Evidence for God from Science

Yes

However, obviously I do not interpret it the same way as you.

so exactly how then did the animals get to all different parts of the world? ? Did they walk on water over the oceans?

While the questions concerning Noah and the ark are interesting and fun to speculate over (Was it a global flood? Regional? What were the specifics regarding the included animals? Etc, Etc.) The whole point of the flood story is that God intervened in human history through a catastrophic event and then miraculously made a way for His plans for humanity and it's eventual destiny with a saving Messiah to continue to fruition. The whole ark episode is an amazing miracle. Getting hung up on what animals were selected, how many, and how they were later dispersed is a theological/scientific rabbit trail - interesting but not essential. It's like when we hear Christians marveling about how God created endless heavens and populated life on earth, and yet some of these same people don't believe God parted the Red Sea for the Israelites or they find it dubious that Jesus turned water to wine. They'll concede the BIG picture stuff, but then get hung up on questioning the equivalent of small details within the larger story. Want to question the ark story? Might as well question the multiple references to it in the New Testament, where Noah and his family are described as real people, who were all miraculously saved, after building a boat they filled with animals, and after enduring an extraordinary ordeal. The story is referenced twice in Matthew, three times in Luke, and once each in Hebrews, I Peter and 2 Peter. You either accept Scripture as God-breathed or you'll not know which is and which isn't.

philip,

You said

Want to question the ark story? Might as well question the multiple references to it in the New Testament, where Noah and his family are described as real people, who were all miraculously saved, after building a boat they filled with animals, and after enduring an extraordinary ordeal. The story is referenced twice in Matthew, three times in Luke, and once each in Hebrews, I Peter and 2 Peter. You either accept Scripture as God-breathed or you'll not know which is and which isn't.

Murray was making the point that

All in all, local flood theory makes more sense.

I find it funny that you reference Peter. He said that the flood did not cover the earth. II Peter 3:5 refers to the creation of the heavens and the giving of form to the planet. This last part is obviously referring to when God gathered the seas and made dry land appear to give the planet contour (creation day 3). In verse 7 he says that the same heavens and earth (planet) will be destroyed by fire.

Unlike what many Y.E. creationists say, verses 5-7 are not a contrast between a global judgment by water and a global judgment by fire. Peter is stating that each event was and will be controlled by God's word. The flood is not being contrasted with the final judgment.

Jesus in Matt. 24:38-39; Luke 17:27-29 only refers to the flood as universal to humanity, not to it being global. Luke shows the flood was limited (geographically), but universal to humanity, by using the exact same phase that he used for the destruction of Sodom in the days of Lot, "and destroyed THEM all." This phrase is clearly referring to the people not the planet.

The word for earth in verses 5, 7 and 10 is the Greek word Ge. But, what Peter says was flooded, by water (vs. 6), is the Greek word Kosmos. He uses this word earlier in II Peter 2:5 to describe the flooding of the people. Both places are referring to the people and the area in which they live, not the planet.

Likewise, four creation accounts show that the earth was originally covered by water and that once continents were formed, water would never again cover it (Genesis 1:2-10; Job 38:8-11; Psalm 104:5-9; Proverbs 8:27-29; also see Jeremiah 5:22).

Noah was a Preacher (II Peter 2:5) and God wants all people to repent (Ezek. 18:23 and II Peter 3:9). How would all people (world, kosmos) hear about the coming judgment and the need for repentance if they lived on the other side of the planet? The building of the ark was part of the message, to all of the people (world, kosmos), of coming judgment (Heb. 11:7 and I Peter 3:20).

Murray wrote:Yes

However, obviously I do not interpret it the same way as you.

You do know, after the flood it was an ice age right? That would explain the different species on different continents. Animals crossing the oceans. But, I respect your theory too. But... It's possible during Noahs time it was Pangea and not what we have now. Yeah, take that on for size.

Dallas,

The Biblical flood occured during the last ice age, about 50,000 yrs ago. The ice age ended about 11,000 yrs ago. How did reptiles travel through the snow? They tend to freeze up.

Besides, I just pointed to a lot of Biblical evidence against a global flood.

Murray wrote:Yes

However, obviously I do not interpret it the same way as you.

Let Scripture interpret Scripture. The Bible says in Genesis chapter seven verse nineteen and twenty "(19)And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. (20)The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits (26 feet) deep. What is not clear about that? It goes on to say that all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Don't you think that even the birds would have found land on the earth at the time of the flood if it was local? How can you believe that Christ died on the cross and take that as fact when you can't take something as simple to believe as the flood and believe that to be true? To me it just makes perfect sense that there was a global flood.

Bovey: It does not make "perfect" sense. I won't get into the unclear interpretation of various Hebrew words/phrases, but could you explain these?

How did Noah retrieve 7 or 2 of every kind of animal on the Earth?
How did Noah fit all those animal onto a boat, and feed them, and keep them safe from other animals....etc. etc.
How is there a massive amount of archaeological evidence to suggest humans lived and thrived outside the Middle East (in the Americas, East Asia, Europe) throughout the time of the flood and afterward, with no apparent interruption?
How did the animals from, say, South America find their way back there after the flood?

