What did carnivores eat after the flood?

[otseng]

Quarkhead asked a good question. So I'm creating a new topic here to address it.

After all the animals stepped off Noah's ark, what did the carnivores eat? All the (land) animals perished in a world-wide flood. So the only animals that carnivores could eat were those that stepped off the boat. Wouldn't they have all eaten each other? And also what did the carnivores eat while they were in the ark?

[Christanity4ever]

Christanity4ever

It encompassed the known world.

This may be real explanation of what all the Flood myths have as a kernal of truth, and maybe even Noah represents a real person's tale of his family's survival, maybe even saving a few of his domesticated animals. But like all fish in tales(Jonah)get bigger with every retellling, so the Flood kept getting bigger until it swallowed the whole Earth.

Think of these myths as Stone Age Television.>>>>>Brevity Snip<<<<<< Pottery sometimes contains radioactive elements that are "reset" by firing, or other dating methods(there are over 40)which involve radioisotope "stopwatches". The world was not created 6000 years ago, writing was invented about 10-15,000 years ago.

Grumpy

Yes good post Grumpy! I wouldn't call the biblical stories a myth but otherwise I am in agreement with much of your post. My faith allows me to let that part of the bible 'rest'. I am not too concerned with it. My concerns fall on other parts of scripture and other old texts etc. I would like to have the time and resources to research all of the story down to studying each word. As far as datings go, I cautiously agree with most of the RC dating methods as I said for now the dates of the flood the age of the earth is unimportant to me. What is far more important is how these stories are meant to be told etc.

So I think that anything important will emerge things such as the universe being created rather than being static. That the big bang happened was a huge thing for Christianity because it was stated that the universe began and was not eternal as Einstein and secular science was claiming (well to be truthful both theories were neck and neck, the two IBM research scientists blundered on the after glow from the big bang which was the cosmic microwave background radiation) confirming the Big Bang theory as the most likely true theory).

So anyway I like to agree when possible....

RR

[Christanity4ever]

What "flood"? There is no evidence of any "Noah's ark" flood.

Therefore isn't the question(s) axed putting the cart before the horse?

One ought to be axing about the facts/evidence/proof(truth) of any such flood.




To admit ignorance isn't a sign of stupidity, it blatantly acknowledges a curious intellect.

Sometimes the shell blows up the cart first. If the horses survive, they run run like merry hell off the battlefield. Just load and fire. With the Bible and other "holy" books, you'll hit something.

Maybe maybe not.

RR

[Christanity4ever]

I like that. A local world wide flood. What the heck is that? If it was local then by definition it could not be world-wide. The known world? Known by whom? The Chinese? The Mayans? All humanity?

Didn't it 'flow' for you? Notice the words in bold' font; "I think the flood did seem and for all practical purposes was a local world wide flood. In other words It encompassed the known world. So yes Noah could of built an ark and I believe he did. The point is that he had foreknowledge that the flood was coming. All the rest is gravy.

I didn't know the sentence was mis-written like that, (where did the word seem come from?) but the part that you were concerns with should make sense now....

How is that?

RR

Well gotta go to bed, I get up early, Remember God loves you and I am trying to....

[Cathar1950]

I like that. A local world wide flood. What the heck is that? If it was local then by definition it could not be world-wide. The known world? Known by whom? The Chinese? The Mayans? All humanity?

Didn't it 'flow' for you? Notice the words in bold' font; "I think the flood did seem and for all practical purposes was a local world wide flood. In other words It encompassed the known world. So yes Noah could of built an ark and I believe he did. The point is that he had foreknowledge that the flood was coming. All the rest is gravy.

I didn't know the sentence was mis-written like that, (where did the word seem come from?) but the part that you were concerns with should make sense now....

How is that?

RR

Well gotta go to bed, I get up early, Remember God loves you and I am trying to....

How liberal of you.
Except you still insist it actually happened or what ever you like.
Why would god need to save all the animals for a known world flood? It is a story. The reason Noah had foreknowledge is because the story say God warned him, dah.
Why would he build an ark? Why would you even think it is some factual account?
There is not even a sign that any flood encompassed the whole "known " world.
If you are only going to buy some of it why not the whole thing?
So what if you believe what you want?
How is the point all about the foreknowledge? Talk about rewriting the story.

[otseng]

Maybe maybe not.

Moderator comment:

Please note that one-liners are not allowed per the rules.

9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).

[Christanity4ever]

What "flood"? There is no evidence of any "Noah's ark" flood.

Therefore isn't the question(s) axed putting the cart before the horse?

One ought to be axing about the facts/evidence/proof(truth) of any such flood.




To admit ignorance isn't a sign of stupidity, it blatantly acknowledges a curious intellect.

Sometimes the shell blows up the cart first. If the horses survive, they run run like merry hell off the battlefield. Just load and fire. With the Bible and other "holy" books, you'll hit something.

Maybe maybe not.

