Noahs Ark

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I like women who have features that make them standout, like natural features that give them character instead of looking like every other person.

Hmmm...unusual looking women I'm guessing. I know such a woman. She's 25 and is charming once you get to know her. I think she's OEC but I'm not sure. She lives in Grenoble now...

What does this have to do with Noah's Ark?

FL

[Danieltwotwenty]

I like women who have features that make them standout, like natural features that give them character instead of looking like every other person.

Hmmm...unusual looking women I'm guessing. I know such a woman. She's 25 and is charming once you get to know her. I think she's OEC but I'm not sure. She lives in Grenoble now...

What does this have to do with Noah's Ark?

FL

Absolutely nothing, but I would rather be talking about this than who's crappy interpretation is more correct.

[Seraph]

I must admit, of the biblical stories/accounts, the great flood and Noah's ark has always been the most difficult for me to believe was a literal event because of its outlandishness. If the flood was local, what was the point of saving two of each species? Historically on the earth there have been massive cataclysmic events that wiped out all life in a local area, why was saving the species native to the Mesopotamian region so important? Also, why not lead Noah safely out of harms way since much of the rest of the world would've been unaffected?

This is just if it's local, if the one true interpretation is that it's global, that opens up a whole new, much bigger can of worms.

[Danieltwotwenty]

If the flood was local, what was the point of saving two of each species?

Basically to keep the ecology going.

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

"Some animals are indigenous only to the Mesopotamian area. More importantly, it would have taken hundreds of years longer to replace the fauna if everything had been wiped out and had to migrate back in. In addition, Noah would have had a huge problem replacing his herds."

Also, why not lead Noah safely out of harms way since much of the rest of the world would've been unaffected?

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

If the Genesis flood were local, why didn't God just sent Noah and his family packing. Once they were out of the Mesopotamian flood plain, God could have judged the unrighteous without making Noah go to all the trouble of building a huge ark. It is true that God could have done this, although there are some good biblical reasons why He chose not to do so. Why did God make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down? Why did God make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness? Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness? Were any of these things actually required for God to do His work? No! God could have just wiped out all the evil people in the world, as He did later to the all the Egyptians' first-born. Maybe God had good reasons for Noah to build the ark? God has a purpose for each person of faith to join Him in preaching His message. God's plan will be accomplished regardless of our participation in it. However, God gives obedient humans the privilege of participating in God's plans. Likewise, God had a plan for Noah, part of which was for him and his sons to demonstrate their commitment and perseverance to the Lord.

One will notice in the judgments that God renders, He almost always gives a warning to those who are being judged. For example, God sent angels to Sodom before it was to be destroyed,15 sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them of the judgment to come,16 and will send two prophets to warn the people of the earth of the final judgment.17 The building of the ark was a great testimony of the coming judgment, since it was preached for 100 years during the building of the ark. The New Testament states this idea directly, since it says that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness":

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:4-5)

If God had told Noah to just migrate away from the flood area, the people would not have been warned of the impending judgment. Ultimately, they were without excuse in their rebellion against God, since the impending judgment was proclaimed to them for 100 years before it happened. Likewise, God will send two preachers for 1260 days prior to the ultimate judgment of God.17 Those who get on God's ark (Jesus Christ) will be saved from the judgment and pass from death to eternal life.

Over the years there have been some really good discussions on the flood, dayage is one member that has given some really great biblical answers over the years.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... d&start=15

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 76#p115176

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=36800

[WannaLearn]

Why are you guys trying to get Daniel all riled up?

Daniel,

Just ignore them. They're big bullies!

Bob: I believe the flood was global because that is what the Bible actually says
Frank: SHUTUPYOUBIGBULLY

Well how would you answer these questions? exept the species can fit on the ark if they are all a bunch of baby animals.

•There's no evidence of a global flood.
•There's no way all the species would fit on the ark.
•There's no way the plants would survive.
•There's no way the carnivores would be able to sustain their population if they and the herbivores were brought in as pairs (you need a much larger herbivore population to sustain the carnivores).
•There's no way the animals would have spread across the continents, particularly to the western hemisphere. They were separated by that point.