Biblical evidence has been provided earlier...but even outside the Bible there are way too many questions. Of course, I think the flood story is more metaphorical or sensationalized than anything...based in truth, but blown out of proportion to make a point. But that's another topic haha.

Ivellious wrote:Bovey: It does not make "perfect" sense. I won't get into the unclear interpretation of various Hebrew words/phrases, but could you explain these?

How did Noah retrieve 7 or 2 of every kind of animal on the Earth?
How did Noah fit all those animal onto a boat, and feed them, and keep them safe from other animals....etc. etc.
How is there a massive amount of archaeological evidence to suggest humans lived and thrived outside the Middle East (in the Americas, East Asia, Europe) throughout the time of the flood and afterward, with no apparent interruption?
How did the animals from, say, South America find their way back there after the flood?

Biblical evidence has been provided earlier...but even outside the Bible there are way too many questions. Of course, I think the flood story is more metaphorical or sensationalized than anything...based in truth, but blown out of proportion to make a point. But that's another topic haha.

You're thinking finite, like all of the other people on earth. God is outside of our physical laws, He put those in motion for us, not for Him. If God wants something to happen, then by His name it will happen. God says in Genesis chapter six verse thirteen "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold I will destroy them with the earth." Again, where does Scripture not make itself clear? God also says in the same chapter verse nineteen, twenty, and twenty one, "(19)And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. (20)Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive. (21)Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve for you and for them." That's how God got the animals and that's how he fed them. God sent the animals to Noah and he collected all the food and built the ark over 55-75 years as a rough estimate. Loading the ark took seven days.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... od-and-ark

Please read this article, it will answer many questions you may have.

Read the article, but I'm not even kind of sold. It basically repeats the line, "The Bible is so vague at this point so you can just fill in 'God made it happen' everywhere there is a question."

Also, this presumes YEC, as I've been told before. It contradicts itself entirely by saying Noah didn't have to keep any water dwelling animals on the boat (because they could just live underwater), but at the same time the waters killed all the life under them...Even so, there is no logic in saying the fish could live there, because every type of water life needs specific nutrients, light levels, and salinity to survive. Those would be all kids of mixed up in the flood.

Also, I find it kind of funny that the article plays with the idea that they could have just brought 2 of each of a few kinds of "groups" of animals, which would then change into the diversity of life afterward...Of course, by that logic, in 4,000 years a handful of animals developed into tens of thousands of different species. Evolution much?

It also commits a few silly fallacies, like saying that the flood is the ultimate cause of all fossils and every natural feature of the Earth...I don't even know where to start with that.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/ ... -flood.jpg

Murray, this is what a local flood would look like if it were to be what the Bible says and what you believe at the same time.If the Flood were a local flood, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again. God put a rainbow in the sky as a covenant between God and man and the animals that He would never repeat such an event. There have been huge local floods in recent times (e.g., in Bangladesh); but never has there been another global Flood that killed all life on the land. That's just a small bit of info from AIG. Just a question Ivellious, you haven't made it clear whether or not you believe in the glabal flood account. Do you?

No, I do not believe in the global flood account. Like other parts of Genesis, I see the story of the flood as less than literal. It simply does not stack up with what we can deduce today. And I simply don't buy the "God of the gaps" answer that you absolutely have to use to justify so many questions surrounding it.

Bovey wrote:

Murray wrote:Yes

However, obviously I do not interpret it the same way as you.

Let Scripture interpret Scripture. The Bible says in Genesis chapter seven verse nineteen and twenty "(19)And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. (20)The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits (26 feet) deep. What is not clear about that? It goes on to say that all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Don't you think that even the birds would have found land on the earth at the time of the flood if it was local? How can you believe that Christ died on the cross and take that as fact when you can't take something as simple to believe as the flood and believe that to be true? To me it just makes perfect sense that there was a global flood.

Bovey, you're reading the bible as translated into english. The ancient Hebrew didn't have as many words, as modern English does. Some words have multiple literal meanings. For example, the word translated as "earth" in verse 19, is 'erets. Did you know it has another literal meaning? It can also mean "land". That would mean that one can hold to a literal interpretation of scripture, and believe in a local flood. From Strong's online concordance:

erets

The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Strong's Number: 776
Original Word Word Origin
#ra from an unused root probably meaning to be firm
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
'erets TWOT - 167
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
eh'-rets Noun Feminine
Definition

land, earth
earth
whole earth (as opposed to a part)
earth (as opposed to heaven)
earth (inhabitants)
land
country, territory
district, region
tribal territory
piece of ground
land of Canaan, Israel
inhabitants of land
Sheol, land without return, (under) world
city (-state)
ground, surface of the earth
ground
soil
(in phrases)
people of the land
space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
level or plain country
land of the living
end(s) of the earth
(almost wholly late in usage)
lands, countries 1e
often in contrast to Canaan

Thanks, RickD...It is important for people who claim they only hold a "literal" interpretation of the Bible to realize that it can only be "literal" in its original form, not the translated/edited versions we have in the western world today.

Bovey, for your reference:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

Ivellious wrote:Thanks, RickD...It is important for people who claim they only hold a "literal" interpretation of the Bible to realize that it can only be "literal" in its original form, not the translated/edited versions we have in the western world today.

Not true. If this were the case then we'd have no basis in understanding ANY translated literary work.