I have been in the "TRUTH" for some yrs., & just can't seem to reconsile the huge fossile record with the society's timetable. If each creative day waz 7k yrs., that means the dinosaurs only lived on this earth for a few thousand yrs.= (sixth creative day 7k yrs. to Noah's flood). The dinosaurs were not on the ark, so they had to die out before the GREAT FLOOD. I'm not saying I buy the billion's of yrs. the scientists est., but it had to be a long time for the sediment build up occuring in the fossilized rock layer strata. Along the same lines, what about Australia, & it's fauna? Did Noah take kangaroos in the ark, & somehow they just settled on one island & nowhere else? Many more ? , but any thoughts on these??
Dinosaur's & fossils records
moman: The Society has dropped it's 7,000 year long creative days teaching shortly after the 1975 fiasco. It became quite apparent then that the elaborate 'great jubilee' scenario that was set up was nothing more than conjecture. You won't find this 'seven thousand year day' teaching in any of the later publications.
On the matter of Noah's ark: If you accept the Biblical account as factual and literal then there is something that you have to accept also. It was an act of God, a miracle. It would have been impossible for Noah to gather all those animals. It would have been impossible to put them all on that ark. It would have been impossible to sustain all those animals for the duration of the flood and it would have been impossible for the animals to disperse in the manner in which they did (with some species being indigeneous to only certain continents, etc, like your kangaroos). None of that, of course, would have been impossible with God. The account of the flood is undoubtedly a SUMMARY of what actually happened, with many details not related. Any speculation as to how God would have accomplished that would be...speculation! It might be fun to think up of ways this may have been done but in the end you will be no closer to KNOWING than you are now.
There are a lot of things to do with the flood that don't make much sense (to me anyway)
For instance, even a couple of lions would need a huge flock of deer/zebra/gazelle/whatever to feed and would kill one at least every few days. However, it would take them years to mate, mature and grow in number from the 2 or 7 (depending on the verse you read) that were supposed to be in the ark.
I guess this was why the society printed the rediculous article a few years back claiming that all pre-flood animals were herbivores and had only learned to kill other animals from man. This includied lions, tigers, sharks, birds of pray and other 'killing machines'. They can't explain in this scenario why snakes have poison or cheetahs have to be able to run fast though.
Also, you can no longer argue against evolution by saying that creatures were 'perfectly designed' for what they do if, in fact, they weren't designed to do these things at all.
There are also scriptures that describe Jehovah's 'wonderful creation' such as how he made the eagle to soar high & spot it's prey and eat it's blood. If they weren't supposed to do this then wouldn't this make the 'inspired word og God' a lie ?
I also have and had difficults to believe the details about the flood.
What I, for me personally, believe is, the flood was only local, the habitated earth at noahs time. That would make much more sense, since Noah hat to take only the local animals into the ark. So no kangaroo had to be taken into the ark.
Ben ist right, for some years now, the society say, that a creation day means a timeperiod and we don't know, how long each day was.
But anyway, I find it difficult to see, why Jehovah created dinosaur's?
Hey, maybe the cheetah REALLY liked fruit and he wanted to catch it before it hit the ground! Hehehe, just kiddin'. I agree with you that upon close scrutiny MUCH of it does not make sense. Fossil records that far pre-date Noah pretty much establish the fact that some of the animals were carnivores and thereby shooting the theory that they were all herbivores all to hades.
I am fascinated by the account, however. In every legend there is a kernel of truth, sometimes that truth is far more interesting than the legend that grew around it. How about some speculation here? What do you think really happened? The local flood as related here by mgm seems more logical but are there any other theories out there?
To see is to see all.
Edited by - Ben on 26 April 2000 7:59:50
I had to add this in light of mgm's reference to the dinosaurs. I had a brother come up to me one day and tell me that he'd had a disturbing thought. It seems that he was musing one day about dinosaurs and their extinction when he had this unsettling epiphany, if you would. Why had Jehovah allowed part of his creation to just vanish? Their purpose was over, perhaps? Just then he said he wondered if perhaps Jehovah might do the same with man once man's purpose was fulfilled. He said that the notion disturbed him considerably.
I've always enjoyed discussions on Dinosaurs.
Paleontologists and other scientists are in agreement that the Dinosaurs went extinct as a species 65 million years ago. Also, scientists agree that they first appeared about 220 million years ago.
Such number cannot possibly be reconciled with any numbers that Young Earth Creationists, or the WTS, has published concerning the length of creative days. Even if the WTS has modified its 7,000 years = one day understanding (they now say each day was 'several thousand' or simply 'thousands' of years in length) such modifcation does not even come remotely close to anything agreeing with the scientifically accepted timetable concering the rise and fall of the dinosaurs.
No one knows for sure.
Again the society has messed up, but rather than admit it they keep spouting the same old rubbish. I dont know how anyone with reasoning mind can swallow their junk science. No wonder the Borg wants the faithful to read only the society's publications.