[Jac3510]

I would just say that there is evidence for a global flood, and that you should be very careful with "there's no way" type arguments. The onus is on you to prove such a universal is true, and on the flip side, even if I don't know a way, then that doesn't mean that there is not in fact a way. For instnace, the Bible doesn't require all species be on the Ark but only representative pairs of all kinds (of which there were only a few thousand). I also don't know that it is impossible for a seed not to survive six months of being under water, and isn't it possible that in the debris many seeds were protected from that same water for some time? I don't see why not. And why could the animals not have hibernated for the time they were on the ark? And besides, it's been shown time and again that carnivores can survive without meat if necessary. And as for the colonization of other continents, perhaps some kinds floated on leftover debris, perhaps there were landbridges, perhaps many kinds were brought over by humans, perhaps all of the above. The point is there are all sorts of possibilities. I am not saying that any of these are what actually happened. But when you say that there is no way, you put the onus on yourself to prove that such is impossible in principle.

[Philip]

And, or course, the flood wasn't necessarily GLOBAL, but wiped out all humanity to the point it had spread to at that time (the KNOWN and INHABITED/POPULATED world in that day). And the text perfectly allows for that to be the case.

Here's a good article that talks about the theological and geological questions for whether the flood was across the entire globe or regional:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/noah%E2 ... s-eye-view

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I must admit, of the biblical stories/accounts, the great flood and Noah's ark has always been the most difficult for me to believe was a literal event because of its outlandishness.

Why single out Noah's story? Isn't the whole Bible outlandish? I mean...the Creation account, the making of Adam, the making of Eve, the Exodus, crossing the Jordan on dry ground, the walls of Jericho, Samson pulling down a whole building with his bare hands, Jonah & the fish, the unlikely repentance of Nineveh, Saul betting all of Israel a runt like David to go after Goliath, Mary: a pregnant Virgin?! Jesus: the God-man?! all those healings, feeding multitudes with kitchen scraps, raising the dead... those 12 losers we know as apostles...I mean, the whole Bible is just freaking unbelievable!

So why have you singled out the Ark and the Flood as ''outlandish''?

FL

[Seraph]

Well it's not miracles or the supernatural that I find outlandish, those don't seem too far out for one to believe because they're "small scale" and isolated. The great flood story is massive scale and has major implications, like that all of humanity's genealogy bottlenecks into a single family if traced back far enough. Or that a multi-hundred year old man could build a ship larger than the titanic. There are also philosophical debacles with why God needed to destroy humanity, considering His providence.

As for the creation account, it's not outlandish because the universe did have to be created somehow and I think Genesis is consistent or at least compatible with the big bang theory+darwinian evolution. (Oh yeah, I'm a theistic evolutionist )

[Philip]

Isn't the whole Bible outlandish? I mean...the Creation account, the making of Adam, the making of Eve, the Exodus, crossing the Jordan on dry ground, the walls of Jericho, Samson pulling down a whole building with his bare hands, Jonah & the fish, the unlikely repentance of Nineveh, Saul betting all of Israel a runt like David to go after Goliath, Mary: a pregnant Virgin?! Jesus: the God-man?! all those healings, feeding multitudes with kitchen scraps, raising the dead... those 12 losers we know as apostles...I mean, the whole Bible is just freaking unbelievable!

Yep, it is unbelievable - UNLESS, Yahweh exists and is the Creator. Because if there is such an amazing, all-powerful God (and He is), aren't miraculous things EXACTLY what we should expect of Him? He SPOKE a universe into existence, and yet some Christians get freaked out and are skeptical of the "micro miracles," uncertain they really happened. And yet, the very same people will often insist they believe in the "macro" ones. So they believe that God created the world and universe, but they're not so sure about that water into wine bit, or the Red Sea's parting. "Oh, those things must be allegorical and such." Or that IF God did something, then He MUST have done it this way or that - but not that other way. Very strange how people think.

[WannaLearn]

I would just say that there is evidence for a global flood, and that you should be very careful with "there's no way" type arguments. The onus is on you to prove such a universal is true, and on the flip side, even if I don't know a way, then that doesn't mean that there is not in fact a way. For instnace, the Bible doesn't require all species be on the Ark but only representative pairs of all kinds (of which there were only a few thousand). I also don't know that it is impossible for a seed not to survive six months of being under water, and isn't it possible that in the debris many seeds were protected from that same water for some time? I don't see why not. And why could the animals not have hibernated for the time they were on the ark? And besides, it's been shown time and again that carnivores can survive without meat if necessary. And as for the colonization of other continents, perhaps some kinds floated on leftover debris, perhaps there were landbridges, perhaps many kinds were brought over by humans, perhaps all of the above. The point is there are all sorts of possibilities. I am not saying that any of these are what actually happened. But when you say that there is no way, you put the onus on yourself to prove that such is impossible in principle.

What would some of the evidence be of it?

