintain. After all, whoever wrote the Bible also wrote the words attributed to God.

God also, according to the author, intended to restore life on the earth, yet there were no fish on the ark. The clear implication is that the fish were not going to be destroyed. It is fairly easy to read the words in Genesis in that way.As I see it, evil humans were God's target according to the story. Land animals and birds were collateral damage.Again, your own interpretation despite its arguably more literal nature, makes far less sense. Assuming, as I do, that the story is not true, the story as you interpret it requires not mere suspension of belief, which is excusable for fiction and myth, but outright inconsistency between motives and action, which I find inexcusable for fiction.Secondly your interpretation attributes the silliness to God, whereas I believe the correct place to attribute the silliness is to the authors of the story. The authors thought that fish would survive a global flood. Well they were wrong about that, but so what. They did not think God was an idiot. And the story isn't even true to boot. Your reading makes is not the only logical one. And your reading makes for a far sillier story. Perhaps for you that is part of its attraction.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The issue Tangle describes would apply to both accounts. Genesis 6 also says this:

quote:

---

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

---

Genesis 6:13 expresses a similar sentiment.Fish are surely flesh, so Tangle might argue that they too were going to be destroyed despite the fact that they were not included in the list in Genesis 6:7.Similarly, Genesis 7 does not avoid the issue.Your post suggests that 7:4 might be interpreted as Tangle suggests, that is with the death of all animals on land and at sea. Yet in the enumeration of which animals died in Genesis 7:21-23, (esp. 7:22), no sea creatures are named as dying.

quote:

---

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

​

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

​

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark

---

I'll also make what I think is a new argument for this thread, although we've hashed it out here before. The words earth and ground as used in these texts are probably synonymous. Most likely the authors did not view earth as a planet. So removing all animals from the face of the earth might likely meant terrestrial animals only.

I think you've finally invoked magic. Can you present any evidence of fish adapting to fresh water conditions in mere hundreds of years?

Notice how your statement above progresses from speculation ("Its [sic] possible" ) to assertion ("thus...") within the span of a single sentence. What should I or anyone else make of such an argument?What criteria do you think determined clean/unclean prior to the flood, when no animals were being eaten? Were there more or fewer unclean animals pre-flood versus 100 years post flood? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So what's your argument?

The sea animals were not on the face of the "earth" a term which applied to land only. The list is complete. There is no reason to take the list as being incomplete. Not necessary if the list of dead things is complete.

You are missing the point. That's not a description of a world wide flood. Sea levels can rise without getting the water high enough to get over the tops of mountains as was described in Genesis.And you've already all but admitted the point in a prior message.

There is no presented evidence that anything but a few sea water fish can tolerate freshwater. Some specific fish can tolerate ranges of salinity. Most species of salt fish would simply die if put in freshwater. Of course there would be no breeding after that.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is zero evidence of a world wide flood at any time since the age of men began. You haven't even demonstrated that there was a world wide flood at the P-T boundary.

You don't know if God intervened? So you don't know whether the following statement was made by God?

quote:

---

I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

---

Or this one:

quote:

---

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

---

You practice a strange version of Bible inerrancy. The difference between what the Bible states and what you believe certainly dwarfs any of the differences Tangle and I have discussed in what Genesis literally says. So does everyone else in this thread.