If the Ark was literal, then . . . ?

[abelisle]

Considering all the many species of living things that we have now, was the Ark large enough to carry them all and if not, was there a very fast form of evolutionary growth going on in the last 6000 years or so to get to the large numbers of species we have now?

Also, how does one explain the insects? There are probably more of them than anything else? Did they go on the Ark?

Also, how about the dinosaurs? but no evidence of very large people as EGW describes them?

And finally, why is there no evidence of antediluvian society at all(according to Dr. Lawrence Geraty of whom I asked this question)

I'm thinking about this due to the Creation concerns and statements coming out of Atlanta.

Alex (please excuse my naivete if all these questions are really no-brainers)

[SivartM]

I think that someone calculated the number of different kinds of animals that would have to be on the ark to evolve into our current number of species to be around 10,000. And keep in mind that many of these are small, like insects. I do think that evolution happened very rapidly after the flood... but I'm not sure why. But obviously all of the millions of distinct species as we know them today couldn't have fit on the ark.

I don't think there's any evidence of antediluvian society because... it's buried. It probably got covered in magma and melted or something. :\

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I think that the ark contained all the species that God first created. I think the dinosaurs were the result of cross-breeding by antediluvians. I don't know about the insects...they were around at the time of the flood because we can find fossils of them. Interesting question.

[phkrause]

I agree rudywoofs. There was a program on 3abn when it first started that was about just that. He was talking about how dinosaurs had to be cross bread. And he explain all the reasons why. Unfortunetly I couldn't get any more info from 3abn. I emailed them but never heard from them. So I've been thinking about calling them. Actually I have a better idea, just popped into my brain, I know a guy here who's son works for them. Maybe he can look into the archive's and see what he can find.

[SivartM]

I don't think dinosaurs were genetic alterations. They're too cool.

I don't even know why people think that. What do they have against dinosaurs?

[phkrause]

Nothing at all. But until I find what I'm looking for I really can't explain what I'm talking about.

[wayfinder]

I think the term "confused species" that Ellen White uses, she is referring to dinosuars.

Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {1SP 78.2}

[SivartM]

But if that's true, then dinosaurs won't be on the new earth. So she must have been talking about something else.

[phkrause]

We'll have to see Sivart, I think we have no idea of what were going to see.

[SivartM]

Dinosaurs, of course.

[Bravus]

That 'amalgamations of man and beast, as seen in ... certain races of men' is a doozy, ain't it.

Anyway, not to get off track...

Sorry, but the alternatives are really pretty limited. Either the ark was vastly largely than we're told it was (which has its own problems), or the animals were actually taken aboard as DNA samples and grown in vats after the flood, or there was massively fast evolution - forget 6000 years, the Bible already talks about creatures just like we know today, and a wide variety of them, by Abraham's time in maybe 800 BC or so, and if the flood was only 2000 BC or so that's more like 1200 years - or there was a 'second creation', or...

I'm afraid *all* the alternatives make a literal worldwide annihalatory flood that recently pretty tough to support with evidence...

[Bravus]

(PS those are all the possibilities my poor imagination could come up with - no doubt there are more)

[Bravus]

This notion that dinosaurs were not part of creation and were human-made or Saatanic-made is very much SDA mythology, with no basis at all in Scripture. Again I ask the question, if God was so careful to tell us about both the Flood and Creation in precise literal detail, why no mention of this stuff? And where do we get off stating it as though it's certain when it's the most gossamer speculation...

[David Edgren]

All animals are crossbreeds - in just a couple centuries we've intentionally bred wolves into Chihuahua & Great Dane. Same with cats... I saw a doco on the Liger (tiger/lion cross) weighing in at 900lbs!

Of course Noah didn't bring his genetics lab on the ark with him. If anything, he brought along his brewery! (judging by the next chapter in the story!)

Perhaps we are overworking our post-industrial minds banging ferociously on our square peg. Go ask a Jewish Rabbi to explain the flood.

[abelisle]

In light of Creation statements coming out of Atlanta and the newfound primacy of the SOP in our Bible studies, this statement is very disturbing - don't you think?

No matter how the EGW estate spins this, this statement isn't simply going to go away. We accept the literal Flood and with it, I assume, this statement also?

Which species and which races of men have been affected by this "amalgamation"?

Alex

[abelisle]

Getting back to the Ark and the literal Flood, why the concern for a literal reading? My thoughts are that I can accept on faith that something happened that I don't understand and that the "stories" of the Flood and Noah's Ark are effective methods of creating a mythic construct that appeals to early man.

Now in our modern times, the archetypal symbolism still prevails but not on a literal level. Mythology is necessary for mankind to wrap their minds around ideas without becoming too anthropomorphic. I'm not saying the Bible is mythology but like mythology it is a way for man to come to grips with the inscrutable and ineffable mind of God.

