The Math of Noah's Ark

[Robbie3000]

According to scholars, there weren't 15,000 since that number is arrived at by trying to translate 'kind' into 'species'. The actual count of animals is less than 300 total. Leviticus and Deuteronomy list those animals deemed 'clean' and 'unclean' and those lists combined total about 30 animals.

The only ones trying to state that there was an extremely large amount of animals are Creationists who don't believe evolution to be a viable theory, and atheists who like to criticize everything in the Bible without bothering to research what it contains.

Both are missing the point of the narrative.
​

Define "kind"

 

[daze23]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IacAn3gQiY4[/ame]

 

[JoelB]

debunking biblical stories is like beating a cat in chess.

 

[Bud Bundy]

Most of the stuff in the bible wasn't written to be taken literally. Historically the bible wasn't taken literally. It's a fairly new concept to think of the bible as a literal word for word account if history.

not true our yearly calender is based on the bible. Only in the past 150 years or so has the bible not taken literally maybe even less then that.

 

[daze23]

not true our yearly calender is based on the bible. Only in the past 150 years or so has the bible not taken literally maybe even less then that.

I'm sayin, to this day people think shyt like hurricanes are God punishing fakkits

just the fact that people bother 'praying' for this or that shows that people take it literally. and I think it's obvious these things were seen as being even more serious in the past

 

[Hip-Hop-Bulls]

 

[MeachTheMonster]

not true our yearly calender is based on the bible. Only in the past 150 years or so has the bible not taken literally maybe even less then that.

Nope your wrong.
Interpretation of the Bible - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, biblical interpretation was often dominated by the allegorical method. Looking back to Augustine, the medieval church believed that every biblical passage contained four levels of meaning. These four levels were the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the eschatological. For instance, the word Jerusalem literally referred to the city itself; allegorically, it refers to the church of Christ; morally, it indicates the human soul; and eschatologically it points to the heavenly Jerusalem."^[7]^

Our calendar isn't "based" on the bible. It was reformed by Christians but it originated in ancient Greece

The Christian Calendar | Calendars

The "Christian calendar" is the term traditionally used to designate the calendar commonly in use, although it originated in pre-Christian Rome. This calendar is used by the United States, and most countries in the world.

 

[daze23]

theopedia?

 

[Higher Tech]

Average animal size was about that of a housecat and no need to bring on animals who lived in seawater. Genesis 7:1-5 breaks the types of animals down between 'clean' and 'unclean' and only 7 of one type and a pair of the other. This isn't to be taken literally, but many do.​

So there were no elephants?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

theopedia?

What's that supposed to mean. If they were taking a biased stance it would say the bible IS to be taken literally.

Plus they show sources to where they got the info from. The website is more informational than religious.

 

[Dank Hill]

Average animal size was about that of a housecat and no need to bring on animals who lived in seawater. Genesis 7:1-5 breaks the types of animals down between 'clean' and 'unclean' and only 7 of one type and a pair of the other. This isn't to be taken literally, but many do.​

Bullshyt, who's ass are you pulling this out of?

 

[daze23]

What's that supposed to mean. If they were taking a biased stance it would say the bible IS to be taken literally.

Plus they show sources to where they got the info from. The website is more informational than religious.

I would argue that they wouldn't want to take the stance of a literal interpretation, because they know that's currently not a popular opinion

their references seem rather insular:

Hermeneutics

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics

The Holy Spirit and Hermeneutics | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I would argue that they wouldn't want to take the stance of a literal interpretation, because they know that's currently not a popular opinion

their references seem rather insular:

Hermeneutics

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics

The Holy Spirit and Hermeneutics | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

So find some info saying the bible has/is always to be taken literally.

 

[daze23]

So find some info saying the bible has/is always to be taken literally.

I don't understand what value it could have if it was never meant to be taken literally

I mean was it intended to be the word of God or not?

 

[Propaganda]

Bullshyt, who's ass are you pulling this out of?

probably john woodmorappe or one of other brilliant creationists on answersingenesis.org.

pretty legit.