Noah's Ark

[TruthSeeker]

Horses - because they provide transportation.

Dogs - they are known as man's best friend and they provide protection. Good for hunting (but would not apply under your scenario.)

Cats - they provide comfort to the lonely and elderly.

Cows - because I love beef.

Chickens - good for meat and eggs.

Of course you'd still have all the fish in the ocean for seafood. I think those are my top 5.

[fschmidt]

bees, earthworms, chickens, sheep, horses

[Tsar]

Insects (especially bees, butterflies, fireflies, moths, dragonflies, ants, certain beetles, earthworms, and why I hate to say it, flies because they help decompose matter)

Birds because they help spread seeds and the environment. I'll let bats count as birds because they're a little similar.

Animal life in the seas (fishes, mammals, coal, mollusks, etc)

Cats because Freyja loves cats. Cats an also include housecats and wildcats
,
Four-legged forest life boars, deer, beer goats, sheep, rabbit, squirrels

If everything was too much then I need to redo it but the world can't function without enough animals

[MrMan]

bees, earthworms, chickens, sheep, horses

It's an unrealistic scenario of course, but that's a pretty good list. Beef tastes good when fully mature, so it has an advantage over mutton, or so I hear. I think I've had one nasty sheep sausage, and otherwise have eaten a bit of lamb. In spite of goat mutton having a similar reputation, I might choose goats over cattle or sheep. Goats can eat either leaves or grass, and would fill other terrain better. I've never raised either one, but goats can eat leaves or grass instead of just grass. They are more stubborn, but probably could survive on their own better. It would have to be a variety or two varieties that produce good goat wool. Cashmere comes to mind. Sheep may be a better for the wool. If you did sheep, you'd probably need the female to be the dairy variety. Goats may be the better choice for milk. At least feta might be a possibility.

Since this is a Noah's ark scenario, maybe Hebrew is acceptable and you could say tsone, and maybe get sheep and goats.

[Voyager1]

Tsar you can't include animal life in the sea because they would already survive the flood as TruthSeeker has stated.

[fschmidt]

It's an unrealistic scenario of course, but that's a pretty good list. Beef tastes good when fully mature, so it has an advantage over mutton, or so I hear. I think I've had one nasty sheep sausage, and otherwise have eaten a bit of lamb. In spite of goat mutton having a similar reputation, I might choose goats over cattle or sheep. Goats can eat either leaves or grass, and would fill other terrain better. I've never raised either one, but goats can eat leaves or grass instead of just grass. They are more stubborn, but probably could survive on their own better. It would have to be a variety or two varieties that produce good goat wool. Cashmere comes to mind. Sheep may be a better for the wool. If you did sheep, you'd probably need the female to be the dairy variety. Goats may be the better choice for milk. At least feta might be a possibility.

I picked sheep for a very practical reason. I have no experience with farm animals and I figure sheep are easier to deal with than cows or goats. I'm no cowboy, so I have no idea how to manage cows.

[fschmidt]

@fschmidt, @Tsar I think bees are a really good choice! One that I didn't even consider! Bees for honey would be a really good idea.

By the way fschmidt, why did you choose earthworms? Is there a practical reason why?

I didn't pick bees for honey, but for pollination. Earthworms are needed for composting and softening the soil. Bees and earthworms are the 2 animals that plants depend on.

[MrMan]

@fschmidt, @Tsar I think bees are a really good choice! One that I didn't even consider! Bees for honey would be a really good idea.

By the way fschmidt, why did you choose earthworms? Is there a practical reason why?

I didn't pick bees for honey, but for pollination. Earthworms are needed for composting and softening the soil. Bees and earthworms are the 2 animals that plants depend on.

That's what I was thinking of, too. We'd need them for farming. But honey would be good, too.

[TruthSeeker]

@Tsar If Noah's flood was real, and I believe it was, I think it was more a regional flood than a global one.

The Noah Flood was not global, rather it was local and confined to an enclosed basin. The Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. The watershed for the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers on which the flood could have occurred extends for more than 1600 km from the Persian Gulf through Mesopotamia into Syria and Turkey and laterally for about 1000 km from eastern Saudi Arabia to southwestern Iran. Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period. According to a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region.

So, if it was indeed a regional flood, mammals from North America, South America, Asia, Australia, etc. would not have been affected.

You have no basis to say the flood wasn't real and just a story.

[TruthSeeker]

Either way, two of every unclean beast and seven of every clean beast would be ridiculously difficult to squeeze into the ark, regardless of how big it was supposed to be. Two of every ant alone would probably be enough to fill a standard sized living room.

Not necessarily if it was a regional flood in the area that I have mentioned about. It would not be two of every beast on the whole globe but just a local region.

I've even heard speculation that Noah collected their DNA only. So that would be a possibility under that scenario. Only how would he re-breed them later assuming technology back then was not that advanced, or was it?

[MrMan]

I could see how it could go either way in the Biblical text. Ha 'erets.... 'the land' or 'the earth' can refer to a specific land. In some places it refers to the land of Israel.