This recent statement from Atlanta that posits a literal belief in a universal Flood and literal 24 hour days I think is an impediment for progressive thinking and any revelation of progressive truth in the matters surrounding Creation.

Whatever happened to the "educated imagination?" Where has our collective wonder went? Why are we afraid to simply say "I don't understand this but it is a great story."

I better stop here since I have provided more than an abundance of material to be burned at the stake

Alex

[D. Allan]

Right on, abelise. I'll have to be burned also!

[Kevin H]

From what I read here on Club Adventist of the statement; the last paragraph does seem to give the church a loophole, saying that we don't understand all the details and need to keep studying the Bible and Nature. I thought that was a pretty good sized loopehole.

I don't have a problem with the different changes occuring over a short time. And also, we discussed this at leanth on another thread; the church had quite a bit of flexability on the age of the earth. The conservative Adventist Theological Society has a strong statement that they afirm that the world is "about" 6,000 years old. Yet if you look into how they define "about" the conservative Adventist Theological Society members have a range from 7,000 to 20,000 years old. There are also Bible believing literal 7 day creationists and literal flood moderates who are not conservative enough to belong to ATS who are more comfortable with the world being around 60,000. So these are Bible Believeing Seventh-day Adventist scholars where the conservative give us 7,000 years to 20,000 years and the moderates suggesting 60,000 years, giving us more time for what you are discribing. The mixture of the fairly fast changes after the flood and the extra time gives credence to your suggeston.

[Liz]

Why couldn't the ark have been big enough? Maybe he took only baby animals, two baby elephants wouldn't take up that much room, not like two full grown African elephants would. Maybe he had some way of keeping them in a certain state, like the chysallis stage for butterflys? We know that at least one miracle happened on board the ship, that of the meat-eating beasties not eating their prey. So maybe another miracle was no growth happened on the ark? Plus I think, he only took what God originally created in the garden, so only the purebreds so to speak, no mules but horses and donkeys. And yes, I think some dinosaurs were created in the garden, I think they were on the ark, and while we are hardpressed to find any today, that doesn't mean they are not around.

[abelisle]

Liz,

I have problems relegating everything that is neither logical nor explicable, to miracles. Doesn't this just strengthen my case that the Bible uses stories that try to explain that which cannot be explained?

I agree that God can make anything happen but where does the reader/believer draw the line between actual historical fact and supernatural occurrence that is either illogical or pure mystery?

Alex

[there buster]

The educated imagination has been blinded by chronological arrogance. We assume our knowledge, our science, and our technology are superior to those who lived before the Flood. But there are plenty of reasons to believe otherwise. And if their technology was superior to ours, the whole chain of reasoning changes, and the Flood narrative becomes what Moses could understand of what took place before his time, in a culture technologically beyond his understanding.

We ask the wrong questions and get the wrong answers. Instead of "How would a technologically backward society get all of today's animals on a boat made of wood?" The question should be something like, "How would a technology on slightly advanced from ours attempt these things?" Even limiting it to "slightly advanced" gives a whole different set of answers. And then explaining it to a nomadic shepherd makes the Bible account seem a lot more reasonable.

I'm actually developing a set of YA books based on this idea.

[Liz]

But Alex, that is the very definition of a miracle--that which does not make logical sense nor can be explained. And yes, the Bible is full of miracles, why? Because we are dealing with a super-natural being (GOD) who can and does do amazing things? Maybe?

I think the problem with miracles is that we can't do them on command. God is not a genie, we can't rub His bottle and get our three wishes. Which is frustrating for us/me.

Oh, and one other thought--this not quoting thing messes with me sometimes, but I digress-- Why can't it be both? Why can't it be historical fact but also illogical?

If you had witnessed Elijah on Mt. Carmel, and seen the fire burn up the offering that was drenched and even took the water that was in the moat, and then described the scene to your grandson many many years later. Your grandson may think that grandpa is just a bit looney, but it doesn't make the event any less of a fact--does it?

[abelisle]

there buster,

I actually believe the antediluvians were brilliant, way beyond what we might assume. My problem is that there isn't a shred of evidence of their existence - in an archeological sense and even historical anecdotal sense.

Liz,

You're right. I guess I'm not explaining myself well. If the hermeneutical thrust of our church is to read everything literally, then all the Levitical injunctions to stone adulterers and unruly children should still be in effect?

Get my drift?

Alex

[SivartM]

The best evidence I can see is that the early human civilizations we know of were very advanced.

We definitely don't read everything literally... take Revelation. Of course we take Leviticus literally, but to take something literally doesn't mean that we apply it to our day.

[Liz]

Have you read Secrets of the Lost Races by Noorbergen? It is about out of place artifacts, called ooparts, what if they are not out of place?