I’d wager that they started out as “literal truth” explanations for mysterious things, as Der Trihs suggested, but then gradually became the kind of we-all-know-it’s-a-legend that you suggest, as overall real-world knowledge and understanding slowly increased. (See a parallel development in how the Greeks and Romans regarded their gods.)
The Christian church then just continued this process, to the “it’s just a metaphor” stage that the Argentinian doper referred to – “just a metaphor, but still with special significance…lest you start doubting the parts of the Bible we insist you take very, very seriously”. Then, US fundies backtracked to the 5000 BC era, while us non-theists took the obvious next step of seeing it as akin to the Epic of Gilgamesh – a mildly interesting Bronze Age tale that resonates with something in the human mind to make it of enduring interest for many, much like the Three Little Pigs, or the Wizard of Oz, or Troutmaskreplica.
It could very well be referring to the kinds of animals that were known to Noah.
Most people who believe in God don’t really concern themselves with the details since a 4,000 year old book is bound to get some things wrong. At this point in human history, most people seem to believe that a great flood of some kind occurred at one point. Perhaps Noah knew of it and saved the animals that he knew/he would use in the future? After all, it would seem silly for Noah to try to gather EVERY animal on the Earth if God was so hellbent on destroying everything.
That’s all nice and cosy and all, but are you even interested in whether it stacks up against observable reality? ‘Maybe’ is a great place yo start an inquiry, but a terrible place to arrive at as a conclusion.
There’s no more reason to siege upon this (frankly plain wrong) notion of ‘kinds’ than there would be to, say, argue that Noah only needed one example of each group of animals whose name happened to rhyme. Hogs and dogs? Don’t need 'em because we’ve already got frogs.
Your analogy of apples not falling far from the tree may be unintentionally apt. You see it’s generally true that an apple won’t fall far from the tree- bit this is ONLY a statement of how change may be limited in one generation. The apples that fall from the tree that subsequently grows can thus fall a little farther still from the location of their grandparent, and so on.
To assert that variation of animals is somehow only possible within limits is to assert that ALL apples, past present and future, can only ever fall close to where the first apple tree ever grew.
Well, he wouldn’t have to worry about the sea creatures, so that reduces the number by quite a bit. Of course, that ignores the effect of fresh water on salt water species, but that’s a minor point…
The Bible is pretty good about boasting on miracles. I’m pretty sure “And GOD made the ark larger on the inside than it was on the outside” would have been mentioned if it was true.
I think we may have two pop cultural references talking past each other here, both employing a little sarcastic humor to mock the absurdity of the Noah myth as literal truth… but just to make sure we’re on the same page, bangagmo, that quote was from Jaws. And I see that “tardis” is a Dr. Who concept/invention.
Well, except the ones that wouldn’t tolerate the inevitable turbidity that would occur when impossibly vast amounts of water arrived on the whole planet at once.
Actually, dinosaurs were simply too large to fit on the ark – so instead, Noah collected two of each kind of dinosaur egg, timed to hatch after the forty days and forty nights had transpired. Then, during the flood, Mrs. Noah surprised her husband with a fresh omelette breakfast…
But did have to worry about xerophytic/xerophilic plants (which couldn’t make their own way to the ark, even if Noah was interested and had space for them), so it’s a bit of a wash, if you’ll pardon the pun
Your theory is unsound on two counts. First off, there were small dinosaurs as well as big ones. Clearly the small ones COULD have gone on the ark, but were Left Behind™. Thus, they were too evil to be allowed to be on the ark with the good creatures of the earth like skunks and the like.
Secondly, everyone knows that Noah hated dinosaur omelets for breakfast, preferring a nice herring and snail scramble.
In looking at the flood as stated in scriptures from the POV that there is such a God, we have this strange notion of a animal ‘kind’, it is a very strange wording in our time and I assume back then too. Such a God would have known that the word animal kind would be strange today and back then. God makes sure to use it a few times, not just one place, so we have to assume it’s there for a reason - because we are assuming that there is such a God.
We then look to the reason, we know that unless God uses something woo like, we can’t fit all the species of animals in the ark, nor can all the species get to the ark.
Under this assumption we have that the animal kinds are not the species but something much less numerous, but also capable of repopulating the earth with all the species we have today.
This would indicate some sort of groups of elemental creatures that once disembarked could be used to form all the individual species.
It would also indicate that every such animal kind was in near proximity to Noah, so in a given area there is a community of all the kinds (this BTW is close to some Native American spiritual beliefs about local communities of animals and plants).
So Noah really just had a small amount of local animals in this model. The Ark would be more of a bio-dome then a holding pen.
The problem with this is where did such a story originally come from. In spirituality dreams, thoughts, fantasies mean things they are used as insights into deeper truths. The scriptures is a spiritual implement, a way of understanding things and by using the scriptures for a spiritual purpose its origins are taken as spiritually inspired.