Well... it seems that the Christians here do not even know their own myths. Wow.
First:
Why would anyone put fish and jellyfish and sharks on a boat during a flood? Afraid they might drown in the water? Something very fishy here.
Well, that is clearly what the ancient authors thought. In reality, fish would not survive a catastrophic flood, just would not happen. Fish have VERY specific environments they need for survival. The massive size of the ocean ensures that such conditions change VERY slowly. That would not be the case if there were a global flood as such would require far more water than the Oceans themselves even contain.
But that is what happens when you write a story in an age where basic understanding of biological realities is nonexistent.
Anyway:
Ah another example of why literacy does no good for some people.
There are two versions of that allegory in Genesis, most people wouldn't know that, since most of the wankers who criticize it have never read it so don't have a clue; the first version has single pairs of animals in its narrative, while the second narrative in another chapter has seven pairs of animals.
Now, let's see if any of the 'realists' can explain what is meant by each version.
Not exactly. It was 2 of each unclean animal and 7 pairs for clean animals. Noah had to have some left for a blood sacrifice after all. Which he promptly did when they got off the ark. The earlier and later stories do not really disagree with each other as much as one says he will have 2 pairs with him and the second commands him to bring 2 pairs of everything and also 7 pairs of clean animals/birds.
No one ever addresses how monumentally this would **** up genetics if all the animals were descended from such small populations but meh, they also thought Adam and Eve make sense.
Except the Bible says the flood killed all animals on the Earth that weren't in the ark.
What about the fish and other water borne animals?
Those were specifically left out. It stipulates all animals (separate from fish 'kind') and birds and things with the 'breath of life.' This has led some literalists to claim insects and the like, as they do not 'breath' in the same manner that biblical 'animals' do, were not included. It is also how they do not include anything under the water. Here is where they continently forget about whales and other things that look and act like fish but are not. They really need this as the rate of speciation after the flood is already insanely fast and the space available is laughably limited.
Yeah, that's MY POINT.
Why would the Bible say ALL ANIMALS when not all animals needed the ark?
Well, that really is not what it says, at least not in the manner that you think. 'Animals' in no way represents the current taxonomic classification of animals. It is talking about ancient animal designations which were based on what things DID rather than what things were and, again, those that had 'the breath of life.' That is why they thought whales were fish when they clearly are not.
By animals it was referring, essentially, to land animals. That did not even include birds or creeping things as god had to add that on as well.
But, lets be honest here, if you are going to take the story of Jonah and the whale as literal, the global flood is easy.
