Noah's Ark?

[Ivellious]

I'd also be careful in outright saying that you can justify the logistics of the Bible with "speculation"...that's way too easy for non-believers and skeptics to use as fodder for their arguments.

[Danieltwotwenty]

My only problem with what you say is this: You say you take the Bible literally. However, you do not, you interpret the Bible using your own non-faith based rationality. For instance, the Bible literally states that the entire Earth was flooded by God, no exceptions. The Bible literally states that Noah and his 3 sons and their collective 4 wives were the only humans saved. They were also each several hundred years old, at least. Of course, rationally and logistically speaking, it doesn't make a ton of sense (those points and numerous other ones). I'm assuming that's why you interpret the story differently.

The problem comes in when Christians say that the Bible is ultimately perfect and pure, and do in fact take many Bible verses literally. But, the inconsistency rolls in on certain parts (say, the story of Noah's Ark). How do we as imperfect humans get to pick and choose which verses are literal and which are metaphorical or greatly embellished?

The Bible does not state it was global, it states that the flood covered the land, depending of course on which version you read.
It does not say the number of people was specific as far as I can tell Genesis 7:7
Several hundred years old you say, were those years the same as what we refer to as years or was he several hundred seasons old, I wasn't there so I wouldn't know.
Depending on what the interpretation of the ancient Hebrew words used can greatly change the meaning, some people believe it is global some believe it was local.
This has nothing to do with "non-faith based rationality" but has to do with interpretation of ancient texts.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I'd also be careful in outright saying that you can justify the logistics of the Bible with "speculation"...that's way too easy for non-believers and skeptics to use as fodder for their arguments.

I am not justifying anything, I am saying we don't know and we will probably never know and all we are doing is speculating on what could have happened.

[Danieltwotwenty]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

Read this.

[Ivellious]

I've read two Bibles, one given to me by a Catholic priest that I still have and another from a Lutheran friend of mine. The Catholic one I still have is very specific in saying Noah was 600 years old, and on the seventeenth day of the second month of that year flood waters engulfed the Earth, killing all humans aside from the 8 saved lives, in order to eradicate sin from the Earth. (7:6 - 7:24)

My only point is that as soon as you allow any interpretation into your reading of the Bible, you are now dealing on human opinion. And, for arguing the validity of certain points of the Bible or the invalidity of others, using any kind of interpretation is not going to help your case.

[Ivellious]

The page you posted is a good rebuttal. Though I will admit, it only strengthens the argument I made on another post about our translations being incorrect or presumptuous or not entirely accurate. Though I still contend, the Bible does clearly state that ALL living things on Earth were killed, and that nothing in God's creation that set foot on land was alive thereafter. There were people outside the immediate area of the Biblical Middle East, and certainly loads of living animals across the globe. So that doesn't add up to me. also, while the Psalm states that the "seas" may never cover the globe, the floods were not technically a sea, but rather a completely new source of water, so just because God said that the seas wouldn't magically rise, he never said he couldn't violate that himself...I mean, he IS God.

[Danieltwotwenty]

My only point is that as soon as you allow any interpretation into your reading of the Bible, you are now dealing on human opinion. And, for arguing the validity of certain points of the Bible or the invalidity of others, using any kind of interpretation is not going to help your case.

It is interpretation of Ancient Hebrew where one word may have many different meanings depending on context, it is not just opinion as you are asserting.
It really does have no effect on my faith whatsoever if it is global or local, it is inconsequential and irrelevant.
I was not arguing for the validity of the Bible, I was answering the OP's question and was giving my opinion based on what I know.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Though I will admit, it only strengthens the argument I made on another post about our translations being incorrect or presumptuous or not entirely accurate.

While translation and interpretations may differ slightly the main message of the Bible remains intact, it is only the periphery stuff that is debated.

Though I still contend, the Bible does clearly state that ALL living things on Earth were killed, and that nothing in God's creation that set foot on land was alive thereafter. There were people outside the immediate area of the Biblical Middle East, and certainly loads of living animals across the globe. So that doesn't add up to me.

The texts can also be interpreted as kill all living creatures on the land ( local area ) and that nothing remained alive ( in that area ).

while the Psalm states that the "seas" may never cover the globe, the floods were not technically a sea, but rather a completely new source of water, so just because God said that the seas wouldn't magically rise, he never said he couldn't violate that himself...I mean, he IS God.

That is true but it neither supports or rejects global or local.

[Ivellious]

But which interpretation you use can indeed change the meaning. In the case of Noah, it's fairly inconsequential. But, which version of a word we arbitrarily choose to use could be very consequential in other passages, and how we interpret the literal text using other cultural contexts can be dangerous. I'm just saying to watch when and where you choose to use alternate translations and so on.

[Danieltwotwenty]

But which interpretation you use can indeed change the meaning. In the case of Noah, it's fairly inconsequential. But, which version of a word we arbitrarily choose to use could be very consequential in other passages, and how we interpret the literal text using other cultural contexts can be dangerous. I'm just saying to watch when and where you choose to use alternate translations and so on.

And this is the reason we have teams of people working to get the best translation possible, it is not just some dude goes well this is how we do it.
These people have spent years researching and studying and their opinions are based on facts, and like I said before the main message of the Bible remains intact which is all that really matters. God out of love set out his plan for the redemption of the world before we were created and through Jesus Christ he has enacted his plan for salvation, through the acceptance of Jesus's sacrifice our sin's are washed away and we may be changed and enter into eternity with our creator.

[musician]

Yeah, but "they" in the case of the Egyptians were thousands of enslaved workers...Noah had what, 4 guys and 4 women? Not quite the same as an enslaved army.

And animals, gravity, and presumably a relatively bare mountain to roll the logs down.

- N

[Murray]

considering the presence of a flood account in most major ancient cultures, you can probably safely assume that a large local flood did occur. However, in regards to Noah, the story could be 1) a story to teach a lesson, almost like a parable 2) an actual event with Noah being a true person and actually surviving the local flood by building a large arc and taking with him his family and probably a select species of animals, or 3) global flood, Noah build enormousness arc,. takes every kind of living creature with him along with his family, and then water recedes and he lands on the top of a mountain.

Personally I kind of in-between options 1 and 2

[wrain62]

Yeah, but "they" in the case of the Egyptians were thousands of enslaved workers...Noah had what, 4 guys and 4 women? Not quite the same as an enslaved army.

And animals, gravity, and presumably a relatively bare mountain to roll the logs down.

- N

Good point.

[jlay]

I guess Jesus was related to a myth?

"the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah," Luke 3:36

[Ivellious]

For the record, I never said Noah was a myth, I'm under the presumption that even if parts of the Bible are metaphorical or embellished they were probably about actual people and events. Just like I disagree with people who say Jesus never existed...It's dumb, because there is lots of evidence that Jesus was in fact a real person. If you want to argue the religious meaning of Jesus, then that's fine by me, but to assert he never lived is more or less just used to get people agitated.