[fschmidt]

What do you think @fschmidt? Do you believe this story actually happened?

I don't take anything in Genesis literally. But the story of Noah is my favorite fantasy.

[TruthSeeker]

According to ChristianPure the dimensions of the Ark were 140M long, 23M wide and 14M high (I have converted cubits to meters since most of the forum is probably on metric). To put this in perspective the Titanic was 269.1M long. The Ark would have been about half the length of the Titanic. Three levels according to Gen 6:16.

Would that be enough room for the beasts and fowls of the air God specified in Gen. 7:1-3? How would these animals lived cramped in an Ark for approximately 1 year. Some beasts would have had to remain standing. What about exercise? Who cleaned up their dung? What about feeding them?

What about the beasts who were unable to breed after getting out of the ark? Did they just go extinct? Many of these Bible stories are metaphorical and not to be taken literally. However, we can learn from them.

The way it actually happened may be much different that what actually happened.

[MrMan]

First of all, I am not convinced that the story of the flood would require that the flood be global. 'Under heaven might refer to one end of The horizon to the other. Babylonians were described as coming from the end of heaven but when you got to Babylon that was still sky there.

H'eretz.and is translated from Hebrew as the Earth but he could also be translated the land and sometimes her for a specifically to the land of Israel depending on the context.

From what I read scientists have made discoveries that indicate that there is an ocean underground deep down under there that is actually bigger than the oceans on the earth. some portion of the earth is made up of compressed high pressure solid water such as ice IV or ice V. so there's plenty of water down there for water to come from the great deep.

if a boat were floating above the surface 20 miles above where we are now but it's surrounded by water all around I would not think that they would freeze or that there would be no oxygen because the water regulates the temperature and also you have the air being pushed up higher.

But Noah's flood requires numerous miracles and extra little miracles are needed to preserve their lives then I don't see how that's a big issue.

As for animals, it it were not global, that's fewer animal. I would imagine baby lions would be easier to feed. Maybe there was a proto-great-cat species.

There's a man named Philip Williams who wrote about how NAMI, a Chinese Christian group, went up to the remains of the ark on Mt. Ararat. he with a tour guide took the arduous trek up the mountain with another American woman he said he did the lady's first thing so he was the second American and first American man into the ark as far as he knew. so he went into the wooden structure up there and posted his pictures of you know wood peg type architecture where they cut out with pigs and slide it into grooves or holes that they cut into the wood that sort of thing.

Then various scholars joined together and call the whole thing of hoax even though they wouldn't look at the information or go look at the ark. they basically accused his tour guide, Parusut... or some name like that... who took him up there being a con man

[MrMan]

First of all, I am not convinced that the story of the flood would require that the flood be global. 'Under heaven might refer to one end of The horizon to the other. Babylonians were described as coming from the end of heaven but when you got to Babylon that was still sky there.

H'eretz.and is translated from Hebrew as the Earth but he could also be translated the land and sometimes her for a specifically to the land of Israel depending on the context.

From what I read scientists have made discoveries that indicate that there is an ocean underground deep down under there that is actually bigger than the oceans on the earth. some portion of the earth is made up of compressed high pressure solid water such as ice IV or ice V. so there's plenty of water down there for water to come from the great deep.

if a boat were floating above the surface 20 miles above where we are now but it's surrounded by water all around I would not think that they would freeze or that there would be no oxygen because the water regulates the temperature and also you have the air being pushed up higher.

But Noah's flood requires numerous miracles and extra little miracles are needed to preserve their lives then I don't see how that's a big issue.

As for animals, it it were not global, that's fewer animal. I would imagine baby lions would be easier to feed. Maybe there was a proto-great-cat species.

There's a man named Philip Williams who wrote about how NAMI, a Chinese Christian group, went up to the remains of the ark on Mt. Ararat. he with a tour guide took the arduous trek up the mountain with another American woman he said he did the lady's first thing so he was the second American and first American man into the ark as far as he knew. so he went into the wooden structure up there and posted his pictures of you know wood peg type architecture where they cut out with pigs and slide it into grooves or holes that they cut into the wood that sort of thing.

Then various scholars joined together and call the whole thing of hoax even though they wouldn't look at the information or go look at the ark. they basically accused his tour guide, Parusut... or some name like that... who took him up there being a con man

If it were localised flooding then why would Noah need to spend a year on the ark? Why wouldn't he just sail to a nearby land and go there instead? Seems a bit of a stretch to say it was localised floods anyway, the Bible says the flood water reached something like 20ft taller than the highest mountains. How could floods that completely submerge mountains be localised to one area?

The flood was a miracle. Either way, it requires a huge quality of water.

Why didn't God just kill all the naughty people with magic heart attacks? Even Light Yagami from Death Note could do that. Does that mean that Light is more powerful than God?

As a pagan, you believe there are a lot of powerful spiritual entities out there. You should be careful with the disrespect. I'd never heard of Light Yagama. Apparently it's a fictional character. But why would God give everyone heart attacks when he could wash them away in a great flood?