[Jac3510]

I appreciate the question, but let me ask you one back, though. How much looking have you done into the matter? I ask because when you so bluntly declare that there is no evidence, that implies that you are done a rather exhaustive search. But in light of that, your question doesn't sound so forthright. I have a strong suspicion that were I to offer some rather common examples, you would move the goalposts.

If you want to have an honest discussion about some of the evidence and why you do or don't think it lines up with a global flood, then just say so plainly. Having hidden agendas lying behind questions isn't conducive do constructive conversation.

I would like you to address the tone in your post. You just declare that there is no evidence for a global flood and then just declare that several components of such a flood are impossible in principle. I'm sure you can hear the less than charitable implications you are directing towards advocates of a global flood. Perhaps it was unintended. But perhaps it wasn't.

What say you, WannaLearn?

[WannaLearn]

I appreciate the question, but let me ask you one back, though. How much looking have you done into the matter? I ask because when you so bluntly declare that there is no evidence, that implies that you are done a rather exhaustive search. But in light of that, your question doesn't sound so forthright. I have a strong suspicion that were I to offer some rather common examples, you would move the goalposts.

If you want to have an honest discussion about some of the evidence and why you do or don't think it lines up with a global flood, then just say so plainly. Having hidden agendas lying behind questions isn't conducive do constructive conversation.

I would like you to address the tone in your post. You just declare that there is no evidence for a global flood and then just declare that several components of such a flood are impossible in principle. I'm sure you can hear the less than charitable implications you are directing towards advocates of a global flood. Perhaps it was unintended. But perhaps it wasn't.

What say you, WannaLearn?

Sounds good. And I asked the question that way to see how one would defend their stance and or breakdown that statement.
I have not done much research on the evidence of the flood so convincing me probably wont be that hard.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Well it's not miracles or the supernatural that I find outlandish, those don't seem too far out for one to believe because they're "small scale" and isolated... As for the creation account, it's not outlandish because the universe did have to be created somehow and I think Genesis is consistent or at least compatible with the big bang theory+darwinian evolution. (Oh yeah, I'm a theistic evolutionist )

Actually, Genesis 1 is incompatible with both the Big Bang stuff and evolution. A simple reading of Genesis 1 will make this evident. Perhaps Moses made mistakes when he took dictation while God was relating the Creation account. Apparently, good secretaries have always been hard to find.

The great flood story is massive scale [miracle] and has major implications, like that all of humanity's genealogy bottlenecks into a single family if traced back far enough. Or that a multi-hundred year old man could build a ship larger than the titanic.

One of the guys at work told me that the ancient Israelites didn't cross the Red Sea on dry ground. Actually - he assured me - they crossed a swamp. OK...a swamp! The current scholarly opinion seems to be that they crossed the ''Sea of Reeds'' not the actual Red Sea. The Sea of Reeds is...a swamp! One of my friends crosses swamps on his ATV every time he goes hunting: swamp crossing is no big deal! Three million Israelites crossing a swamp would presumeably make a dry path for themselves after a while. When Pharaoh's troops got there, the swamp just filled up with water again! So we can cross that miracle off the list!

Could Noah build a Titanic-sized ship? Why not? I knew a man who built his own dream home in 3 short years. This home wasn't a shack but a beautiful building anyone of us would be proud of. I know guys who built their own airworthy 4-place airplane in a few years. I also worked with a man who built a 40-foot sailing ship (from a kit) in three years and used it to travel around the world from job to job. So, it is possible for a single individual to build large or complex structures in a short period of time. Of course, the Ark is no 40-foot yacht Noah bought in kit form...

As for Noah's long life span, that does sound fake...my own opinion on this matter is that the long life spans in Genesis were measured in dog-years. A dog-year is commonly one-seventh of a calendar year, or roughly 52.2 days long. Perhaps Noah did build the Ark but he would have had to have some help from family and friends. Also, Noah would have had to live near a well-stocked Home Depot and would have needed excellent credit or a well-paying day job.

You should consider getting yourself an Erasable Bible!

FL

[Danieltwotwenty]

Actually, Genesis 1 is incompatible with both the Big Bang stuff and evolution. A simple reading of Genesis 1 will make this evident.

I would totally disagree, when I read genesis I don't get that message at all. A simple reading of Genesis leads me to believe that is supports these things easily once you understand it's context.

Like any book in the Bible, without proper context it can say whatever you want it to say. That's how we get excuses for hating homosexual people, colored people, the earth is flat, there was a dome of water above us, the earth is held up by big pillars etc... etc... but if read in it's proper context we find that it does not support these ideas at all.