RR

To clarify; There is a small probability that I could write something in a book like, 'the world is going to be destroyed by a world wide big bird taking a crap on the north pole and melting the polar icecaps' for example and have it come true in 2000 thousand or 2,000,000 years. I doubt that the odds of something like that happening is very likely. Additionally the bible loads up on nothing. Its a group of texts, letters and documents and its written as prophesy and as history and as letters to various churches etc. Its been right many times when it was meant to be right, such as recalling a city or place etc, instead of reciting a parable or song.

Then there are the times like the biblical creation story vs the secular eternal universe story where the evidence emerges to fit the story. The bible was ridiculed but turned out to be correct. I love to see a smug CB’er have to eat crow, it’s a guilty pleasure of mine but I will own it.

If this was simply a one time occurrence you might have a case. However in the case of the bible stories being later verified by archeology for example it has happened more than once which would be nearly imposable as a simple coincidence or series of coincidences. I hope that helps.

C-4

[Christanity4ever]

I like that. A local world wide flood. What the heck is that? If it was local then by definition it could not be world-wide. The known world? Known by whom? The Chinese? The Mayans? All humanity?

Didn't it 'flow'>>>>>>Brevity Snip<<<<< Remember God loves you and I am trying to....

How liberal of you.
Except you still insist it actually happened or what ever you like.
Why would god need to save all the animals for a known world flood? It is a story. The reason Noah had foreknowledge is because the story say God warned him, dah.
Why would he build an ark? Why would you even think it is some factual account?
There is not even a sign that any flood encompassed the whole "known " world.
If you are only going to buy some of it why not the whole thing?
So what if you believe what you want?
How is the point all about the foreknowledge? Talk about rewriting the story.

How liberal of me? Is that an insult? Well I suppose I am a liberal christian in some areas, I just don't like that word attached to me, it smells like dog poo ....ha ha...

* cof * ~Anyway ~

I didn't insist anything. What I meant to project was that its possible that it happened and I have faith that it did. Since you have no faith (in religious matters) I don't expect you to agree with me, that's your right eh?

The reason I believe it happened, either the real world wide flood or more possible the 'local world wide flood', is that its written in my bible. Until its disprove I will continue to believe it on faith just as I believed the universe was created and not eternal. Secular ridicule is about as effective as throwing eggs at a tank. So you might want to save your eggs to make an custard or something good!

C4

[nygreenguy]

Then there are the times like the biblical creation story vs the secular eternal universe story where the evidence emerges to fit the story. The bible was ridiculed but turned out to be correct. I love to see a smug CB’er have to eat crow, it’s a guilty pleasure of mine but I will own it.

If this was simply a one time occurrence you might have a case. However in the case of the bible stories being later verified by archeology for example it has happened more than once which would be nearly imposable as a simple coincidence or series of coincidences. I hope that helps.

C-4

its not unexpected for the bible to get some things right like the locations of cities and what not because it was written by people during those times, so Im not sure how this is the bible vs. secularism.

I guess my issues is are you saying the bible makes claims contrary to science or any other current academic thought and turned out to be correct?

[Atrax Robustus]

Hi

I hope you don't mind my entering the ring? I've been lurking and watching things progress.

The reason I believe it happened, either the real world wide flood or more possible the 'local world wide flood', is that its written in my bible. Until its disprove I will continue to believe it on faith just as I believed the universe was created and not eternal.

Circular reasoning offers such a comforting place for discourse doesn't it? Have you ever - even once - considered why your holy book is more correct than that of someone else (e.g. Muslim, Sikh, Mormon)?

Are you relying on the apparently greater intensity of your faith over that other person in convincing yourself that his/her scriptures are inaccurate? i.e. Would his/her scripture be more accurate than your own if he/she had a greater level of faith than you? Is there a chance that if his/her level of faith is indeed more than your own - your bible is wrong?

Then there are the times like the biblical creation story vs the secular eternal universe story where the evidence emerges to fit the story. The bible was ridiculed but turned out to be correct. I love to see a smug CB’er have to eat crow, it’s a guilty pleasure of mine but I will own it.

I'd appreciate it if you could identify one of these times. In my experience these events that provide evidence to support the creation story (pick whatever one you wish) are typically the result of apologists force-fitting the work of scientists and other professionals to fit their respective scriptures.

For the sake of clarity . . . CBer?

[Christanity4ever]

its not unexpected for the bible to get some things right like the locations of cities and what not because it was written by people during those times, so Im not sure how this is the bible vs. secularism.

I guess my issues is are you saying the bible makes claims contrary to science or any other current academic thought and turned out to be correct?

Well I don't see where the bible does not agree with secular science today that could be proven to be incorrect etc however, I would also agree that the bible in some of its stories related the superstitions of the day and are not factual.

I also believe that prophesy is true and has been fulfilled and is being fulfilled. One of my atheist friends asked me why biblical prophesy was so vague, and why it couldn't be very detailed. My answer is if prophesy were exceedingly detailed we would have no freewill because that detailed prophesy must pass and it must do so with detail. That seems to me would take away our ability to choose.

C4