Posted on 03/03/2014 8:19:01 PM PST by This Just In
The impressive box office haul for Son of God, a spiritual film culled from footage already broadcast on the hit miniseries The Bible, should bode well for Noah.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Back in the 1800s when a few thousand times more animals were found than Noah knew about, that pretty much sunk the Ark legends as a history book.
How many different animals did Noah have on the ark?
Evolution within a species. This is not contradictory to the worldwide flood account.
I see that you’re using this thread to springboard, and I understand your argument, but that is a whole other topic altogether.
how many different animals on the ark?
Two of each KIND. For example, a dog/wolf is a kind. We get our “breeds” of dogs all out of these two pari. They had all the latent genetic material to produce all the diversity we see in dogs today.
Of the clean animals, some more than two were carried.
Also, as far as large animals, I would think young, smaller ones would be best (but God gave the dimensions of the Ark large enough, so it does not matter).
It really is funny. What- is the movie trying to make a case for global warming? Just lunacy. The movie will die a terrible death at the box office if that is what it is. They cannot have my money now, no way.
God brought the flood due to mankinds licentiousness and immorality. The only good news here is that he promised never to do this to mankind again.
You know you’ve lost it with Hollywood Californicatia when you find yourself rooting for the villains in all their stupid movies. Ender’s game was the last straw for me, I have no further use for the idiots.
Amen
(((applause)))
We watched Ender’s Game a few nights ago. For crying out loud! As the credits rolled, we looked at one another as if to say, “Seriously?”.
Actually, Ender’s Game, while lifeless, hewed VERY closely to the book itself.
If you think earthlings were presented in a cold, harsh, and unpleasant light (as I did), blame Orson Scott Card, or a screenwriter that wasn’t willing to flex a bit from the source material.
That’s one of the discussions my family and I had following the film. We had to allow for the book, but I was convinced that the filmmakers fell short on delivering a great story.
I thought the story was flat. The way in which the director developed (or failed to) some of the characters were part of the problem. Thankfully Asa Butterfield and Abigail Breslin were compelling in their roles.
The FX’s were superb.
The dimensions for the ark given in Genesis are 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high (Genesis 6:15). What is a cubit? A cubit is an ancient unit of measurement, the length of the forearm from the elbow to the longest finger (the term “cubit” comes from the Latin word “cubitum” which means “elbow.” The Hebrew word for “cubit” is “ammah.” As everybody’s arms are different lengths, this unit may seem a bit ambiguous to some, but scholars generally agree that it represents somewhere between 17 and 22 inches (43-56 centimeters). The ancient Egyptian cubit is known to have been 21.888 inches. So, doing the math,
300 x 22 inches = 6,600; 50 x 22 inches = 1,100; 30 x 22 inches = 660
6,600/12 = 550 feet; 1100/12 = 91.7 feet; 660/12 = 55 feet.
Thus, the ark could have been up to 550 feet long, 91.7 feet wide and 55 feet high. These are not unreasonable dimensions. But how much storage space does this amount to? Well, 550 x 91.7 x 55 = 2,773,925 cubic feet. (If we take the smallest measurement of cubit, 17 inches, we end up with 1,278,825 cubic feet). Of course, not all of it would have been free space. The ark had three levels (Genesis 6:16) and a lot of rooms (Genesis 6:14), the walls of which would have taken up space. Nevertheless, it has been calculated that a little more than half (54.75%) of the 2,773,925 cubic feet could store 125,000 sheep-sized animals, leaving over 1.5 million cubic feet of free space.
John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.
How many animals were on the ark? Woodmorappe estimates about 16,000 “kinds.” What is a “kind”? The designation of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.” Even as there are over 400 dog breeds all belonging to one species (Canis familiaris), so many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the designation “genus” may be somewhat close to the biblical “kind.”
Nevertheless, even if we presume that “kind” is synonymous with “species,” “there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600. Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called “clean” kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than, say, 50,000 animals were on the ark” (Morris, 1987).
Some have estimated that there were as many as 25,000 kinds of animals represented on the ark. This is a high-end estimation. With two of each kind and seven of some, the number of animals would exceed 50,000, though not by very much, relatively speaking. Regardless, whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 kinds of animals, even with two of each and seven of some, scholars agree that there was plenty of room for all of the animals on the ark, plus food and water with room to spare.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Noahs-ark-animals.html
But, after thinking a bit more, that's fairly accurate from a spiritual point of view, since the Earth had spiritually become a toxic cesspool, utterly polluted by sin.
God only has a few choices to clean that kind of mess and chose to flood the place.
We get fire.
Been listening to Clyde Lewis on Ground Zero tonight and it's got my hair standing. The Nostradamus predictions are scary accurate and fit with what I've been reading in True Life In God,in the Bible and related material, along with the stories in the news and how we are being set up.
I bet people feel it for themselves, but if not, now is an especially good time to seek Him...before He gets here as Judge.
I have to disagree with you on the parallel between the environmental message of Aronofsky’s exploitation of Noah’s Flood, and the Judgement.
Aronofsky’s storyline argues that man has devastated the earth due to over population, etc. God’s Word NEVER mentions overpopulation as being a problem on His creation. As a matter, he commands man to “...be fruitful and multiply”. In the old and the new Testament, we see God illustrating the blessing and benefits of marriage and children. We never read about the Lord commanding his people to reduce the population, or to have just “one child”.
So there is no parallel. The biblical account of Noah’s flood speaks of man’s total depravity and complete rejection of God. Aronofsky’s film focuses on the environment and not our Creator.
I'm making a very loose comparison based on mankind having polluted the earth then and now such that God has to clean up the place, not the EPA.
From a certain point of view, and without seeing the movie or wanting to, they accidentally get partial credit, though I doubt that point of view was their intention, though I pray it will be.
Rooting for Harrison Ford the whole way in Ender’s game. Same thing with Gangs of NY, I was rooting for Daniel Day Lewis all the way.
The story of the flood is universal and believable and the idea that God might have warned the one guy to build an ark is also believable. What ISN’T believable is that God would have wiped the entire Earth over sin only to have sin back in business as if nothing had happened forty years later. I give God credit for being a bit brighter than that...
Here’s the problem with the “mankind polluted the earth” argument: Mankind didn’t pollute the earth.
What I mean to say is, mankind did not pollute the earth in the way in which environmentalists wish to suggest. The entire “Global warming” and “overpopulation” hysteria is based on fallacies.
I don’t wish for you to misunderstand. God commanded us to be good stewards, but the Lord isn’t returning to earth because man polluted it. Jesus is returning as judge because of mankind’s sins and rejection of God. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, their sin caused all of creation to suffer. It was not due to mans pollution destroying the environment.
Aronofsky is categorically wrong. He simply couched his environmental message in a story by exploiting a biblical event. He tried to make it palatable to people of faith, but the food is rotten.
Well, the Bible doesn’t describe Noah’s Flood as an act in order to rid the earth of sin. Throughout the Old and New testament we see the fall of man and ultimately redemption through Christ, and the fulfillment of scripture. The Lord’s flood was a act of judgement.
That’s being over-simplistic, but my point is that the Flood was not to destroy sin in and of itself.
Daniel Day Lewis is a great actor. Harrison Ford...not so much.
I’ll admit that my favorite scene in Ender’s Game starts when Ender floats through the combat simulator room with two guns in hand all the while blasting his opponents. As a matter of fact, all of my favorite scenes take place in the combat room.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.